Modelling Railway Infrastructure Constraints in Max-Plus Algebra

E.M. van Duinkerken December 2005

Master Thesis

Modelling Railway Infrastructure Constraints in Max-Plus Algebra

Student: E.M. van Duinkerken E.M.vanDuinkerken@student.tudelft.nl Student number: 9202901

University: Delft University of Technology Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. G.J. Olsder Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science Section Mathematical System Theory G.J.Olsder@ewi.tudelft.nl Dr. R.M.P. Goverde Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Section Transport and Planning R.M.P.Goverde@citg.tudelft.nl Dr. J.W. van der Woude Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science Section Mathematical System Theory J.W.vanderWoude@ewi.tudelft.nl

December 5, 2005

Preface
This thesis is the nal report of a research project on infrastructure constraints in railway systems. This is a graduation project to obtain the Masters degree in Applied Mathematics at the Delft University of Technology. The project has been carried out at the Section Transport and Planning of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences. I have been working on this project from February 2005 until December 2005. My daily supervisor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences was Dr. R.M.P. Goverde. My supervisors from the Applied Mathematics department were Dr. J.W. van der Woude and Prof. Dr. G.J. Olsder. With the completion of this graduation project, I have reached the nish of my study Applied Mathematics. Working on such a large research project has been a great challenge for me. There are so many people I would like to thank for their support, that I decided to add an extra section at the end of this thesis.

Delft, December 5, 2005,

Lize van Duinkerken

Abstract
In the design of railway timetables the robustness and stability of a timetable are of major importance. An analytical method to evaluate the performance of a periodic railway timetable is to model it using max-plus algebra. The software package PETER, based on max-plus algebra, has been designed to assess periodic railway systems on robustness and stability. Minimum time separations between train pairs using the same infrastructure points in a network are called infraconstraints. In the current situation PETER needs the infraconstraints of a network to be predened in order to include them in the max-plus model. This thesis describes the investigation of the deduction of infraconstraints in a network from the timetable the network operates according to, and information on the infrastructure of the railway network. The infraconstraints in a network can be divided in two types: infraconstraints arising from successor conicts and those arising from hindrance conicts. Successor conicts are conicts between train pairs using the same track, whereas hindrance conicts arise between trains that do not use the same track but still have a (mutual) hindrance at some point in the network. Most of the infraconstraints in a network arise from successor conicts. The infraconstraints in successor conicts can be deduced from the available information on the railway network. An algorithm is presented to construct all infraconstraints that model minimum time separations in successor conicts. The required input data for the deduction of these infraconstraints is described. A small part of the infraconstraints in a network arise from hindrance conicts. At this moment there is not enough information available on station and crossing layouts to derive the exact location of hindrance conicts. Therefore infraconstraints in hindrance conicts can not be deduced. To incorporate these infraconstraints in the max-plus model, they can be constructed from an existing list containing all hindrance conicts in the network. Two case studies are conducted on small parts of the Dutch railway network. From these case studies it can be concluded that when the infraconstraints are deduced as described in this thesis, considerably fewer constraints are necessary to ensure the required minimum time separations in the network. Furthermore, on single-track parts of the network, the minimum time separations in successor conicts can even be ensured by a reduced number of infraconstraints. The deduction of infraconstraints for a railway network as described in this thesis can be implemented in PETER. Some adjustments on this program are proposed, in order to correctly include the deduced infraconstraints in the max-plus model.

vii

Contents
1 Introduction 2 Problem Description 2.1 Investigation of Network Timetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Trains and Their Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Research Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Max-Plus Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Matrices in Max-Plus Algebra . . . . . 3.3 Timed Event Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Petri Nets and Timed Event Graphs . 3.3.2 Max-Plus Formulation . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Model-Order Reduction . . . . . . . . 3.4 Stability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PETER 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Critical Circuit Analysis . . . 4.3.2 Recovery Time Analysis . . . 4.3.3 Delay Propagation . . . . . . 4.4 Application of the Research Subject 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 4 4 7 7 7 7 8 10 10 12 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 21 21 21 23 28 30

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

5 Constructing a Max-Plus Model 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Construction of a Timed Event Graph 5.4 The Max-Plus Model . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Contents 6 Infraconstraints 31 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.2 Headway Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7 Deduction of Infraconstraints 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Ensuring Headway Norms . . . . . . . . 7.3 Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts . 7.3.1 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Deduction of Successor Conicts 7.4 Infraconstraints in Hindrance Conicts . 7.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Reduction of Timed Event Graphs 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Elimination of Entrance Transitions 8.3 Elimination of Through Transitions . 8.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 41 42 42 45 55 57 59 59 59 64 69 71 71 71 75 82 83 83 84 85 87 87 88 88 95 95 95 97 98 98 101 107 113 114

9 Case Studies 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Railway Line s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen 9.3 Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen . . . . . . . 9.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Conclusions 10.1 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Adjustments on PETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Input Data A.1 Abbreviations of Timetable Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Translation of Input Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3 Successor Headway Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Elimination of Transitions B.1 Elimination of Entrance Transitions B.1.1 Example 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . B.1.2 Example 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . B.2 Elimination of Through Transitions . B.2.1 Example 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . B.2.2 Example 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . C MATLAB Pseudo-Code Acknowledgements Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 1

Introduction
The Dutch railway network is one of the most intense utilized railway networks in the world. Every day one million people travel by train and furthermore freight trains carry about 100.000 tons of cargo. Because of this extensive utilization of the railway network, train delays are the order of the day. One train delay that originates from variations in the running or dwell times may cause more delays for other trains by the highly interconnected structure of the network. A robust railway timetable is able to handle a certain amount of delay because it incorporates margins and buer times. In the timetable design process the evaluation of robustness and stability is an important issue. To investigate the stability of a timetable and the robustness to propagation of delays, the timetable can be modelled using max-plus algebra. A software package called PETER [4] has been designed to assess periodic railway systems on certain performance indicators. This program is based on max-plus algebra. The railway infrastructure of a network has a major inuence on the train trac. Safety and signalling systems make that there is a minimum time separation between trains that use the same infrastructure points. These minimum time separations, prescribed by the infrastructure, are called infrastructure constraints. To construct a max-plus model of a railway system dierent kinds of information are required. In the current situation PETER needs the infrastructure constraints of the network under consideration to be predened in order to include them in the model. But when a timetable is known and information on the infrastructure of the network is given, it is possible to deduce these constraints, so that there is no need to include them explicitly. The subject of this thesis is to investigate the deduction of the required infrastructure constraints for a given periodic timetable and the railway infrastructure. The outline of the thesis is as follows. The next chapter will give a more detailed description of the research subject of this thesis. Chapter 3 will go deeper into the mathematical background of max-plus modelling. It will give an introduction into maxplus algebra and explain its relation to timed event graphs, which are a subclass of Petri nets used to graphically model the timetable and the corresponding constraints. In Chapter 4 the software package PETER will be introduced. Chapter 5 will rst describe the input needed to construct a max-plus model of a periodic timetable and then 1

Chapter 1. Introduction show how to derive this model from the given data. Chapter 6 will give an overview of situations in a railway network where infrastructure constraints are required. The deduction of infrastructure constraints will be investigated in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8 two possible methods to reduce timed event graphs will be discussed. Chapter 9 will present the results of two case studies on small parts of the Dutch railway network. Chapter 10 will contain conclusions and recommendations for future work.

Chapter 2

Problem Description
2.1 Investigation of Network Timetables

The design of timetables for large networks is a very complicated process. Several timetable variants are computed and compared before the nal design is selected. Planners often use simulations of a network to assess the dierent variants. This is very time-consuming and therefore sometimes forces the planners to concentrate on smaller parts of the network and leaving network interconnections out of consideration. An analytical method to evaluate the performance of a periodic network timetable is to capture it in a max-plus model. Max-plus algebra is a very convenient method for modelling discrete event systems. When the arrivals and departures in a system are considered as events and the interconnections as the constraints, the network timetable can be seen as such a discrete event system. In the Netherlands the railway system is based on a periodic timetable, with a period of one hour. This means that train lines are operated at the same time each hour and consistent connections between train lines of dierent types or directions are ensured at transfer stations. Because the network is used very extensively, the railway timetable needs to be designed so that it can manage a certain amount of delay without intervention of dispatchers. A scheduled train service system is stable when any initial delay settles in nite time. The timetable can be considered as the steady state for the train trac. The stability of the system can then be assessed by investigating the eort it costs to return to this steady state after disruptions. A robust timetable is able to deal with a certain amount of delay without intervention of dispatchers. The investigation of the stability and robustness of a train schedule is a major part of the design process of a railway timetable. Planners of the Dutch railway timetable use the timetable design tool DONS [8]. In the design process of a timetable a simulation tool called Simone [9] is used to investigated several variants of a timetable on stability and robustness. To evaluate the network performance in an analytical way, periodic railway systems can be modelled using max-plus algebra. In [2] is described how a railway timetable can be modelled as a discrete event system which is linear in max-plus algebra. This model can be used to investigate the network on robustness and stability. A software package called PETER [4] has been developed to assess the performance 3

Chapter 2. Problem Description of large-scale networks operating according to a periodic timetable. It is based on max-plus algebra, in [2] the mathematical background of this program is described.

2.2

Trains and Their Delays

A railway timetable has a highly interconnected structure. At many stations transfer connections between trains are planned to oer passengers sucient travelling options. Furthermore there are logistic connections which include the coupling and decoupling of train units, crew transfers and turns of trains at terminals. These planned transfer and logistic connections are called train synchronizations. The infrastructure of a railway network also has a large eect on the train trac. To prevent trains from being at the same place at the same time when this is not allowed by the infrastructure, safety and signalling systems are used. These systems make that there is always a minimum time separation between trains using the same infrastructure points. These minimum time separations lead to dependencies between trains in the network, they are called infrastructure constraints or from now on infraconstraints. A railway timetable is in general conict-free: if all trains operate according to the schedule then there is no mutual hindrance between trains. Only when a delay occurs this can lead to a conict situation. When a train has a delay, caused by a variation in its own running or dwell time at any location, this is called a primary delay. By including margins in the running and dwell times, a timetable can handle a certain amount of primary delay without intervention of dispatchers. A primary delay can lead to delays for other trains because of the interconnection structure described above. For example, when there is a passenger transfer connection between two trains, a delay of one train can cause a delay for the other because the connecting train has to wait for the feeder train. These delays are called secondary delays and they are handled by inserting some buer time between events in the timetable. With a max-plus model constructed from a railway network timetable, the performance of the system when slight disruptions occur can be evaluated.

2.3

Research Subject

The construction of a max-plus model of a periodic timetable requires full knowledge of the timetable. All train routes, running times between stations and dwell times at stations have to be available. To include the transfer and logistic connections between trains in the model, they have to be predened too. Furthermore, the required infraconstraints have to be known. From all this information a max-plus model can be created and the performance of the timetable can be investigated. In the current situation all infraconstraints have to be predened to be included in the model. A disadvantage of these predened constraints is that often many redundant infraconstraints are given. An infraconstraint between trains is redundant when this minimum time separation is already ensured by other infraconstraints. Another drawback of this situation is that sometimes the information on constraints is simply not available. When a timetable and information on infrastructure are available, some types of the 4

2.3. Research Subject required infraconstraints can be deduced from this data. In this way less information is needed to create a model, and redundant constraints can be avoided. This thesis will investigate the deduction of the infraconstraints in a periodic railway network. It will examine for which situations infraconstraints can be derived from the timetable according to which the network operates and the available information on the underlying infrastructure of the network. It will investigate how these infraconstraints can be derived and it will describe the supplementary information that is necessary for this derivation. Furthermore the aim will be to ensure the required minimum time separations without including redundant infraconstraints. For the situations in which infraconstraints can not be derived from the available information, the supplementary information necessary to incorporate these infraconstraints in the model will be described.

Chapter 3

Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs

3.1 Introduction

Max-plus algebra can be applied to investigate discrete event systems. A railway trac network that operates according to a periodic timetable can be considered as such a system. The events are the arrivals and departures of trains and the constraints model the interactions between trains. To investigate characteristics of such a railway system, it can be captured in a maxplus model. Starting from the train line, synchronization and infraconstraints data of the network a max-plus model can be constructed. Timed event graphs form a convenient tool for converting these data into a max-plus model. This chapter will give a short introduction into max-plus algebra and timed event graphs. In Chapter 5 will be explained how a max-plus model can be constructed for a railway system.

3.2

Max-Plus Algebra

In railway systems the order of events is important. For example, a train can not arrive at its destination station after it has departed from its origin station. The max-plus algebra is an algebra in which the occurrence of events can be described in a suitable way.

3.2.1

Basic Concepts

Max-plus algebra is based on two operations: maximization () and addition (). The denition of these operations is: a b = max(a, b) The max-plus algebra is denoted by Rmax = (Rmax , , , , e) where = , e = 0 and Rmax = R {}. 7 and a b = a + b. (3.1)

Chapter 3. Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs For any a Rmax it holds that max(a, ) = max(, a) = a and a + () = + a = , so that a = a = a and a = a = , (3.2)

i.e. the is the zero element in max-plus algebra. For any a Rmax it holds that a + 0 = 0 + a = a, so that a e = e a = a. Like in the conventional algebra, has higher priority than . Example 3.1. 234 = max(2 + 3, 4) 1 2 3 4 5 = max(1 + 2 + 3, 4 + 5) For x Rmax powers are dened by xn = x x . . . x = n x
n times

(3.3)

=5 =9

(3.4)

for all n Z+ . Example 3.2. 23 2 4e 23 2 4e 32 = max(2, 3) = max(2, ) = max(4, 0) =3 =2 =4

=2+3 =5 = 2 = = =4+0 =4 =23 =6

For simplicity the max-plus multiplication is often omitted. Example 3.3. a b = ab (a b) c = ab c

3.2.2

Matrices in Max-Plus Algebra

The max-plus operations introduced in the previous section can be extended to matrices. The set of n m matrices with underlying max-plus algebra is denoted by nm Rmax .
nm The sum of matrices A, B Rmax is dened by

[A B]ij = aij bij = max(aij , bij ) 8

(3.5)

3.2. Max-Plus Algebra for 1 i n, 1 j m.

n m The matrix product for A Rmax , B Rmax is dened by

[A B]ij =
k=1

aik bkj = max (aik + bkj )

k=1,...,

(3.6)

for 1 i n, 1 j m.
nm The scalar multiple of a matrix A Rmax is dened component wise:

[c A]ij = c aij = c + aij for 1 i n, 1 j m.

(3.7)

As in conventional algebra vectors in max-plus algebra are n 1 matrices. The jth element of a vector is denoted as xj , max-plus multiplication of a matrix and a vector goes as dened in (3.6). The neutral matrix E(n, m) is dened as the n m matrix with all elements equal to . The n m matrix E(n, m) is dened as: [E(n, m)]ij = for 1 i n, 1 j m. If n = m then E(n, n) is called the identity matrix: e ... e E(n, n) = . .. . . . ... e for i = j, else, (3.8)

. . . e

nn For square matrices A Rmax the kth power of A is dened by

Ak = A A . . . A,
k times

where A0 = E(n, n). Example 3.4. Let A= e 1 1 2 , B= 2 3 4 and x= 4 5 .

Then the addition of A and B is: AB = e2 1 13 24 = 2 1 3 4 .

The matrix product of A and B becomes: AB = (e 2) (1 ) (1 2) (2 ) (e 3) (1 4) (1 3) (2 4) 9 = 2 5 3 6 .

Chapter 3. Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs The matrix-vector multiplication of A and x is: Ax= (e 4) (1 5) (1 4) (2 5) = 6 7 .

As in the conventional algebra in the max-plus algebra eigenvalues and eigenvectors exist. The formal denition is as follows [7]:
nn Denition 3.5 (Eigenvalue, eigenvector). Let A Rmax be a square matrix. If n1 Rmax is a scalar and v Rmax is a vector that contains at least one nite element such that A v = v,

then is called an eigenvalue of A and v a corresponding eigenvector. More background information on max-plus algebra can be found in [2],[7].

3.3

Timed Event Graphs

This section introduces Petri nets and especially the so-called timed event graphs, a subclass of these Petri nets. Furthermore the max-plus formulation of a timed event graph is described. The transformation of a periodic timetable into a max-plus model via a timed event graph description is explained in Chapter 5.

3.3.1

Petri Nets and Timed Event Graphs

Petri nets are bipartite directed graphs. The set of nodes N is partitioned into two disjunct subsets P and Q, which are referred to as places and transitions respectively. Each place contains a non-negative number of tokens, the number of tokens in a place is called the marking. In applications of Petri nets transitions represent events and places represent conditions or activities. An event can take place if all necessary conditions are fullled. These conditions are represented by the upstream places of the transition associated to the concerned event. A condition being fullled is indicated by a token allocated to the corresponding place. If all upstream places of the corresponding transition contain at least one token the event can take place. This means that the transition is enabled and is also called the transition can re. A ring of an enabled transition removes one token from each input place and adds one token to each output place of the transition. The allocation of the tokens before any transition has red is called the initial marking. An example of a Petri net is given in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Example of a Petri net

10

3.3. Timed Event Graphs A Petri net is called an event graph if all places in the Petri net have exactly one input and one output transition. Example 3.6. In Figure 3.2 an example of a ring sequence of an event graph is shown. Figure 3.2a shows the original event graph. Because the upstream place of transition x1 contains a token, this transition can re. The ring of transition x1 removes one token from its input place and adds one token to both output places of the transition. The result of the ring of transition x1 is shown in Figure 3.2b. Now transition x2 can re because its upstream place contains a token. Figure 3.2c represents the event graph after the ring of x2 . Finally the upstream places of transition x3 both contain a token so this transition is enabled. After the ring of x3 the event graph is back in the original situation in Figure 3.2a again.

x1

x2

x1

x2

x3
(a)

x3
(b)

x1

x2

x3
(c)

Figure 3.2: Example of the ring sequence of an event graph A timed event graph is an event graph with a holding time attached to each place. This holding time represents the process time of the condition associated with the place. When a token enters a place, it has to wait for at least the corresponding holding time. In a timed event graph an event can take place if all input places of the corresponding transition contain at least one token of which the holding time has elapsed. The following denition gives a summary of the preceding [7]: Denition 3.7 (Timed Petri net, timed event graph). A timed Petri net G is characterized by (P, Q, D, M0 , T ), where P is the set of places, Q is the set of transitions, D is the set of arcs from transitions to places and vice-versa. M0 is the initial marking and T is the vector of holding times. If each place has exactly one input and one output transition, then the (timed) Petri net is called a (timed) event graph. Figure 3.3 shows an example of a timed event graph, where the holding time of the place from transition j to i is denoted by ij . 11

Chapter 3. Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs

x1 21 x2

13 x3

31

32

Figure 3.3: Example of a timed event graph

A circuit in a (timed) event graph is a directed sequence of places and transitions where the rst an last place coincides. A Petri net is strongly connected if any pair of places is contained in a circuit. The cycle time of an event is the interval between two successive occurrences of the event. The formal denition holds [2]: Denition 3.8 (Cycle time). Consider a timed event graph G = (P, Q, D, M0 , T ). Let xi (k) be the time at which transition qi Q res for the k-th time. Then the cycle time i is dened for each transition qi by i = lim xi (k) . k k

The minimum cycle time of a timed event graph can be found by looking at all circuits in the graph and gives an indication of its maximum performance. The sum of the holding times over all places on a circuit is called the weight of the circuit. The average weight on a circuit is called the cycle mean and is the ratio of the circuit weight and the number of tokens in the circuit. Theorem 3.9. The minimum cycle time of a strongly connected timed event graph equals the maximum cycle mean dened as = max
C

w() , ()

where C is the set of all circuits in the timed event graph, w() is the weight of circuit and () is the number of tokens on circuit . A circuit having maximum cycle mean is called a critical circuit [5].

