A dynamic approach for planning preventive

railway maintenance activities

G. Budai1 & R. Dekker2
1
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Tinbergen Institute, The Netherlands
2
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract
In this paper some useful methods for finding optimal track possession intervals
for carrying out preventive maintenance works are provided. The objective is to
minimise the inconvenience for the train operators and the infrastructure
possession time. In these models the train free periods are mostly used for this
purpose, namely the hours between two consecutive train operations. This
approach can be useful for some European railway companies for carrying out
preventive maintenance works.
Keywords: railways, preventive maintenance, work scheduling.

1 Introduction
Statistics have shown that the demand for railway transport has increased
considerably in the last few years as a result of overcrowded roads, parking
problems, environmental pollution, etc. In order to satisfy the demand, there is a
need for a high quality and modern railway infrastructure, for reliable service, for
more trains per hour, for railway safety and improved punctuality. However,
increasing the number of trains (and their speed) leads to an increase of
deterioration of infrastructure. Hence, more intensive maintenance and renewal
works are needed. This means that the infrastructure possession time for these
maintenance activities, i.e. the time when the track is blocked from train traffic
and it is handed over by the train operators to the maintenance engineers for
maintenance, will increase as well. Therefore, it is more and more difficult to
find a timetable for those possession intervals in such of way that railway traffic
is not severely disrupted.

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
324 Computers in Railways IX

The purpose of this paper is to provide useful methods for finding optimal
track possession intervals for carrying out preventive maintenance works and
inspections. The schedules are constructed in such a way that the inconvenience
for the train operators, the disruption to and from the scheduled trains and the
infrastructure possession time for maintenance is minimized.
A literature review (Budai and Dekker [1]) shows that in some articles the
track possession is modelled in between operations (Higgins [4] and Cheung et
al. [2]). This can be done for occasionally used track, which is the case in
Australia and some European countries. If tracks are used frequently, one has to
go over to night maintenance, when the train traffic is almost absent. In that case
one can either make a cyclic static schedule, which is made by den Hertog et al.
[3] and van Zante-de Fokkert et al. [5] for the Dutch situation or a dynamic
schedule with a rolling horizon, which is presented in Cheung et al. [2]. Here a
more general planning method is given, which results in a dynamic timetable for
preventive maintenance activities. This timetable is made such that jobs are
performed as much as possible in train free periods or in hours with less impact
to the operators and the number of hours required for these works is minimized,
by clustering as much as possible the preventive maintenance activities.
By dynamic timetable we mean that tracks are handed over by the train
operators to maintenance engineers only in cases if maintenance has to be carried
out on those track segments and as long as the work duration requires. Here it is
also taken into consideration the situation when these train free periods are not
long enough for carrying out the maintenance works, e.g. long projects. Since it
is not always possible to interrupt the maintenance work by letting some trains to
pass by, train cancellation is needed or one has to arrange alternative transport,
e.g. buses. This paper is focusing on the infrastructure maintenance, mainly on
rail, ballast, sleepers, switches and fasteners, excluding the rolling stock.

2 Problem description
In some countries or regions the railway network is not densely used and on
some sections only few trains run per day. This also means that between two
consecutive train services there might be enough time to carry out inspections or
small maintenance works. Hence one part of the maintenance work can be done
not only during nights, when there are even less trains, but also in daytime in
these train free periods and only big projects need to be done during nights,
weekends or other low-traffic times. This is quite often the cheapest way of
executing preventive maintenance. Moreover the working conditions on daytime
are better than during the night in the sense of having natural light; some
governments have strict rules in order to balance the working time of the
maintenance crew between day and night.
Since the main lines of the railway network are densely used in the
Netherlands as well as in some other countries, especially during the daytime,
the daily train free periods are quite short for maintenance and longer track
possession time would cause severe disturbances. The trains’ timetable uses a
repetitive basic hour pattern in which no time for maintenance possession is

