timetable graphs and cui values automating their production john armstrong, ian hood and john...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
Timetable Graphs and CUI ValuesAutomating their Production
John Armstrong, Ian Hood and John Preston 11 February 2009
2
Contents• Timetable Graphs
– Background and History
– Applications, Issues and Automated Generation
• Data Import and Plotting in Excel
• Advantages and Issues
• Capacity Utilisation
– Two Approaches: UIC 406 and CUI
• Conclusions
Timetable Graphs
From Tufte (1990)
From Tufte (1990)
6
Background and History• Timetable Graphs Used Since 1840s
• Now a By-Product of Train Planning Software, but…
• Still Widely Used for Train Planning and Control in Continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere
• Limited Application in North America, UK
• Graphical Approaches Useful for Railway Infrastructure Representation
7
Applications and Issues• Visual Aid/By-Product in UK Train Planning
• Useful Starting Point for Preliminary/Small-Scale Train Planning and Capacity Analysis
• Arup View:
– “Essential and Well-Understood Train Planning Tool”
• Spreadsheets: Flexible, Widely-Available and User-Friendly
• Manual Data Entry and Manipulation a Problem
8
Automating their Generation• Data Sources
– CIF (Common Interface Format) Data
9
BSNW811450712100805161111100 PXX1W119111124620204ZEMU BX SWYSW911100 LOWATRLMN 0630 063015 MFL TB LICLPHMJM 0636H0637H 000006379 FL U LIWDON 0642 000000007 LINEWMLDN 0644 00000000 LISURBITN 0646 00000000DF FL LIHCRTJN 0647 00000000 FL LIWOKING 0655H0657H 065606574 T LIWOKINGJ 0658H00000000 LIFRBRMN 0705 00000000 LIBSNGSTK 0716 0718 071607182 T LIWRTINGJ 0721H00000000 LIWNCHSTR 0733 0734H 07330734 T LISHAWFDJ 0737H00000000 FL 1 LIELGH 0743 0744H 074307443 T LISOTPKWY 0747H0749 07480749 T 1 LISTDENYS 0753 00000000 FL LINTHMJN 0754 00000000 LISOTON 0756H0759 075707594 FL T LIREDBDGE 0802H00000000 LITOTTON 0803H0804H 08040804 T LIBKNHRST 0814H0816 081508163 T LISWAY 0820 0820H 08200820 T LINMILTON 0824H0825H 08250825 T LIHINTONA 0829 0829H 08290829 T LICHRISTC 0833H0834H 08340834 T LIPOKSDWN 0837H0838 08380838 T LIBOMO 0841H0843H 084208433 T LIBRANKSM 0848 0848H 084808482 T LIPSTONE 0851 0851H 08510851 T LIPOOLE 0854H0856 085508562 T LIHMWTHY 0900 0901 09000901 T LIWARHAM 0906H0908 090709082 T LIWOOL 0913H0914H 09140914 T LIMORETON 0920 0920H 09200920 T X LIDRCHS 0927 0928H 092709281 T X LIDRCHJN 0929H00000000 LIUPWEY 0934H0935 09340934 T LTWEYMTH 0939 09393 TF
10
Automating their Generation• Data Sources
• Importing the Data to Excel
11
12
Automating their Generation• Data Sources
• Importing the Data to Excel
• Plotting the Graphs in Excel
13
14
Automating their Generation• Data Sources
• Importing the Data to Excel
• Plotting the Graphs in Excel
• Advantages
– Speed and Accuracy - Time and Cost Savings
15
Automating their Generation• Data Sources
• Importing the Data to Excel
• Plotting the Graphs in Excel
• Advantages
• Issues
– Charting Method and ‘Data Feedback’
– Providing Additional Train Information
– Multiple Tracks
Capacity Utilisation
17
Background• Definition of Capacity
Capacity as such does not exist [and] railway infrastructure capacity depends on the way it is utilised
(UIC 406)
18
Background• Definition of Capacity
• Objectives
– Making Best Use of Potential Capacity
– Maintaining Service Quality/Reliability
19
Measuring Capacity Utilisation• Assessment of Timetable ‘White Space’
• Identification of Conflicts between Trains and Calculation of Delays – Simulation
• UIC 406
– Timetable Compression by Signal Section
20From UIC406 (2004)
21
Measuring Capacity Utilisation• Assessment of Timetable ‘White Space’
• Identification of Conflicts between Trains and Calculation of Delays – Simulation
• UIC 406
– Timetable Compression by Signal Section
– Capacity Consumption =
Total Consumption Time/Time Window
22
Measuring Capacity Utilisation• Assessment of Timetable ‘White Space’
• Identification of Conflicts between Trains and Calculation of Delays – Simulation
• UIC 406
• CUI (Capacity Utilisation Index)
– Timetable Compression by Route Section
23From Gibson, Cooper and Ball (2002)
24
Measuring Capacity Utilisation• Analysis: UIC 406 vs. CUI
– Technical headway vs. Planning headway
– Overall signalled route vs. separate consideration of junction margins and platform reoccupation times
– Full simulation vs. simpler, spreadsheet-based tool
Conclusions
26
Conclusions• Timetable Graph Production
– Advantages of spreadsheet-based automation
• Speed and Accuracy
• Simplicity and Reduced Cost
• Basis of Macroscopic Capacity Analysis and Planning Tool
27
Conclusions• Timetable Graph Production
– Advantages of spreadsheet-based automation
– Issues
• ‘Data Feedback’
• Provision of Additional Information
• Handling of Multi-track Route Sections
28
Conclusions• Capacity Utilisation Analysis
– UIC 406 more detailed and comprehensive than CUI
– CUI better suited to preliminary, spreadsheet-based macroscopic capacity utilisation analyses, but…
– Inclusion of junctions and stations in analysis requires further consideration of junction margins, etc.
Questions?