Hamed Pouryousef ; Pasi Lautala, Ph.D, P.E. Hamed Pouryousef ; Pasi Lautala, Ph.D, P.E. Michigan Tech. University Michigan Tech. University PhD Candidate Assistant Professor 2014 INFORMS Annual Meeting; November 9-12, 2014; San Francisco, CA Capacity Evaluation along Baltimore-DC Based on Directional vs. Non-directional Scenarios of Operation

Introduction, Background Review of Case Study: Baltimore-DC Capacity Evaluation on Directional vs. Non- directional Scenarios Conclusions and Next Steps 2 Outline

Almost 80% of the U.S. rail network are single track corridors Double and multiple-track corridors for shared freight and passenger/commuter traffic (NEC, California, Midwest) Double and Multiple-track Corridors: Directional Operation Approach (Europe, Asia) Non-directional Operation Approach (North America) Directional approach and capacity Directional operation approach offers higher level of capacity (Tolliver, 2010; Hansen, 2008) Research Questions: Use rescheduling/rerouting to convert a multiple-track corridor under “Non- directional” operation pattern to “Directional” operation pattern? What are the impacts of changes on the Capacity and LOS? 3 Introduction, Background

Capacity and LOS analysis vary based on the techniques and methodologies Simulation is a common tool to evaluate Capacity and LOS Commercial Railway Simulation Timetable-based vs. Non-timetable based 4 Introduction, Background

5 “Combined” Simulation Steps Amtrak RTC Database & Output Replicating RTC in RailSys & OpenTrack Timetable/ Capacity Analysis (RailSys & OpenTrack) Why to take advantage of multiple simulation tools? RTC: Predefined database of U.S. signaling and rolling stock systems (Conflict-free Schedule) RailSys & OpenTrack: Advanced capacity and timetable management features and outputs

Introduction, Background Review of Case Study: Baltimore-DC Capacity Evaluation on Directional vs. Non- directional Scenarios Conclusions and Next Steps 6 Outline

7 Baltimore – Washington Case Study Database, replicated in RailSys and OpenTrack based on RTC’s database: -Infrastructure: 40.6 miles of Northeast Corridor (Baltimore-DC) Signaling: Cab signaling system, integrated with absolute permissive block (APB) -Trains: 136 daily trains (Acela, Commuter, Long distance and Regional Amtrak) -Operation rules: Speed limits, train priority, stop patterns, dwell times, arrival-departure times Washington DC Baltimore

RTC Output - Initial Timetable Northeast Corridor Timetable in RTC (Initial Timetable)

RailSys Input - Replicated Timetable Initial Timetable in RailSys

OpenTrack Input - Replicated Timetable Initial Timetable in OpenTrack

11 Validating Developed Timetable in RailSys & Opentrack Initial Timetable in RTC Replicated Timetable in RailSys Same pattern with minor differences Same order and schedule of trains Same stop pattern 1-3 minutes deviation in some arrivals / departures or dwell times Replicated Timetable in Opentrack

12 Summary of Developed/Validated Timetables Evaluation CriteriaInitial Timetable Replicated Timetable RTCRailSysOpenTrack Version of Software67 Z (2013) (2013)1.7.5 (2014) Running Time of Simulation 35 sec18 sec301 sec No. of Daily Trains Successfully Simulated 136 Timetable Duration24 h Total Delay of All Trains56.6 min103.5 min83.4 min Avg Delay per Train25 sec45 sec37 sec Correlation with Initial Timetable Initial Timetable Sufficient, could be improved via database adjustments Good; could be improved via minor adjustments

Introduction, Background Review of Case Study: Baltimore-DC Capacity Evaluation on Directional vs. Non- directional Scenarios Conclusions and Next Steps 13 Outline

14 A Non-directional Multiple-Track Case Study Baltimore-D.C. is operated under “Non-directional” pattern: Providing access to station platforms Preventing train conflicts by providing more flexible routing options What would be capacity effects of directional operation to Delay, Average Speed, Track Occupancy Limitations Baltimore – D.C. considered a “stand-alone” segment Would require platform construction at intermediate stations Washington DC Baltimore Northbound Southbound

15 Several Routing Patterns Along Baltimore-DC Using Single Track (Directional / “No Crossovers) Using Multiple Tracks (Non-directional /“Crossovers”) Some of the Common Routings SBNB SB

16 Research Steps, Scenarios

17 Initial Schedule (Non-directional) Northbound (NB) 31.2% of Acela trains, mostly northbound, use crossovers All NB Regional trains Southbound (SB) No commuter trains Three Acela trains Breakdown of trains using crossovers Number of Trains

18 Scenario 1- “Rerouting Only” a a b b

19 Scenario 2- Rerouting/Rescheduling (Fully Directional) c c b b

20 Analysis on Trains’ Schedule/Route Changes Summary of rerouting and rescheduling changes to provide a fully directional operation

21 Analysis on Track Occupancy Level Average Occupancy Level of Tracks (per day) Maximum Occupancy Level of Tracks (in an hour) Washington DC Baltimore

22 Analysis on Average Speed & Delay Speed (mph) Train Delays Analysis in Different Scenarios Train Speed Analysis in Different Scenarios

“Normalized Speed-Delay” Parameter A new combined parameter, defined as “Speed-Delay” normalized parameter for evaluating the trade-off between increased speeds and delays

Introduction, Background Review of Case Study: Baltimore-DC Capacity Evaluation on Directional vs. Non- directional Scenarios Conclusions and Next Steps 24 Outline

Summary and Conclusions 25 Evaluation Criteria Initial Schedule Scenario1- Rerouting Scenario2- Rescheduling/rerouting Speed-Delay Total delay of all Trains min min117.4 min Avg delay per train 45.6 sec 45.7 sec51.8 sec Longest delay of a train180 sec 161 sec Avg speed of all trains70.4 mph71.3 mph 71.9 mph Sum of “Speed-Delay” normalized parameters Track Occupancy Level Avg Occupancy level of tracks per day (%) Track #110.5%12.2%10.8% Track #26.6%9.8%11.6% Track #3 5.7%3.5%0.0% Track #4 7.0%0.3%0.0% Max. Occupancy level of tracks per hour (%) Track #1 50.7% Track #236.9%44.6%45.5% Track #3 34.4% 0.0% Track #4 19.2%8.5%0.0%

Summary and Conclusions Research used rescheduling/rerouting to convert a multiple- track corridor under “Non-directional” operation pattern to “Directional” operation pattern Combined simulation approach to take advantage of advanced capacity and timetable management features Achieved fully directional operations through rerouting/rescheduling Increased average speeds Slightly increased delays and track occupancy Traffic removed from Tracks #3 and #4 Improved normalized Speed-Delay (SD) parameter 26

Next Steps of Research Next Step: Develop a modular approach for automatic rescheduling and timetable improvements? Hybrid Optimization of Train Schedule (HOTS) Model 27 The initial timetable of NEC corridor (Top figure) was reschedule and compressed using “Same-Order” approach of HOTS model (Bottom figure)

28 Thanks for Your Attention! Question or Comment? Hamed Pouryousef Pasi Lautala Acknowledgment: Amtrak (Davis Dure) Berkeley Simulation-RTC (Eric Wilson) OpenTrack (Daniel Huerlimann) RMCon GmbH- RailSys (Sonja Perkuhn, Gabriele Löber) This research was supported by National University Rail (NURail) Center, a US DOT-OST Tier 1 University Transportation