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
 Computers in Railways IX 325

incorporated. Thus renewal and preventive maintenance activities (even small

routine maintenance works) are carried out mostly during the nights or weekends
when the passenger traffic is low. During the nights some five hours are
available per link for preventive maintenance and renewal work, since almost no
passenger trains (sometimes some cargo trains) are operating at that time.
All along this article the terms track corridors and segments or links are used.
In Figure 1 A, F, I, L and N indicates major cities and B, C, D, E, G, etc. the
intermediate places or stations. The track connecting cities A–B-C-D-E-F is
called track corridor. The track segments or links connect two consecutive
intermediate places/stations, for instance A-B, B-C, C-D, etc. A track link
contains single or double/triple tracks. If a link contains double/triple tracks then
in the maintenance of each track will be separately planned. Thus, from now on
it is assumed that track segments have only single tracks. Furthermore, if there is
a junction on a link (e.g. between stations J and K), then the place where the
junction starts can be defined as a dummy station or place (e.g. station J’ in
Figure 1). If a maintenance work is carried out in one part of the link, then the
whole link is out of service. It is also assumed that these track segments are
approximately 5-10 km long and they have more or less same length.

Figure 1: Track corridors and track segments.

In this paper preventive maintenance works consists of routine (spot)

maintenance activities, viz. small repairs that do not take much time and are
done frequently (e.g. revision of track and switch, inspection of rail, switch,
signalling system, switch lubrication) and projects, viz. larger works that take
much time to be done and are carried out once/twice in few years (e.g. ballast
cleaning, rail grinding, tamping)
Table 1 presents different types of works, focusing on when the activities are
performed and what the consequences of their possession times are. It is assumed
that some of the preventive maintenance works (cases 1 and 2) on some links can
be combined. Combination of projects is left out of consideration. However, a
number of routine maintenance works can be combined with some projects or
with some other routine works as well.
Having given information about the frequency of the routine maintenance
works or/and the type of projects that have to be scheduled in a given year and
their duration, in Step 1 a plan is defined that gives which work will be
performed on which segment in which time period (month/week/hours). The

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
326 Computers in Railways IX

routine works have different frequencies and some projects are carried out on
parts of the network once/twice in 1-7 years; in the beginning of each year it is
identified which projects will be carried out in that actual year. If the duration of
a project lasts few weeks/months, then they are scheduled for consecutive
weeks/months. The possible earliest and latest starting times for each project are
known beforehand.

Table 1: Classification of the maintenance works.

case Type of work When is the work Possession

performed? consequences
Works which do not take much Daytime, during Work does not require
time and works which are not train services separate possession
done on the track, only next to
1
a used railway track, doesn’t
affect the track or the catenary
system; e.g. visual inspections
Works with short duration and During train free It might be unsafe for
done on the track, affecting the periods within the maintenance crew.
track. Furthermore works can operation if risk is
2 be split up, i.e. works which acceptable, or
can be interrupted by passing nights in train
trains; e.g. changing clips free period if risks
are not acceptable
Projects which take longer time Daytime or nights Train service is
and cannot be split up and with blocking interrupted: cargo
these major works done on the train services trains are rerouted,
3 track; e.g. tamping, switch passenger trains
renewal cancelled. Better
utilization of the
resources.

Here are mentioned three ways for executing projects. In the first two cases it
is assumed that the projects can be interrupted and in the third case not. In the
first case the projects are performed only in the maximum length train free
periods (once per day) on a number of consecutive days. In this way there is no
disturbance for the train operators and there is no need for train cancellation.
However projects take more time, thus the so-called cost associated for not using
efficiently the resources (machines and human resources) is much higher, since
moving the equipments only for few hours per day to the place where
maintenance should be carried out is not very effective. Therefore, in the second
case it is assumed that projects are carried out on weekends, blocking the track
segments for 48 hours. The penalty cost for blocking the train operation will be
quite high, but on the other hand the machines and the equipments will be used
better. Moreover three shifts of maintenance crew can work continuously in two
consecutive days. The third option results in the best utilization of the resources,
since the execution of the projects is scheduled for a number of consecutive

