Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part C

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trc

Rescheduling through stop-skipping in dense railway systems q

Estelle Altazin a,b,⇑, Stéphane Dauzère-Pérès b,c, François Ramond a, Sabine Tréfond a
a
SNCF, Innovation and Research Direction, 40 avenue des Terroirs de France, F-75611 Paris Cedex 12, France
b
Ecole des Mines de Saint-Etienne, Department of Manufacturing Sciences and Logistics, CMP, LIMOS UMR CNRS 6158, 880 avenue de Mimet, F-13541
Gardanne, France
c
BI Norwegian Business School, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Business Analytics, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on the analysis of the railway system in the Paris region in France, this paper pre-
Received 29 April 2016 sents a rescheduling problem in which stops on train lines can be skipped and services
Received in revised form 17 March 2017 are retimed to recover when limited disturbances occur. Indeed, in such mass transit sys-
Accepted 18 March 2017
tems, minor disturbances tend to propagate and generate larger delays through the shared
use of resources, if no action is quickly taken. An integrated Integer Linear Programming
model is presented whose objective function minimizes both the recovery time and the
Keywords:
waiting time of passengers. Additional criteria related to the weighted number of train
Rescheduling
Integer Linear programming
stops that are skipped are included in the objective function. Rolling-stock constraints
Macroscopic modelling are also taken into account to propose a feasible plan. Computational experiments on real
Real time data are conducted to show the impact of rescheduling decisions depending on key param-
Dense railway system eters such as the duration of the disturbances and the minimal turning time between
trains. The trade-off between the different criteria in the objective function is also illus-
trated and discussed.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and industrial context

About 18% of the French population live in the Paris region, which only covers 2% of the French territory. Every day, 8.3
million of trips are performed on the public transportation system in the Paris region. SNCF Transilien is a major operator of
Paris suburban trains. Each day, Transilien must carry over 3.2 million commuters in 6200 trains on 1300 km of tracks. The
number of passengers is continuously increasing (3% each year since 2000). To cope with this rise, trains have been added, up
to 32 trains per hour run on the busiest parts of the infrastructure. Some lines are expected to reach a capacity crisis by 2020.
Operating the Transilien rapid transit system is thus challenging on a daily basis. An unexpected large number of passengers
boarding at a station or a minor technical problem can create small delays during running, dwell or turning times. These
small delays are difficult to predict and, because of the saturation of the network, time buffers are not sufficient to absorb
them. They can rapidly accumulate along lines and propagate to other delays, causing larger delays and degrading the quality
of service offered to passengers.
Transilien combines the characteristics of regular trains and subways: (1) Tracks are shared with high-speed, regional and
freight trains; drivers and rolling-stock are shared between Transilien lines; and several services (trains with different

q
This article belongs to the Virtual Special Issue on ‘‘Integr Rail Optimization”.
⇑ Corresponding author at: SNCF, Innovation and Research Direction, 40 avenue des Terroirs de France, F-75611 Paris Cedex 12, France.
E-mail addresses: estelle.altazin@sncf.fr (E. Altazin), dauzere-peres@emse.fr (S. Dauzère-Pérès), francois.ramond@sncf.fr (F. Ramond), sabine.
trefond@sncf.fr (S. Tréfond).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.012
0968-090X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
74 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

stopping pattern) exist on each line. Yet (2) the frequency is very high (less than 3 min on certain lines) and passengers con-
nections do not need to be considered. Operational decisions like skipping a train stop or cancelling a whole train can thus be
taken without severely impacting the quality of service, even though these decisions must be taken as early as possible to
inform all operational actors and passengers.
Such decisions are sometimes hard to make because of the multiplicity and heterogeneity of actors involved in the Paris
rapid transit system.
First, in agreement with the Paris transportation authority, Transilien takes into account precise performance criteria, for
instance: The number of passengers delayed on each line and each branch and the number of trains actually operated com-
pared to the number of trains planned. Other criteria concern the quality of service offered to passengers and the passenger
information system, especially in case of disturbances. These criteria are associated with a bonus/penalty system associated
to Transilien’s performances. Secondly, the main goal of the infrastructure manager is that each train runs on time and
respects its scheduled path. Thirdly, Transilien passengers expect frequent and rapid trains, they want comfortable trips with
reliable service and information, whatever the train path, the rolling-stock unit or the driver.
In addition, many actors are involved in traffic management within Transilien, and have different objectives: Rolling-
stock management, driver management, passenger information operators, etc. This makes the decision-making process com-
plex and adds to the difficulty of implementing decisions.
Finally, Transilien operators need to find, at all times, the right balance between quality of service and performance. They
need to constantly maintain a good quality of service for passengers and to fulfil the requirements of the transportation
authority, while seeking performance, to minimize delays of trains, and to minimize costs. It is often hard to take real-
time decisions that satisfy all the stakeholders simultaneously. For example, skipping stops on a delayed train may reduce
the delay and avoid its propagation to the next train, but it affects the quality of service for passengers that wanted to board
at the skipped stations and a penalty is incurred for delaying them. For most decisions, a trade-off has to be found between
(1) penalizing a limited number of passengers and maybe paying a penalty or (2) risking to propagate the delay to the next
train with potentially more passengers impacted and an even higher penalty to pay. Operators need to constantly have all
criteria and constraints in mind to anticipate the potential impacts of each decision.
In real-time, Transilien operators need to quickly determine the best actions from a system-wide perspective. In this
work, we develop a real-time integrated rescheduling model that proposes stops to be skipped and a new timetable for trains
in order to minimize both delay propagation and the waiting time of passengers. Moreover, we include both train reschedul-
ing and rolling-stock constraints as turning times tend to propagate delays very quickly in dense systems.
The next section gives an overview of existing operational policies and rescheduling models for railway operations, as
well as various approaches for bus or metro traffic. Section 3 presents the problem characteristics and various assumptions.
Section 4 introduces a mathematical model in which train stops can be skipped. Section 5 presents the Transilien system
characteristics, numerical results on real data obtained with the model, and discusses how to manage multiples criteria
in the objective function. Section 6 presents results with multiple initial delays, associated to industrial instances. Finally,
conclusions and directions for future work are provided in Section 7.

