4.7 Article

Optimal platforming, routing, and scheduling of trains and locomotives in a rail passenger station yard

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2023.104160

关键词

Train platforming; Locomotive operation; Lagrangian relaxation; ADMM; Greedy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study deals with the train platforming problem (TPP) and extends it to include locomotive operations. A 0-1 integer programming model is proposed to simultaneously optimize the routing and scheduling of trains and locomotives. Dual decomposition methods are used to decompose the model, and efficient algorithms are developed to solve the train-specific sub-problems. A real-world case study based on Guangzhou railway station verifies the effectiveness of the proposed model and algorithms.
A train platforming problem (TPP) involves assigning platforms and routes to trains according to the train timetable in a rail station yard. However, locomotive operations not included in the TPP - such as replacing locomotives for trains - can lead to additional decision -making challenges for dispatchers and potentially result in scheduling conflicts. This study considers the high correlation between train and locomotive operations and proposes an extension of the TPP that simultaneously optimizes the routing and scheduling of trains and locomotives in a rail passenger station yard. We elaborate on the train and locomotive operation processes in a time-space-state network and propose a 0-1 integer programming model that can simultaneously schedule trains and locomotives. The model is decomposed using two dual decomposition methods, namely, Lagrangian relaxation (LR)-based and Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM)-based, where each train-specific sub-problem is efficiently solved with a label-setting algorithm and two greedy approaches. A real-world case study is conducted based on the Guangzhou railway station to verify the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed model and algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据