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
 Computers in Railways IX 327

weekdays and weekends respectively, blocking the train operation for a couple of
days or weeks, for 24 hours per day. This means also that the amount that is
given out for cancelling trains for these days will be high. From these three cases
the one with the lowest penalty cost and the highest utilization factor (i.e. the
lowest penalty cost for not using efficiently the resources) will be selected. The
costs for cancelling trains and the penalty costs assigned for the utilization of the
resources are set by the model users, actually by the maintenance planners. The
calculation of these costs is a very tough work, because cancelling a train for
even few hours on a given segment would cause big disturbances in the whole
network, so it is difficult to evaluate what the real losses are and how much
money it would cost to the railway company. There is an extra cost, called
possession cost, that is paid each time period when a track is handed over by the
train operators to the maintenance engineers for maintenance.
The objective is first to minimize the infrastructure possession time and
consequently the cost of possession by clustering as much as possible the
preventive maintenance works, but still balancing the workload for the
maintenance crew. Secondly, the projects are planned such that cancellation cost
plus the penalty cost assigned to inefficient utilization of the resources is
minimized. In Step 2 a detailed planning is made for those time periods (e.g.
weeks, months) for which at least one preventive maintenance work (cases 2 and
3 from Table 1) has been planned. This approach is subject of a next article.
The resulting model is an integer-programming problem, with constraints on
track availability, work continuity and work deadline.

3 Model description
The purpose of the authors through this paper is to give an optimal dynamic
schedule for carrying out preventive maintenance works. This is done in two
steps. In the first step maintenance works are assigned to different time periods
(months/weeks) and to different track segments and in the second step the
previously defined jobs per time periods are assigned to train free periods or
extensions of them. The latter case happens if delays or trains cancellation are
needed in order to have long enough time windows for maintenance. In the
optimisation activities are combined in a given link for a given time interval.
Next the mathematical formulation of Step 1 is presented; Step 2 is treated
later.

STEP 1
Let PA and RA be sets of projects and routine works respectively, which have to
be done within the planning horizon T. By A = PA ∪ RA the set of all activities
is denoted. Let L be a set of track links in a given corridor. The planning horizon
T (e.g. years) is split up into discrete time periods (e.g. months, weeks). Let
K={1,2,3} be a set of options regarding the execution time of the projects.
Parameter max l denotes the maximum length of the train free period on link
l∈ L. The combinable works are given in the set Comb= {(m, n, l ) | works m and

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
328 Computers in Railways IX

n can be combined on link l, ∀m, n ∈ A , l ∈ L} . Parameter Gal denotes the

frequencies per planning horizon T of activities a∈ RA on link l∈ L; Gal =0, if
activity a∈ RA is not relevant for link l∈ L. TW pl denotes the total workload (in
hours) for project p∈ PA on link l∈ L. Furthermore, the binary parameter I pl
denotes whether in planning horizon T a project p∈ PA has to be performed on
link l∈ L, or not. Let the duration of project p∈ PA on link l∈ L using option
k∈ K be Dkpl = ceil (TW pl /(7 ⋅ max l )) if k=1 or ceil(TW pl / 48) if k=2
or ceil(TW pl /(7 ⋅ 24)) , where ceil denotes the ceiling function. Let LST pl and
UST pl be the earliest/latest possible starting time of project p∈ PA on link l∈ L
and Fal = ceil (T / G al ) denotes the planning cycle for each routine work a ∈ RA
on different links l ∈ L . Let C lt be the cost for possession of link l∈ L at time
t∈ T, CCost kl is the cancellation cost on link l∈ L using option k∈ K and
MCost kpl is the penalty cost for resource utilization if option k∈ K is chosen for
performing project p∈ PA on link l∈ L. The decision variable X alt indicates
whether activity a∈ A on link l∈ L is assigned to time period t∈ T, or not.
Furthermore M lt denotes whether period t∈ T is used for preventive maintenance
work, or not, while Ykplt indicates whether the execution of project p∈ PA starts
at time t∈ T on link l∈ L if option k∈ K is chosen, or not. Variable Bkpl indicates
whether the execution of project p∈ PA on link l∈ L is done according to option
k∈ K, or not. The track possession problem can now be formulated as follows.