2. Literature review

Real-time traffic management consists in supervising the traffic and adjusting timetable, rolling-stock and driver sched-
ules to prevent and reduce delays caused by incidents. Incidents can be either small perturbations called disturbances, or
larger perturbations, called disruptions (Cacchiani et al., 2014). In this paper, we focus on disturbances that cause delays
of a few minutes.
In recent years, Cacchiani et al. (2014), Corman and Meng (2015) and Toletti et al. (2015) reviewed several approaches
that have been developed to propose automatic actions for railway traffic management. Different problems are usually
defined, coping with different aspects of railway traffic. Each problem considers specific actions to cope with incidents,
and tries to optimize a specific type of objective.
The train dispatching problem, also referred to as train path rescheduling or conflict prediction and resolution, consists in
adjusting a timetable that has become infeasible because of disturbances or disruptions (Hansen and Pachl, 2008). Train
routes, orders, timetable or speeds can be modified in order to achieve a feasible timetable. The objective is to improve
the performance of the railway system by minimizing train delays and recovering the original timetable. Meng and Zhou
(2014) propose to minimize the total deviation time from the original timetable, while Samà et al. (2016) choose to minimize
the total consecutive delays. However, some approaches consider a passenger-based objective: Sato et al. (2013) propose a
rescheduling model including train reordering and retiming (adjustments of the timetable) that minimizes the inconve-
nience of passengers (waiting time, travelling time and number of transfers). Caimi et al. (2012) propose a dispatching model
that reroutes and re-platforms (changes in the platform assignment) trains in complex station areas, and maximizes the pas-
senger satisfaction (maintained connections, schedule all trains and delays). In our problem, the layout of tracks does not
allow for overtaking, thus trains cannot be rerouted or reordered. Reservicing actions, that consist in modifying the traffic
plan (adding or skipping stops, cancelling trains, short-turning trains) can be included in train dispatching approaches.
Sato et al. (2013) modify the train type in order to make an express train stop at a station that it should not serve.
Veelenturf et al. (2016) propose partial or whole cancellations of trains in addition to rerouting and retiming for handling
 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84 75

large disruptions. Following Hansen and Pachl (2008), other reservicing actions such as adding stops or extending a sched-
uled stop can be used to compute conflict free routes. This paper focuses on retiming and reservicing actions.
Schöbel (2001) studies the delay management problem, that aims at determining which passenger connections should be
kept and which should be dropped in a delayed situation. Objective functions are related to passengers, such as Dollevoet
et al. (2015), who minimize the total delay of passengers. Gatto et al. (2007) propose a family of online algorithms to solve
the delay management problem. They decide in which station the train will wait for delayed passengers from other trains,
without knowing if other delayed passengers will enter the system. The objective is to minimize the total passenger delay on
the train line. Recently, Corman et al. (2016) proposed an integrated approach for the microscopic delay management prob-
lem: Trains are re-ordered and re-timed while passengers are re-routed through the network. Their approach minimizes the
total travel time of passengers, combining conflict resolution and control actions on passenger connections, at a microscopic
level. Our approach does not consider passenger connections since we focus on rapid transit systems with high frequencies.
The rolling-stock rescheduling problem consists in adjusting rolling-stock assignments and deciding whether spare units
are to be used. This step is usually carried out once the timetable has been adjusted, in order to adapt the rolling-stock
allocation to the new timetable. It can be necessary in case of big disruptions: Kroon et al. (2015) propose to reschedule
the rolling-stock in case of a 3-h blockage. In case of small disruptions, Cadarso et al. (2013) propose to reschedule the
rolling-stock allocation as well as the timetable in case of disruptions in rapid transit networks, and Almodóvar and
García-Ródenas (2013) describe a vehicle rescheduling approach to cope with an unexpected peak of demand on one line
by using vehicles assigned to other lines. The usual objective is related to carriage kilometers and number of shunting
movements (Nielsen et al., 2012), yet Kroon et al. (2015) and Almodóvar and García-Ródenas (2013) also include a
passenger-oriented objective. As explained in Cadarso et al. (2013), computing a new timetable without considering
rolling-stock constraints might produce an infeasible plan. Due to short turning times in rapid transit systems, rolling-
stock is a critical resource. We present an integrated approach of train rescheduling with rolling-stock constraints to cope
with small disturbances.
Finally, the crew rescheduling problem is the process of adjusting the assignments of drivers to trains. This step is usually
performed when the timetable and the rolling-stock have been rescheduled. The aim is usually to cover as many train ser-
vices as possible, while minimizing costs and deviation from the original schedule (Potthoff et al., 2010). Our approach
assumes that drivers operate the same rolling-stock unit during the rescheduling horizon, that is limited to a few hours.
The above mentioned approaches are on conventional railway systems, whereas the Transilien system has a high fre-
quency of trains, short distances between stations and short turning times for rolling-stock. Besides, the infrastructure does
not permit overtaking or rerouting of trains. We will thus combine retiming with reservicing decisions, as commonly used in
subway or bus traffic.
Rescheduling in public transport systems is often referred to as real time control strategies, and allows to cope with per-
turbations as well. The constraints are different, as the infrastrucutre is simpler and passengers do not take a specific train.
Reservicing actions are mostly used in public transit, and the objective is usually passenger focused. Eberlein et al. (1999)
classify these control strategies into three categories: Station control, inter-station control and others. Station control con-
sists of holding trains at station and station-skipping (Wilson et al., 1992). The second category includes speed control, traffic
signal pre-emption, etc., while the third category includes strategies such as adding vehicles or splitting trains.
Holding a vehicle at a station is used to even out the headways between its preceding and following vehicles and thus to
reduce the waiting time of passengers. Different station-skipping strategies exist: Deadheading a vehicle consists in running
empty from a terminal through a number of stations. Headway with the preceding train can be reduced, along with the wait-
ing time of passengers at stations beyond the deadhead segment. Yet it increases the waiting time for passengers at the
skipped stations. Expressing a vehicle is similar to deadheading except that expressing can start at any station and the vehicle
generally does not run empty, passengers must thus be notified. Short-turning a vehicle consists in skipping the last stations
of the line and turning the vehicle at an earlier station. Headways and therefore the waiting time in high demand zones can
be reduced.
Eberlein et al. (1999) propose mathematical formulations for the real-time holding problem, deadheading problem and
expressing problem. The aim is to minimize the waiting time of passengers. Each of the strategies is tested alone first,
and then combinations of strategies are tested, with best results on a Boston light rail line (MTBA Green Line) where 76%
of the vehicles are controlled. This paper shows that frequent control actions are needed for maximum effectiveness, and
that control should be a continuous process.
O’Dell and Wilson (1999) propose mixed integer programming formulations when holding and short-turning are allowed
on a light rail line. Results on the MTBA Red Line show that the waiting time is reduced by 15–25% for a 10-min delay and up
to 40% for a 20-min delay. Short-turning is efficient when the time required to execute the short-turn is significantly shorter
than the blockage time and the number of skipped stations is small, so that a large number of passengers will benefit from
the short-turn.
Cortés et al. (2011) present an integrated model combining short-turning and deadheading for a single bus line. It takes
into account the demand and proposes that some vehicles perform short cycles to serve the most loaded stations and
increases the frequency in this segment. The waiting and in-vehicle times of passengers are minimized, as well as the
operator cost.
76 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

Canca et al. (2014) propose a model capable of inserting special short-turning services in case of disruptions causing
peaks of demand at certain stations. The average waiting time is reduced by up to around 30%. Such a strategy needs reserve
rolling-stock units as well as capacity on the line.
The real-time stop-skipping problem is first studied by Sun and Hickman (2005), as a real-time strategy than can be
applied to all vehicles, even those already dispatched from the terminal. They propose a formulation of two stop-skipping
policies: Expressing the vehicle over a whole segment and dropping off the passengers destined for stops in the skipping
segment at the last stop before the skipping segment, or allowing some passengers to alight at stops in the skipped segment
if their destination is in this segment. The capacity of vehicles is considered and the model includes assumptions of random
distributions of passenger boardings and alightings. The aim is to minimize the waiting time of passengers and the number
of passengers that are forced to get off when applying the first strategy. It appears that the second strategy outperforms the
first one, and is simpler to implement in a real-time manner with limited passenger cost.
Because missed connections increase the waiting time and frustration of passengers, Nesheli and Ceder (2015) propose a
mathematical model combining holding, stop-skipping and short-turning that minimizes total passenger travel time and
maximizes direct transfers. They use an agent-based simulator (each trip time is recorded) to validate the optimization
results on real-life scenarios. Tests on the Auckland bus network show that the combination of the three strategies reduce
the average travel time by up to 5% and increase the direct transfers by up to 153%. Furthermore, it is shown that, in every
case, the total travel time is increased by less than 1.5%. Gao et al. (2016) present a model that defines skip-stop patterns to
recover from a disruption on an over-crowded metro line. Services are thus adapted by skipping some stops to speed up the
circulation and limit the number of stranded passengers. This approach minimizes both the total travel time of services and
the number of passengers waiting in stations, through a fine modelling of passenger flows.
Most approaches for railway rescheduling consider microscopic models with detailed infrastructure, as it is needed when
considering rerouting decisions (Samà et al., 2016; Pellegrini et al., 2014; Meng and Zhou, 2014; Caimi et al., 2012). Some
papers propose macroscopic models, for instance at station level, to cope with large networks and lower the computational
times (Kecman et al., 2013; Krasemann, 2012). Reservicing approaches in metro or buses, that focus on passengers and do
not consider vehicle routing, propose macroscopic models at the station level (Gao et al., 2016; Eberlein et al., 1999; O’Dell
and Wilson, 1999; Sun and Hickman, 2005).
Our work combines retiming and reservicing trains with a high frequency through stop-skipping and rolling-stock con-
straints. We aim at optimizing both the performance of the railway system and the quality of service for passengers. Con-
sidering Transilien constraints and the actions we want to implement, we chose to develop a macroscopic model. The
next section will describe the problem and our assumptions.

3. Problem description

In this work, we consider the problem of real-time rescheduling for rapid transit railway systems. In case of disturbances,
a new transportation plan is proposed to minimize the impact of disturbances. Our assumptions are detailed below.
We consider a double-track rapid transit network and each track is operated in a single direction. In each served station,
there is one platform for each direction and the trains cannot overtake each other. Some lines consist of several branches. The
capacity of terminal stations is not considered as a constraint, and thus is infinite. The frequency of trains on each line is
between 3 and 15 min during peak hours, and lower during off-peak periods.
A limited rescheduling horizon (1.5–2.5 h of circulation in the experiments) is considered. In case of small disturbances,
typically causing less than 10 min of delay, we determine which train stops to skip and plan a new timetable for trains, based
on the original transportation plan. The running and dwell times of trains in the original schedule are considered as minimal
values for train operations. Headway constraints between trains running on the same track (i.e. in the same direction), are
considered as well.
The rolling-stock schedule is considered through minimal turning time constraints at terminal stations, between trains
using the same rolling-stock unit. We assume that drivers operate the same rolling-stock unit during the rescheduling
horizon.
Data on origin-destination trips of passengers are used, with a fixed number of passengers boarding and alighting each
train at each station. The capacity of trains is not considered.
Our primary objective is to recover the original timetable as fast as possible, while minimizing the waiting time of pas-
sengers. When a stop is skipped, the train will reduce its delay by the planned dwell time and an extra time parameter cor-
responding to the saved braking and acceleration times. The number of skipped stops is also minimized, for two reasons: To
limit the deviation from the original plan and thus reduce the workload of operators when implementing the proposed
changes, and to maintain a satisfying quality of service for passengers.

4. Mathematical modelling

We develop an Integer Linear Programming model, where stops can be skipped to minimize the impact of disturbances.
We model railway operations at macroscopic level as a directed graph. Set N is the set of nodes corresponding to events of
trains: Departures from a station, arrivals at a station or transits through a station. Arcs of the graph can correspond to two
 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84 77

types of links between events: (1) Operations, particularly running between stations, dwelling at a station or turning at a
terminal station or (2) headway constraints between two trains running consecutively on the same infrastructure.
An example is illustrated in Fig. 1. Trains t1 and t 3 are consecutively running from station A to station D, passing through
station B and stopping at station C. Train t 2 runs in the opposite direction, from station D to station A, with the same stopping
pattern. Trains t1 and t 2 are using the same rolling-stock unit. Plain arcs correspond to run and dwell time constraints
between two consecutive events e and e0 of a train. Thus, de1 e2 ; de2 e3 , and de4 e5 , are minimal running times between events
e1 and e2 ; e2 and e3 , and e4 and e5 respectively. Similarly, de3 e4 is the minimal dwelling time at station C between events
e3 and e4 . The dotted arc represents the turning time of the rolling-stock unit between arrival of train t1 at its terminal Sta-
tion D, represented by the event e5 , and the departure of t 2 from Station D, represented by event e6 . Hence, de5 e6 corresponds
to the minimal turning time required between e5 and e6 to turn the rolling-stock unit. The dashed arcs represent headway
constraints between trains t1 and t3 that run in the same direction. As there is only one track per direction, and one platform
per direction in each station, only one train can dwell at a time. Thus, train t 3 cannot arrive at Station C (event e13 ) before
train t1 has left the station (event e4 ) since there is a minimal headway time he4 e13 .

4.1. Notations

Let us consider the following sets:

N Set of nodes representing events e of a train at a location in the original schedule (departure, arrival or passing)
SN Set of events associated to train stops that can be skipped
DN Set of events representing departures of a train from a station
A Set of pairs ðe; e0 Þ of consecutive events (run or dwell) of a train
E Set of pairs ðe; e0 Þ of final and first events of two trains using the same rolling-stock unit
S Set of pairs ðe; e0 Þ of events of two consecutive trains on the same track
L Set of pairs ðe; e0 Þ of arrival events at the same station and of trains running in the same direction, with e scheduled
before e0 . This set will be used to compute the waiting time of passengers

The following parameters are defined:

se Time at which event e was originally scheduled

dee0 Minimal duration of the running, dwelling or turning operation between events e and e0 such that ðe; e0 Þ 2 A or
ðe; e0 Þ 2 E
hee0 Minimal headway time between events e and e0 of consecutive trains on the same infrastructure section
sav ed
dee0 Time saved for a train between events e 2 SN and its following event e0 if stop e is skipped, corresponding to the
theoretical dwell time and saved braking and acceleration times
we Penalty associated to skipping the stop at e
pe Number of passengers alighting or boarding at stop e. This parameter is used as a penalty for the extra waiting
time of passengers

Station A Station B Station C Station D

e1 de1 e2 e2 de2 e3 e3 de e e4 de4 e5 e5
3 4
t1

he2 e12 he4 e13 de5 e6

t2
e10 e9 e8 e7 e6

t3
e11 e12 e13 e14 e15
Fig. 1. Graph representation of 3 trains and 4 stations.
78 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

The following variables are considered:

Pe Rescheduled time of event e, i.e. time at which event e is re-timed

De 1, if event e 2 N is late compared to its original schedule (i.e. Pe > se ), and 0 otherwise
Se 1, if stop e 2 SN is skipped, and 0 otherwise
RT Recovery time, i.e. maximum time at which rescheduled times of events are different from scheduled times
WT e;e0 Waiting Time for passengers between scheduled stops e and e0 , such that ðe; e0 Þ 2 L

4.2. Objective function

Two main aspects are optimized in the model: The performance of the railway system and the quality of service for pas-
sengers. The system’s performance is considered through minimizing the recovery time RT, associated to the duration of the
perturbation. If the system cannot recover within the time horizon, then RT is larger than the time horizon, but the solution
remains feasible. The quality of service is modeled through the weighted number of skipped stops, and the weighted total
passenger waiting time. The number of skipped stops also models the deviation from the original schedule, and thus the dif-
ficulty of implementing the new plan. The waiting time of passengers is computed between each pair ðei ; ej Þ of scheduled
stops at the same station and in the same direction. Its weight represents the number of passengers boarding or alighting
trains at event ej and at events corresponding to stops scheduled between ei and ej at the same station and in the same direc-
tion (i.e. such that ðei ; eÞ 2 L and ðe; ej Þ 2 L). The sum of delays and the number of delayed events are also minimized as sec-
ondary criteria, to ensure the consistency of the solution.
X X X X X
min aRT þ b ðpej þ pe ÞWT ei ej þ c we Se þ d ðPe  se Þ þ g De :
ðei ;ej Þ2L e2SN e2SN e2N e2N
ðei ;eÞ2L
ðe;ej Þ2L

The five criteria are combined in the objective function as a weighted sum. They are treated in a lexicographic order as the
coefficients a; b; c; d and g are tuned such as there cannot be any compensation between the criteria. This is done by estimat-
ing the largest value that each criterion can take.

4.3. An Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model

The mathematical model M ss to reschedule trains in dense areas by skipping stops is given below:
X X X X X
min aRT þ b ðpej þ pe ÞWT ei ej þ c we Se þ d De þ g ðP e  se Þ ð1Þ
ðei ;ej Þ2L e2SN e2SN e2N e2N
ðei ;eÞ2L
ðe;ej Þ2L

subject to

Pe0 P Pe þ dee0 8ðe; e0 Þ 2 A s:t: e R SN ð2Þ

sav ed
Pe0 P Pe þ dee0  dee0 Se 8ðe; e0 Þ 2 A s:t: e 2 SN ð3Þ
Pe0 P Pe þ dee0 8ðe; e0 Þ 2 E ð4Þ
Pe0 P Pe þ hee0 8ðe; e0 Þ 2 S ð5Þ
P e P se 8e 2 DN ð6Þ
De P ðPe  se Þ=M 1 ; 8e 2 N ; ð7Þ
RT P se De ; 8e 2 N ; ð8Þ
X
WT ei ;ej P Pej  Pei  ð1  Se ÞM2 8ðei ; ej Þ 2 L; ð9Þ
e2SN
ðei ;eÞ2Lðe;ej Þ2L

De 2 f0; 1g; 8e 2 N ; ð10Þ

Se 2 f0; 1g; 8e 2 SN : ð11Þ
where M 1 , resp. M 2 , is a sufficiently large coefficient to prevent constraints (7), resp. (9), from being binding when Pe is equal
to se , resp. Se is equal to 1.
The objective function (1) is explained in Section 4.2. Constraints (2)–(5) ensure the minimal times between consecutive
events:
 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84 79

 Running or dwell time between two consecutive events that cannot be skipped (2);
 Dwell time between events that can be skipped or saved time if stop e is skipped (3);
 Minimal turning time between arrival at terminal stations and departure from terminal stations of two trains using the
same rolling-stock unit (4);
 Minimal safe headway time between two consecutive trains on the same infrastructure segment (5).

Constraints (6) ensure that no train can leave from a station earlier than its scheduled departure time for the quality of
service. Constraints (7) define the variables De characterizing delayed events. Constraints (8) determine the time to recover
the original schedule.
Waiting time variables are calculated in Constraints (9) as follows: Each pair ðei ; ej Þ 2 L represents two stops at the same
station and in the same direction, with ei scheduled before ej . For each pair ðei ; ej Þ 2 L, variable WT ei ej models the waiting
time of passengers between scheduled stops ei and ej . If there is no stop between ei and ej , whether in the scheduled time-
table or as the result of intermediary stops being skipped, the waiting time is the duration between ei and ej , i.e.
WT ei ej ¼ P ej  P ei . If there is one or more scheduled stops between ei and ej , the waiting time depends on whether these stops
are skipped or not. If at least one of them is not skipped, the waiting time between ei and ej has no meaning since another
train will board the station between ei and ej , thus WT ei ej ¼ 0.
This model has been tested with various scenarios, and computational results are presented and discussed in the next
sections.

5. Computational experiments

5.1. Transilien network specification

The Transilien network consists of 13 train lines. Five of them are crossing Paris (RER lines), along a north-south axis or an
east-west axis. The other eight lines start from one large train station in Paris, and travel towards the suburbs. Some lines
share the infrastructure with other SNCF long distance trains (mostly regional and intercity trains). Most of the lines consist
of several branches, and each line has its own characteristics (platform height, length, rolling stock, train protection system,
etc.). Lines consist of double tracks, and tracks are operated in a single direction, although most of them are equipped to be
operated in the opposite direction in case of large disruptions. As lines are double-tracked, there is only one possibility for
trains paths, and re-routing is not possible. Some stations are equipped with a third central track, allowing trains to turn. Yet
these tracks are not used to change the order of trains, except in case of large disruptions.
Frequencies widely vary depending on the type of lines (crossing Paris or not) and the distance from Paris. Furthest sta-
tions have the lowest frequency (two trains per hour) while, in central Paris stations, the frequency is about two minutes
during peak hours. Thus, the impact of an operation control action depends on its location: Skipping a stop in Paris has
almost no impact on the quality of service, while skipping a stop further from Paris can result in passengers waiting for
one hour or more.
Transilien trains are most of the time composed of a locomotive and a set of coaches or two coupled units that operate as
a pair for the entire day. Here, each train is considered as one rolling-stock unit.

5.2. Test instances

We performed several tests on real SNCF Transilien instances, on a line where 6 stations are served in addition to the ter-
minal ones. Trains are running during morning or evening peak hours, with a frequency of one train every 10 min in both
directions. The instances cover between 1.5 and 2.5 h of circulation. Some trains are using the same rolling-stock units, with
turning times of at least 9.5 min.
We set the model parameters as follows (recall that weights a; b; c; d and g are established by estimating the maximum
value of the associated criterion, see Section 4.2):

 The minimal headway time is 4 min,

 The penalty associated with deleting one stop is 10 (we ¼ 10; 8e),
 The saved braking and acceleration times are equal to 30 s added to the saved dwell time (i.e.
sav ed
dee0 ¼ dee0 þ 30s; 8e 2 SN ),
 a ¼ 10,
 b ¼ 105 ,
 c ¼ 1,
 d ¼ 106 ,
 g ¼ 101 ,
 M 1 ¼ 35; 000, which is larger than the horizon (in seconds),
 M 2 ¼ 35; 000, which is larger than the horizon (in seconds).
80 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

A single perturbation is created on one of the first trains of the instance, at different stations given the instance. Three
different sets of experiments are run for several values of the duration of the initial perturbation:

 In Section 5.3, we test different minimal turning times and stop-skipping strategies: No stop-skipping authorized, stop-
skipping authorized for trains that have not departed their first station within a certain time period after the perturbation,
and no constraints on stop-skipping.
 In Section 5.4, we fix the number of skipped stops between 0 and the optimal number determined in Section 5.3 plus one.
We study the balance between different criteria of the objective function.
 In Section 5.5, the number of skipped stops is again fixed, and the recovery time is set as a constraint instead of being
minimized in the objective function. We test which stops are skipped when minimizing the waiting time of passengers
with a larger weight in the objective function.

The ILP model M ss is solved using the standard solver IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.6.2, and all instances are solved to optimality
within less than 1 s of computational time.

5.3. Impact of minimal turning time and stop-skipping strategy

In this first set of experiments, we ran several scenarios by varying different parameters:

 Initial disturbance of 3, 5, 7 or 10 min;

 Minimal turning time of 8 or 9.5 min;
 Stop-skipping strategy: no stop-skipping (noskip), authorized for trains that depart after the perturbation plus a given
time period set to 10 min, which is the current situation in Transilien (after10), authorized for all train stops after the per-
turbation (allstops).

Table 1 summarizes the average numerical results for five instances. Each scenario is characterized by an initial delay, a
minimal turning time and a stop-skipping strategy. For each scenario, the average values of the following indicators are
provided:

The recovery time, i.e. the duration of the perturbation, in minutes;

The extra waiting time of passengers, i.e. the percentage of increased waiting time induced by the stops that are skipped,
compared with strategy (noskip);

Table 1
Average numerical results on five instances, with varying initial delays, minimal turning times and stop-skipping strategies.

Initial delay Minimal turning time Stop skipping Recovery time Extra waiting Skipped Delayed Total delay
(min) (min) strategy (min) time (%) stops events (min)
3 8 noskip 16 0 0 14 43
after10 16 0 0 14 43
allstops 4 4 1.6 4 8
9,5 noskip 96 0 0 58 68
after10 80 2 1.4 39 56
allstops 71 3 2 34 40
5 8 noskip 30 0 0 23 84
after10 23 1 0.8 18 74
allstops 9 10 3.2 9 28
9,5 noskip 96 0 0 58 109
after10 81 2 1.8 40 93
allstops 74 6 2.8 36 71
7 8 noskip 43 0 0 39 152
after10 32 3 1.6 32 132
allstops 14 13 4.2 17 62
9,5 noskip 105 0 0 87 194
after10 86 4 2.6 66 168
allstops 75 8 3 58 127
10 8 noskip 59 0 0 54 296
after10 42 8 4 42 249
allstops 23 25 6 28 120
9,5 noskip 106 0 0 103 392
after10 89 4 2.2 81 344
allstops 80 11 4 78 275
 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84 81

The number of skipped stops;

The number of delayed events;
The total delay of all delayed events, in minutes.

Table 1 shows that, by deleting some stops, the duration of the perturbation can be strongly reduced, on average by 47%
between strategies (noskip) and (allstops). The number of delayed events and the total delay are also strongly reduced, show-
ing that the propagation of the perturbation can quickly be stopped.
The duration of the initial perturbation is an important factor. The longer it is, the more the delay will be propagated to
other trains. This will happen either through headway constraints, as trains are running at a 10-min frequency with a min-
imal headway of 4 min, or through minimal turning time constraints, when trains are using the same rolling-stock unit.
The minimal turning time parameter shows a significant impact on the total delay and the number of skipped stops, espe-
cially with strategy (after10). Indeed, the longer the minimal turning time, the greater the chance the delay will be propa-
gated to other trains, on which stops will then be skipped. For instance, when the minimal turning time is increased from
8 min to 9.5 min with an initial 7-min delay and strategy (after10), on average 1 additional stop is skipped, twice more events
are delayed and the total delay increases by 27%. The reduction of the recovery time is also much larger when the minimal
turning time is short: 44% of reduction on average with a 8-min minimal turning time, but only 21% with a 9.5-min minimal
turning time. Being able to reduce the minimal turning time during operations is thus a very important factor for a fast
recovery of the system.
The stop-skipping strategy (after10), allowing stop-skipping only on trains that depart 10 min after the initial perturba-
tion occurs, corresponds to the current situation at Transilien. This rule is set to ensure that stops will not be skipped on
trains already boarding, thus the passenger information can be adjusted in time. Results show that, even if this strategy
is better than strategy (noskip) with no stop-skipping, the impact of a perturbation can be strongly reduced if trains stops
can be skipped directly after the perturbation occurs (strategy (allstops)). On average, the total delay is reduced by about
43% when it is compared to strategy (after10) (up to 81% for a 3-min delay with 8-min minimal turning time). Additional
tests have been conducted for strategy (after10) with a period of 5 or 20 min to skip stops after the perturbation occurs,
and the results are similar to those obtained with a period of 10 min.
Thus, more flexible and reactive operations are essential to significantly limit the impact of a perturbation. Yet, strategy
(after10) allows the perturbation to be reduced using the buffer times available in turning times or in headways, and less
stops need to be deleted than in strategy (allstops). Also, the impact on the waiting time of passengers is reduced. Indeed,
the waiting time of passengers remains almost the same between strategies (noskip) and (after10) because a limited number
of stops are skipped, but it is increased when using strategy (allstops). The larger the number of skipped stops, the longer the
passengers will wait: Up to 25% extra waiting time is caused by skipping 6 stops for a 10-min delay with 8-min turning time
and strategy (allstops).
Fig. 2 shows the time-space diagram of a test instance with a 7-min initial delay, 8-min minimal turning time and strat-
egy (after10). The dashed lines correspond to the original schedule and the plain lines to the proposed timetable. The thick
line shows the train T delay on which the delay is created. The model proposes to skip 4 stops to recover the delay, they are
represented by dots on the diagram. Two trains are delayed by train T delay because of headway and turning time constraints,
and the model delays one train running before train T delay , in order to even out the headways and thus the waiting time of
passengers.