3.3.2

Max-Plus Formulation

Formulating a timed event graph using max-plus algebra gives the state-space representation of the system. The state of a timed event graph is a vector with the kth ring times of all transitions. Let xj (k) denote the time at which transition xj res for the kth time and let n be the number of transitions in the graph. Then the vector x(k) = [x1 (k), x2 (k), . . . , xn (k)]T is the kth state of the system. Dene [Am ]ij = ij if the number of tokens in place pij equals m, otherwise, 12 (3.9)

3.3. Timed Event Graphs for m = 0, 1, . . . , M , where M is the maximum number of tokens in any place. Then the state vector x(k) satises the following max-plus equation: x(k) =A0 x(k) A1 x(k 1) . . . AM x(k M )
M

=
m=0

Am x(k m).

(3.10)

Example 3.10. The timed event graph in Figure 3.3 can be expressed in the following way: x1 (k) =13 x3 (k 1) x2 (k) =21 x1 (k) x3 (k) =31 x1 (k) 32 x2 (k) From (3.9) follows that the matrices A0 = 21 31 32 A0 and A1 are , A1 = 13

and the vector x(k) = [x1 (k), x2 (k), x3 (k)]T satises x(k) = A0 x(k) A1 x(k 1). The state-space description of a timed event graph is a system of (max,+)-equations. In the regular algebra those equations are non-linear. However, when a timed event graph is formulated using max-plus algebra the state-space equations form a linear dynamic system. For this reason max-plus algebra is a suitable tool to model network timetables. In Chapter 5 will be explained how a max-plus model can be constructed for a railway system. This results in an equation of the form shown in Equation (3.10). This equation then represents a railway system where all trains exit the timetable points when their process times have elapsed and when the connections with other trains are satised. Usually trains operate according to a timetable so another condition has to be met too: a train can not leave before its scheduled exit time. A timetable can be incorporated in the max-plus linear system by adding an inhomogeneous periodic term:
M

x(k) =
m=0

Am x(k m) d(k),

(3.11)

where d(k) = (d1 (k), . . . , dn (k))T is a vector dened by: the scheduled kth exit time of xj if transition xj represents a departure, dj (k) = otherwise, for 1 j n. For a periodic timetable with period T , d(k) = T k d(0), 13 for k = 1, 2, . . . .

(3.12)

(3.13)

Chapter 3. Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs Note that the matrix A0 can not contain any circuits. If it would contain a circuit, the system would be deadlocked, i.e. transitions would wait for tokens in their upstream places that never arrive. For this reason the system (3.11) can be transformed into a rst order system, this will be described in the next subsection.

3.3.3

Model-Order Reduction

The max-plus linear system (3.10) is an M th order system and also includes zeroorder elements. Under certain conditions this model can be formulated as a rst order model, a max-plus linear system with M = 1 and where zero-order terms do not exist. This subsection describes the transformation of the M th order system
M

x(k) =
m=0

Am x(k m)

(3.14)

into the a rst order model x(k) = A x(k 1). (3.15) This transformation consists of two steps: rst the zero-order terms are eliminated and second all higher order terms are expressed in rst order terms. When A0 contains no circuits, the M th order recurrence relation (3.10) can be transformed into a rst order recurrence relation. Dene B =
k0

B k .

(3.16)

If B only has circuit weights less than or equal to zero, then

n1

B =
k=0

B k ,

(3.17)

with n the number of transitions, see [7] for the formal proof. Equation (3.10) can be written as:
M

x(k) =
m=0

Am x(k m)
M

=A0 x(k)
m=1

Am x(k m).

(3.18)

Let b(k) =

Am x(k m).
m=1

(3.19)

When A0 in (3.18) has no circuits or circuit weights less than or equal to zero, the vector x(k) = A b(k) solves the equation x(k) = A0 x(k) b(k), the formal proof 0 can again be found in [7]. Equation (3.18) can be written as x(k) =A0 x(k) b(k) =A b(k) 0 =A A1 x(k 1) . . . A AM x(k M ). 0 0 14 (3.20)

3.4. Stability Analysis Because in (3.20) the term x(k) only occurs at the left-hand side of the equation, it can now be transformed into a rst order equation. Set x(k) = (xT (k), xT (k 1), . . . , xT (k M + 1))T and A A1 0 E E A= . . . E A A2 0 E E .. . ... ... ... .. . .. E . ... ... .. A AM 0 E . . . . . . E (3.21)

. E

(3.22)

then (3.10) can be written as x(k) = A x(k 1). (3.23)

Note that in this 1st order representation of the max-plus linear system (3.10) the next state x(k) only depends on the current state x(k 1).

3.4

Stability Analysis

Chapter 5 will explain how a max-plus model can be constructed for a railway system. This model can be used to analyse the stability of the system. This section will shortly mention some aspects on stability analysis of a system, that will be used in the rest of this thesis.
nn Let G(A) be the timed event graph associated to a matrix A Rmax . Dene:

A+ =
=1

A = A A2 A3 . . .
+

(3.24)

A+ is called the longest path matrix because [A]ij is the weight of the longest path from j to i of any length.
nn The matrix A Rmax is called irreducible if G(A) is strongly connected. nn Theorem 3.11. Any irreducible matrix A Rmax possesses one and only one eigenvalue. This eigenvalue, denoted by (A), is a nite number and equals the maximum cycle mean of the associated timed event graph G(A) as dened in Theorem 3.9 [7].

When a max-plus model is constructed for a railway system, and when this model is formulated as a 1st order max-plus system, the eigenvalue (A) of the state matrix in Equation (3.15) can be calculated. Another method to calculate the eigenvalue is to consider the polynomal matrix of the system, this has been described in [2]. The eigenvalue equals the average cycle time of trains on the slowest or critical circuit of the network. It indicates the minimum cycle time for which a timetable can operate. The eigenvector gives the exit times so that there exists no buer time for the line segments on the critical circuit. A method to test stability is given by the following theorem [5]: 15

Chapter 3. Max-Plus Algebra and Timed Event Graphs Theorem 3.12. Consider the scheduled max-plus linear system (3.11). This system is stable if and only if T , where is the eigenvalue of the system and T is the period length. The investigation on propagation of delays on a network is another aspect of stability analysis. A timetable contains buer time to handle a certain amount of delay. To investigate the delay propagation on a network the recovery times between train pairs can be considered. These recovery times can be found in the recovery matrix, which has the following denition [5]: Denition 3.13 (Recovery matrix). Consider the scheduled max-plus linear system (3.11). The recovery matrix R is the matrix of which entry Rij is the maximum delay of xj (k) (k N) such that xi (m) is not delayed for all m k. The recovery matrix of a system can be calculated using the following theorem [5]: Theorem 3.14. Consider the scheduled max-plus linear system (3.11). The recovery matrix R is given as Rij = di dj A(T 1 )+ , ij where A(T 1 ) = .
p =0

A T . If there is no path between two transitions then Rij =

3.5

Summary

In this chapter the max-plus algebra has been introduced. Some basic concepts of the theory on max-plus algebra have been given and furthermore the concept of timed event graphs has been introduced. The relation between timed event graphs and maxplus algebra has been explained: max-plus algebra can be used to formulate a timed event graph, which results in the state-space description of the system. Furthermore some aspects on stability analysis of a railway system have been described. The theory described in this chapter can be applied to investigate a periodic railway system. By examining certain performance indicators, the network can be assessed on robustness and stability. The next chapter introduces PETER, a software package that is based on max-plus modelling. This program can be used to investigate characteristics of a periodic railway system.

16

Chapter 4

PETER
4.1 Introduction

To investigate large-scale networks using the theory of max-plus algebra a software package named PETER has been developed [4]. PETER is an abbreviation of Performance Evaluation of Timed Events in Railways. It has been designed to support railway planners in the process of designing, evaluating and improving railway timetables. PETER is based on the max-plus algebra approach. It constructs a max-plus model of the timetable under investigation as described in Chapter 5, and calculates various performance indicators. The next section will describe the data import that PETER supports. In Section 4.3 the performance indicators which are the output of PETER will be listed. In Section 4.4 the subject of this thesis and a possible extension in PETER will be related.

4.2

Input Data

PETER supports multiple kinds of input data. Information can be inserted manually using the build-in editors. Furthermore, ASCII input les with a prescribed format can be imported. These input les are called generic data and can be composed using standard text editors or spreadsheets. Generic data les include information on stations, train lines, transfer connections (passenger or cargo) and infraconstraints. PETER is also compatible with the Dutch timetable design tool DONS [8], it can import data les in DONS-format. The input for one network then consist of three les: one indicating the coordinates of the timetabling points, one with information on the train schedule and a last one containing all constraints in the network. The Dutch translation of these les and the programs they originate from are described in Appendix A. Once a network has been imported in PETER, it can be adjusted using the build-in editor. All imported networks can be saved in generic format. The format of the information contained by generic data les is as described in Section 5.2. In this thesis this format is considered the standard format. For this reason the starting-point of the construction of a timed event graph, as explained in Section 5.3, is information in generic format. 17

Chapter 4. PETER

4.3

Performance Indicators

Once PETER has read the input data it constructs a max-plus model for the network. This model consists of two parts: (i) the state matrix constructed from the line data, transfer connections and infraconstraints, and (ii) the timetable vector containing the scheduled exit times. Analysis of the resulting model gives several performance indicators which will be discussed in this section. For more details on the mathematical background of the performance indicators, see [2].

4.3.1

Critical Circuit Analysis

When the state matrix A of the network is constructed, its eigenvalue and eigenvector can be constructed. The eigenvalue of A indicates the minimum cycle time by which the network could operate. This eigenvalue equals the average cycle time of trains on a critical circuit of the network. Dene T as the actual cycle time of the network (usually T =60:00). Critical circuit analysis gives the following performance indicators: The minimum cycle time . With this minimum cycle time a stability test can be done: when T the system is stable. Stability means that there is enough slack time in any circuit for delays to settle in nite time. The closer is to T , the more sensitive the system is to disruptions. The throughput = /T . The throughput indicates the network capacity utilization. For a stable system holds 0 1. When = 1 the network operates on its maximum (theoretical) performance, and when < 1 the system contains slack to compensate for delays. The stability margin . The stability margin is dened as the maximum simultaneous increase of all process times such that the train network can still be operated with cycle time T . It is an indicator for the robustness of the system.

4.3.2

Recovery Time Analysis

Recovery time is the slack a timetable contains to recover from delays. This slack can come from margins in the scheduled process times or from buer time between train movements. Recovery time analysis results in three performance indicators: Delay impact: the impact a delayed train has on other trains in the network. Delay sensitivity: an indication of how sensitive a train is to other delayed trains. Circulation Recovery Time: the minimum slack time over any circuit.

4.3.3

Delay Propagation

With the max-plus model and any initial delay vector, containing the exit delays at a certain time instant, the delay propagation in the model can be computed. The output consists of: the total secondary delay, the number of aected trains, 18

4.4. Application of the Research Subject the average secondary delay, the number of reached stations, the settling period, and furthermore a list of the individual delayed trains.

4.4

Application of the Research Subject

This thesis investigates the derivation of the required infraconstraints in a periodic railway system from a given timetable and infrastructure. The results of the research on infraconstraints can be applied in PETER in two ways, which will be explained in this section. Currently PETER needs the infraconstraints of a railway system to be predened in the input to incorporate them in the model. This thesis describes an extension of the max-plus model by deducing the required infraconstraints on a railway system from a given timetable and infrastructure. When this extension is implemented in PETER, the program will be more widely applicable: it will be able to read input les from other programs (e.g. VPT-Planning, the support system on the timetable and capacity allocation process in the Netherlands) which do not contain information on headway restrictions. When a network is imported in PETER via the DONS input les, the infraconstraints in the network are dened in the constraints le. This le contains redundant infraconstraints: much prescribed minimum time separations between trains are already ensured by other infraconstraints in the le. With the way of deducing infraconstraints that is described in this thesis, redundant constraints can be avoided. To capture a railway system in a max-plus model, PETER constructs a timed event graph from the input data on the network. In this timed event graph all transitions that represent entrances of trains to timetable points are eliminated. The elimination of entrance transitions will be discussed in Chapter 8. The way PETER eliminates these transitions is not theoretically correct with respect to recovery times and delay propagation. In Chapter 8 will be described how the entrance transitions should be eliminated correctly.

4.5

Summary

In this chapter the software package PETER has been introduced. This program is based on max-plus modelling and can be used to assess a periodic railway timetable on robustness and stability. The dierent kinds of input data PETER supports have been listed and a description has been given of the various performance indicators that can be calculated for a network. The research described in this thesis leads to an extension on the incorporation of infraconstraints in max-plus modelling. When this extension is implemented in PETER, this results in an improvement of the program and furthermore the program will be more widely applicable.

19

Chapter 5

Constructing a Max-Plus Model

5.1 Introduction

A railway system operating according to a periodic timetable can be captured in a max-plus model. This chapter describes how such a max-plus model can be created and which information is needed for this construction. First a timed event graph of the timetable is constructed, where the transitions in the graph represent train departures, arrivals and passages, places represent train line segments or dependencies between train lines, and the holding times of places can be interpreted as process times. The initial number of trains running on each line segment at a xed reference time is determined by the initial marking of the places. Once the timed event graph is constructed, it can be described in a state space description using max-plus algebra as explained in Subsection 3.3.2. The data needed to create a max-plus model will be described in Section 5.2. From this data a timed event graph can be constructed, this will be explained in Section 5.3. Section 5.4 will describe how this timed event graph can be transformed into a maxplus model.

5.2

Input Data

For the construction of a timed event graph multiple kinds of data on the railway system and timetable are needed. This section will describe the required input data. The format of the input data described in this section is the generic input format of the software package PETER, which has been introduced in Chapter 4. In the sequel, it assumed that the timetables under consideration operate on a cyclic base, with a cycle time of T =60:00 minutes.

Line Data
A timetable contains information about the train routes, the scheduled departure, arrival and passage times of trains and at which timetable points trains do or do not stop. A train line is a direct connection between two end stations, which is served with 21

Chapter 5. Constructing a Max-Plus Model a certain frequency each hour. The train routes are divided in segments. A segment lies between an origin point and a destination point, those points are called timetable points. Dene s = the train line number, = the segment code.

The segment code s consists of four numbers ABCC where A B CC {0, 1} {1, . . . , f } {01, . . . , 99} = = = direction, forward (0) or backward (1), reference number of the train, segment number,

where f is the frequency of the train line per timetable cycle. With this notation each line segment of a train line is characterized by (, s). In the sequel the formulation of a line segment (, s) is often used to indicate the train running on the line segment (, s). The timetable under investigation can be seen as a line data le. Each row of the line data le gives information about one segment of one train line. The le consists of eight columns, each row i contains the following objects: 1. the train line number i , 2. the segment code si of the line, 3. the origin timetable point Tior of the line segment, 4. the destination timetable point Tidest of the line segment, 5. the scheduled exit time di [0, T ) at from Tior , 6. the running time ri from Tior to Tidest , 7. the minimum process time ti at Tidest , 8. the activity type Ai {S, R, T, E}, indicating if the train stops (S), runs through (R), turns (T) or ends (E) at Tidest .

Synchronization Data
Train lines sometimes have an interconnection structure at shared stations, caused by transfer connections for passengers or by rolling stock connections. An input le with synchronization data contains these interconnections, indicating transfer or rolling stock connections between train pairs. A synchronization le contains six columns where each row i gives information about a transfer or connection and contains 1. f , the line number of the feeder train, i 2. sf , the segment number of the feeder train, i 3. c , the line number of the connecting train, i 22

5.3. Construction of a Timed Event Graph 4. sc , the segment number of the connecting train, i 5. the minimum transfer or connection time tmin required between the arrival of i the feeder train and the departure of the connecting train, 6. an indication Ii {P, C} of the connection type, (P) for passenger and (C) for cargo. Because each synchronization constraint is dened from the arrival event of the feeder train to the departure event of the connecting train it is not necessary to dene the event types of the trains in the synchronization data le. For example, (1 , s0110 , 1 1 2 , s0102 , 5:00, P ) determines that there should be at least 5:00 minutes between 1 1 the arrival of line segment (1, 0110) and the departure of line segment (2, 0102) for passengers to change trains.

Infraconstraints
Infraconstraints arise from conicting movements between two trains on a shared track or station. Headway norms are determined to model a xed order and time separation at those conict points. A le with infraconstraint information has eight columns, each row i corresponds to a minimum headway constraint and contains the following objects: 1. 1 , the line number of the rst train, i 2. s1 , the segment number of the rst train, i 3. 2 , the line number of the second train, i 4. s2 , the segment number of the second train, i 5. hi , the minimum headway time from event 1 to event 2,
1 6. Ei {I, O} denotes the event of the rst train, entrance (I) or exit (O), 2 7. Ei {I, O} denotes the event of the second train. 1 2 The event types Ei and Ei indicate at which events the headway constraint should be evaluated. For example, (1 , s0201 , 2 , s0301 ,2:00, O, O) indicates that the time between 1 1 1 1 the exit of line segment (1, 0201) and the exit of line segment (2, 0301) should be at least 2:00 minutes.

With the above information about a railway system operating according to a certain timetable a timed event graph can be constructed, this is described in the next section.