Min ∑ ∑ Clt ⋅ M lt + ∑ ∑ ∑ Bkpl ⋅ Dkpl ⋅ (CCost kl + MCost kpl ) s.t. (1)

l∈L t∈T k∈K p∈PA l∈L

∑ X alt = Gal ∀ a ∈ RA, l ∈ L (2)

t∈T

∑ X plt = ∑ I pl ⋅ Dkpl ⋅ Bkpl ∀ p ∈ PA, l ∈ L (3)

t∈T k∈K
X mlt + X nlt ≤ 1 ∀ t ∈ T, (m, n, l ) ∉ Comb (4)
s + Fal −1 s + Fal −1−T
∑ X alt + ∑ X alt ≤ 1 ∀ a ∈ RA, l ∈ L, s ∈ T (5)
t =s t =1
T − Dkpl +1
∑ Ykplt = Bkpl ∀ p ∈ PA, l ∈ L, t ∈ (LST pl ,UST pl ) k ∈ K (6)
t =1
t + Dkpl −1
∑ X pls ≥ Dkpl * Ykplt ∀ p ∈ PA, l ∈ L, t ∈ T , t ≤ T − Dkpl + 1 , I pl = 1 , k ∈ K (7)
s =t

∑ Bkpl =1 ∀ p ∈ PA, l ∈ L (8)

k∈K

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
 Computers in Railways IX 329

M lt ≥ X alt ∀ a ∈ A, l ∈ L , t ∈ T (9)
X alt ∈ {0, 1}, M lt ∈ {0,1}, Ykplt ∈ {0, 1}, Bkpl ∈ {0,1} ∀a ∈ A, t ∈ T , l ∈ L , k ∈ K (10)

The objective minimizes on one hand the number of time periods for which
maintenance work is planned per planning horizon T and consequently the
possession cost and on the other hand the cost for carrying out the scheduled
projects. Actually there are three possibilities for performing the projects. That
option is chosen which gives us the lowest combination of the penalty cost for
cancelling trains and inefficiently used resources. Constraints (2) and (3) ensure
that all routine maintenance activities and projects respectively are assigned to
the right number of time periods for each link. On the same link and at the same
time only combinable activities can be carried out. This is ensured by Constraint
(4). These combinable jobs can be either routine works or projects. Constraint
(5) forbids the routine maintenance works to be carried out on time intervals
close to each other. It has to be Fal time periods between two subsequent
occurrences of the same job on the same link. Constraint (6) warrants that the
starting time for performing the projects is in the interval (earliest possible
starting time, latest possible starting time). If the starting execution time for each
project has been chosen, then the projects are assigned to subsequent intervals.
This is ensured by Constraint (7). Constraint (8) warrants that one of the three
execution options is chosen for performing the identified projects. Constraint (9)
ensures that time period t ∈ T will be used for preventive maintenance work if
and only if for that time period on one of the segments at least one work is
planned. Constraint (10) ensures that the decision variables of the model are
binary.
In Step 1 a maintenance plan is presented per planning horizon T. This plan
gives us which maintenance work will be carried out on which segment in which
time period. This schedule is used in Step 2 as input information. Therefore, a
detailed hour based planning is made for each of the time periods for which in
Step 1 at least one maintenance work has been scheduled.

4 Numerical example
The maintenance scheduling problem can be modelled in GAMS as an integer
programming problem and solved using state-of-the art MIP solvers, like
CPLEX 7.1. The following hypothetical example is meant for testing the model
presented above. Five different types of maintenance works are considered, three
routine maintenance works and two projects. RA={r1, r2, r3}, PA={p1, p2} and
T=1 year. A time plan in weeks is made. Furthermore, it is assumed that each
routine maintenance work has different frequencies and they can be combined on
some links with other routine works or projects. We assume that the corridor is
not densely used; approx. 12-17 trains are operating per day and each track link
has a length of 8-10 km. L={L1, L2, L3, L4, L5} is the set of links, e.g. in Figure
1 the upper corridor: A-B-C-D-E-F. The track possession cost is assumed to be
constant over time and over links and it is 100 € per link. Table 2 summarizes the

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
330 Computers in Railways IX

data for the routine works per year and per link. The identified projects, their
duration and the possible starting times are given in Table 3. The cost structure
for performing the identified projects is plotted in Table 4. The result for one
scenario after running Step 1 is shown in Table 5 and in Figure 2 the annual
maintenance planning is shown.

Table 2: Routine maintenance works’ frequencies per year.

Routine work Frequency

T=52 weeks L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
R1 2 4 2 2 4
R2 13 13 4 13 4
R3 4 2 4 2 4

Table 3: Identified projects; their duration and earliest/latest starting time.