5.4. Impact of the number of skipped stops

We performed additional tests to study the impact of each additional skipped stop. The minimal turning time is set to
8 min and the stop-skipping strategy (after10) is applied. We fixed the number of skipped stops as a constraint, from 0 to
the optimal number (see Section 5.3) plus one.
Table 2 summarizes these results on one of the previous instances. The previous results are in bold. It shows that for each
initial delay, the optimal solution corresponds to the best recovery time, but not necessarily the best waiting time. The tests
with a 10-min initial delay show that more retiming is performed when moving from 7 to 8 skipped stops. Thus, the waiting
time of passengers is improved, but the number of delayed events and the sum of delays increase. A balance needs to be
found between the performance of the system, i.e. the recovery time, and the waiting time of passengers.

5.5. Waiting time of passengers as primary criterion

In the third series of experiments, the recovery time and the number of skipped stops are set as constraints. The initial
delay is set to 7 min, the minimal turning time to 8 min, and the stop-skipping strategy (after10) is used. The number of stops
to skip is set to 4, as determined in Section 5.3, and different margins are used to relax the optimal recovery time RT opt . More
precisely, a new parameter RecoveryMargin is introduced, and the recovery time is no longer considered in the objective
function, but is constrained in the model as follows: RT 6 RT opt þ Recov eryMargin.
The results on the same instance as in Section 5.4 are summed up in Table 3. Note that there is a threshold of the recovery
margin that allows the waiting time of passengers to be significantly reduced. In this case, when allowing at least 40 min of
82 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

Fig. 2. Time-space diagram of results with 7-min delay and 4 skipped stops.

Table 2
Numerical results with a fixed number of skipped stops for one instance.

Initial delay (min) Fixed number of skipped stops Recovery time (min) Extra waiting time (%) Delayed events Total delay (min)
5 0 55 0.0 36 117
1 55 0.5 40 147
2 37 2.3 25 91
3 37 3.4 26 91
7 0 55 0.0 51 219
1 55 0.5 55 245
2 55 1.2 57 253
3 40 3.7 42 173
4 40 4.8 43 173
10 0 65 0.0 72 414
1 65 0.5 72 415
2 65 1.2 72 416
3 61 2.5 69 382
4 55 3.6 77 468
5 55 4.0 77 463
6 55 4.9 75 465
7 47 11.1 71 401
8 47 10.8 75 449

relaxation, the waiting time of passengers reaches a minimum value that cannot be improved with a larger relaxation of the
recovery time: The frequencies between trains are adjusted. These tests illustrate the results when the focus is set on pas-
sengers instead of train delays: By retiming many trains, we optimize the frequency for passengers, but we create delays on
many trains that could have run on time. A trade-off between the two aspects needs to be made.

6. Additional experiments with multiple delays

In this section, we present results of tests conducted on industrial instances: The same real data as for the previous tests
are used, but we did not create a delay on one train. Instead, real initial delays of trains at a specific rescheduling date are
considered.
 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84 83

Table 3
Numerical results with relaxation of recovery time.

Recovery margin (min) Recovery time (min) Extra waiting time (%) Delayed events Total delay (min)
0 46 0 59 226
5 51 6 86 352
10 56 4 64 238
20 66 9 102 573
30 76 10 74 442
40 86 12 70 270
50 96 12 70 270
60 106 12 70 270
70 116 12 70 270
80 126 12 70 270
90 136 12 70 270

Table 4
Numerical results on industrial instances with multiple delays.

Sum of initial delays Trains initially Stop skipping Recovery time Extra waiting Skipped Delayed Total delay
(min) delayed strategy (min) time (%) stops events (min)
4:23 2 noskip 20 0 0 53 86
after10 20 0 0 53 86
allstops 6 7 4 36 46
5:49 2 noskip 60 0 0 93 294
after10 39 1 1 79 290
allstops 21 1 1 72 281
6:55 3 noskip 28 0 0 85 165
after10 28 0 0 85 165
allstops 10 15 6 56 116
9:30 3 noskip 46 0 0 93 189
after10 25 1 1 79 173
allstops 9 9 3 53 144
12:11 5 noskip 50 0 0 115 296
after10 29 3 1 97 286
allstops 9 8 5 65 259

For each instance, we specify in Table 4 the sum of delays of all running trains at this rescheduling date along with the
number of trains delayed at this date. The model then includes these multiple delays and proposes a solution. Tests with an
8-min minimal turning time and the three stop-skipping strategies have been conducted and the results are summed up in
Table 4. As in Table 1, we see that the stop-skipping strategy has a strong impact on the propagation of delays, and that our
approach helps to recover from delays much faster by skipping stops.

7. Conclusion and perspectives

Based on the analysis of the situation in the dense railway system of the Paris area, this paper studies the problem of min-
imizing the recovery time when disturbances occur by skipping stops. Additional criteria are considered, in particular the
waiting time of passengers. An Integer Linear Programming model is proposed which takes into account constraints related
to running times, dwell times, turning times and headways. Numerical experiments on various test instances based on real
data have been performed, showing that even a limited number of skipped stops can help to significantly reduce the recovery
time. Different scenarios were analyzed to study the impact of key parameters such as the minimal turning time, and also the
impact of each skipped stop. Tests with multiple delays have also been performed using industrial instances with real delays,
showing the relevance of our approach to recover from limited disturbances.
Various research avenues will be pursued in the future. Other types of decisions could be included. In Transilien real-time
traffic management, operators also use train cancellations as they free capacity on tracks, rolling-stock units and drivers.
However, cancelling a whole train is more penalizing for commuters than skipping stops. Moreover, the planning of
rolling-stock and drivers must be explicitly managed. Also, other criteria related to passengers could be proposed and ana-
lyzed, in particular to better dynamically manage the flow of passengers. The ILP model cannot easily include all decisions
and criteria, or a dynamic management of passenger flows while being solved in real-time. We are thus developing an alter-
native iterative approach based on local search and simulation of decision scenarios.

