Sensitivity Analysis and Coupled Decisions in Passenger Flow-Based Train Dispatching

Authors Martin Lemnian, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, Ralf Rückert

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.68 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Martin Lemnian
Matthias Müller-Hannemann
Ralf Rückert

Cite AsGet BibTex

Martin Lemnian, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, and Ralf Rückert. Sensitivity Analysis and Coupled Decisions in Passenger Flow-Based Train Dispatching. In 16th Workshop on Algorithmic Approaches for Transportation Modelling, Optimization, and Systems (ATMOS 2016). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 54, pp. 2:1-2:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)


Frequent train delays make passenger-oriented train dispatching a task of high practical relevance. In case of delays, dispatchers have to decide whether trains should wait for one or several delayed feeder trains or should depart on time. To support dispatchers, we have recently introduced the train dispatching framework PANDA (CASPT 2015). In this paper, we present and evaluate two enhancements which are also of general interest. First, we study the sensitivity of waiting decisions with respect to the accuracy of passenger flow data. More specifically, we develop an integer linear programming formulation for the following optimization problem: Given a critical transfer, what is the minimum number of passengers we have to add or to subtract from the given passenger flow such that the decision would change from waiting to non-waiting or vice versa? Based on experiments with realistic passenger flows and delay data from 2015 in Germany, an important empirical finding is that a significant fraction of all decisions is highly sensitive to small changes in passenger flow composition. Hence, very accurate passenger flows are needed in these cases. Second, we investigate the practical value of more sophisticated simulations. A simple strategy evaluates the effect of a waiting decision of some critical transfer on passenger delay subject to the assumption that all subsequent decisions are taken according to standard waiting time rules, as usually employed by railway companies like Deutsche Bahn. Here we analyze the impact of a higher level of simulation where waiting decisions for a critical transfer are considered jointly with one or more other decisions for subsequent transfers. We learn that such "coupled decisions" lead to improved solution in about 6.3% of all considered cases.
  • train delays
  • event-activity model
  • multi-criteria decisions
  • passenger flows
  • sensitivity analysis


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Reinhard Bauer and Anita Schöbel. Rules of thumb - practical online strategies for delay management. Public Transport, 6:85-105, 2014. Google Scholar
  2. Annabell Berger, Christian Blaar, Andreas Gebhardt, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, and Mathias Schnee. Passenger flow-oriented train disposition. In C. Demetrescu and M. M. Halldórsson, editors, Proceedings of the 19th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), volume 6942 of LNCS, pages 227-238. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. Francesco Corman, Dario Pacciarelli, Andrea D'Ariano, and Marcella Samà. Railway traffic rescheduling with minimization of passengers' discomfort. In Computational Logistics, ICCL 2015, volume 9335 of LNCS, pages 602-616. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  4. Twan Dollevoet and Dennis Huisman. Fast heuristics for delay management with passenger rerouting. Public Transport, 6:67-84, 2014. Google Scholar
  5. Twan Dollevoet, Dennis Huisman, Marie Schmidt, and Anita Schöbel. Delay management with rerouting of passengers. Transportation Science, 46(1):74-89, 2012. Google Scholar
  6. Satoshi Kanai, Koichi Shiina, Shingo Harada, and Norio Tomii. An optimal delay management algorithm from passengers' viewpoints considering the whole railway network. Journal of Rail Transport Planning &Management, 1:25 - 37, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Natalia Kliewer and Leena Suhl. A note on the online nature of the railway delay management problem. Networks, 57:28-37, 2011. Google Scholar
  8. Leo G. Kroon, Gabor Maróti, and Lars K. Nielsen. Rescheduling of railway rolling stock with dynamic passenger flows. Transportation Science, 49:165-184, 2015. Google Scholar
  9. Martin Lemnian, Ralf Rückert, Steffen Rechner, Christoph Blendinger, and Matthias Müller-Hannemann. Timing of train disposition: Towards early passenger rerouting in case of delays. In Stefan Funke and Matús Mihalák, editors, 14th Workshop on Algorithmic Approaches for Transportation Modelling, Optimization, and Systems, ATMOS 2014, volume 42 of OASICS, pages 122-137. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Matthias Müller-Hannemann and Mathias Schnee. Efficient timetable information in the presence of delays. In R. Ahuja, R.-H. Möhring, and C. Zaroliagis, editors, Robust and Online Large-Scale Optimization, volume 5868 of LNCS, pages 249-272. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  11. Ralf Rückert, Martin Lemnian, Steffen Rechner, Christoph Blendinger, and Matthias Müller-Hannemann. PANDA: A software tool for improved train dispatching with focus on passenger flows. In Proceedings of CASPT 2015 (Conference on Advanced Systems in Public Transport), Rotterdam. 2015. URL:
  12. Marie Schmidt. Simultaneous optimization of delay management decisions and passenger routes. Public Transport, 5:125-147, 2013. Google Scholar
  13. Anita Schöbel. A model for the delay management problem based on mixed-integer programming. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 50(1), 2001. Google Scholar
  14. Anita Schöbel. Integer programming approaches for solving the delay management problem. In F. Geraets, L. Kroon, A. Schoebel, D. Wagner, and C. Zaroliagis, editors, Algorithmic Methods for Railway Optimization, volume 4359 of LNCS, pages 145-170. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  15. Lucas P. Veelenturf, Leo G. Kroon, and Gábor Maróti. Passenger oriented railway disruption management by adapting timetables and rolling stock schedules. In 10th International Conference of the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT 2014), pages 11-34. 2014. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail