Timetable Graphs and CUI Values Automating their Production John Armstrong, Ian Hood and John Preston 11 February 2009.

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?