TJRT 2021 0158.R2

International Journal of Rail Transportation
Fo
A hybrid framework for synchronized passenger and train
traffic simulation in an urban rail transit network
rP
Journal: International Journal of Rail Transportation
Manuscript ID TJRT-2021-0158.R2
ee
Manuscript Type: Original Paper
Date Submitted by the

23-Jun-2022
Author:
rR
Complete List of Authors: Zhang, Hongxiang; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of

Transportation and Logistics; Southwest Jiaotong University,
Comprehensive Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province;
ev
Southwest Jiaotong University, National United Engineering Laboratory of

Integrated and Intelligent Transportation
Lu, Gongyuan; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of transportation
iew
and logistics; Southwest Jiaotong University, Comprehensive

Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province; Southwest Jiaotong
University, National United Engineering Laboratory of Integrated and
Intelligent Transportation
Lei, Yuanzheng; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of Transportation
and Logistics; Southwest Jiaotong University, Comprehensive
On
Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province; Southwest Jiaotong

University, National United Engineering Laboratory of Integrated and
Intelligent Transportation
Zhang, Guangyuan; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of
Transportation and Logistics; Southwest Jiaotong University,
ly
Comprehensive Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province;

Southwest Jiaotong University, National United Engineering Laboratory of
Integrated and Intelligent Transportation
Niyitanga, Irene; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of
Transportation and Logistics
urban rail transit(URT), multi-agent simulation, passenger batch agent,

Keywords:
passenger route choice, validation
Modelling passenger and train traffic is a significant approach to evaluate

the performance of urban rail transit(URT) networks. However, the
heavy computation pressure caused by high-efficiency requirements,
massive passengers, and high network complexity makes it more
Abstract:
challenging to integrate passenger and train traffic simulation into a
unified model. We propose an efficient multi-agent model to
simultaneously simulate passenger and train traffic in the URT network.
The model framework comprises several agents, including passenger
URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tjrt
Page 1 of 38 International Journal of Rail Transportation
1
2
3
batch, train, line, and network. A passenger aggregation method is
4 proposed to release the computation pressure. The model is tested in the
5 URT network of Chongqing, China. The experiment results show the
6 model can handle a 1.6 million passengers, 1900 trains simulation within
7 86s, without losing any passengers' specific travel spatial and temporal
8 trajectory. Three experiments are conducted for further validation,
9 including analyzing the transportation performance under different
passenger route assignments, train headways, and AFC data,
10
respectively.
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
On
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tjrt
International Journal of Rail Transportation Page 2 of 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ORIGINAL PAPER
9
10 A hybrid framework for synchronized passenger and train traffic
11
12 simulation in an urban rail transit network
13
14 Hongxiang Zhanga,b,c , Gongyuan Lua,b,c , Yuanzheng Leia,b,c , Guangyuan Zhanga,b,c ,
15 and Irene Niyitangaa
16 a
School of Transportation and Logistics, Southwest Jiaotong University, P.O. Box 610031,
17
Chengdu, China;
18
Fo
b
Comprehensive Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, P.O. Box 610031,
19
Chengdu, China;
20 c
National United Engineering Laboratory of Integrated and Intelligent Transportation, P.O.
21
rP
Box 610031, Chengdu, China.

22
23
24 ARTICLE HISTORY
ee
25 Compiled June 23, 2022

26
27 ABSTRACT
28
rR
Modelling passenger and train traffic is a significant approach to evaluate the

29 performance of urban rail transit(URT) networks. However, the heavy computation
30 pressure caused by high-efficiency requirements, massive passengers, and high net-
31 work complexity makes it more challenging to integrate passenger and train traffic
ev
32 simulation into a unified model. We propose an efficient multi-agent model to si-