5.3

Construction of a Timed Event Graph

From the input data described in Section 5.2 a timed event graph can be constructed that represents the railway system under consideration. The construction of a timed event graph is done in three steps. First the subgraphs corresponding to the train line circulations are generated, second the dependencies between dierent train lines are modelled. At last the initial marking is determined. 23

Chapter 5. Constructing a Max-Plus Model Each train line is represented by a subgraph, where transitions are entrance and exit events at timetable points and places represent the process times (running times on segments, dwell or layover times at destination timetable points) on the corresponding line segment. Passenger train lines generally run in both directions, each direction is modelled by a dierent subgraph. Rolling stock is mostly assigned to a single line to prevent delays of trains to spread over wider parts of the railway system. From now on it is therefore assumed that a train turns at the end terminal on the next scheduled departure of the same train line in return direction.
s Gravenhage Gouda Delft Utrecht

Rotterdam

Figure 5.1: A small railway network

Figure 5.1 shows a small network of ve cities in the Netherlands. In Table 5.1 an example of a line data le of this railway network is given. The abbreviations used in this line data le are explained in Appendix A.1. Generating the subgraph of a train line from this data goes as follows: dene the rst origin timetable point of the train line as the starting terminal. For each line segment one transition models the exit time of the train at the origin timetable point, and one transition models the entrance time at the destination timetable point. A place is added between those transitions, the holding time of this place is equal to the running time on the segment. When the activity type at the destination timetable point of the line segment is (R) or (S), a place is added between the entrance transition of the destination timetable point and the transition modelling the exit of the next segment, the holding time of this place is the dwell time at the destination timetable point. When the activity type at the destination timetable point of the line segment is (T), a place is added between the arrival transition of the destination timetable point and the transition modelling the next departure of the train line in the return direction, the holding time of this place is the layover time at the destination timetable point. In this way the subgraphs representing train lines running in both directions are mutually connected and form circuits in the nal timed event graph. If a line segment has activity type (E) at the destination timetable point, this timetable point is the end terminal of the train. This means that there is no place added to a transition representing a next departure of the train line. In the same way the rest of the train lines from the line data le are modelled. When a train stops at a timetable point, one speaks of an arrival and a departure of the train at that timetable point. When the train does not stop at a timetabling point, the transitions representing the entrance and exit of the timetable point are called through transitions. In this thesis, in the construction of a timed event graph 24

5.3. Construction of a Timed Event Graph

Table 5.1: Line data of network s Gravenhage-Utrecht line 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 segm s 0101 0102 1101 1102 0101 0102 1101 1102 0101 0102 1101 1102 orig T or Gvc Dt Rtd Dt Gvc Dt Rtd Dt Ut Gd Rtd Gd dest T dest Dt Rtd Dt Gvc Dt Rtd Dt Gvc Gd Rtd Gd Ut exit time d 20:00 32:00 50:00 01:00 27:00 41:00 57:00 10:00 11:00 29:00 49:00 4:00 run time r 12:00 11:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 12:00 12:00 13:00 18:00 15:00 15:00 18:00 dwell time t 0:00 7:00 0:00 7:00 1:00 4:00 1:00 4:00 0:00 5:00 0:00 5:00 dwell type A R T R T S T S T R T R T

of a railway system no dierence is made between timetable points where a train does or does not stop. Therefore in the sequel the more general terms entrance transition and exit transition will be used to indicate the transition representing the entrance respectively exit of a train at a timetable point. Example 5.1. In Table 5.1 line data of the small railway network in Figure 5.1 is given. Train line 1 runs from The Hague (Gvc) via Delft (Dt) to Rotterdam (Rtd) and back again. The timed event graph of this train line is shown in Figure 5.2. Below each transition is denoted whether it is an entry (I) or an exit transition (O) at the station indicated in the subscript, the numbers above the places denote the holding times. Because the holding times are all whole minutes according to the timetable, the seconds are omitted in the notation in the graph.
12

7 IGvc OGvc

12 IDt

0 ODt

11 IRtd

7 ORtd

11 IDt

0 ODt

Figure 5.2: Timed event graph of one train line

Synchronization data and infraconstraints can both be considered as interconnections between train lines. These interconnections are modelled with places between the subgraphs representing the dierent train lines. Table 5.2 is an example of a synchronization data le. Each row contains a connection between a feeder and a connecting train. After the arrival of the feeder line segment 25

Chapter 5. Constructing a Max-Plus Model

Table 5.2: Synchronization data of network s Gravenhage-Utrecht feeder line f 1 3 segment sf 0102 0102 connecting line c 3 1 segment sc 1101 1101 transfer time t 5:00 5:00 connection type I P P

the connecting line segment has to wait at least the indicated transfer time before it can depart. The last column indicates the transfer type (passenger or cargo) of the connection. The synchronization data is modelled in the following way: for each row i of the le a place is added from the transition modelling the arrival of (f , sf ) at its destination i i timetable point to the transition that models the departure of (c , sc ). The holding i i time of this place is the transfer time ti dened at the current row of the synchronization data le.
In the remaining of this chapter Os denotes the exit transition and Is denotes the entrance transition of line segment (, s).

Example 5.2. In Table 5.1 the line data of two train lines which have a transfer connection for passengers at Rotterdam is given. Line 1 is the same as in Example 5.1, line 3 runs from Utrecht (Ut) via Gouda (Gd) to Rotterdam (Rtd) and back again. The transfer connections at Rotterdam are indicated in Table 5.2. In Figure 5.3 the timed event graph is shown, the upper circuit represents line 1 and the lower circuit is line 3. The transitions are numbered with the event they represent (arrival or departure) and 1 their line and segment number. For example, transition I0101 represents the arrival 1 of segment 0101 of line 1 in Delft. The place between transition I0102 and transition 3 O1101 makes that the earliest departure of train line 3 from Rotterdam is 5:00 minutes after the arrival of line 1 at Rotterdam. In the same way the other transfer connection is modelled. The modelling of the infraconstraints is done in the same way. Table 5.3 contains two examples of infraconstraints for the network in Table 5.1. Each row contains a constraint between a pair of line segments. Between event 1 (entrance or exit) of line segment 1 and event 2 of line segment 2 should be at least h minutes. To model these constraints, for each row i a place is added between the transition representing event 1 of (1 , s1 ) and the one representing event 2 of (2 , s2 ), the holding i i i i time of this place is hi . Example 5.3. The rst row in Table 5.3 determines that the time between the exit of line segment (1, 0101) and the exit of line segment (2, 0101) has to be at least 3:00 minutes. This headway norm could for example be required because line 1 and line 2 use the same track as an outbound route from station The Hague. In Figure 5.4 this 1 2 constraint is modelled by the place between transition O0101 and transition O0101 with holding time 3:00. Both constraints in Table 5.3 are modelled in Figure 5.4. 26

5.3. Construction of a Timed Event Graph

12

1 I1102 7

1 O0101

12

1 I0101 0

1 O0102

11

1 I0102 7

1 O1101

1 1 I1101 0 O1102

5 18

5 5
3 I1102 3 O0101

18
3 I0101

0
3 O0102

15
3 I0102

5
3 O1101

15
3 I1101

0
3 O1102

Figure 5.3: Synchronization of two lines

Table 5.3: Infraconstraints of network s Gravenhage-Utrecht train 1 line 1 1 1 segment s1 0101 0102 line 2 2 2 train 2 segment s2 0101 0102 headway h 3:00 5:00 event1 E1 O I event2 E2 O I

The last step in the construction of a timed event graph is the determination of an initial marking. The following theorem gives an initial marking that is consistent with the line data given in Table 5.1, the proof can be found in [5]. The expression a in the theorem refers to the ceiling function and equals the smallest integer equal to or larger than a. Theorem 5.4. Let (P, Q, D, T ) be the timed bipartite graph resulting from the construction of a timed event graph as described above. Let di [0, T ) be the scheduled departure time (modulo T) associated with transition qi and let ij be the holding time associated with place pij . An initial marking is denoted by the number mij referring to the number of tokens in place pij with upstream transition qj Q and downstream transition qi Q, and is determined by mij = ij + dj di . T

2 1 Example 5.5. The initial marking of place pO0101 ,O0101 in Figure 5.4 with upstream 1 2 transition O0101 and downstream transition O0101 equals 2 1 1 2 O0101 ,O0101 + dO0101 dO0101

2 1 mO0101 ,O0101 =

T 27

3 + 20 27 = 0. 60

Chapter 5. Constructing a Max-Plus Model

13

4
2 I1102

2 O0101

13
2 I0101

1
2 O0102

12
2 I0102

4
2 O1101

12
2 I1101

1
2 O1102

12

7
1 I1102 1 O0101

12
1 I0101

0
1 O0102

11
1 I0102

7
1 O1101 1 I1101

0
1 O1102

Figure 5.4: Infraconstraints between two train lines

5.4

The Max-Plus Model

Figure 5.5 shows the nal timed event graph of the network described in the previous section. This timed event graph can be written in state-space form as described in Section 3.3.2.

With the matrices Am Rnn dened by: ij if the number of tokens in place pij equals m, otherwise,

(Am )ij =

(5.1)

for m = 0, 1, . . . , M , where M is the maximum number of tokens in any place, the state vector x(k) = [x1 (k), x2 (k), . . . , xn (k)]T can be written as:
M

x(k) =
m=0

Am x(k m).

(5.2)

Recall that n is the number of transitions in the graph and xj (k) denotes the time at which transition xj res for the kth time. Example 5.6. Consider the timed event graph in Figure 5.5. There are 24 transitions in the graph. The state vector x(k) = [x1 (k), x2 (k), . . . , x24 (k)]T can be written as: x(k) = A0 x(k) A1 x(k 1), 28

5.4. The Max-Plus Model

13

x1
2 I1102

x2
2 O0101

13

x3
2 I0101

x4
2 O0102

12

x5
2 I0102

x6
2 O1101

12

x7
2 I1101

x8
2 O1102

12

x9
1 I1102

x10
1 O0101

12

x11 0
1 I0101

x12
1 O0102

11

x13
1 I0102

x14
1 O1101 5

11

x15 0
1 I1101

x16
1 O1102

18

x17 5
3 I1102

x18
3 O0101

18

x19 0
3 I0101

x20
3 O0102

15

x21
3 I0102

5 x22
3 O1101

15

x23 0
3 I1101

x24
3 O1102

Figure 5.5: Final timed event graph

where the matrices A0 and A1 have the following form:

A0 =

13

12

13

3 12

11

5 7 5

12

18

15

5 5

18

29

Chapter 5. Constructing a Max-Plus Model

A1 =

12

11

15

5.5

Summary

This chapter has described how a max-plus model for a railway system can be constructed. From train line data, synchronization data and information on infraconstraints a timed event graph can be derived. This timed event graph can be formulated using max-plus algebra which results in a state space representation that models the railway system. The infraconstraints in the network have been included in the max-plus model using an input le that prescribes all required infraconstraints. In the next chapter the investigation on the deduction of these infraconstraints will begin.

30

Chapter 6

Infraconstraints
6.1 Introduction

The infrastructure of a railway system is of major inuence on the railway timetable. In a railway system several trains are running after one another on the same track, use the same junction or have conicting in- or outbound routes for entering or exiting a timetable point. Signalling and safety systems ascertain a minimum time separation between consecutive trains at these conict points. Infraconstraints dene these minimum time separations and xed orders at conicting routes. Routes are called conicting when they can not be used at the same time. Conicting routes occur at junctions or stations, but also include opposing single-track routes, and a mutual route of trains with dierent speeds and/or dierent stopping characteristics. Headway is the time interval between two consecutive trains. An infraconstraint prescribes a minimum headway between two trains at a conict point. Each point of the network where a conict situation may occur is dened as a timetable point. It is assumed that conicts only occur at timetable points. Figure 6.1 shows an example of a timetable point. Each timetable point has in-out points for the trains to enter or exit the timetable point. Trains have conicting routes at a timetable point when they use the same in-out point to enter or exit the timetable point, or when their paths cross in the timetable point.

in-out point timetable point

in-out point

in-out point

in-out point

Figure 6.1: Timetable point and in-out points

31

Chapter 6. Infraconstraints The following headways can be identied: Entrance headway between two trains entering a timetable point over conicting inbound routes. Exit headway between two trains exiting a timetable point over conicting outbound routes. Headway between an entering and an exiting train using conicting routes at a timetable point. Overtaking of a train by a faster train at a timetable point. Meeting and passing headway for trains running at single track routes in opposite directions. Merging or crossing headway between two trains using the same junction. When a timetable is captured in a max-plus model, infraconstraints can be incorporated as described in Chapter 5. To investigate how infraconstraints can be deduced from a given timetable and infrastructure, the dierent cases where headway norms are required will be listed in this chapter.

6.2

Headway Norms

A headway norm is a default minimum time separation between two events. In a timed event graph the events are represented by transitions, and a headway norm can be represented by a place between those transitions. The holding time of this place is the headway norm between the two events and the initial marking determines which of the events takes place rst. All headway norms will be indicated with hij , which can be interpreted as the minimum time from event j to event i. In this chapter all timed event graphs represent only a part of an autonomous network. This means that none of the transitions in the timed event graphs are source or sink transitions, although the upstream or downstream place(s) are sometimes not drawn in the graphs because they are irrelevant for the situation under consideration.

Conicting Entrance Routes

Trains entering a timetable point have conicting entrance routes when they use the same in-out point to enter that timetable point. When this is the case, the trains have the same inbound route to the timetable point. There has to be some time between the entrance of trains that use the same inbound route to a timetable point. This minimum headway between the entrance of a train and the entrance of the next train is denoted as a headway norm hij . In Figure 6.2 a time distance diagram of two trains running from station 1 to station 2 is shown. A headway norm between the entrance of the trains has to hold because they use the same inbound route at station 2. Train 1 is due to enter station 2 rst. Between the entrance time of train 1 and the entrance time of train 2 a headway norm has to hold, which is indicated in the diagram. 32

6.2. Headway Norms

time

train 2

headway norm

train
station 1

1
station 2

Figure 6.2: Time distance diagram of two trains

Figure 6.3 represents the minimum entrance headway between the two trains in a timed event graph. The transitions represent the exit and entrance of the trains, they are numbered as x1 , x2 , ... . Furthermore for each transition an indication is given: transition Ot,s represents a exit of train t from station s and transition It,s is an entrance of train t at station s. Note that this timed event graph is part of a larger timed event graph, so transitions x1 and x4 are no source transitions and x3 and x6 are no sink transitions. Train 1 is due to enter station 2 rst, which is determined by the initial marking in the places between transitions x2 and x5 . When train 1 enters station 2, transition x2 res (provided that the holding time of the token in the place from transition x5 to x2 has elapsed). The transition representing the entrance of train 2 at station 2 can only re at least h52 time units after the ring of transition x2 . The place with holding time h25 makes that the entrance of train 1 is at least h25 time units later than the entrance of train 2.
O1,1 x1 h25 x4 O2,1 x5 I2,2 I1,2 x2 h52 x6 O2,2 O1,2 x3

Figure 6.3: Entrance headway structure in a timed event graph

In Figure 6.4 a situation is represented where multiple trains use the same inbound route in a xed order on a periodic basis. Because of the xed order of the trains, it is sucient that each entering train gives only a constraint to the next train that is 33

Chapter 6. Infraconstraints due to enter. In this way the entering order is always maintained and headway norms are always met. All other constraints between trains not immediately following each other are redundant and therefore omitted.
x1 O1,1 h2,11 x4 O2,1 x7 O3,1 x10 O4,1 x5 I2,2 h85 x8 I3,2 h11,8 x11 I4,2 x12 O4,2 x9 O3,2 x2 I1,2 h52 x6 O2,2 x3 O1,2

Figure 6.4: Entrance headway structure for multiple trains

Conicting Exit Routes

For trains that use the same outbound route to depart from a timetable point exit headway norms have to hold. Figure 6.5 shows a timed event graph of two trains. They use the same outbound route to depart from station 1. Train 1 is due to depart rst, which is determined by the initial marking again. The minimum headway between the exits is modelled by the places between transitions x2 and x5 .
I1,1 x1 h25 x4 I2,1 x5 O2,1 O1,1 x2 h52 x6 I2,2 I1,2 x3

Figure 6.5: Exit headway structure in a timed event graph

For multiple trains departing from a timetable point over the same outbound route the headway structure resembles the arrival headway structure: exit transitions of trains 34

6.2. Headway Norms only give a constraint to the exit transitions of their succeeding train, other constraints are redundant.

Conicting Entrance and Exit Routes

When one train enters and another train exits a timetable point over the same in-out point, the inbound route of the rst train conicts with the outbound route of the second train. A headway norm between the entrance of one train and the exit of the next train has to hold. In Figure 6.6 this situation is shown for two trains, which use the same in-out point at station 2. Train 1 enters station 2 and train 2 exits station 2, both over the same track. Between these events a headway norm of h52 units of time has to hold. The initial marking determines that train 1 is due to use the track rst. When train 1 has left the track train 2 may exit. The place from x5 to x2 ensures that train 1 never enters earlier than h25 time units after the exit of train 2.
O1,1 x1 h25 x4 I2,1 x5 O2,2 I1,2 x2 h52 x6 I2,2 O1,2 x3

Figure 6.6: Conicting entrance and exit routes

Overtaking Situation
An overtaking action is dened as one train overtaking another train. It is assumed that overtaking only happens at timetable points. Depending on how the headway norms are dened, in some situations overtaking norms have to hold when a fast train overtakes a slower train at a timetable point. An example of a situation where overtaking norms have to hold is when the headway norms in an overtaking action are dened dierent from the regular entrance and exit headway norms. In Figure 6.7 an example is represented of the situation where overtaking norms are required. Train 2 overtakes train 1 at station 2; they have conicting inbound routes and conicting outbound routes. Two overtaking norms are required: rst there is a headway norm of h62 units of time between the entrance of the rst train and the overtaking by the second train. Then there is a headway norm of h37 units of time between the overtaking by the second train and the exit of the rst train. The other places represent the usual entrance and exit norms. Note that the position of the tokens in the initial marking has changed, this indicates the changed order of the trains after the overtaking action.

35

Chapter 6. Infraconstraints

O1,1 x1
h26

I1,2 x2
h62 h37

O1,2 x3
h73

I1,3 x4

x5 O2,1

x6 I2,2

x7 O2,2

x8 I2,3

Figure 6.7: Overtaking headway structure

Single-Track Conicts
On some train routes there is only a single-track line between stations. In that case a situation may occur where trains in opposite directions have to run on the same track. Constraints are required to make sure two trains do not run on the track in dierent directions at the same time. They can only pass each other at intermediate multiple-track stations, the so-called meet and pass-stations. In Figure 6.8 a meet and pass situation is shown. Train 1 runs from station 1 to station 3 and train 2 runs in the opposite direction from station 3 to station 1. The route between station 1 and 3 is single-track. The only point where the trains can pass each other is station 2, which has multiple tracks. By constructing a place from each entrance transition to the transition representing the next exit in opposite direction, it is prevented that there is more than one train running at the single track between the stations: a exit is only enabled after the entrance of the train running in the opposite direction.
I1,1 x1 h28 x7 O2,1 x8 I2,1 x9 O2,2 O1,1 x2 I1,2 x3 h93 h4,10 x10 I2,2 x11 O2,3 O1,2 x4 I1,3 x5 h11,5 x12 I2,3 O1,3 x6

Figure 6.8: Meet and pass headway structure

Crossing
A crossing is a point in a network where two tracks from dierent directions meet, but where trains do not stop. When trains from dierent directions use the same crossing headway norms have to hold. Figure 6.9 shows situations that can occur on a crossing where two double tracks from dierent directions meet. 36

6.2. Headway Norms The rst situation is shown in Figure 6.9a. When two trains use the crossing a minimum headway has to be ensured between their passage of the crossing. Situation 2 is shown in Figure 6.9b and is almost the same as situation 1. Although the trains do not literally cross each other they do use the same crossing so a minimum headway is required again. Figures 6.9c and 6.9d show two other situations.
station 1 station 1

station 2 crossing C crossing C

station 2

station 4

station 4

station 3
(a)

station 3
(b)

station 1

station 1

station 2 crossing C crossing C

station 2

station 4

station 4

station 3
(c)

station 3
(d)

Figure 6.9: Conict situations at crossing

In Figure 6.10 a timed event graph of the crossing situation in Figure 6.9c is shown. One train runs from station 4 to station 1, the other runs from station 1 to station 3. The inbound route of train 1 to the crossing conicts with the outbound route of train 2 from the crossing. The headway norms at the crossing are denoted as h27 and 37

Chapter 6. Infraconstraints h72 , the marking indicates the order in which the trains use the crossing. In this case train 1 is rst in order.

O1,4 x1

I1,C x2 h72 h27

O1,C x3

I1,1 x4

x5 O2,1

x6 I2,C

x7 O2,C

x8 I2,3

Figure 6.10: Timed event graph of crossing situation

In Figure 6.11 two other situations are shown. Figure 6.11a shows a merging situation: trains from dierent origin directions merge at the crossing and head for the same destination station. In Figure 6.11b a splitting situation is shown: trains from the same origin direction split at the crossing to run to dierent destination directions. Because those trains use the same crossing a headway norm has to hold again between their passage of the crossing.
station 1 station 1

station 2 crossing C crossing C

station 2

station 4

station 4

station 3
(a) Merging structure

station 3
(b) Splitting structure

Figure 6.11: Two other situations at crossing Note that because of the double-track structure at the crossing in the gures above a train can have a conict with trains from up to three directions. Constraints are necessary between the current train and trains from the other directions at the crossing to ensure correct headway norms. For example, in Figure 6.12 a train runs from station 4 to 1. The circles indicate the 38

6.3. Conclusions points on the crossing where constraints with other trains running over the crossing may have to hold. The bottom circle indicates the point where a constraint between the current train and a train running from station 1 or 2 to station 3 might be necessary. The circle in the middle indicates the point where a constraint between the current train and a train running from station 3 to 1 or 2 may have to hold. The top circle indicates the point where a conict can occur with a train running between station 2 and 4.
station 1

station 2 crossing C

station 4

station 3

Figure 6.12: Points on crossing that may give constraints

6.3

Conclusions

This chapter has described all situations where headway norms between trains are required. For each situation it has been shown how the corresponding headway norm can be modelled in a timed event graph. The headway norms of a railway system can be incorporated in the max-plus model by nding all conicts between trains in the network and including a suitable infraconstraint for each conict in the timed event graph of the network.

