DOCSLIB.ORG

Engineering Assessment of Aurizon Network's Capital Expenditure Claim 2013-14 (CIC)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Engineering Assessment of Aurizon Network's Capital Expenditure Claim 2013-14 (CIC) Queensland Competition Authority Engineering Assessment of Aurizon Network’s Capital Expenditure Claim 2013-14 22 MAY 2015 Commercial in Confidence (CIC) Solutions & & Title Engineering Assessment of Aurizon Network's Capital Expenditure Claim 2013-14 (CIC) Version: FINAL Authors: Clara Tetther CMT Solutions Paul Tribley CMT Solutions Rod Carr Marsden Jacob Associates Matthew Clarke Marsden Jacob Associates Etienne Coudray Atkins Date: 22 May 2015 Engineering assessment of Aurizon Network's 2013-14 Capital Expenditure Claim (CIC) Page ii of 98 CMT, Atkins and Marsden Jacob Associates for the Queensland Competition Authority Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Extent of the Review 2 1.3 Structure of this report 2 1.4 Supplementary Report 3 2 AURIZON NETWORK 2013-14 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE CLAIM 4 2.1 Aurizon Network 2013-14 CAPEX Submission Claim 4 2.2 Structure of claim 4 2.3 Supporting information 5 3 PRUDENCY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA 7 3.1 Overall methodology for prudency assessment 7 3.2 Risk matrix 13 3.3 Assessment forms 14 3.4 Projects review – Aurizon Network 15 4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 4.1 General 16 4.2 Projects selected for economic review 21 4.3 Procurement 21 4.4 Feasibility studies – market analysis 27 5 PROJECT ASSESSMENT SUMMARIES 32 5.1 Project assessments – Schedule 3 Expansion 32 5.2 Project assessments – Schedule 4 TACA 34 5.3 Project assessments – Schedule 5 Electrical 37 5.4 Project assessments – Schedule 6 S&TSS 39 5.5 Project assessments – Schedule 7 Telecommunications 43 5.6 Project assessments – Schedule 8 Corridor CAPEX 46 5.7 Project assessments – Schedule 9 CRIMP – voted feasibility studies 48 6 CONCLUSION 50 Engineering assessment of Aurizon Network's 2013-14 Capital Expenditure Claim (CIC) Page iii of 98 CMT, Atkins and Marsden Jacob Associates for the Queensland Competition Authority Appendices Appendix A: Aurizon Networks Pty Ltd 2013-14 Capital Expenditure Submission Appendix B: Individual Project Prudency Assessments List of Figures and Tables Figure 1-1: Central Queensland Coal Network ........................................................................... 1 Figure 3-1: Project methodology flowchart .................................................................................. 7 Figure 3-2: Project value split 2013-14 expenditure claim ........................................................... 8 Figure 3-3: Basic criteria for assessment of procurement processes ........................................ 12 Figure 3-4: Risk matrix ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 4-1: Shortlisting of suppliers .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-2: Queensland coal production (million tonnes) .......................................................... 28 Figure 4-3: Thermal coal prices (AUD per metric tonne) ........................................................... 28 Table 3-1: Summary of representative sample of projects selected for assessment ................... 9 Table 3-2: Key criteria in assessment of prudency of scope, standard and cost ....................... 10 Table 4-1: Summary of assessments undertaken by the Review Team .................................... 16 Table 4-2: Prudency assessment summary .............................................................................. 20 Table 4-3: Summary of Land Acquisition costs per project ....................................................... 29 Table 5-1: Total claim value of expansion projects assessed ................................................... 32 Table 5-2: Total claim value of TACA projects assessed .......................................................... 34 Table 5-3: Total claim value of electrical projects assessed ..................................................... 37 Table 5-4: Total claim value of S&TSS projects assessed ........................................................ 39 Table 5-5: Total claim value of telecom projects assessed ....................................................... 43 Table 5-6: Total claim value and list of corridor projects assessed ........................................... 46 Table 5-7: Total claim value of feasibility projects assessed ..................................................... 