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially financed by the ANRT (Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie) through
the PhD number 2014/1195 with CIFRE funds and a cooperation contract between SNCF and ARMINES.
84 E. Altazin et al. / Transportation Research Part C 79 (2017) 73–84

References

Almodóvar, M., García-Ródenas, R., 2013. On-line reschedule optimization for passenger railways in case of emergencies. Comput. Oper. Res. 40 (3), 725–
736 (transport Scheduling).
Cacchiani, V., Huisman, D., Kidd, M., Kroon, L., Toth, P., Veelenturf, L., Wagenaar, J., 2014. An overview of recovery models and algorithms for real-time
railway rescheduling. Transp. Res. Part B: Meth. 63, 15–37.
Cadarso, L., Marín, A., Maróti, G., 2013. Recovery of disruptions in rapid transit networks. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 53, 15–33.
Caimi, G., Fuchsberger, M., Laumanns, M., Lüthi, M., 2012. A model predictive control approach for discrete-time rescheduling in complex central railway
station areas. Comput. Oper. Res. 39 (11), 2578–2593.
Canca, D., Barrena, E., Laporte, G., Ortega, F.A., 2014. A short-turning policy for the management of demand disruptions in rapid transit systems. Ann. Oper.
Res., 1–22
Corman, F., D’Ariano, A., Marra, A.D., Pacciarelli, D., Sama, M., 2016. Integrating train scheduling and delay management in real-time traffic control. Transp.
Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev.
Corman, F., Meng, L., 2015. A review of online dynamic models and algorithms for railway traffic management. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 16 (3), 1274–
1284.
Cortés, C.E., Jara-Díaz, S., Tirachini, A., 2011. Integrating short turning and deadheading in the optimization of transit services. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy
Pract. 45 (5), 419–434.
Dollevoet, T., Huisman, D., Kroon, L., Schmidt, M., Schöbel, A., 2015. Delay management including capacities of stations. Transp. Sci. 49 (2), 185–203.
Eberlein, X.J., Wilson, N.H., Bernstein, D., 1999. Modeling real-time control strategies in public transit operations. In: Computer-Aided Transit Scheduling.
Springer, pp. 325–346.
Gao, Y., Kroon, L., Schmidt, M., Yang, L., 2016. Rescheduling a metro line in an over-crowded situation after disruptions. Transp. Res. Part B: Meth. 93 (Part A),
425–449.
Gatto, M., Jacob, R., Peeters, L., Widmayer, P., 2007. Online Delay Management on a Single Train Line. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 306–
320.
Hansen, I.A., Pachl, J., 2008. Railway Timetable & Traffic. Eurailpress.
Kecman, P., Corman, F., D’Ariano, A., Goverde, R.M., 2013. Rescheduling models for railway traffic management in large-scale networks. Public Transp. 5 (1-
2), 95–123.
Krasemann, J.T., 2012. Design of an effective algorithm for fast response to the re-scheduling of railway traffic during disturbances. Transp. Res. Part C:
Emerging Technol. 20 (1), 62–78.
Kroon, L., Maróti, G., Nielsen, L., 2015. Rescheduling of railway rolling stock with dynamic passenger flows. Transp. Sci. 49 (2), 165–184.
Meng, L., Zhou, X., 2014. Simultaneous train rerouting and rescheduling on an n-track network: a model reformulation with network-based cumulative flow
variables. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 67, 208–234.
Nesheli, M.M., Ceder, A.A., 2015. A robust, tactic-based, real-time framework for public-transport transfer synchronization. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerging
Technol. 60, 105–123.
Nielsen, L.K., Kroon, L., Maróti, G., 2012. A rolling horizon approach for disruption management of railway rolling stock. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 220 (2), 496–509.
O’Dell, S.W., Wilson, N.H., 1999. Optimal real-time control strategies for rail transit operations during disruptions. In: Computer-Aided Transit Scheduling.
Springer, pp. 299–323.
Pellegrini, P., Marlière, G., Rodriguez, J., 2014. Optimal train routing and scheduling for managing traffic perturbations in complex junctions. Transp. Res.
Part B: Meth. 59, 58–80.
Potthoff, D., Huisman, D., Desaulniers, G., 2010. Column generation with dynamic duty selection for railway crew rescheduling. Transp. Sci. 44 (4), 493–505.
Samà, M., Pellegrini, P., D’Ariano, A., Rodriguez, J., Pacciarelli, D., 2016. Ant colony optimization for the real-time train routing selection problem. Transp. Res.
Part B: Meth. 85, 89–108.
Sato, K., Tamura, K., Tomii, N., 2013. A mip-based timetable rescheduling formulation and algorithm minimizing further inconvenience to passengers. J. Rail
Transp. Plan. Manage. 3 (3), 38–53. robust Rescheduling and Capacity Use.
Schöbel, A., 2001. A model for the delay management problem based on mixed-integer-programming. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 50 (1), 1–10.
Sun, A., Hickman, M., 2005. The real-time stop-skipping problem. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 9 (2), 91–109.
Toletti, A., Laumanns, M., Grossenbacher, P., Weidmann, U., 2015. Meeting functional requirements for real-time railway traffic management with
mathematical models. In: Conference on Advanced Systems in Public Transport.
Veelenturf, L.P., Kidd, M.P., Cacchiani, V., Kroon, L., Toth, P., 2016. A railway timetable rescheduling approach for handling large-scale disruptions. Transp.
Sci. 50 (3), 841–862.
Wilson, N.H., Macchi, R.A., Fellows, R.E., Deckoff, A.A., 1992. Improving service on the MBTA green line through better operations control. Transp. Res. Rec.
(1361).