39

Chapter 7

Deduction of Infraconstraints
7.1 Introduction

The previous chapter concentrated on infraconstraints in general: all situations where headway norms occur have been discussed and furthermore the modelling of infraconstraints in timed event graphs has been described. However, the way infraconstraints are deduced highly depends on how the headway norms that have to be ensured are dened. In this chapter the headway norms that have to hold on the Dutch railway network will be applied. A distinction is made between successor conicts between trains using the same track, and hindrance conicts between trains that do not use the same track but have a (mutual) hindrance at a timetable point. For both types of conicts a dierent le containing the denition of the headway norms exist. Section 7.2 will explain how headway norms will be ensured when a railway system is captured in a max-plus model. Section 7.3 will concentrate on successor conicts. In Subsection 7.3.1 the input data needed to derive the infraconstraints that ensure the headway norms in successor conicts will be discussed. Subsection 7.3.2 will describe how the infraconstraints can be deduced from this data. In Section 7.4 the possibilities of deriving infraconstraints for hindrance conicts will be discussed.

7.2

Ensuring Headway Norms

In the previous chapter situations where headways are required are discussed. All possible conict situations between pairs of trains are described and represented in timed event graphs. On a railway network there is a minimum time separation between trains by safety and signalling systems. This section will explain how headway norms can be ensured in the model of the network. In the timetable all points which are relevant are dened as timetable points. Timetable points include stations, other locations where a train can change tracks and all other relevant points (movable bridges, halts, marks along the line) [8]. In the line data le the train routes are described using timetable points. From now on it is assumed that when norms are satised on all timetable points, no hindrance arises in between. 41

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints The modelling of headway norms for a railway system is done in the following way: all conict situations in the network are searched. For each situation the appropriate infraconstraints, as described in Section 6.2, are included in the timed event graph of the network. For each timetable point in the network the conicts between trains at that timetable point are searched and suitable constraints are placed to ensure the required headways. Furthermore the number of tracks between timetable points is considered to investigate the need of meet and pass constraints.

7.3

Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts

In the Dutch railway network a distinction is made between successor conicts and hindrance conicts. This section explains the deduction of infraconstraints that ensure headway norms in successor conicts.

7.3.1

Input Data

Certain information is needed for the deduction of the infraconstraints that ensure the headway norms in successor conicts in a network. Prorail, the organization that manages the Dutch railway network, has much information on this network. The dierent les that contain the necessary information for the deduction of the successor infraconstraints will be discussed in this subsection. All described les are existing les at Prorail. In Appendix A.2 the Dutch translation of these les can be found, and for each le the program it originates from is indicated. Line Data First a timetable should be given, with information on the train routes, the exit and process times and the train activities at stations. All this information can be found in a line data le as described in Section 5.2. To generate such a line data le, a network should be imported in PETER from the DONS input les, described in Section 4.2. This network can be stored in a le in generic format. This le then contains the line data of the network in the desired format. Simulation Basic Hour Pattern At most timetable points multiple tracks are available for entering and exiting trains. For example, the timetable point in Figure 7.1 has four in-out points. Trains can enter and exit the timetable point via these in-out points. A Simulation Basic Hour Pattern (SBHP) describes for each line segment which in-out point is used for its exit from the origin timetable point, and which in-out point it uses for its entrance at the destination timetable point. A SBHP consists of nine columns, each row i contains information on: 1. the train line number i , 2. the direction diri {F, B} of the train, indicating if the train runs in forward (F) or backward (B) direction, 3. the reference number refi of the train, 4. the segment code si of the line, 42

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts

in-out point timetable point

in-out point

in-out point

in-out point

Figure 7.1: Timetable point with four in-out points

5. the timetable point tpi , 6. the event type Ei {A, D, R}, indicating an arrival event (A), departure event (D) or running through event (R), 7. the time ti at which event Ei is scheduled, 8. when Ei {A, R}: Ii , the in-out point that is used in the inbound route to timetable point tpi , when Ei = D this column is empty, 9. when Ei {D, R}: Oi , the in-out point that is used in the outbound route from timetable point tpi , when Ei = A this column is empty. Tracks Information on the underlying infrastructure is needed. When a train route is (partly) single-track, meeting and passing headway norms are needed as described in Section 6.2. A tracks le contains information about the number of tracks between all timetable points. It consists of three columns, each row i gives the following information: 1. timetable point tp1 , i 2. timetable point tp2 , i 3. the number of tracks noi between tp1 and tp2 . i i Train Types On the Dutch Railway network there are dierent types of trains. There are regional trains that stop at every station, interregional trains that stop at larger stations and intercity trains stopping at stations in cities. Furthermore there are freight trains to transport cargo, and high speed trains for international passenger transport. A train type le indicates the train type of each train line. Such a le can be formulated from the train schedule le, one of the DONS input les that can describe a network in PETER. The le containing information on the train schedule also prescribes the train type of each train line. This information is not stored by PETER, therefore a separate le with this information is needed. A train type le contains two columns, each row i gives information on one train line: 43

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints

Table 7.1: Train types train type G HS IC IR R abbreviation Goods Train High Speed Train Intercity Train Interregional Train Regional train

1. the train line number i , 2. the train type type1 {G, HS, IC, IR, R} of i . i In Table 7.1 the abbreviations of the dierent train types are explained. Successor Headway Norms A successor headway norms le prescribes the precise values of the headway norms that have to be ensured in all successor conicts in the network. From now on the deduction of infraconstraints will be applied to the Dutch railway network. Therefore the denition of successor headway norms used in the design process of a timetable for this network will be used here. For the Dutch railway network, the headway norms that have to hold between two trains depend on the following factors: the train types, whether the trains enter or exit, whether the trains do or do not stop. When all listed characteristics are known for two conicting trains, the necessary headway norm can be found in the headway norms le. This le contains a list of the headway norms that have to hold in conicts between all possible combinations of trains and their characteristics. In this le there are seven columns with on each row i the following information: 1. type1 {G, HS, IC, IR, R}, the train type of the rst train, i
1 2. the event Ei {I, O} of the rst train, indicating whether the conict is on the inbound route (I) or outbound route (O) of the rst train,

3. the stop activity stop1 {0, 1} of the rst train, indicating whether the rst i train stops (1) or does not stop (0), 4. type2 {G, HS, IC, IR, R}, the train type of the second train, i
2 5. the event Ei {I, O} of the second train,

6. the stop activity stop2 {0, 1} of the second train, i 7. hi , the minimum headway time from event 1 to event 2. 44

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts

Table 7.2: Example of a headway norms le train 1 train type G G IC IC G in/out I I O O O stop 1 1 1 0 1 IC IC G G IC train 2 train type in/out I I O O O stop 1 0 1 1 0 headway 3:00 2:00 3:00 3:00 3:00

Each row i prescribes a headway norm for a conict between two trains with characteristics as described in columns 1 to 6. In Table 7.1 the abbreviations of the dierent train types are explained. Successor headway norms have to be ensured in all successor conicts at all timetable points. This implicates that the headway norms that have to hold at crossings or in overtaking situations are not dened dierently from the regular entrance and exit headway norms. This will be explained in more detail in Section 7.3.2. An example of a headway norms le is given in Table 7.2. These headway norms originate from the successor headway norms le for the Dutch railway timetable 2005. The complete successor headway norms le from the Dutch railway timetable 2005 can be found in Appendix A.3. Prorail uses the successor headway norms described here in the long term planning and investigation process of timetables. It should be noted that these headway norms are dierent from the so called test norms. Test norms are used in the design process of a timetable. These test norms are headway norms that are formulated by Prorail to judge timetables on the short term. Train schedules to be operated on the Dutch railway network have to satisfy these headway norms. The test norms are prescribed in the Prorail Network Statement 2006, [12]. To construct a max-plus model for a railway system and to derive the required successor infraconstraints, the information described in this section should all be available for this particular railway system. The derivation of successor infraconstraints will be discussed in the next subsection.

7.3.2

Deduction of Successor Conicts

From the input data described in the previous subsection it can be deduced where headway norms have to hold in successor conicts. This section will explain how successor conicts can be derived and how infraconstraints are placed to ensure headway norms between conicting trains. In Section 7.2 it is explained that headway norms have to hold at all conicting routes in timetable points. For each in-out point at all timetable points the order of trains using this in-out point for their arrival or departure can be derived from the line data 45

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints le and the SBHP. A train has two possible successor conicts on each timetable point: one with the previous train and one with the next train using the same in-out point at that timetable point. Recall from Chapter 5 how the exits from and entries of timetable points of all train lines in the network are represented by transitions. The infraconstraints in successor conicts can be found in the following way: For each in-out point on each timetable point the transitions representing the entries and exits of all trains using that in-out point are listed. The transitions in this list can be sorted by the event time at the timetable point. For the transitions representing an entrance of a train this is the scheduled entrance time at the current timetable point and for the transitions representing an exit this is the scheduled exit time from this timetable point. For all transitions in the sorted list a place is created from this transition to the next transition in the list. The holding time of the places is equal to the headway norm that has to hold between the two subsequent trains. For each train pair the value of this headway norm can be looked up in the headway norms le. This way of deducing infraconstraints is summarized in the following algorithm. Algorithm 7.1. Input: the information on a railway system described in Subsection 7.3.1. Output: a timed event graph of the network, including the infraconstraints for successor conicts. Construct a timed event graph of the network, as described in Section 5.3. Let T P be the set of all timetable points in the network. Let IOtp be the set of all in-out locations of timetable point tp. For each tp T P: For each io IOtp : 1. Construct a list L containing all transitions representing the entrance/exit events of trains that use io. 2. For each t L: Dene ett as the event time of this transition at tp: ett = scheduled entrance time at tp scheduled exit time from tp if event is entrance, if event is exit.

3. Sort the transitions in L on event times ett , this results in an ordered list Lsorted indicating the order in which the trains use io. 4. For each t Lsorted : Construct a place from t to the transition that represents the next event on io. The holding time of this place is the headway norm that has to hold between the two subsequent trains, the value of this holding time can be found in the headway norms le.

46

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts In this thesis information on a railway system is gathered from existing les having the format described in Subsection 7.3.1. This input data is imported, and the algorithm stores the data in the following data structure: a list with all timetable points, for each timetable point all present in-out points, for each in-out point a list with all train using the in-out point, sorted by event time of usage. Data presented in this format could also be used as input data for Algorithm 7.1, step 1 to 3 are then omitted. By constructing infraconstraints with Algorithm 7.1, all situations in which successor conicts arise are covered. To show this, the dierent situations in which headway norms are required as described in Section 6.2 will be discussed here. Entrance and Exit Conicts By deducing the infraconstraints as described by Algorithm 7.1, obviously all entrance and exit conicts are found. The headway norm that has to hold between the usage of the in-out point by two subsequent trains depends on the train types and the activities of both trains, and on whether the trains use the in-out point as an inbound or an outbound route. With this information the necessary headway norm can be looked up in the headway norms le. In the Dutch railway network one in-out point at a timetable point is only connected to one in-out point at the next timetable point. Therefore it holds that when two trains use the same in-out point at a timetable point, they have to use the same in-out point at the next timetable point. On some tracks between timetable points trains run in opposite directions, this happens at single-track and multiple-track parts of the network. When infraconstraints are deduced as described in Algorithm 7.1, they prevent trains from running in opposite directions on a track at the same time because of the property mentioned above. An example will be given here to show this. Example 7.1. In Figure 7.2 a timed event graph is shown, representing two trains running between station 1 and station 2. Train 1 runs from station 1 to station 2, train 2 runs in the opposite direction. They use the same in-out point in station 1. This track is connected to one in-out point in station 2, so they also use the same in-out point there. Therefore the entrance and exit headway norms have to hold, as shown in the gure. These headway norms prevent the trains from running in opposite direction on the track at the same time. In this example train 1 runs on the track rst, this is determined by the initial marking. Overtaking Conicts In Section 6.2 it has been mentioned that sometimes in overtaking conicts the headway norms are dened dierently than the regular entrance and exit headway norms. In the denition of headway norms that is used here this is not the case. When two trains use the same inbound and outbound routes at a timetable point and one train 47

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints

I1,1 x1 h26 x5 O2,1

O1,1 x2 h62 x6 I2,1 h37

I1,2 x3 h73 x7 O2,2

O1,2 x4

x8 I2,2

Figure 7.2: Example of trains running in opposite directions

overtakes the other, this is considered as a regular entrance and exit conict: the headway norms that have to hold are the regular entrance and exit norms. To clarify this an example is given. Example 7.2. When a freight train and an intercity train use the same inbound route to enter a timetable point, a headway norm has to hold between the entrance of the freight train and the entrance of the intercity train. When they use the same outbound routes to depart from this timetable point an exit headway norm has to hold. The headway norms that have to hold are as dened in Table 7.2. The values of these headway norms do not depend on whether the intercity train overtakes the freight train at this timetable point or not but on the stop-behaviour of the trains on the timetable point. Suppose the intercity train overtakes the freight train at a timetable point where they both use the same inbound and outbound route. The freight train stops at this timetable point and while this train is waiting, the intercity train passes this timetable point without stopping. The second row in the table gives the appropriate headway norm for this situation: it prescribes that the headway between the arrival of a freight train that stops at the timetable point and the entrance of an intercity train that does not stop at the timetable point has to be 2 minutes. When the two trains use the same outbound route too, the freight train has to wait at least 3 minutes after the exit of the intercity train before it may depart. This follows from row 4 of Table 7.2. Note that the value of the headway norm in the entrance conict does not have anything to do with the overtaking action that occurs. When no overtaking action would happen and the freight train would depart from the timetable point before the entrance of the intercity train, the appropriate entrance headway norm would still be indicated by row 2 of Table 7.2. When the intercity train does not overtake the freight train, this means that the freight train departs before the passage of the intercity train. The exit order of the trains is dierent; the headway norm in the exit conict diers from the exit norm after overtaking because of this changed order of trains. In this case a headway norm has to hold from the departure of the freight train to the exit of the intercity train. The value of this headway norm is prescribed by row 5 of Table 7.2. As shown by Example 7.2 the headway norms in an overtaking action are not dierent from the regular entrance and exit norms, so all required constraints in overtaking actions are already captured in the constraints arising from entrance and exit conicts. 48

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts Single Track Conicts For each line segment of the railway network under consideration the tracks le tells whether it is single or multiple track. When there is a single-track part in the network, constraints have to prevent trains from running in opposite directions at the same time on that track. Intermediate stations on a single track have only one in-out point for each direction. This means that at each timetable point all trains entering from one direction use the same in-out point as all trains that exit in the opposite direction from this timetable point. When entrance and exit constraints are placed for each in-out point as described above, this already prevents trains from running in dierent directions at the same time. To show this an example is presented here. Example 7.3. Consider the time distance diagram in Figure 7.3. The route between timetable points tp1 and tp5 is single track. Assume that this is a single track part of a multiple track network, so the route to the left of tp1 and to the right of tp5 is multiple track. Two interregional train lines are running in opposite directions on the route, they are assumed to stop at tp1, tp3 and tp5. Tp3 is an intermediate multiple track timetable point where the trains can pass each other.
time 60 50 40 30 20
line 2

10

e1 lin
tp1 tp2 tp3 tp4 tp5

Figure 7.3: Time distance diagram of two trains on a single track part

When the entrance and exit conicts are derived as described above, the resulting timed event graph is as shown in Figure 7.4. Because all timetable points only have one inout point for each direction the trains have an entrance-exit conict at each in-out point. The headway norms that have to hold are prescribed by the top four rows of Table 7.3. The headway norms in this table again originate from the headway norms le for the Dutch railway timetable 2005, morning peak schedule. Compare Figure 7.4 to Figure 7.5. In the latter gure the constraints are constructed in the same way as described in Figure 6.8 in Section 6.2. Only entrance transitions give 49

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints

O1,tp1 10 0 0 2 5 I2,tp1

I1,tp2 0 2 2 0 O2,tp2

O1,tp2 10 2 0 5 I2,tp2

I1,tp3 10 0 0 9 O2,tp3

O1,tp3 7 0 5 I2,tp3 2

I1,tp4 0 2 2 0 O2,tp4

O1,tp4 8 2 5 I2,tp4 0

I1,tp5

O2,tp5

Figure 7.4: Entrance and exit infraconstraints

constraints, these infraconstraints prevent trains from running in opposite directions at the same time on the track. Because there are no particular meeting and passing headway norms dened in the denition of headway norms that is used here, the usual successor headway norms are used. It is clear that the infraconstraints shown in Figure 7.5 are also captured in the regular entrance and exit constraints in Figure 7.4.

O1,tp1 10 0 5 I2,tp1

I1,tp2 0 2 2 0 O2,tp2

O1,tp2 10

I1,tp3 10 0 0 9 O2,tp3

O1,tp3 7

I1,tp4 0 2 2 0 O2,tp4

O1,tp4 8

I1,tp5

0 5 I2,tp4 O2,tp5

5 I2,tp2

5 I2,tp3

Figure 7.5: Meeting and passing infraconstraints

Example 7.3 demonstrates that the regular entrance and exit constraints incorporate the necessary meeting and passing constraints. What can also be seen in Figure 7.5 is that when only places are put from transitions representing entrances to the transitions representing the next exit from the concerned in-out point, the condition that trains may not run on the track in opposite direction at the same time is already satised. Moreover, all successor conicts are covered by only these constraints: because trains can not run on the track in opposite direction at the same time, no other successor conicts then the ones modelled by these constraints will occur. This means that the number of constraints needed to model the successor conicts on a single track is less than on a multiple track. On the single track parts of the Dutch railway network, trains in opposite directions only meet and pass each other at timetable points where at least one of the trains stops. Therefore, it can be concluded that the constraints between opposite trains 50

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts

Table 7.3: Headway norms train 1 train type IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR R R R R R R in/out I I O O I O I O I I O I O I stop 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 IR IR IR IR R R R R R R IR IR IR IR train 2 train type in/out O O I I I O I O O O O I O I stop 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 headway 2:00 0:00 2:00 0:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 0:00 2:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00

at stations where at least one train stops, prevent conicts on intermediate stations where no train stops. See for example Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4. The constraints from I2,tp1 to O1,tp1 and from I1,tp3 to O2,tp3 already make sure that the trains will not have a conict on tp2. Therefore it is sucient to only ensure headway norms on the timetable points where at least one of the trains stop. This gives another reduction in the number of infraconstraints necessary to ensure the successor headway norms on single tracks. Note that when a train running on a single track is succeeded by a train running in the same direction, the regular entrance and exit constraints have to hold between those trains. Example 7.4. Figure 7.6 shows the time distance diagram of the same track as in the previous example, with one more train running on the track. Line 3 is a regional train and runs from tp3 to tp1 and back again. The headway norms that have to hold can be found in Table 7.3. In Figure 7.7 the resulting timed event graph is shown, with only the constraints between trains running in opposite directions as described above and furthermore all regular constraints between trains running in the same direction. Because none of the trains stop at tp2, the constraints between transitions representing entrances or exits of trains at tp2 running in opposite directions can be omitted. Figure 7.8 shows the nal timed event graph after this reduction.

