1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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. 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

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

7. 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

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

9. RailSys Input - Replicated Timetable Initial Timetable in RailSys

10. OpenTrack Input - Replicated Timetable Initial Timetable in OpenTrack

11. 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. 12 Summary of Developed/Validated Timetables Evaluation CriteriaInitial Timetable Replicated Timetable RTCRailSysOpenTrack Version of Software67 Z (2013)7.9.14 (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

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

14. 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. 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. 16 Research Steps, Scenarios

17. 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. 18 Scenario 1- “Rerouting Only” a a b b

19. 19 Scenario 2- Rerouting/Rescheduling (Fully Directional) 634 80 c c b b

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

21. 21 Analysis on Track Occupancy Level Average Occupancy Level of Tracks (per day) Maximum Occupancy Level of Tracks (in an hour) Washington DC Baltimore 1 2 3 4

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

23. “Normalized Speed-Delay” Parameter A new combined parameter, defined as “Speed-Delay” normalized parameter for evaluating the trade-off between increased speeds and delays 23 81.2 84.9

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

25. Summary and Conclusions 25 Evaluation Criteria Initial Schedule Scenario1- Rerouting Scenario2- Rescheduling/rerouting Speed-Delay Total delay of all Trains 103.5 min 103.7 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 81.2081.9584.95 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%

26. 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

27. 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. 28 Thanks for Your Attention! Question or Comment? Hamed Pouryousef hpouryou@mtu.edu Pasi Lautala ptlautal@mtu.edu 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 Centerhpouryou@mtu.eduptlautal@mtu.edu