Projects Identification Project Total workload (hours)

T=52 weeks L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
P1 1 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
P2 0 1 0 1 0 0 200 0 150 0
Earliest starting time (weeks) Latest starting time (weeks)
P1 12 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
P2 0 2 0 1 0 0 12 0 5 0

The optimal objective value for scenario 1 shows that the total number of
links on which at least one maintenance work has been scheduled is 57 (33%
lower than not applying this method and planning separately each maintenance
work, which is 85 links), resulting in a 5700 € possession cost.
Table 4: The cost structure for different projects under different scenarios.

Options Cancellation cost Penalty cost for inefficient resource utilization

L1 L2 L4 L1 L2 L4
1 0 0 0 30 30 30
2 22 50 20 20 20 20
3 30 30 35 10 10 10

Furthermore, carrying out three type of routine works on five links and two
projects on three links leads to a cost of 5865 €, which is actually a combination
of costs for cancelling trains in order to carry out long projects and of a penalty

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
 Computers in Railways IX 331

cost which is paid if the resources (equipment, machines and the human
resources) are not used efficiently. In the annual planning from Figure 2 one can
see, that combination of multiple works on the same link has an effect on
minimizing the track possession times. On some weeks no work has been
scheduled, which means that the maintenance crew can work on another part of
the railway network, carrying out maintenance on other segments belonging to
other corridors. At this moment the cheapest option for carrying out the two
projects in three links is to perform each of them on consecutive days, nights and
weekends, so this results in a combination of penalty cost for inefficient usage of
the resources and train cancellation costs of 165 €.
Table 5: Results for different scenarios.
Combination of works Val.Opt Nr. used Val. LP Sol. Statist.
T=52 week Solut. links/yr. relaxat. time
(sec)
(r1,r2),(r1,r3),(r2,r3) 5865 57 4871.61 1216.56 2013
∀l ∈ L (r1,p1- var.
L1),(r3,p2-L2), (r2,p2- 4218
L4) constr.

Link Work Annual Maintenance Planning

Type 1st quarter 2nd quarter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
L1 R1
R2
R3
P1
L2 R1
R2
R3
P2
L3 R1
R2
R3
L4 R1
R2
R3
P2
L5 R1
R2
R3

Figure 2: Annual maintenance planning.

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9
332 Computers in Railways IX

The running time of the program can be reduced if a separate model

calculates the best execution option for each project. The chosen option for each
project can then be used in the rough maintenance planning model.

5 Conclusion
In this paper an optimization model is presented, which aims to improve rail
maintenance decisions by creating a dynamic schedule for carrying out
preventive maintenance activities. The approach presented here has two steps,
while here only the first step has been elaborated. In the first step maintenance
works are assigned to different time periods (months/weeks) and to different
track segments and in the second step previously defined jobs per time periods
are assigned to train free periods or extensions of them. Routine maintenance
works and projects are planned together. The example shows that combining
some routine works with projects or with other routine works results in a 33%
reduction in the track possession time and cost. This planning approach has some
weaknesses, namely it can be only used for planning the maintenance works of
tracks between two cities or stations and not including the maintenance work of
the infrastructure in the stations. Secondly, the maintenance crew allocation is
also not included in the present model. These issues need further research.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the experts from the Strukton Railinfra, the Netherlands,
for providing us information about planning railway maintenance activities.

References
[1] Budai, G. and Dekker R., An overview of techniques used in planning
railway infrastructure maintenance and its effect on capacity, Report,
Reprints Series Econometric Institute EI-1230, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, 2003.
[2] Cheung, B.S.N., Chow, K.P., Hui, L.C.K. and Yong, A.M.K., Railway
track possession assignment using constraint satisfaction, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 12, p. 599-611,1999.
[3] Den Hertog, D., Van Zante-de Fokkert, J.I. and Sjamaar, S.A., Beusmans,
R., Safe Track Maintenance for the Dutch Railways, Part I: Optimal
working zone division, Report, University of Tilburg, 2001.
[4] Higgins, A., Scheduling of railway maintenance activities and crews,
Journal of the Operational Research Society (49), p 1026-1033, 1998.
[5] Van Zante-de Fokkert, J.I., Den Hertog, D., Van den Berg, F.J. and
Verhoeven J.H.M., Safe Track Maintenance for the Dutch Railways, Part
II: Maintenance schedule, Report, University of Tilburg, 2001.

Computers in Railways IX, J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, R. J. Hill, G. Sciutto & S. Sone (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-715-9