51

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints

time 60
line 3

50 40 30 20 10
line 2 line 3

e1 lin
tp1 tp2 tp3 tp4 tp5

Figure 7.6: Time distance diagram of three trains on a single track part

O1,tp1 10 3 5 I2,tp1 3 5 I3,tp1 0 2 5 O3,tp1 3

I1,tp2 0 2 3 0 O2,tp2 3 0 O3,tp2

O1,tp2 10 3 5 I2,tp2 3 5 I3,tp2 2

I1,tp3 10 0 0 9 O2,tp3 3

O1,tp3 7

i1,tp4 0 2 2 0 O2,tp4

O1,tp4 8

I1,tp5

0 5 I2,tp4 O2,tp5

5 I2,tp3

O3,tp3 5

0 I3,tp2

5 O3,tp2 I3,tp3

Figure 7.7: Constraints between three trains on single track

52

7.3. Infraconstraints in Successor Conicts

O1,tp1 10 3 3 5 I2,tp1 3 5 I3,tp1 0 2 5 O3,tp1

I1,tp2 0 3 0 O2,tp2 3 0 O3,tp2

O1,tp2 10 3 5 I2,tp2 3 5 I3,tp2

I1,tp3 10 0 0 9 O2,tp3 3

O1,tp3 7

i1,tp4 0 2 2 0 O2,tp4

O1,tp4 8

I1,tp5

0 5 I2,tp4 O2,tp5

5 I2,tp3

O3,tp3 5

0 I3,tp2

5 O3,tp2 I3,tp3

Figure 7.8: Reduction in the number of constraints

53

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints To incorporate this reduction in infraconstraints on single-track parts of the network, Algorithm 7.1 has to be adjusted. The resulting algorithm then becomes: Algorithm 7.2 (Deduction of Infraconstraints for Successor Conicts). Input: the information on a railway system, as described in Subsection 7.3.1. Output: a timed event graph of the network, including the infraconstraints for successor conicts. Construct a timed event graph of the network, as described in Section 5.3. Let T P be the set of all timetable points in the network. Let IOtp be the set of all in-out locations of timetable point tp. For each tp T P: For each io IOtp : 1. Construct a list L containing all transitions representing the entrance/exit events of trains that use io. 2. For each t L: Dene ett as the event time of this transition at tp: ett = scheduled entrance time at tp scheduled exit time from tp if event is entrance, if event is exit.

3. Sort the transitions in L on event times ett , this results in an ordered list Lsorted indicating the order in which the trains use io. 4. For each t Lsorted : If io is not on single-track: Construct a place from t to the transition that represents the next event on io. The holding time of this place is the headway norm that has to hold between the two subsequent trains, the value of this holding time can be found in the headway norms le. If io is on single-track: If the next transition in Lsorted represents the same event as t: Construct a place from t to the transition that represents the next event on io. The holding time of this place is the headway norm that has to hold between the two subsequent trains, the value of this holding time can be found in the headway norms le. If the next transition in Lsorted represents a dierent event then t: If t represents an entrance event: Check if at least one train stops at tp. If so: Construct a place from t to the transition that represents the next event on io. The holding time of this place is the headway norm that has to hold between the two subsequent trains, the value of this holding time can be found in the headway norms le.

54

7.4. Infraconstraints in Hindrance Conicts Crossing On timetable points that are crossings, both types of conicts can arise: there can be successor conicts and hindrance conicts. Successor conicts occur between trains using the same in-out point while passing the crossing. This can be in a merging or splitting situation, both situations have been shown in Figure 6.11. The way of modelling infraconstraints that was described at the beginning of this section covers all successor conicts at crossings. For each in-out point at a crossing all trains that use it are listed and constraints are found to model the headway norms that have to hold. For example, when two trains merge at the crossing as shown in Figure 6.11a they will use dierent inbound routes but the same outbound route. Because of this usage of the same in-out point for their exit a headway norm between the exits of the trains from the crossing has to hold. By using Algorithm 7.2 all successor conicts are found and modelled by infraconstraints. When trains do not use the same inbound or outbound route at a crossing, no successor conicts occur. But trains can still have conicts with other trains at the crossing. In Figure 6.9 an example has been given of a crossing, with the conict situations that can arise on this crossing. These conicts are then called hindrance conicts. These conicts are not yet incorporated by the modelling way described at the beginning of this section. The modelling of hindrance conicts will be discussed in the next section.

7.4

Infraconstraints in Hindrance Conicts

Hindrance conicts are conicts that arise between trains that do not use the same track. These conicts can occur at a station or at a junction. At Prorail, there exists a list of these conicts for each railway system under consideration. This list is called report hindrance conicts, it originates from DONS [8] and is used by the simulation software Simone [9]. The Dutch translation of this le can be found in Appendix A.2. From this list the infraconstraints required to model the necessary headway norms between conicting trains can be constructed. In this section the possibilities of deriving hindrance conicts from a given timetable and infrastructure are discussed. A le containing the coordinates of all timetable points gives information about the geographical positions of all timetable points in the network. The name of an inout point indicates the position of the in-out point compared to the timetable point it belongs to. Because of this, conicting train paths on a station or crossing can be derived from a coordinates le, a line data le and a SBHP. Example 7.5 is represented to illustrate this. Example 7.5. In Figure 7.9 the schematic view of timetable point tp2 is shown. This timetable point lies between timetable points tp1 and tp3. The in-out points in the direction of tp1 are called tp1 L (this is the left in-out point seen from tp2) and tp1 R (seen from tp2 the right in-out point). The in-out points in the direction of tp3 are called tp3 L and tp3 R. This notation follows from the terminology used in the SBHP of a network. Suppose one train runs from tp1 to tp2 and uses tp1 L as inbound route, and then exits tp3 using tp3 L as an outbound route. When another train runs in opposite 55

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints direction and uses tp3 R as inbound route and tp1 R as outbound route, the trains have a conicting route in timetable point tp2.
tp2

tp1 R

tp3 L

tp1 L

tp3 R

Figure 7.9: Hindrance conict

When a coordinates le, SBHP and line data le are given, all conicting train paths on a timetable point can be found. What can not be deduced is the position of the conict in the timetable point. In Example 7.5 it can not be found whether the trains hinder each other at the left or at the right side of the platform in tp2. In general it holds that in hindrance conicts it can not be derived whether the trains are entering or exiting at the point of hindrance, so the correct headway norms can not be determined without additional information. In the current situation conicting train paths are calculated, but locations of the hindrance conicts are often imported by hand. To calculate these locations, more information about station and crossing layouts is needed, but this information is not available at the moment. Therefore it can be concluded that hindrance conicts can not be deduced with the available information. Only when information on the platform track usage of trains inside timetable points and on the infrastructure of the interior of timetable points would be available, it might be possible to deduce hindrance conicts. To incorporate the headway norms that arise from hindrance conicts in the modelling, the report hindrance conicts le is used to construct the required infraconstraints. Each row in this le represents a hindrance conict arising between two trains. The le consists of fourteen columns, each row i contains the following objects: 1. the timetable point tpi , 2. the train line number 1 of the rst train, i
1 3. the direction Di {F, B} of the rst train, forward (F) or backward (B),

4. the reference number no1 {1, . . . , f } of the rst train (where f is the frequency i of the train line per timetable cycle),
1 5. Ei {A, D, R} denotes event 1, arrival (A), departure (D) or run through (R), 1 6. Ii is the in-out point train 1 uses in the inbound route,

56

7.5. Conclusions
1 7. Oi is the in-out point train 1 uses in the outbound route,

8. the train line number 2 of the second train, i

2 9. the direction Di {F, B} of the second train,

10. the reference number no2 {1, . . . , f } of the second train, i

2 11. Ei {A, D, R} denotes event 2, 2 12. Ii is the in-out point train 2 uses in the inbound route, 2 13. Oi is the in-out point train 2 uses in the outbound route,

14. hi , the minimum headway time from event 1 to event 2. Row i of the le prescribes that there has to be hi time between event 1 of the rst train characterized by the properties in columns 2 to 4 and event of the second train characterized by the properties in columns 8 to 10. This headway norm is modelled by putting a place in the timed event graph of the network from the transition representing this event 1 to the transition that represents event 2. The holding time of this place is than hi . To incorporate the hindrance conicts in a max-plus model of a railway system, the following algorithm can be used: Algorithm 7.3 (Incorporation of Infraconstraints for Hindrance Conicts). Input: the timed event graph of a network, resulting from Algorithm 7.2, and a list of hindrance conicts in the network. Output: a timed event graph which includes infraconstraints in hindrance conicts. For each row i in the list of hindrance conicts:
1 Let t1 be the transition that represents Ei of the rst train, and let t2 be the i i 1 transition that represents Ei of the second train.

Construct a place from t1 to t2 . The holding time of this place is hi . i i

7.5

Conclusions

This chapter has described the deduction of infraconstraints with the denition of headway norms used at the Dutch railways. To ensure all headway norms in a railway system, for each timetable point the conict situations need to be searched and the corresponding infraconstraints can be constructed. It is assumed that when headway norms hold at all timetable points, no conicts arise in between. The situations in which headway norms have to hold can be divided in two types: headway norms that have to hold in successor conicts and headway norms that have to be ensured in hindrance conicts. Successor conicts include entrance and exit conicts, overtaking conicts, single tracks conicts and merging and splitting conicts at a crossing. Hindrance conicts include the conicts on a crossing that are not merging or splitting conicts, and all conicts arising due to crossing paths of trains in the interior of timetable points. 57

Chapter 7. Deduction of Infraconstraints With the Dutch railways denition of the headway norms, the deduction of infraconstraints, as described in Section 7.3.2, covers all headway norms in successor conicts. On single-track parts of the network the headway norms in successor conicts can even be ensured by a reduced number of infraconstraints. The infraconstraints that model headway norms in hindrance conicts can not be deduced with the information currently available. Therefore those hindrance conicts are incorporated in the model by creating infraconstraints for an existing list containing all hindrance conicts in the network. The number of infraconstraints arising from hindrance conicts is only a small part of the total amount of infraconstraints in a network. In the examples of network timetables that have been investigated during this research project, the number of hindrance infraconstraints was at most 3% of the total amount of infraconstraints. When all infraconstraints have been constructed, the timed even graph is complete. In the next chapter methods to reduce timed event graphs will be discussed.

58

Chapter 8

Reduction of Timed Event Graphs

8.1 Introduction

In order to create a max-plus model of a timetable, the state matrices Am are deduced from the constructed timed event graph. To prevent very high dimensions of the system, the number of transitions in the graph could be reduced. This chapter discusses the possibilities of reducing the number of transitions in dierent ways. In the previous chapter all headway norms are expressed in entrance and exit transitions. The next section will show how the timed event graphs presented in the previous chapter can be reduced by modelling the entrance and exit events in a single transition. Another possibility to reduce the number of transitions is to eliminate all through transitions, this will be discussed in Section 8.3.

8.2

Elimination of Entrance Transitions

When modelling a railway system with max-plus algebra, the investigation of the occurrence and inuence of delays is a major goal. From this point of view a train having an entrance delay only becomes of interest for the investigation when this entrance delay leads to an exit delay of the same train and/or to secondary exit delays of other trains. For this reason the focus in max-plus modelling is on exit delays. Another reason is that the exit times of the trains are prescribed by the timetable. Early exits are not allowed so exit transitions need to be included in the timed event graph of the network. The reasons mentioned above explain why it is customary that in timed event graphs only exit events are represented by transitions. Therefore the aim is to reduce the timed event graphs by eliminating entrance transitions. This section will describe how entrance transitions can be eliminated from a timed event graph. To eliminate the entrance transitions, the constraints on those transitions have to be transformed into constraints on exit transitions. To show how entrance transitions can be eliminated, two examples are given. Then an algorithm is presented for the 59

Chapter 8. Reduction of Timed Event Graphs elimination of entrance transitions from a timed event graph. The rst example is about three trains using the same in-out point at a timetable point. Example 8.1. Figure 8.1 shows an example of a timed event graph of three trains that all use the same in-out point. Trains 1 and 2 enter at station 2 over this in-out point, train 3 uses this in-out point to exit from station 2. The running and dwell times of the trains are indicated by the holding times at the places, where ij is the running or dwell time from transition xj to xi . Headway norms have to hold between the entrance and exit events as shown in the gure by the places with holding times hij . The focus is on the transitions in the frame, they represent the entrances and exit at this particular in-out point. What happens at station 1, at the other in-out point of station 2 and at station 3 will be left out of consideration for now. Therefore only the elimination of entrance transitions x2 and x5 will be taken into account.

O1,1 x1

21

I1,2 x2 h28 h52 I2,2 x5 h85

32

O1,2 x3

O2,1 x4 I3,1 x7

54

65

O2,2 x6

78

O3,2 x8

89

I3,2 x9

Figure 8.1: Timed event graph of three trains To eliminate the entrance transitions x2 and x5 all constraints on those transitions can be lead to the next transitions representing an exit. Figure 8.2 shows the result of this elimination, a more detailed description of this transformation can be found in Appendix B.1. The example above shows how all downstream exit transitions of an entrance transition that should be eliminated, can be expressed only in upstream exit transitions of this entrance transition. When an in-out point of a timetable point is only used as an inbound route for entering trains, and not as an outbound route for exiting trains, the elimination of entrance transitions involves some more rewriting of the expressions of their downstream exit transitions than in the previous example. The next example shows how the transitions representing entrances of trains at an in-out point that is only used as an inbound route can be eliminated. Example 8.2. In Figure 8.3 an example of a timed event graph of two trains running between two stations is shown. Again the focus is on the framed transitions, they represent the entrances at station 2. The trains use the same in-out point to enter station 2, this in-out point is only used as an inbound route for entering trains. 60

8.2. Elimination of Entrance Transitions

O1,1 x1 O2,1 x4 I3,1 x7 54 h85 78 21 h52 h85

21 32

O1,2 x3 h28 32 O2,2 x6

21 h52 65 54 65

O3,2 x8 h28 h52 h85

h28 h52 65 89

I3,2 x9

Figure 8.2: Reduced timed event graph

O1,1 x1

21

I1,2 x2 h25 h52 x5

32

O1,2 x3 x6

x4 O2,1 54

I2,2

65

O2,2

Figure 8.3: Headway constraints at exit and entrance transitions

To eliminate the entrance transitions x2 and x5 all constraints on those transitions can be lead to the next exit transitions. Figure 8.4 shows the transformed graph of Figure 8.1 with all entrance constraints transformed to the next downstream exit transitions. See Appendix B.1 for a more detailed explanation of this transformation. The two examples presented above have shown eliminations of entrance transitions representing enters on one in-out point in the network. In Appendix B.1 these eliminations are explained in an algebraic way. By looking at the timed event graphs in these examples, it can be seen that what happens to the timed event graph when an entrance transition is being eliminated is the following: a connection is made between all transitions giving incoming arcs to this entrance transition to all transitions the outgoing arcs from this transition lead to. Next, an algorithm will be presented that uses this graphical way of eliminating transitions. It gives a general method to eliminate all entrance transitions from the timed 61

Chapter 8. Reduction of Timed Event Graphs

h25 h52 O1,1 x1 h25 32 54 x4 O2,1 54 65 h25 h52 21 h52 65 x6 O2,2 21 32 O1,2 x3

Figure 8.4: Headway constraints at next departure transitions

event graph of a network. Algorithm 8.1 (Eliminating Entrance Transitions). Input: a timed event graph. Output: a reduced timed event graph where all transitions representing entrances of trains have been eliminated. Consider a timed event graph G = (P, Q, D, M0 , T ). Let A Q be the set of all entrance transitions in the timed event graph. For each a A: 1. Dene Ia = {i Q | pai P, i = a} as the set of transitions that give input arcs to transition a and Ua = {i Q | pia P, i = a} as the set of transitions where the output arcs of transition a lead to. 2. For each i Ia , for each u Ua , construct a place from i to u. The holding time of this place is the sum of the holding time of the place from i to a and the holding time of the place from a to u. The initial marking follows from Theorem 5.4. 3. When there is a loop paa on transition a in the timed event graph resulting from step 2: construct a loop with the same holding time on all transitions u Ua . 4. Delete transition a and all its input and output places from the timed event graph. Model all parallel places with the same initial marking in one place. The holding time of this place is the maximum of the holding times of the parallel places. The (minimal) cycle time of each event i in a timed event graph equals the maximum cycle mean over all circuits that have access to i [6]. This means that a loop on a transition becomes redundant when one of its upstream transitions has a loop with equal or larger holding time. Perform a redundancy check on all loops in the timed event graph, remove all redundant loops. 62

8.2. Elimination of Entrance Transitions With this algorithm all entrance transitions can be eliminated from a timed event graph without changing the characteristics of the system. In the algorithm the set A contains the transitions to be eliminated, in this case the set A contains all entrance transitions. However, the algorithm can be applied not only for the elimination of entrance transitions. It can be applied more generally when one denes the set A as all transitions to be eliminated.

To eliminate the entrance transitions, the constraints on those transitions are transformed into constraints on exit transitions. Although the necessary transformations of constraints are done so that there is no change in the characteristics of the model, by eliminating transitions loss of information is inevitable. To explain the eect of eliminating the entrance transitions, an example of a time distance diagram is given in Figure 8.5. Two trains are running between two stations, where at the end station an entrance norm of 2:00 minutes has to be satised. The solid lines represent train 1 and train 2 in the normal situation. The dashed lines show what happens when train 1 has a delay of three minutes. Train 2 exits the begin station on time but has to wait somewhere on the track before it is allowed to enter the end station, so it has a delay of one minute at the end station. The disadvantage of eliminating entrance transitions is that all information on the source of delays is lost. Only exit delays are registered and when a train has an exit delay one can not reconstruct whether the train already had a delayed entrance or whether the delay arose at the station. The advantage of modelling a railway system with only exit transitions is that this reduces the size of the state matrix A to about one half of the size it would have when entrance transitions would be included.
time 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 norm

train 2
norm

1 train
begin station end station

Figure 8.5: Time distance diagram

63

Chapter 8. Reduction of Timed Event Graphs

8.3

Elimination of Through Transitions

Often trains do not stop at a timetable point. The transitions representing the entrance and departure of a train on a timetable point where the train does not stop are called through transitions. In the current modelling situation there are constraints from through transitions to other transitions. When the constraints from the through transitions are transferred to transitions representing stations where the train does stop, those through transitions could be eliminated. The remaining transitions would only represent arrivals and departures of trains at stations. This would reduce the number of transitions. In the investigation of delays in a timetable one is interested in the delays of trains at their stops. Therefore eliminating the through transitions has no eect on further investigations. This section will investigate whether it is advantageous to eliminate all through transitions of a timed event graph. To show the eect of the elimination of through transitions some examples are given. Example 8.3. Figure 8.6 represents a timed event graph of two trains running between three stations. Both trains use the same inbound and outbound routes at all stations, so headway norms must hold between all entrances and exits. The entrance transitions are already eliminated in the same way as described in Example 8.2. The holding times at the loops on transitions x2 , x3 , x5 and x6 follow from this elimination and are now indicated by hii where i is the number of the transition. The number of transitions n in the graph is 6, the number of places m in the graph is 16. Suppose that train 1 stops at every station but train 2 only stops at the left and right station and not at the middle station. Then transition x5 is a through transition.

h22 21 x1 51 h25 x4 42 54 h55 x5 x2 h52 35 65 32 62 h36

h33

x3 h63 x6

h66

Figure 8.6: Timed event graph containing through transition

When all constraints originating from transition x5 are transferred to other transitions, the through transition no longer has eect on the rest of the timed event graph, so it can be eliminated. The result of this elimination can be found in Figure 8.7. The proof of this reduction is stated in Appendix B.2. The number of transitions after the elimination n has decreased by 1: n = 5. The number of places after elimination of one through transition is m = 15. 64

8.3. Elimination of Through Transitions

35 51

21 x1 h25 51

h22 h25 h52 32 x2 35 h52 62 h52 65 24 h25 54 h36

h33 h55 x3

h63

51 65 x4

35 54

54 65

x6 h55 h66

Figure 8.7: Timed event graph after elimination of through transition

Appendix B.2 shows that the elimination of through transitions can be quite complicated. When more trains or more stations are involved, the level of complexity increases as can be seen in the following example. Example 8.4. Figure 8.8 shows almost the same situation as Figure 8.6, but now with three trains running from station 1 to station 3 via station 2. Again they all use the same inbound routes and the same outbound routes at all stations. The entrance transitions have already been eliminated by Algorithm 8.1. The places in the timed event graph include the headway norms for the entrance conicts, all constraints on entrance transitions have been transferred to exit transitions. The number of transitions n = 9, the number of places m = 30. Trains 1 and 3 stop at all stations, but train 2 does not stop at station 2, so transition x5 which represents the exit of train 2 from station 2 is a through transition. In this example the eect of eliminating x5 will be examined. Eliminating transition x5 results in the timed event graph in Figure 8.9, see for a more detailed explanation of this transformation Appendix B.2. The holding times have been omitted, they can be found in the description of the timed event graph in the appendix. In this gure parallel places containing the same amount of tokens are represented separately, the number of places after the elimination of one through transition is m = 37. Figure 8.10 shows the nal timed event graph with parallel places containing the same amount of tokens represented by one place. The number of places in this graph equals 33.