48 Engineering assessment of Aurizon Network's 2013-14 Capital Expenditure Claim (CIC) Page iv of 98 CMT, Atkins and Marsden Jacob Associates for the Queensland Competition Authority Executive Summary Aurizon Network is obliged to maintain a Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) for the Central Queensland Coal Network (CQCN). The RAB is a compilation and summation of the assets upon which CQCN is permitted to earn a reasonable return. The RAB is used to support the modelling of Reference Tariffs for the CQCN and Aurizon Network’s Access Undertaking. The requirements of Aurizon Network’s Access Undertaking are that within four months of the end of the relevant year, Aurizon Network will provide to the QCA details of the capital expenditure that Aurizon Network considers should be approved and included in its RAB for that year. Unless otherwise agreed between Aurizon Network and the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA), Aurizon Network and QCA will annually roll forward all prudent capital expenditure approved by the QCA in each financial year. In October 2014, Aurizon Network formally submitted its request to the QCA to approve $321,681,594 (exclusive of Interest during Construction (IDC)) of capital expenditure on projects commissioned within the 2013-14 period. QCA will accept prudent capital expenditure upon a risk-based assessment of prudency in scope, standard and cost. QCA commissioned CMT Solutions, Atkins and Marsden Jacob Associates (known forthwith as the Review Team) to undertake a prudency review of a sample of 63 projects, including a total of three major feasibility projects made up of 25 individual studies. The total expenditure claim for the project sample projects was $244,104,259 (exclusive of IDC). The Review Team carried out an assessment determining whether the scope, standards and costs of the works were prudent. This assessment was undertaken in accordance with criteria agreed with the QCA, and in alignment with Schedule A of Aurizon Network’s Access Undertaking 2010. Detail of the assessment outcome is provided in Table 4-2 and summarised in the following paragraphs Prudency of scope ‘Scope’ in this report refers to the extent of the project and all its elements. In general the Review Team found the projects within the assessed sample to be prudent in scope. Prudency of standard ‘Standard’ in this report refers to the technical and/or operational criteria within which the work scope is specified. This includes consistency with existing standards for similar purposes, and compliance with national, industry and federal legislative requirements. Projects are assessed with respect to Aurizon Network’s internal standards and their relevance to and/or compliance with Australian Standards. International current industry trends and practices for similar purposes are also considered in the assessment if appropriate. From the information provided it was evident to the Review Team that Aurizon has established systems and structures to ensure high standards compliance across their engineering works. Works assessed were consistent with existing infrastructure and the appropriate assurances applied to ensure fitness for purpose for current and (as far as reasonably possible) known future requirements. Therefore in general the projects assessed were found to be prudent in standard with the following minor exceptions. Project A.04288 Radio System Replacement was not able to be assessed as prudent in standard for the 2013-14 expenditure claim. This project relies upon the submission of three reports to underlie a Engineering assessment of Aurizon Network's 2013-14 Capital Expenditure Claim (CIC) Page v of 98 CMT, Atkins and Marsden Jacob Associates for the Queensland Competition Authority robust strategy for radio system replacement over the CQCN. The project is not complete and the two reports submitted serve only as background information for the strategy and recommendations to be provided in the final report. As such these two reports on their own do not fulfil the criteria for prudency in standard. On completion of the final report the prudency of the completed works should be reassessed. Prudency of cost The projects were assessed as being consistent and aligned with overall supply chain and operational objectives. In general from the information provided the projects assessed had met contractual timeframes and safety and quality requirements. The expiry of Aurizon Network’s long term national contract for the supply of steel rail in 30 June 2013 provided the opportunity for Aurizon Network to take advantage of new opportunities for cost- effectively sourcing railway products from a global competitive market. The costs of rail procurement can be a significant item in capital expenditure projects, therefore prudency in the evaluation for procurement of this item is paramount in the achievement of overall prudency in project cost outcomes. The review of the steel rail tendering and procurement process undertaken highlighted that Aurizon Network’s stage gate process for evaluation of alternatives appears to be a sound and thorough process. However, the review identified a number of potential issues in the total