multaneously simulate passenger and train traffic in the URT network. The model
33 framework comprises several agents, including passenger batch, train, line, and net-
34 work. A passenger aggregation method is proposed to release the computation pres-
iew
35 sure. The model is tested in the URT network of Chongqing, China. The experiment
36 results show the model can handle a 1.6 million passengers, 1900 trains simulation
37 within 86s, without losing any passengers’ specific travel spatial and temporal tra-
jectory. Three experiments are conducted for further validation, including analyzing
38 the transportation performance under different passenger route assignments, train
39 headways, and AFC data, respectively.
40
On
41 KEYWORDS
42 urban rail transit(URT), multi-agent simulation, passenger batch agent, passenger
43 route choice, validation
44
ly
45
46 1. Introduction
47
48 The urban rail transit(URT) system, known as an extremely complex system that
49 includes numerous passengers, hundreds of trains, and multiple URT lines, plays an
50 essential role in citizens’ daily travel. Passengers take trains to travel from the origin
51 station to the destination station, which is a process of possibly utilizing more than
52
one line in the URT network. Hence, aiming to improve service quality, the passengers
53
54
spread patterns and train traffic management in the URT network are studied to assist
55 URT system managers’ determination, including adjusting train headways, guiding
56
57 CONTACT Guangyuan Zhang. Email: gyzhang@swjtu.cn
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 passengers’ route choice, rescheduling train timetables, etc. Building simulation models
5 is a widely-used method to depict the URT system operation and validate the global
6 effects of the management measures in the URT network.
7 Regarding the application of simulation methods in studying the URT system, dif-
8 ferent theories exist in the literature, mainly including macroscopic simulation and
9 microscopic simulation. Macroscopic simulation models usually focus on timetable
10 rescheduling[1, 2], train running dispatching[3, 4], rail network design[5, 6], and pas-
11 senger distribution in the URT network[7, 8]. Microscopic simulation models usually
12
concentrate on passenger flow routes in stations[9, 10] and passenger boarding and
13
alighting processes[11, 12]. That means, the simulation of train running and passenger
14
15 travel are usually modeled and studied separately. Moreover, in current literature, it
16 is general that only partial components of the passenger travel process are simulated
17 under the macro scope or micro scope in a single research. The entire passenger travel
18 process can not be yielded and the statistical indicators of the network can not be
Fo
19 acquired. On the other hand, a number of research about URT system management
20 usually use optimization methods to achieve some strategical purpose by global mea-
21 sures, such as recognizing passengers’ spatial and temporal routes to give appropriate
rP
22 route choice guidance, rescheduling timetable to reduce passenger waiting time, using
23 the stop-skip plan to relieve congested waiting passengers, etc. But it is too diffi-
24 cult to persuade URT system managers to take measures according to the results of
ee
25 optimization models in the realistic operation without strong evidence of beneficial

26
effects and attainability. Therefore, if a simulation model can depict train running
27
28
and passenger travel in the URT network simultaneously, so that deduce the system
rR
29 operation performance and validate the management measure effects, it will greatly
30 improve the persuasive of research results and benefit the practical operation of the
31 URT network. However, it is challenging to simulate passenger travel process and
ev
32 train running process synchronously in a centralized simulation model. Because, the

33 overall URT network simulation involves various aspects of the URT system, includ-
34 ing millions of passengers, lots of trains running on different URT lines, passengers’
iew
35 actions, and network structure, which extremely increases the difficulty of building a
36 centralized simulation model and brings more computation pressure. Moreover, a sys-
37 tematic understanding of how to construct a synchronized passenger and train traffic
38 simulation model of the URT system is still lacking.
39
Based on the multi-agent technology, this paper offers a comprehensive development
40
On
method of the mesoscopic simulation model that synchronizes the passenger travel and
41
42 train running. Firstly, the passenger travelling process, train running process and net-
43 work operating process are sorted out. The difficulty in modelling different processes
44 are also extracted during the description. Then, we clarify the definition of the funda-
ly
45 mental agents in the simulation model, including the passenger batch agent and the
46 train agent. The passenger batch agent is a passenger aggregation method to reduce
47 computation pressure. Subsequently, the detailed developing procedure of the meso-
48 scopic URT network simulation model is described. Based on the fundamental agents,
49 the line agent realizes the processes of passenger boarding and alighting and train
50 running; the network agent realizes the passenger entering station, passenger transfer-
51 ring, passenger exiting station, and strategic measures settings. Using the line agents
52 and the network agent, how the passenger and train traffic are synchronized and how
53
the fundamental agents are transmitted and stored are highlighted. Finally, simula-
54
55
tion experiments derived from realistic instances are executed to verify the developed
56 simulation model and validate the applications based on the simulation model. The
57 contributions of this method are as follows:
58
59 2
60
1
2
3
4 • A mesoscopic simulation model development method is proposed to syn-
5 chronously simulate the passenger travel process and train running process in
6 the URT network. Focusing on modelling the overall operation of the URT net-
7 work, the line agents, the network agent, and the connection and transmission
8 mechanism among agents are constructed. The fundamental agents are designed
9 according to train and passenger characteristics and used to collaboratively com-
10 plete the synchronous simulation of train and passenger traffic.
11 • The simulation efficiency of a large-scale URT network operation, including all
12
train and passenger traffic, can be improved to a level that is hundreds of times
13
faster than reality. We propose a passenger aggregation method, namely the
14
15 passenger batch agent, to cope with the heavy computation-consuming problem,
16 which is caused by the vast passenger volumes and the requirements of loading
17 passengers into the simulation model accurately at high frequency. A passenger
18 batch agent can represent multiple passengers with identical travel features, so
Fo
19 the total number of passenger agents can be descended, especially in peak hours.
20 The large-scale passenger volume operation scenario can therefore be described
21 and simulated time-efficiently.
rP
22 • Multiple changeable parameters are modeled as interfaces of the simulation

23 model. AFC data, train timetables, passenger route choice patterns, and passen-
24 ger walking times in stations are integrated into the simulation model as change-
ee
25 able parameters. Some global evaluation indicators can be outputted, which are
26
critical information for URT system management. Therefore, diverse operation
27
28
scenarios and results of various global management studies can be easily vali-
rR
29 dated by the simulation model.