65

Chapter 8. Reduction of Timed Event Graphs

h22 21 x1 51 81 x4 54 h28 84 87 x8 h88

Figure 8.8: Timed event graph of three trains

h33 32

24

x2 h52 x5 h55 h85

62 92 65

35

x3 h63 x6 h66

27 57 x7

38 68 98 95

h36

h96

x9 h99

Example 8.4 shows that the number of places increases by the elimination of only one transition. In the Netherlands there are dierent types of trains: regional trains stop at every station, interregional trains stop at larger stations and intercity trains stop only at main stations. Especially for the interregional and intercity trains holds that between two stops there are multiple timetable points where the trains do not stop. When there are multiple successive through transitions between two departure transitions, the number of places increases very fast. This will be explained next. Dene: n = # transitions in original graph, m = # places in original graph, s= 1 0 if the through transition to be eliminated has a loop, otherwise,

i = # upstream places of the transition to be eliminated s, u = # downstream places of the transition to be eliminated s, n = #transitions in the reduced graph, m = #places in the reduced graph. As a rule of thumb an upper bound of the number of places after the reduction of one transition can be calculated in the following way: m = m i u + i u s + s u (8.1)

This calculation gives the number of places without modelling parallel places containing equal amount of tokens in one place. The number of places in the nal reduced graph may be smaller than m , depending on the number of parallel places with equal amount of tokens. The amount of tokens in the places depends on the distribution of 66

8.3. Elimination of Through Transitions

x1

x2

x3

x6 x4

x7

x8

x9

Figure 8.9: Reduced timed event graph without through transition

tokens in the original graph, so the nal number of places is hard to calculate, therefore m will be considered here. Suppose Figure 8.10 represents a part of a larger railway network. Suppose train 2 is an intercity train that only stops at main stations, and that transition x6 represents another timetable point where the train does not stop. For transition x6 holds i = 6. The number of downstream places u will be at least 2: one place that represents the running time to the next timetable point and the dwell time at that timetable point, and one place that represents the headway norm to the next event at this timetable point. By looking at Equation (8.1) it can be seen that the number of places increases again by eliminating transition x6 . When there are many successive timetable points where a train does not stop and when one would want to eliminate all the transitions representing the passages of those timetable points, the number of places increases rapidly whereas the number of transitions decreases much slower. When all through transitions in a timed event graph would be eliminated, this would result in an explosive increase of the number of places in the graph. To judge whether the elimination of all through transitions in a timed event graph should be executed, the eect of this increase on the further investigation of the timetable captured in the model should be considered. In modelling railway systems with max-plus algebra algorithms are used to calculate 67

Chapter 8. Reduction of Timed Event Graphs

x1

x2

x3

x6 x4

x7

x8

x9

Figure 8.10: Final timed event graph without through transition

performance indicators of the max-plus model. Because the results of this thesis will be applied in PETER some algorithms that are used in that program will be considered here. The policy algorithm is used to calculate the cycle time, critical circuit and the stability margin. The running time of this algorithm is O(Im) where m is the number of places and I is the number of iterations in the main loop, see [2] for more information. Another algorithm used by PETER is Johnsons algorithm, which calculates the recovery matrix. Its running time path is O(nm + n2 logn) where m is the number of places again and m is the number of transitions. More information on Johnsons algorithm can be found in [2]. Considering the running times of these algorithms it can be concluded that whilst eliminating all through transitions gives a reduction in the size of the state matrix A, it is very well possible that the calculations to nd performance indicators take more time because of the explosive growth of the number of places in the graph. PETER uses more algorithms then the ones mentioned here, unfortunately these algorithms and their running times are not known exactly. Therefore the eect of eliminating through transitions on the calculations done by PETER is hard to investigate. In conclusion it can be stated that eliminating through transitions from a timed event 68

8.4. Conclusions graph is not necessarily advantageous. Eliminating all through transitions does not accelerate the process of investigating the system under consideration for certain; depending on the number of transitions and places in the original timed event graph the running time might even increase. Therefore through transitions will not be eliminated in the timed event graphs. The dierence with the elimination of entrance transitions is the following: in the sub circuits representing the train lines of the railway system, each entrance transition is followed by an exit transition. This means that constraints on entrance transitions can easily be transformed into constraints on the next exit transitions. Therefore the number of places does not increase very fast due to these eliminations. In the elimination of through transitions the next transition the constraints can be transferred to is the next transition representing a departure. When a train has many successive through transitions, this next departure transition can be quit far in the timed event graph, and eliminating all intermediate through transitions results in an explosive growth of the number of places in the graph.

8.4

Conclusions

In modelling railway systems using max-plus algebra, it is customary that transitions only represent exits of trains. The elimination of entrance transitions has been investigated in Section 8.2. Some examples have been given to show how entrance transitions can be eliminated by rewriting the expressions of the exit transitions so that they do not contain entrance transitions any more. A general algorithm has been presented to eliminate all entrance transitions from a timed event graph. When the entrance transitions have been eliminated from a timed event graph, the graph still may contain through transitions. These are transitions that represent passages of a timetable point where the concerned train does not stop. The elimination of these through transitions has been considered in Section 8.3. Eliminating all through transitions from a timed event graph may result in an explosive increase of the number of places in the graph. Because of this increase eliminating the through transitions does not accelerate the process of investigation for certain. Therefore through transitions will not be eliminated from timed event graphs. The previous chapter has described how the infraconstraints of a railway system can be derived and incorporated in the timed event graph of the network. The entrance transitions in this timed event graph can be eliminated using Algorithm 8.1. The resulting reduced timed event graph can then be used to calculate the performance indicators of the railway system. In the next chapter the results of case studies on two small parts of the Dutch railway network will be presented.

69

Chapter 9

Case Studies
9.1 Introduction

In this chapter the results of this thesis are applied to two small parts of the railway network in the Netherlands. To perform these case studies a program has been implemented in MATLAB. This program reads the input data that has been described in Section 7.3.1 and deduces the required infraconstraints to meet the headway norms. It gives a timed event graph of the network as output, which includes the subgraphs representing the train lines and all required infraconstraints. The pseudo-code of the program can be found in Appendix C. The networks considered in this section operate according to the Dutch railway timetable of 2005 of the morning peak. All information used in these case studies originates from the data on this timetable. The abbreviations used in the line data les are explained in Appendix A.1. The rst line under consideration is the double-track line between s Hertogenbosch and Rosmalen. The results of this case study will be presented in Section 9.2. The second case study is of the line between Gorinchem and Geldermalsen, this is a singletrack part of the Dutch railway network. In Section 9.3 the results of this case study will be described.

9.2

Railway Line s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen

The railway line between s Hertogenbosch and Rosmalen is a double-track line. Figure 9.1 shows the line. Three train lines run on the line. They operate according to the Dutch railway timetable of 2005 of the morning peak. The information on the railway timetable is imported in PETER from DONS input les and then saved in generic format. The line data shown in Table 9.1 comes from this generic le. In the line data le it can be seen that three train lines run on the line from s Hertogenbosch to Rosmalen and back again. Train lines 036 and 037 with a frequency of once an hour, train line 044 with a frequency of twice an hour. When the infraconstraints are deduced as described in this thesis, and the entrance transitions are eliminated, 106 infraconstraints are necessary to ensure the headway norms in all situations. The eigenvalue of the resulting timed event graph can be calculated. For this line the 71

Chapter 9. Case Studies

Table 9.1: Line data of line s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen line 036 036 036 036 036 036 037 037 037 037 037 037 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 044 segm s 0141 0142 0143 1114 1115 1116 0141 0142 0143 1114 1115 1116 0101 0102 0103 1210 1211 1212 0201 0202 0203 1110 1111 1112 orig T or Rs Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Ht Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda dest T dest Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Rs Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda Ht Htda Hto Rs Hto Htda Ht exit time d 32:00 34:00 35:00 55:00 57:00 58:00 2:00 4:00 5:00 25:00 27:00 28:00 7:00 8:00 11:00 48:00 51:00 53:00 37:00 38:00 41:00 18:00 21:00 23:00 run time r 2:00 1:00 2:00 2:00 1:00 2:00 2:00 1:00 2:00 2:00 1:00 2:00 1:00 3:00 4:00 3:00 2:00 2:00 1:00 3:00 4:00 3:00 2:00 2:00 dwell time t 0:00 0:00 2:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 10:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 10:00 dwell type A R R T R R T R R T R R T R S T S R T R S T S R T

72

9.2. Railway Line s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen

Rosmalen

s Hertogenbosch Oost

s Hertogenbosch Diezebrug Aansluiting

s Hertogenbosch

Figure 9.1: Line s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen

eigenvalue is 50:00 minutes. This eigenvalue equals the average inter-departure time of a train on a critical circuit. Therefore the critical circuit can be seen as the slowest circuit in the network. In the current situation in PETER the infraconstraints imported from DONS are used to ensure the headway norms. The DONS constraints le contains 212 necessary constraints to ensure headway norms. The infraconstraints in this DONS constraints le are formulated in exit and entrance transitions, when the entrance transitions would be eliminated the number of necessary constraints would even be much larger. The eigenvalue of the network with the DONS constraints is 50:00 minutes too. This means that with the way of modelling headway norms as described in this thesis, the maximum cycle mean is equal to the maximum cycle mean with the infraconstraints imported from DONS. Therefore the deduced infraconstraints do not make the network slower. Furthermore the critical circuit of the network is equivalent for both types of infraconstraints. This meets the expectation: in both cases the infraconstraints are constructed to ensure the same headway norms in the network. The number of required infraconstraints, when deduced as described in this thesis, is smaller than the number of imported infraconstraints from DONS, because in the rst case redundant constraints are avoided. However, the deduced infraconstraints ensure the same headway norms as the imported infraconstraints from DONS, and therefore it is expected that the critical circuit and the eigenvalue of the network are the same in both cases. In Table 9.2 the comparison values for the deduced infraconstraints and the infraconstraints imported from DONS are summarized. The recovery matrices can also be calculated with both versions of the infraconstraints. In PETER all through transitions are removed so only information on the departures from stations where a train does stop is available. To compare the recovery matrices of both situations, all through transitions are also removed from the recovery matrix 73

Chapter 9. Case Studies

Table 9.2: Comparison values s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen # required infraconstraints deduced infraconstraints infraconstraints DONS 106 212 eigenvalue 50:00 50:00

Table 9.3: Recovery matrix s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen, deduced infraconstraints

x036 0141 x036 0141 x036 1114 037 x0141 x037 1114 x044 0101 x044 0103 x044 0201 044 x0203 x044 1110 x044 1111 044 x1210 x044 1211 23 16 24 30 15 15 20 20 18 18 13 13 x036 1114 10 22 15 17 2 2 7 7 5 5 10 10 x037 0141 24 30 23 17 20 20 15 15 13 13 18 18 x037 1114 15 17 10 22 7 7 2 2 10 10 5 5 x044 0101 8 20 13 15 10 0 5 5 3 3 8 8 x044 0103 8 20 13 25 10 10 5 5 3 3 8 8 x044 0201 13 15 8 20 5 5 10 0 8 8 3 3 x044 0203 13 25 8 20 5 5 10 10 8 8 3 3 x044 1110 11 17 10 22 7 7 2 2 10 0 5 5 x044 1111 15 17 10 22 7 7 2 2 10 10 5 5 x044 1210 10 22 11 17 2 2 7 7 5 5 10 0 x044 1211 10 22 15 17 2 2 7 7 5 5 10 10

calculated with the deduced infraconstraints. This matrix is shown in Table 9.3. The recovery matrix calculated with the DONS constraints can be found in Table 9.4. The transitions in these matrices are denoted as x , transition x represents the departure s s of line segment (, s) in the network. In modelling the headway norms with the deduced infraconstraints the number of necessary constraints is much smaller than with the DONS constraints. One would expect that the values in the recovery matrix of the rst situation would be equal to the one of the second situation, because both types of infraconstraints ensure the headway norms in a network. Comparing the recovery matrices in Tables 9.3 and 9.4 it can be concluded that this is not true. To nd an explanation for this, the way of modelling the infraconstraints in PETER should be considered. The infraconstraints in a network are imported by PETER from the DONS constraints le. To include these constraints in the model, they are incorporated in the timed event graph of the network. The way PETER includes the imported infraconstraints in a timed event graph is not theoretically correct. The entrance and through transitions are removed from the timed event graph, but the constraints on these transitions are not transformed to other transitions properly. Therefore connections between transitions that arise from infraconstraints are disregarded. When these transitions would be eliminated from the timed event graph in a theoretical correct way, the values in the recovery matrices of both cases are expected to be equal. 74

9.3. Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Table 9.4: Recovery matrix s Hertogenbosch-Rosmalen, infraconstraints from DONS

x036 0141 x036 0141 x036 1114 037 x0141 x037 1114 x044 0101 044 x0103 x044 0201 x044 0203 x044 1110 x044 1111 044 x1210 x044 1211 27 13 22 18 15 15 20 20 18 18 13 13 x036 1114 20 16 25 11 8 8 13 13 11 11 16 16 x037 0141 22 18 27 13 20 20 15 15 13 13 18 18 x037 1114 25 11 20 16 13 13 8 8 16 16 11 11 x044 0101 12 8 17 3 10 0 5 5 3 3 8 8 x044 0103 12 8 17 3 10 10 5 5 3 3 8 8 x044 0201 17 3 12 8 5 5 10 0 8 8 3 3 x044 0203 17 3 12 8 5 5 10 10 8 8 3 3 x044 1110 9 5 14 0 7 7 2 2 10 0 5 5 x044 1111 9 5 14 0 7 7 2 2 10 10 5 5 x044 1210 14 0 9 5 2 2 7 7 5 5 10 0 x044 1211 14 0 9 5 2 2 7 7 5 5 10 10

9.3

Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Gorinchem and Geldermalsen are connected by a single-track route. Figure 9.2 shows the line under consideration. Again the data on the Dutch railway timetable of 2005 for the morning peak is used. The line data le of the line is given in Table 9.5. One train line is operated on the line: train line 071. It runs from Gorinchem to Geldermalsen and back again with a frequency of twice an hour.
Geldermalsen Aansluiting Beesd Leerdam

Zemer1

Geldermalsen

Zemer

Arkel

Gorinchem

Figure 9.2: Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Three dierent kinds of infraconstraints will be considered here. In the rst case the fact that the line is single-track is left out of consideration: all regular entrance and exit infraconstraints are deduced. In Section 7.3.2 it was shown that these infraconstraints prevent trains from running on the track in opposite direction at the same time. In the second case the single-track property is considered, in Section 7.3.2 it was explained 75

Chapter 9. Case Studies

Table 9.5: Line data of line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen line 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 071 segm s 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 0208 0209 0210 0211 0212 0213 0214 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 orig T or Gr Akl Zemer1 Zemer Ldm Bsd Gdma Gdm Gdma Bsd Ldm Zemer Zemer1 Akl Gr Akl Zemer1 Zemer Ldm Bsd Gdma Gdm Gdma Bsd Ldm Zemer Zemer1 Akl dest T dest Akl Zemer1 Zemer Ldm Bsd Gdma Gdm Gdma Bsd Ldm Zemer Zemer1 Akl Gr Akl Zemer1 Zemer Ldm Bsd Gdma Gdm Gdma Bsd Ldm Zemer Zemer1 Akl Gr exit time d 48:00 53:00 54:00 54:00 1:00 7:00 11:00 19:00 20:00 25:00 33:00 38:00 38:00 39:00 18:00 23:00 24:00 24:00 31:00 37:00 41:00 49:00 50:00 55:00 3:00 8:00 8:00 9:00 run time r 5:00 1:00 0:00 6:00 6:00 4:00 2:00 1:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 0:00 1:00 6:00 5:00 1:00 0:00 6:00 6:00 4:00 2:00 1:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 0:00 1:00 6:00 dwell time t 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 5:00 0:00 0:00 2:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 3:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 5:00 0:00 0:00 2:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 3:00 dwell type A S R R S S R T R S S R R S T S R R S S R T R S S R R S T

76

9.3. Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Table 9.6: Comparison values Gorinchem-Geldermalsen # required infraconstraints deduced infraconstraints deduced infraconstraints, considering single-track structure infraconstraints DONS 60 8 172 eigenvalue 59:00 59:00 59:00

how this leads to a reduction in the number of necessary infraconstraints. The third kind of infraconstraints are the ones that can be imported from DONS. In the rst case the number of infraconstraints needed to ensure the required headway norms is 60. The eigenvalue of the resulting timed event graph is 59:00 minutes. The recovery matrix of this model is shown in Table 9.7, in this matrix all through transitions are omitted again. This is done to enable a comparison with the third case, where the infraconstraints are imported from DONS in PETER. The timed event graph that PETER constructs does not contain through transitions so the resulting recovery matrix of the third case only contains information on the departure transitions. In Section 7.3.2 it is explained how the number of necessary infraconstraints to model the headway norms on a single-track part can be reduced. When the fact that the line between Gorinchem and Geldermalsen is single-track is taken into account, there is a large decrease in the necessary infraconstraints for this line. With this way of deducing the infraconstraints for the single-track line under consideration the number of infraconstraints needed is only 8. The eigenvalue of the resulting timed event graph is again 59:00 minutes and the corresponding recovery matrix can be found in Table 9.8. In the third case the infraconstraints that can be imported from DONS are considered. PETER currently uses these constraints to incorporate the headway norms in the model. The number of infraconstraints needed to ensure the headway norms is 172, this is almost three times as high as in the rst case. The infraconstraints originating from DONS are formulated in terms of exit and entrance transitions. When the entrance transitions would be eliminated correctly, the number of infraconstraints would increase even more. The infraconstraints are included in the timed even graph of the model. The eigenvalue of the resulting timed event graph equals 59:00, the recovery matrix is shown in Table 9.9. In all three cases the eigenvalue of the system equals the same value. Furthermore the critical circuits in the network are equivalent for all cases. This means that the type of infraconstraints, used to incorporate the headway norms in the model, does not aect the maximum cycle mean of the system nor the critical circuits in the network. Again, this meets the expectation, because all types of infraconstraints model the same headway norms. The dierences between the three cases lie in the number of redundant infraconstraints. In Table 9.6 the comparison values for all three types of infraconstraints are summarized. 77

Chapter 9. Case Studies In the second case the headway norms in the network are ensured by only 8 infraconstraints. Comparing the recovery matrices of the rst and second case, it can be seen that the values in the second case are higher than in the rst case. Note that the infraconstraints constructed in the second case also have been constructed in the rst case, in the rst case however additional infraconstraints have been constructed. Therefore the interconnectivity between the transitions is higher in the rst case than in the second case. The recovery matrix can be seen as an indication for this interconnectivity of transitions. This explains the lower values in the recovery matrix of case one. It can be concluded that when infraconstraints on single-track lines are modelled without considering the single-track property explicitly, this leads to conservative results with respect to the available slack time between certain event pairs. Algorithm 7.2 should therefore be used in stead of Algorithm 7.1 to correctly model single-track infraconstraints. Comparing the recovery matrix of the rst case to the recovery matrix resulting from the third case, it can be seen that the values in the rst case are lower than in the third case. Because the number of infraconstraints in the rst case is lower than the number of infraconstraints in the third case, one would expect the opposite to be true. An explanation for this can again be found in the fact that the way the infraconstraints are included in the timed event graph by PETER is not theoretically correct. In eliminating the entrance and through transitions, connections between transitions arising from infraconstraints are neglected. This results in less interconnectivity between the transitions which explains the lower values in the recovery matrix. In the recovery matrix corresponding to the second case the values are even higher than in the recovery matrix resulting from case three. This meets the expectations that come from comparing the numbers of infraconstraints: in the second case this number is much smaller than in the third case. Therefore the values of the corresponding recovery matrix are expected to be lower, due to the higher interconnectivity of transitions in the third case.