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (RIHSAC) Presentation
    Welcome to RIHSAC 94 Dilip Sinha, Secretary, RIHSAC 15 October 2013 1 Who’s minding the gap? John Cartledge Safety Policy Adviser Presentation to RIHSAC 15 October 2013 Why does platform edge risk matter to passengers? “At Clapham Junction the height gap between the platform and the trains on platform 15 is a health and safety issue. Towards the eastern end of the platform I have seen elderly people unable to disembark because the gap was unmanageable.” Joanna Moorhead Thursday 22 December 2011 Yes, I do mind the gap – you don't have to be drunk to fall under a train As public information campaigns go, this one seemed a cracker. Travelling while you're drunk is dangerous; and to make the point in the runup to Christmas, British Transport police have released CCTV images of a drunken passenger on a train as she staggers off it. Thankfully, the woman in the film is fine, because someone saw her fall and the train was delayed while she was hauled from under it. But seeing those images makes me furious, because despite what Network Rail might like us to believe, you don't have to be drunk to fall under a train. According to the staff at my local station, Clapham Junction in south-west London, it happens to entirely sober passengers on a regular basis, because of ever-bigger gaps between platforms and trains. I know this is true, because over the last three years my daughters, who travel to secondary school through Clapham Junction, have twice told me about incidents in which friends of theirs fell on to the tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cardiff Capital Region Metro: Impact Study: Metro Interventions Appraisal Report
    Report to the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport Merthyr Ebbw Hirwaun Tydfil Rhymney Tredegar Vale Brynmawr Abergavenny Aberdare Treherbert Abertillery Pontypool Bargoed Blackwood Newbridge Abercynon Cwmbran Pontypridd Ystrad Mynach Cross Keys Porth Maesteg Talbot Green Taffs Well Caerphilly Caerleon Pontyclun Cardiff Gate North West Heath Bridgend Cardiff Severn Queen Tunnel Ely Mill Street Newport Junction Porthcawl St Llanwern Chepstow Mellons Culverhouse Cross Pill Cardiff Cardiff Bay Bristol Airport Sports Village Cardiff Central Barry Penarth Porth Teigr A Cardiff Capital Region Metro: Impact Study: Metro Interventions Appraisal Report October 2013 Metro Interventions Appraisal Report FINAL Report | September 2013 Project No: CS/060195 Doc Ref: CS/060195 Rev: Client: Welsh Government Issue Date: September 2013 Metro Interventions Appraisal Report: FINAL Report Name Signature Date Author Michelle North-Jones 30/09/2013 Checker David McCallum 30/09/2013 Approver David McCallum 30/09/2013 Issue Record Rev Date Description/Comments Author/Prepared by: Approved for Issue by: “The report shall be for the private and confidential use of the clients for whom the report is undertaken and should not be reproduced in whole or in part or relied upon by third parties for any use whatsoever without the express written authority of the Consultant’ Metro Interventions Appraisal Report: FINAL Report September 2013 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1.2 Report Purpose and Structure 2. Appraisal Methodology 3 2.1. Modal Interventions 2.2 Appraisal Criteria 2.3 Intervention Assessment 3. Appraisal Results and Recommended Interventions Packages 10 3.1 Appraisal Results by Intervention Category 3.2 Intervention Packages 3.3 Quick Wins 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Interoperability for Facilitation of International Railway Transport
    ENHANCING INTEROPERABILITY FOR FACILITATION OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY TRANSPORT This study was prepared by Transport Division ESCAP. The draft of the study was prepared by Mr. Vasile-Neculai OLIEVSCHI, Consultant, under the supervision of Mr. Sandeep Raj Jain, Economic Affairs Officer, Transport Division ESCAP. The views expressed in this guide are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. The opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this guide are the responsibility of the authors, and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this study do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of firm names and commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations. This study is issued without formal editing. ______________________ ENHANCING INTEROPERABILITY FOR FACILITATION OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY TRANSPORT Bangkok, 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 3 II. ASIAN