78

Table 9.7: Recovery matrix Gorinchem-Geldermalsen, rst case

transition x071 0108 x071 0109 071 x0112 x071 0113 x071 0208 071 x0209 x071 0212 x071 0213 071 x1101 x071 1103 x071 1104 x071 1107 x071 1201 071 x1203 x071 1204 x071 1207 x071 0108 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x071 0109 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x071 0112 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x071 0113 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x071 0208 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 x071 0209 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 x071 0212 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 x071 0213 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 x071 1101 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 x071 1103 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 x071 1104 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 x071 1107 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x071 1201 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 x071 1203 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 x071 1204 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 x071 1207 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

79

9.3. Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Table 9.8: Recovery matrix Gorinchem-Geldermalsen, second case

transition x071 0108 x071 0109 x071 0112 x071 0113 x071 0208 x071 0209 x071 0212 x071 0213 x071 1101 071 x1103 x071 1104 x071 1107 x071 1201 x071 1203 x071 1204 x071 1207 x071 0108 1 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1 1 1 1 17 17 17 16 x071 0109 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 17 x071 0112 1 1 1 0 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 17 x071 0113 1 1 1 1 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 17 x071 0208 16 16 16 16 1 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 1 1 1 1 x071 0209 17 17 17 17 1 1 0 0 18 18 18 17 1 1 1 1 x071 0212 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 0 18 18 18 17 1 1 1 1 x071 0213 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 17 1 1 1 1 x071 1101 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 x071 1103 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 16 x071 1104 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1 1 1 0 17 17 17 16 x071 1107 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1 1 1 1 17 17 17 16 x071 1201 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 1 0 0 0 x071 1203 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 1 1 0 0 x071 1204 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 1 1 1 0 x071 1207 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 16 1 1 1 1

Chapter 9. Case Studies

80

Table 9.9: Recovery matrix Gorinchem-Geldermalsen, third case

transition x071 0108 x071 0109 071 x0112 x071 0113 x071 0208 071 x0209 x071 0212 x071 0213 071 x1101 x071 1103 x071 1104 x071 1107 x071 1201 071 x1203 x071 1204 x071 1207 x071 0108 1 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 x071 0109 1 1 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 x071 0112 1 1 1 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 x071 0113 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 x071 0208 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 x071 0209 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 x071 0212 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 0 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 x071 0213 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 x071 1101 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 x071 1103 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 x071 1104 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 0 4 4 4 4 x071 1107 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 x071 1201 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 x071 1203 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 x071 1204 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 0 x071 1207 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

81

9.3. Line Gorinchem-Geldermalsen

Chapter 9. Case Studies

9.4

Conclusions

In this chapter two case studies have been done on small parts of the Dutch railway network. A comparison has been made between (i) the timed event graph that incorporates the infraconstraints that are deduced from a given timetable and infrastructure, as described in this thesis, and (ii) the timed event graph that incorporates the infraconstraints that are imported from DONS. In the infraconstraints generated by DONS much redundancy occurs. When the infraconstraints are deduced as described in this thesis, considerable less constraints are needed to ensure the required headway norms in the network. In both case studies the eigenvalue of the system is equal for the timed event graph incorporating the deduced infraconstraints and the timed event graph including the infraconstraints imported from DONS. Furthermore the critical circuits in the network are equivalent for all types of infraconstraints in both case studies. The type of infraconstraints, used to incorporate the headway norms in the model, does not aect the maximum cycle mean of the system nor the critical circuits in the network. One would expect that the values of the recovery matrices in (i) are equal to the values of the recovery matrices in (ii). The reason for this is that, even though in the set of infraconstraints imported from DONS redundant constraints appear, whereas in the deduction of the infraconstraints as described in this thesis redundant constraints are omitted, both types of infraconstraints are constructed to ensure the headway norms in the network. In both case studies the recovery matrices do not reect this expectation. This can be explained by the way PETER incorporates the infraconstraints in the model. When the entrance and through transitions would be eliminated correctly as described in Algorithm 8.1, this would result in a higher interconnectivity than what is the case now. The expectation is then that the properties of the timed event graph that includes the deduced infraconstraints will be equal to the timed even graph including the infraconstraints imported from DONS. In the modelling of infraconstraints on single-track parts of a network, the singletrack property should be considered explicitly. When this property is left out of consideration, the results with respect to the available slack time between certain event pairs are conservative. Therefore Algorithm 7.2 should be used to correctly model single-track infraconstraints.

82

Chapter 10

Conclusions
This nal chapter will present the conclusions on the research subject of this thesis. The goal of this thesis was to investigate the deduction of infraconstraints in a periodic railway network. In the next section general conclusions will be presented. Section 10.2 will describe some proposed adjustments for PETER. In the last section recommendations will be done.

10.1

General Conclusions

Infraconstraints are the minimum time separations between trains that have a mutual conicting route. A distinction is made between successor conicts between trains using the same track, and hindrance conicts between trains that do not use the same track but still have a (mutual) hindrance at a timetable point. In this thesis has been shown that the deduction of infraconstraints to ensure headway norms in successor conicts is possible. Successor conicts include entrance and exit conicts, overtaking conicts, single tracks conicts and merging and splitting conicts at a crossing. From the timetable according to which the railway network operates can be derived where successor conicts occur. When infraconstraints are constructed to only model the headway norms in these conicts, redundancy is avoided in the constraints. On single-track parts of the network the headway norms in successor conicts can even be ensured by a reduced number of infraconstraints. In the modelling of infraconstraints on single-track parts of the network, this single-track property should be considered explicitly to avoid conservative results with respect to the available slack in the network. To construct a max-plus model for a railway system, a timed event graph can be created. An algorithm has been presented to construct a timed event graph that incorporates the infraconstraints for successor conicts on a railway trac network. The infraconstraints to model the headway norms in hindrance conicts can not be deduced. Hindrance conicts include the conicts on a crossing that are not merging or splitting conicts, and all conicts arising due to crossing paths of trains in the interior of timetable points. At this moment there is not enough information available on station and crossing layouts to derive the exact location of the hindrance conicts. 83

Chapter 10. Conclusions Therefore the headway norms that have to hold in those conicts can not be determined from the timetable alone. To incorporate the headway norms in hindrance conicts in the model, infraconstraints are constructed using an existing list of all hindrance conicts in the network. In the current situation PETER uses infraconstraints imported from DONS to incorporate them in the model of a railway network. When the infraconstraints are deduced as described in this thesis, this gives a large reduction in the number of infraconstraints, necessary to ensure all headway norms in the network. Eliminating the transitions that represent entrances of trains gives a large reduction on the size of the state matrix of the max-plus model. This can be done using the algorithm stated in Chapter 8. The disadvantage of eliminating the entrance transitions is that all information on the source of delays and on the entrance times is lost. The elimination of all through transitions from the model results in an explosive increase of the number of places in the model. There is some indistinctness on the algorithms that will be applied to the model in PETER. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn on whether the reduction in the number of transitions that results from the elimination of through transitions, counterbalances the increase in the number of places in the model. For this reason through transitions are not eliminated from the model.

10.2

Adjustments on PETER

The deduction of infraconstraints for a railway network as described in this thesis can be implemented in PETER. For a correct inclusion of the deduced infraconstraints in the max-plus model some adjustments should be made to this program. Currently, PETER requires a list of infraconstraints to include the headway norms in the max-plus model. The present format of this list of infraconstraints implies that those constraints are always bidirectional: one line gives information on two events; it prescribes a headway norm from event 1 to event 2 and a headway norm from event 2 to event 1. The infraconstraints resulting from the deduction described in this thesis are formulated so that they only prescribe a headway norm in one direction. In most cases there is only a one-directional constraint between two events, the constraint in return direction is redundant. Therefore, the formulation of infraconstraints in PETER should be adjusted. PETER should be able to handle infraconstraints formulated in the format described in Section 5.2. The method of constructing a timed event graph in PETER should be modied. First the subgraphs representing the dierent train lines, the synchronization constraints and the infraconstraints should be expressed in exit and entrance transitions. Then the synchronization and infraconstraints should be included in the timed event graph. Only when all constraints are included in the timed event graph, the entrance transitions can be eliminated using Algorithm 8.1. PETER can import a network from data les in DONS-format. The le with information on the train schedule also contains information on train types. At this moment PETER does not use this information on train types and therefore does not store the 84

10.3. Recommendations train types in the data le in generic format. To nd the correct headway norms in conict situations, information on the train types is crucial, so this information should be saved by PETER. When the deduction of infraconstraints for a railway network would be implemented in PETER, in all situations the standard headway norms are ensured as prescribed by the headway norms le. However, in some conict situations or on certain timetable points one would like to adjust the headway norms that have to hold. An option in PETER should be designed that oers the possibility to easily cancel or adjust the headway norms that have to hold in certain situations.

10.3

Recommendations

During the writing process of this thesis some new ideas arose. Unfortunately they could not be developed yet, due to a lack of time. Therefore a number of recommendations is made for future research. In this thesis the deduction of the infraconstraints is mainly based on the line data le in generic format as described in Section 5.2. The Simulation Basic Hour Pattern of the network under consideration is also required, to indicate the in-out points of the train lines at all timetable points. However, all information contained in the line data le of a railway network is also given by the Simulation Basic Hour Pattern of that network. When it would be possible to import the Simulation Basic Hour Pattern of a network in PETER, the infraconstraints could directly be derived from this Simulation Basic Hour Pattern. In Section 7.3.2 it has been explained how the regular entrance and exit infraconstraints prevent trains from running in opposite directions at the same time on tracks in the network. For single-track parts a reduction in the number of infraconstraints has been found, as explained in Subsection 7.3.2. This way of reasoning for single-track parts of the network can probably be extended to the bidirectional operated multiple-track parts of the network too. This would give another reduction in the number of required infraconstraints on parts of the network where trains run in opposite direction at a track. At present there is a lack of knowledge on some of the algorithms PETER uses to construct a max-plus model. When more information on this would be available, the elimination of the entrance transitions could be reconsidered. Even though eliminating the entrance transitions from a network was considered customary in this thesis, one could question whether the maintenance of all information on entrance times and on source of delays might not be of greater importance than the prots in running times these eliminations yield. Experiments could be done to get an impression on the running times of the algorithms used, and to get more insight on the consequences of the elimination of entrance transitions. When entrance transitions would not be eliminated from a timed event graph, it would be wise to apply the modelling with through transitions in a dierent way. The entrance and exit of a train on timetable points where the train does not stop, could be modelled in one single through transition. The train is not suppose to stop at 85

Chapter 10. Conclusions the timetable point so the entrance and exit transitions of the train are due to re at the same time instant. Therefore they can be combined in one single transition. When entrance transitions would not be eliminated from the model, this way of modelling passages of trains at timetable points where they do not stop results in a reduction of the number of transitions in the model, compared to the way of modelling described in this thesis. The deduction of hindrance conicts might be further investigated. A dierence can be made between hindrance conicts at stations, and at other timetable points where trains do not stop. A Basic Track Allocation le (BTA), or in Dutch Basis Spoor Opstelling (BSO), gives information on the platform track usage of trains inside a station. When information would be available on the infrastructure of the interior of timetable points, it might be possible to combine this information with the Basic Track Allocation les of the timetable points, to nd the exact locations of the hindrance conicts at stations. In the second case there are no platforms at the timetable point, so the location of the conict is distinct. Therefore hindrance conicts at timetable points where trains do not stop, presumably can be derived from the data yet available. The headway norms described in this thesis are used by Prorail for the long term investigation of timetables. In Section 7.3 has been mentioned that there is a dierence between these headway norms and the test norms. Test norms are used in the design process of a timetable. In some conict situations the headway norms le prescribes a dierent headway norm then the norm that is dened by the test norms. This distinction between the headway norms in the investigation process and the design process of timetables is remarkable. It would be recommended to investigate the dierences between both types of headway norm denitions and to adjust the denitions so that distinctions are removed.

86

Appendix A

Input Data
This appendix will give additional information on the input data described in this thesis.

A.1

Abbreviations of Timetable Points

The line data les in this thesis use abbreviations for timetable points. Table A.1 explains the names of the timetable points.

Table A.1: Abbreviations of timetable points abbreviation Akl Bsd Dt Gd Gdma Gdm Gr Gvc Ht Htda Hto Ldm Rs Rtd Ut Zemer Zemer1 timetable point Arkel Beesd Delft Gouda Geldermalsen Aansluiting Geldermalsen Gorinchem the Hague s Hertogenbosch s Hertogenbosch Aansluiting s Hertogenbosch Oost Leerdam Rosendaal Rotterdam Utrecht Zemer Zemer1

87

Appendix A. Input Data

A.2

Translation of Input Files

Table A.2 gives the Dutch names of the input les that give the necessary information to construct a max-plus model of a railway system. It also indicates from which program the les origin. Table A.2: Translation and origin of input les input le Coordinates timetabling points Train schedule Constraints Simulation Basic Hour Pattern Tracks Successor headway norms Report hindrance conicts translation in Dutch martdb dienstregelpunten dienstregeling constraints martdb simulatie BUP martdb verbindingen martdb volgtijden report hindering origin Datamart DONS DONS Datamart Datamart Datamart DONS

A.3

Successor Headway Norms

The list of successor headway norms is given by Table A.3. These norms are used by Prorail in the investigation process of timetables. The list represented here contains the standard successor headway norms for the Dutch railway network in 2005.
Table A.3: Successor headway norms train 1 train type G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G in/out I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I stop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 train type G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G G G HS train 2 in/out I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I stop 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 headway 4 4 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 4 4 2 0 4 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

Continued on next page

88

A.3. Successor Headway Norms

Table A.3 Continued from previous page train 1 train type G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS in/out I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I stop 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 train type HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC train 2 in/out I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O stop 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 headway 2 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 0 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 4 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 4 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

Continued on next page

89

Appendix A. Input Data

Table A.3 Continued from previous page train 1 train type HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC in/out I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I stop 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 train type IR IR IR IR R R R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R train 2 in/out I I O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O stop 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 headway 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 0 2 4 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

Continued on next page

90

A.3. Successor Headway Norms

Table A.3 Continued from previous page train 1 train type IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR in/out I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O stop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 train type R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G HS HS IC IC train 2 in/out O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O O O O O O O stop 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 headway 4 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 0 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 4 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 4 0 4 4 2 2 0 4 4 2 0 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

Continued on next page

91

Appendix A. Input Data

Table A.3 Continued from previous page train 1 train type IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R in/out O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 train type IR IR R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G G G HS HS HS HS IC IC IC IC IR IR IR IR R R R R G G HS HS IC IC IR IR R R G G HS train 2 in/out O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O stop 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 headway 2 4 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 0 4 4 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 2 0 4 4 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 0 4 2 4 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

Continued on next page

92

A.3. Successor Headway Norms

Table A.3 Continued from previous page train 1 train type R R R R R R R in/out O O O O O O O stop 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 train type HS IC IC IR IR R R train 2 in/out O O O O O O O stop 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 headway 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00

93

Appendix B

Elimination of Transitions
In Chapter 8 the reduction of timed event graphs is investigated. Two ways of reducing timed event graphs are considered: by eliminating all entrance transitions and by eliminating all through transitions. In this appendix the transformations used for the reduction in the examples in Chapter 8 will be explained.

B.1

Elimination of Entrance Transitions

In Section 8.2 the elimination of entrance transitions in a timed event graph has been described. This section will explain the transformations done to eliminate the entrance transitions in the examples in Section 8.2.

B.1.1

Example 8.1

Consider the timed event graph in Figure B.1. In Example 8.1 transitions x2 and x5 represent entrance transitions that should be eliminated.
21 x1 28 54 x4 78 x7 x8 x5 85 89 x9 x2 52 65 x6 32 x3

Figure B.1: Original timed event graph Example 8.1

The max-plus formulation of the transitions with at least one upstream place shown 95

Appendix B. Elimination of Transitions in the graph is: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 28 x8 (k) x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) x5 (k + 1) =52 x2 (k + 1) 54 x4 (k + 1) x6 (k + 1) =65 x5 (k + 1) x7 (k + 1) =78 x8 (k + 1) x8 (k + 1) =85 x5 (k + 1) 89 x9 (k + 1) (B.1) (B.2) (B.3) (B.4) (B.5) (B.6)

For all downstream transitions of x2 and x5 an expression can be found that does not contain x2 and x5 using successive substitution: x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) =21 32 x1 (k + 1) 28 32 x8 (k) x6 (k + 1) =65 x5 (k + 1) =52 65 x2 (k + 1) 54 65 x4 (k + 1) =21 52 65 x1 (k + 1) 28 52 65 x8 (k) 54 65 x4 (k + 1) x8 (k + 1) =85 x5 (k + 1) 89 x9 (k + 1) =52 85 x2 (k + 1) 54 85 x4 (k + 1) 89 x9 (k + 1) =52 85 21 x1 (k + 1) 28 52 85 x8 (k) 54 85 x4 (k + 1) 89 x9 (k + 1) (B.8)

(B.7)

(B.9)

Because all transitions in the graph are expressed without x2 and x5 these transitions can be eliminated. The result of this elimination is shown in Figure B.2.
21 32 x1 21 52 85 54 65 x4 54 85 x7 78 x8 28 52 85 28 52 65 89 x6 x3 28 32

21 52 65

x9

Figure B.2: Reduced timed event graph Example 8.1

96

B.1. Elimination of Entrance Transitions

B.1.2

Example 8.2

Figure B.3 shows the timed event graph from Example 8.2, where x2 and x5 represent the entrance transitions that have to be eliminated.
21 x1 25 x4 54 x5 65 x2 52 x6 32 x3

Figure B.3: Original timed event graph Example 8.2

The max-plus formulation of the transitions with at least one upstream place shown in the graph is: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 25 x5 (k) x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) x5 (k + 1) =52 x2 (k + 1) 54 x4 (k + 1) x6 (k + 1) =65 x5 (k + 1) (B.10) (B.11) (B.12) (B.13)

If for transitions x3 and x6 expressions can be found that do not contain transitions x2 and x5 , transitions x2 and x5 can be eliminated. Transition x3 can be written as: x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) =21 32 x1 (k + 1) 25 32 x5 (k) =21 32 x1 (k + 1) 25 32 54 x4 (k) 25 32 52 x2 (k) It follows from (B.11) that: 25 52 x3 (k) = 25 32 52 x2 (k) So x3 can be written as: x3 (k + 1) =21 32 x1 (k + 1) 25 32 54 x4 (k) 25 52 x3 (k)

(B.14)

(B.15)

In the same way an expression that does not contain x2 and x5 can be found for transition x6 . Because none of the downstream transitions of the transitions to be eliminated depend on x2 and x5 , they can be removed. Figure B.4 represents the reduced timed event graph of Figure B.3.

97

Appendix B. Elimination of Transitions

25 52 21 32 x1 25 32 54 x4 54 65 25 52 21 52 65 x6 x3

Figure B.4: Reduced timed event graph Example 8.2

B.2

Elimination of Through Transitions

Section 8.3 has investigated the elimination of through transitions. This appendix will give a detailed description of the transformations used in the examples in this section.

B.2.1

Example 8.3

Consider the timed event graph represented in Figure B.5. Suppose transition x5 is a through transition which should be eliminated.
22 x1 51 25 24 x4 54 x5 55 52 35 65 x6 66 21 x2 32 62 36 63 33 x3

Figure B.5: Timed event graph containing a through transition

The max-plus formulation of the transitions with at least one upstream place shown in the graph is: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 22 x2 (k) 24 x4 (k) 25 x5 (k) x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 35 x5 (k) 36 x6 (k) x5 (k + 1) =51 x1 (k + 1) 52 x2 (k + 1) 54 x4 (k + 1) 55 x5 (k) x6 (k + 1) =62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 x5 (k + 1) 66 x6 (k) 98 (B.16) (B.17) (B.18) (B.19)

B.2. Elimination of Through Transitions Eliminating x5 can be done by rewriting the max-plus formulation so that x5 does not occur in the expressions of the other transitions. Transition x2 can be written as: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 22 x2 (k) 24 x4 (k) 25 x5 (k) =21 x1 (k + 1) 22 x2 (k) 24 x4 (k) 25 51 x1 (k) 25 52 x2 (k) 25 54 x4 (k) 25 55 x5 (k 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 25 51 x1 (k) (22 25 52 )x2 (k) (24 25 54 )x4 (k) 25 55 x5 (k 1) When the following inequality holds, x2 does not depend on x5 any more: (22 25 52 )x2 (k) 25 55 x5 (k 1) The loops on x2 and x5 origin from the elimination of arrival transitions, as described in Appendix B.1.2. In Figure B.4 it can be seen that the loops have the same holding time, so 22 = 55 . Then: (22 25 52 )x2 (k) 25 55 x5 (k 1) because from (B.16) it is known that x2 (k) 25 x5 (k 1) Now (B.20) can be written as: x2 (k + 1) =25 51 x1 (k) (22 25 52 )x2 (k) (14 21 24 25 54 )x4 (k) (B.21) Transition x3 can be written as: x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 35 x5 (k) 36 x6 (k) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 36 x6 (k) 35 51 x1 (k) 35 52 x2 (k) 35 54 x4 (k) 35 55 x5 (k 1) From (B.17): 55 x3 (k) = 32 55 x2 (k) 33 55 x3 (k 1) 35 55 x5 (k 1) 36 55 x6 (k 1) Because the (minimal) cycle time of each event i in a timed event graph equals the maximum cycle mean over all circuits that have access to i [6], the following inequalities hold: 32 x2 (k + 1) 32 55 x2 (k) 33 x3 (k) 33 55 x3 (k 1) 36 x6 (k) 36 55 x6 (k 1) So (B.22) can be written as: x3 (k + 1) =35 51 x1 (k) 32 x2 (k + 1) 35 52 x2 (k) (33 55 )x3 (k) 35 54 x4 (k) 36 x6 (k) 99 (B.22) (B.20)

Appendix B. Elimination of Transitions Transition x6 can be written as: x6 (k + 1) =62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 x5 (k + 1) 66 x6 (k) =65 51 x1 (k + 1) (62 65 52 )x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 54 x4 (k + 1) 65 55 x5 (k) 66 x6 (k) From (B.19): 55 x6 (k) = 55 62 x2 (k) 55 63 x3 (k) 55 65 x5 (k) 55 66 x6 (k 1) The following inequalities hold: 62 x2 (k + 1) 55 62 x2 (k) 63 x3 (k + 1) 55 63 x3 (k) 66 x6 (k) 55 66 x6 (k 1) (B.24) So (B.23) can be written as: x6 (k + 1) =65 51 x1 (k + 1) (62 65 52 )x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 54 x4 (k + 1) (55 66 )x6 (k) (B.23)

(B.25)

Now all dependencies on x5 are removed so this transition can be eliminated. The result of the elimination is shown in Figure B.6.
35 51

21 x1 25 51

22 25 52 32 x2 35 52 62 52 65 24 25 54 36

33 55 x3

63

51 65 x4

35 54

54 65

x6 55 66

Figure B.6: Transformed timed event graph without through transition

100

B.2. Elimination of Through Transitions

B.2.2

Example 8.4

Transition x5 in Figure B.7 is a through transition. This appendix will describe how all other transitions can be expressed without the use of transition x5 .
22 21 x1 51 81 x4 54 28 84 87 x8 88 24 x2 52 x5 55 85 38 68 98 95 x9 99 62 92 65 x6 66 36 96 32 35 x3 63 33

27 57 x7

Figure B.7: Original timed event graph Example 8.4

The max-plus formulation of the transitions with at least one upstream place shown in the graph is: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 22 x2 (k) 24 x4 (k) 27 x7 (k) 28 x8 (k) x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 35 x5 (k) 38 x8 (k) 39 x9 (k) x5 (k + 1) =51 x1 (k + 1) 52 x2 (k + 1) 54 x4 (k + 1) 55 x5 (k) 57 x7 (k) x6 (k + 1) =62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 x5 (k + 1) 66 x6 (k) 68 x8 (k) x8 (k + 1) =81 x1 (k + 1) 85 x5 (k + 1) 84 x4 (k + 1) 87 x7 (k + 1) 88 x8 (k) x9 (k + 1) =92 x2 (k + 1) 95 x5 (k + 1) 96 x6 (k + 1) 98 x8 (k + 1)99 x9 (k)

(B.26) (B.27) (B.28) (B.29) (B.30) (B.31)

To eliminate transition x5 all other transitions should be expressed without x5 . Transitions x2 and x7 do not include x5 in their max-plus formulations so only the formulations of transitions x3 , x6 , x8 and x9 have to be rewritten. 101

Appendix B. Elimination of Transitions Consider the formulation of transition x3 : x3 (k + 1) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 35 x5 (k) 38 x8 (k) 39 x9 (k) =32 x2 (k + 1) 33 x3 (k) 35 51 x1 (k) 35 52 x2 (k) 35 54 x4 (k) 35 55 x5 (k 1) 35 57 x7 (k 1) 38 x8 (k) 39 x9 (k) It follows from (B.27) that 55 x3 (k) =32 55 x2 (k) 33 55 x3 (k 1) 35 55 x5 (k 1) 38 55 x8 (k 1) 39 55 x9 (k 1) (B.33) (B.32)

Because the (minimal) cycle time of each event i in a timed event graph equals the maximum cycle mean over all circuits that have access to i [6], the following inequalities hold: 32 x2 (k + 1) 32 55 x2 (k), 33 x3 (k) 33 55 x3 (k 1), 38 x8 (k) 38 55 x8 (k 1), 39 x9 (k) 39 55 x9 (k 1). Then transition x3 can be formulated as: x3 (k + 1) =35 51 x1 (k) 35 52 x2 (k) 32 x2 (k + 1) (33 55 )x3 (k) 35 54 x4 (k) 35 57 x7 (k 1) 38 x8 (k) 39 x9 (k) The max-plus formulation of transition x6 is: x6 (k + 1) =62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 65 x5 (k + 1) 66 x6 (k) 68 x8 (k) =62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 66 x6 (k) 68 x8 (k) 51 65 x1 (k + 1) 52 65 x2 (k + 1) 54 65 x4 (k + 1) 55 65 x5 (k) 57 65 x7 (k) From (B.29) it follows that: 55 x6 (k) =55 62 x2 (k) 55 63 x3 (k) 55 65 x5 (k) 55 66 x6 (k 1) 55 68 x8 (k 1) (B.36) (B.35) (B.34)

Transitions x2 , x3 , x6 and x8 are downstream places from transition x5 so the loop on x5 with holding time 55 has access to these places. Therefore the following inequalities hold: 62 x2 (k + 1) 55 62 x2 (k), 63 x3 (k + 1) 55 65 x3 (k1), 66 x6 (k) 55 66 x6 (k 1), 68 x8 (k) 55 68 x8 (k 1). 102

B.2. Elimination of Through Transitions Now transition x6 can be formulated as:

x6 (k + 1) =51 65 x1 (k + 1) 52 65 x2 (k + 1) 62 x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 54 65 x4 (k + 1) (55 66 )x6 (k) 57 65 x7 (k) 68 x8 (k) (B.37)

The rewriting of transition x8 goes as follows:

x8 (k + 1) =81 x1 (k + 1) 85 x5 (k + 1) 84 x4 (k + 1) 87 x7 (k + 1) 88 x8 (k) =81 x1 (k + 1) 84 x4 (k + 1) 87 x7 (k + 1) 88 x8 (k) 51 85 x1 (k + 1) 52 85 x2 (k + 1) 54 85 x4 (k + 1) 55 85 x5 (k) 57 85 x7 (k) (B.38)

Following the same argumentation as above transition x8 can be formulated as:

x8 (k + 1) =51 85 x1 (k + 1) 81 x1 (k + 1) 52 85 x2 (k + 1) 84 x4 (k + 1) 54 85 x4 (k + 1) 57 85 x7 (k) 87 x7 (k + 1) (55 88 )x8 (k) (B.39)

The last transition that need to be rewritten is x9 . In the same way the transitions above have been rewritten the formulation of x9 becomes:

x9 (k + 1) =92 x2 (k + 1) 95 x5 (k + 1) 96 x6 (k + 1) 98 x8 (k + 1) 99 x9 (k) =92 x2 (k + 1) 96 x6 (k + 1) 98 x8 (k + 1) 99 x9 (k) 51 95 x1 (k + 1) 52 95 x2 (k + 1) 54 95 x4 (k + 1) 55 95 x5 (k) 57 95 x7 (k) =51 95 x1 (k + 1) 52 95 x2 (k + 1) 92 x2 (k + 1) 54 95 x4 (k + 1) 96 x6 (k + 1) 57 95 x7 (k) 98 x8 (k + 1) (55 99 )x9 (k) (B.40)

The reduced timed event graph of Figure B.7 is shown in Figure B.8. Parallel places containing an equal amount of tokens can be represented by one place. The nal max-plus formulation of the transitions with at least one upstream transition 103

Appendix B. Elimination of Transitions

x1

x2

x3

x6 x4

x7

x8

x9

Figure B.8: Reduced timed event graph Example 8.4

then becomes: x2 (k + 1) =21 x1 (k + 1) 22 x2 (k) 24 x4 (k) 27 x7 (k) 28 x8 (k) x3 (k + 1) =35 51 x1 (k) 35 52 x2 (k) 32 x2 (k + 1) (33 55 )x3 (k) 35 54 x4 (k) 35 57 x7 (k 1) 38 x8 (k) 39 x9 (k) x6 (k + 1) =51 65 x1 (k + 1) (52 65 62 )x2 (k + 1) 63 x3 (k + 1) 54 65 x4 (k + 1) (55 66 )x6 (k) 57 65 x7 (k) 68 x8 (k) x8 (k + 1) =(51 85 81 x1 (k + 1)) 52 85 x2 (k + 1) (84 54 85 )x4 (k + 1) 57 85 x7 (k) 87 x7 (k + 1) (55 88 )x8 (k) x9 (k + 1) =51 95 x1 (k + 1) (52 95 92 )x2 (k + 1) 54 95 x4 (k + 1) 96 x6 (k + 1) 57 95 x7 (k) 98 x8 (k + 1) (55 99 )x9 (k) (B.43)

(B.41)

(B.42)

(B.44)

(B.45)

The nal result of the elimination of transition x5 from Figure B.7 is represented in Figure B.9. 104

B.2. Elimination of Through Transitions

x1

x2

x3

x6 x4

x7

x8

x9

Figure B.9: Final timed event graph Example 8.4

105

Appendix C

MATLAB Pseudo-Code
Pseudo-Code constraints.m
%%% constraints %%% % output: a timed even graph of the network including % all infraconstraints;

clear all; % read all necessary input to deduce infraconstraints: readdata; % create matrix containing line data: matrixlinedata; % calculate the constraints needed to ensure the % headway norms: calculateconstraints; % build a timed event graph of the line data file % of the network: buildTEG; % add infraconstraints stored in headway to TEG; % eliminate all entrance transitions from TEG % using Algorithm 8.1;

107

Appendix C. MATLAB Pseudo-Code

Pseudo-Code readdata.m
%%% readdata %%% % read the following information on the network under % consideration: % line data file % SBHP % hindrance conflicts file % coordinates of timetable points % successor headway norms % track data % list of traintypes

Pseudo-Code matrixlinedata.m
%%% matrixlinedata %%% % output: a matrix A containing all line data: % A=[line segment origin destination... % departure min departure sec dep sec... % run time min run time sec run t sec... % dwell time min dwell time sec dwell t sec... % dwell typ margin included arrival sec]; % convert all data read from the line data file in % readdata to strings so that it can be stored % in a matrix A;

108

Pseudo-Code calculateconstraints.m
%%% calculate constraints %%% % output: matrix headway containing all required infraconstraints: % headway = [line# 1 segment# 1 line# 2 segment# 2... headway min headway sec event1 event2]; % find all timetable points in the network, insert them in % vector stations; % % % % find rownumbers of first and last segment of each train line in A matrix: trln=[linenumber (rownumber first segment of line)... % (rownumber last segment of line)]; find info on line segment for each row in A: info=[traintype stop@originstation stop@destinationstation], (where 1 indicates a stop and 0 indicates a run through);

% % % %

% for each timetable point in vector stations: % find directions trains go to/come from; % find number of tracks for each direction; % find all in-out locations; % find number of in-outlocations; % find all entering and exiting trains; % find IO-locations of all trains; % find constraints for each IO-location: % find if IO-location is on single track; % find the number of trains in this IO-location; % % % % find required headway norms that have to hold between each pair of subsequent events on the current IO-location; construct constraints: if IO-point is on singletrack: % for each train using the current IO-location: % when next train using the IO-location runs % in same direction: % construct constraint from event of current train 109

Appendix C. MATLAB Pseudo-Code % to event of next train, % add constraint to headway; % else: % only when at least one train stops at this % timetable point constraints are required. If so: % for each entrance event: % construct constraint to next event on % timetable point and add to headway; % else: % for % % % % % % % each train using the current IO-location: construct constraint from event of current train to event of next train, add constraint to headway;

create constraints for hindrance conflicts on current timetable point: check whether conflicts appaer at current timetable point, if so: % construct infraconstraint for each conflict and % add to headway;

110

Pseudo-Code buildTEG.m
%%% build TEG %%% % input: line data file % output: timed event graph stored in matrix TEG % TEG=[to line# to segment# from line# from segment#... type headway(mm:ss) initial marking]; % for each train line: % for each line segment: % construct a place from its exit transition to its entrance % transition, holding time = running time on the segment; % add this place to TEG; % if train runs or stops: % construct place from its entrance transition to the transition % representing the next exit of the train line, % holding time = dwell time of the current segment; % add this place to TEG; % elseif train turns: % find next departure of current trainseries in other direction, % construct a place from the arrival transition to the transition % representing this departure, % holding time = dwell time of the current segment; % add this place to TEG;

111

Acknowledgements
So many people helped me getting to this point from where I can nally see the blackand-white ag. Thank you all so much! First I would like to thank my daily supervisor, Rob Goverde. For being such a pleasant supervisor, for the always quick replies to my huge amounts of emails, and for never being bothered to patiently explain things multiple times. Thanks to Jacob van der Woude, my supervisor from the Applied Mathematics department, for never believing me at once, and for the useful suggestions and comments. I would like to thank Tijs (?ijs) Huisman from Prorail, for the provision of all data used in this thesis, and for the discussions on trains, Harry Potter and other important issues. Liesbeth, it was so good to be able to discuss problems and ask questions to someone doing a resembling project, thanks for all the nice emails! I thank Rob and Erik for the test reading of my thesis. Jorrit and Margot, thanks for keeping me company during my lunch and coee breaks at CT, and listening to all my stories on interesting battles with LaTeX or Matlab. Thanks to the rest of my friends, for being so interested in my project, although for most of you the world of mathematics is so weird. My parents supported me in so many ways. Pap en mam, thanks for all the support, for always believing in me and for giving me the condence that I would be able to become an engineer one day. Last but surely not least, I would like to thank Stefan, for all the pep talks at all times of the day (and night), for putting up with the high voltage Lize; in fact, for just being there.

113

Bibliography
[1] Baccelli, F.L., Cohen, G., Olsder, G.J. and Quadrat, J.P., Synchronization and Linearity: An Algebra for Discrete Event Systems, Wiley, Chichester, 1992. [2] Goverde, R.M.P., Punctuality of Railway Operations and Timetable Stability Analysis, TRAIL Thesis Series, no. T2005/10, Delft, 2005. [3] Goverde, R.M.P., Railway Timetable Stability Analysis Using Max-Plus System Theory, In Hansen, I.A., Dekking, F.M., Goverde, R.M.P., Heidergott, B. and Meester, L.E., editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Seminar on Railway Operations Modelling and Analysis, Delft, June 8-10, 2005. [4] Goverde, R.M.P. and Odijk, M.A., Performance Evaluation of Network Timetables Using PETER, In Allan, J., Andersson, E., Brebbia, C.A., Hill, R.J., Sciutto, G. and Sone, S., editors, Computers in Railways VIII, pages 731-740, WIT Press, Southampton, 2002. [5] Goverde, R.M.P. and Soto y Koelemeijer, G., Performance Evaluation of Periodic Railway Timetables: Theory and Algorithms, TRAIL Studies in Transportation Sciences, no. S2000/2, Delft University Press, Delft, 2000. [6] Gunawardena, J., Min-Max Functions, Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 4, no. 4, pages 377-406, Boston, 1994. [7] Heidergott, B., Olsder, G.J. and Woude, J.W. van der, Max Plus at Work: Modeling and Analysis of Synchronized Systems: A Course on Max Plus Algebra and Its Applications, Princeton University Press, 2006. [8] Hooghiemstra, J.S., An Automatic Timetable Generator for the Dutch Railway Network, In Murthy, T.K.S., Mellitt, B., Brebbia, C.A., Scuttio, G. and Sone, S., editors, Computers in Railways IV, vol. 2, pages 109-116, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, 1994. [9] Middelkoop, D. and Bouwman, M., Simone: Large Scale Train Network Simulations, In Peeters, B.A., Smith, J.S., Medeiros, D.J. and Rohrer, M.W., editors, Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, pages 1042-1047, IEEE, Piscataway, 2001. [10] Murata, T., Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 4, pages 541-580, 1989. [11] Prorail, Network Statement 2005, Utrecht, 2004. [12] Prorail, Network Statement 2006, Utrecht, 2005. 115

Bibliography [13] Sloan, R.H. and Buy, U., Reduction Rules for Time Petri Nets, Acta Informatica, vol. 33, pages 687-706, 1996.

116