    [Show full text]
  • Sizewell C DCO Application, Rail Proposals
    Sizewell C DCO application, Rail Proposals Preliminary technical review Suffolk County Council V0-5 Final Project number: 60445024 17 September 2020 Sizewell C DCO application, Rail Proposals Project number: 60445024 Quality information Prepared by Checked by Verified by Approved by Julian Sindall Claire Falkiner Bevin Carey Simon Middleton Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position 0-1 07 Sep 2020 Work in progress 0-2 08 Sep 2020 Work in progress 0-3 08 Sep 2020 DRAFT 0-4 14 Sep 2020 Final 0-5 17 Sep 2020 Final Bevin Carey Bevin Carey Associate Director Prepared for: Suffolk County Council AECOM and Cadenza Sizewell C DCO application, Rail Proposals Project number: 60445024 Prepared for: Suffolk County Council Prepared by: Table 1 List of contributing organisations AECOM Limited Cadenza Transport Consulting Ltd AECOM Limited 8-10 South Street 3rd Floor, Portwall Place Epsom Portwall Lane Surrey Bristol BS1 6NA KT18 7PF United Kingdom United Kingdom T: +44 117 901 7000 M: +44 7786 430420 aecom.com cadenza.co.uk © 2020 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Prepared for: Suffolk County Council AECOM and Cadenza Sizewell C DCO application, Rail Proposals Project number: 60445024 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tramway Track Standard
    SYDNEY TRAMWAY MUSEUM TRAMWAY TRACK STANDARD MARCH 2016NOVEMBER 2019 SYDNEY TRAMWAY MUSEUM Document Control Record 1. Document Details: Name: Tramway track Standard Number STM6024 Version Number: 1.89 Document Status: Working Draft X Approved for Issue Archived Next Scheduled Review Date: 2. Version History: Version Number Date Reason/Comments 1.0 20/01/2007 Initial issue 1.1 09/01/2009 Changed Report title 1.2 09/07/2009 Added Tie Bar drawing 1.3 31/05/2010 Changes made to satisfy the 2009 ITSRR audit. 1.4 31/07/2010 Changes made to satisfy the 2009 ITSR audit. 1.5 03/09/2010 Updated Appendix D and other minor changes. 1.6 15/05/2011 Added the Pandrol Information as the RNP uses this equipment 1.7 21/8/2015 Added Loading gauge drawing and reference to STM6072 1.8 31/03/2016 Amended Distribution List format Better defining the sleeper standard (Good, Fair, Poor) by photos 1.9 21/11/2019 and description in Section 10.11. Approved by Signature & Date 3. Distribution List Position Date Location of Documents Rail Safety Manager Original held on GOOGLE secure Website STM WEB SITE Updated regularly and put onto the STM Web site. STM Office STM Office Computer STM Office STM Office cupboard STM6024 Tramway track Standard Page 2 of 55 Version 1.9 – 21/11/2019 SYDNEY TRAMWAY MUSEUM 1. Purpose To explain the various tramway track standards at the Sydney tramway Museum. Also the purpose of this document is to set down, in printed form, a history of the construction, operation and maintenance of the STM for the benefit of future generations called upon to further the aims of the society.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Railway Operations Through the Integration of Macroscopic and Microscopic Modelling with Optimisation
    Improving railway operations through the integration of macroscopic and microscopic modelling with optimisation By Silvia Umiliacchi A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering College of Engineering and Physical Sciences The University of Birmingham, UK November 2016 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract Britain's railway industry is implementing the vision of the system in the next thirty years, as outlined in the Rail Technical Strategy (2012); the main objectives to achieve are: carbon and cost reduction, capacity increase and customer satisfaction. The timetable design process is identified as a key enabler of the strategy's implementation. The current method in use is considered as a lengthy process with little computer support and optimisation. This study tries to overcome the outlined weaknesses of the existing method by proposing a more automated process in which the optimisation of a timetable is a properly design stage. The method has been applied to minimise the total energy consumption of five trains on the Aberdeen-Inverness line, while meeting operational and safety con- straints.
    [Show full text]
  • Goodwood Junction Grade Separation Project; Adelaide Australia
    TECHNICAL ARTICLE AS PUBLISHED IN The Journal July 2017 Volume 135 Part 3 If you would like to reproduce this article, please contact: Alison Stansfield MARKETING DIRECTOR Permanent Way Institution [email protected] PLEASE NOTE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS JOURNAL ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE EDITOR OR OF THE INSTITUTION AS A BODY. TECHNICAL Goodwood AUTHORS: Dariusz Fanok and Andrew Kalionis Junction grade Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure separation project; South Australia Adelaide Australia SUMMARY plan to revitalise the Adelaide rail system “leafy” suburbs whose residents were anxious generally. In simple terms, the proposed to avoid any unacceptable impact upon their For many years, one of the major bottlenecks project comprised of a rail under pass to take daily lives. Finally, and not least of all, the on the Adelaide Rail network was that at the Seaford line under the interstate freight line ARTC freight services were to be maintained Goodwood Junction which saw a grade conflict and the Belair passenger line. without interruption throughout the construction between, on the one hand, the Australian period. Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) standard The project was a complex one, being gauge interstate freight line and the Public contained as it was by a narrow rail corridor The management of the project was Transport Services (PTS) Belair broad gauge managed by two separate rail authorities; undertaken by the South Australian passenger line and, on the other hand, the PTS constrained by two level
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Derailment of a freight train at Maltby North 28 June 2006 Report 24/2007 July 2007 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2007 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Derailment of a freight train at Maltby North 28 June 2006 Contents Introduction 5 Summary 6 Key facts about the incident 6 Key conclusions 6 Recommendations 7 The Accident 8 Summary of the accident 8 The parties involved 10 The signalling 10 Events preceding the accident 11 Events during the accident 12 Events following the accident 15 Previous occurrences of a similar character 15 Analysis 17 Sources of evidence 17 Identification
    [Show full text]
  • SZC Bk6 ES V9 Ch3 Alternati
    The Sizewell C Project 6.10 Volume 9 Rail Chapter 3 Alternatives and Design Evolution Revision: 1.0 Applicable Regulation: Regulation 5(2)(a) PINS Reference Number: EN010012 May 2020 Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 SIZEWELL C PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Contents 3 Alternatives and Design Evolution – Rail .................................................................. 1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Scheme requirements ............................................................................................... 2 3.3 Alternative schemes for the green rail route ............................................................. 2 3.4 Alternative designs and design evolution for the green rail route ............................. 9 3.5 Alternative schemes and design evolution – Proposed rail improvement works ..... 23 References .......................................................................................................................... 41 Tables Table 3.1: Stage 3 - East Suffolk line level crossing proposals. .......................................... 30 Table 3.2: Stage 3 – Saxmundham to Leiston branch line level crossing proposals. .......... 32 Table 3.3: Stage 4 – Summary of changes to the Stage 3 PEI ............................................ 38 Plates Plate 3.1: Stage 1 options for the rail route extension ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coleraine to Londonderry Relay
    Coleraine to Londonderry Track Renewals Project Addendum to 2010 Appraisal September 2011 1 1. Background The Coleraine and Derry Line is a predominantly single track line with a passing loop at Castlerock Station. There is one other intermediate stop at Bellarena, located north east of Limavady. The line is 33.5 miles long with track that dates to approximately 1978. In 2010 KPMG prepared an economic appraisal for NIR for the Coleraine to Derry Track Renewals Project which sought to identify the least cost option for delivering the Minister’s decision to provide a rail service to Derry. The preferred option was Option 3a which was a full relay of the existing track with the addition of a new passing loop and a new signalling system to be operated from Coleraine. The capital cost of this option, including optimism bias was budgeted at £75m. The project was approved by NITHC / Translink’s executive group, the NITHC Board and DRD and DFP for implementation between April 2012 and March 2013. However, funding constraints have meant that the project could not go ahead as planned and a decision was made to defer a full line relay until a later date. In the interim, and in order to keep the line open, a project was set up to deal specifically with safety related works on the line. The economic appraisal, Coleraine – Londonderry Track Safety Improvements Works was approved by the Executive Group in April 2011, the NITHC Board in May 2011 and DFP in June 2011. Translink received a letter of offer from DRD to proceed with the project in June 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • John Castle's Story
    MY ‘O’ GAUGE STORY JOHN CASTLE Canham Junction track and wiring diagram Canham Junction and the Tilbrook branch are privately owned and are sited in a 20ft x 14ft shed across a 14ft roadway opposite the club room. The two sheds are connected by a removable bridging piece in two sections. These sections are covered against the weather, which can be very wet and windy. The double track line enters at one end under Canham station road over bridge and leaves the other end under a three arch bridge over which a narrow country lane passes to Tilbrook. The branch leaves the main line and swings to the left, under another small road bridge, over a small stream and still swinging to the left passes over a level crossing and into the little country terminus of Tilbrook. At Canham there are 2 station shunters a J50 and an F7, and a D49 ‘Derbyshire’ ready to depart with the morning local passenger to the north. At the end of the branch at Tilbrook shed is another D49 ‘Berkshire’ preparing the through parcels to Bath, a push-pull fitted G5 for the 2 coach branch passenger train, a J24 to deal with the 2 goods trains daily each way, and an ex Wisbech & Upwell 0-4-0tramloco’ as a shunter. Tilbrook track and wiring diagram ne Christmas in the middle ’70s, the With the help of two club members, Dennis Peterborough & District Model Railway Ingram & Alan Rawson I started a J-50. Alan OClub gave me three 3H wagon kits, a was very meticulous with his modelling, and all, three plank open, a five plank open and a seven and I mean all excess solder had to be removed, plank mineral plus a yard of Peco track.
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Traffic Management: Meet and Pass Problem
    Journal of System and Management Sciences Vol.1 No.1, Dec. 2011 Railway Traffic Management: Meet and Pass Problem Pedro A. Afonso, Carlos F. Bispo Instituto de Sistemas e Rob´otica, Instituto Superior T´ecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal [email protected], [email protected] Abstract With the growing interest in the railway sector, mainly because of energetic reasons, there is also a need to increase the efficiency of the railway lines. One way to optimize this sector is to improve quality in the train control process itself. Nowadays, train dispatching is still mostly done by human operators that use elementary tools and thereby solving conflicts sub-optimally. Motivated by these factors, this report presents a model capable of detecting and solving conflicts, for single track railways. More specifically, this model proposes two resolutions methods: a heuristic resolution and a search for the optimal solution. To evaluate the quality of the developed model, several tests were made, obtaining encouraging results. These results showed that it is possible to solve conflicts optimally or near optimally, in a feasible amount of time. This program comes with a graphic interface so that the interaction with the dispatcher can be more user friendly. The major novelties of this work regard the improvement on the conflict detection process, the introduction of capacity conflicts, and the creation of several parameters to adjust the search for the optimal solution. Keywords: Re-scheduling, Single Track, Railway, Meet and Pass, Train, Conflict, Decision Support System. 1. Introduction The railway industry plays a vital role in many countries.
    [Show full text]