30 The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a literature
31 review on the simulation methods of the URT system and the global management re-
ev
32 search. Section 3 presents the difficulty in developing different parts of the simulation
33
model of the URT system. Section 4 defines the fundamental agents in the simula-
34
tion model. Section 5 shows the exhaustive developing procedures of the simulation
iew
35
36 model. Section 6 applies the simulation model development method to the URT sys-
37 tem of Chongqing, China and shows the experiment results of the validation. Section
38 7 summarizes our conclusions and outlines directions for further research.
39
40
On
41 2. Literature
42
43 Since we intend to provide a method of developing the simulation model of the URT
44
ly
system and use the developed model to validate the results of global research, in this
45 section, we focus on reviewing literature related to simulation of the URT system and
46
improving the service quality.
47
48
49
2.1. Simulations for urban rail transit
50
51 Developing simulation models has been identified as an effective method to study
52 the URT system. The components of the passenger travel process and train running
53 process are modeled using macroscopic, microscopic, or mesoscopic simulation models.
54 The multi-agent theory is a widely-used simulation method in research about URT
55
system.
56
57
58
59 3
60
1
2
3
4 2.1.1. Macroscopic, microscopic, and mesoscopic simulation
5 Regarding macroscopic simulation models, strategical techniques are generally stud-
6
ied. For instance, aiming to design or adjust timetables, [1] uses the cellular automata
7
8
theory to develop a train running simulation model of URT train flow traffic, which
9 is applied to study how various characteristics impacting the minimum instantaneous
10 headway between two trains. [2] proposes a simulation-based optimization method
11 considering to obtain the optimal headways of the URT timetable. The train running
12 simulation is used to verify the attainability of the timetable and adjust headways. As
13 for on-line train dispatching in the URT system, [3] develops a train running simulation
14 model to validate the effectiveness of the train adjustment strategy when an operation
15 fault occurs in the URT line. [4] uses a simulation based reinforcement learning method
16 to determine train stop-skip strategy at peak hours for relieving passenger pressure
17 at over-crowded stations. A simulation-optimization approach is proposed in [13] to
18
Fo
study the problem of how to adjust the injection and withdrawal of trains from depots
19
to improve the resiliency of train operation in the URT line. Above research models
20
train running processes detailedly, but passenger travel processes are neglected. The
21
rP
22 macroscopic simulation models associated with passenger travels focus on depict pas-
23 senger flow distribution in the URT network. Relying on AFC data, [7] estimates the
24 travel time distribution and then develops a simulation model to reflect the passenger
ee
25 distribution in the URT network. To study how the dynamic disruption like station
26 closure and track impassibility influencing the passenger travel actions, [8] develops a
27 multi-agent URT system simulation model which includes vast agents for each train
28
rR
and each passenger. It is a macroscopic simulation model because the passenger move-
29 ment processes in stations and the train running processes in sections are ignored.
30 The experiments are executed in a small-scale scenario (1632 passengers, 2 hours).
31 [14] proposes fare incentive strategies to propel passengers to re-choose routes for re-
ev
32 lieving peak-hour congestion in the URT stations. A simple simulation model focusing
33
on dynamic passenger distribution is conducted to verify the effects of strategies.
34
In general, macroscopic simulation models of the URT system are usually con-
iew
35
36 structed for some global purposes. On the contrary, large quantity research using mi-
37 croscopic simulation models are designed to model more meticulous passenger travel
38 processes or train running processes. Focusing the passenger boarding and alighting
39 process in the URT stations, [11] presents a microscopic simulation model based on
40 cellular automata to study the passenger interaction of the boarding and alighting
On
41 based on some novel passenger characteristics. [12] also concentrates on the passenger
42 boarding and alighting movement using the same simulation method. But it mainly
43 propose three different management measures for boarding and alighting and the ef-
44
ly
fects of them are compared using the simulation model. For more detail, [15] builds a
45 three-level simulation model to describe passenger movement processes exhaustively
46
in the URT stations, which can elaborate various complex and meticulous passenger
47
behavior. Based on these passenger movement research, passenger flow route planning
48
49
in URT stations has received growing study. Using a microscopic simulation model,
50 [9] evaluates the level-of-service to find the bottlenecks that cause pedestrian con-
51 gestion in the passenger travel processes in the stations, and provide suggestions to
52 promote the level-of-service. [16] concentrates on transfer connection performance in
53 URT stations under different passenger facilities plans, and thereby more acceptable
54 staff assignment plans can be determined. In [10], a simulation model is developed to
55 validate the passenger flow control strategy which generated by an optimization model
56 and aims to provide more robust service for passengers. Additionally, passenger evac-
57
58
59 4
60
1
2
3
4 uation, which is a special type of passenger travel process, is also a typical microscopic
5 simulation issue in URT stations [17, 18]. On the other hand, microscopic simulation
6 models for the train running process usually concentrate on modelling train accelerate,
7 cruise, and decelerate running processes to study train control problems[19, 20].
8 Referring to the above reviewed literature, whether macroscopic simulation models
9 or microscopic simulation models, usually only model either the entire passenger travel
10 process or train running process and ignore the rest of its parts. A relatively small
11 body of literature focuses on the mesoscopic simulation models which can depict the
12
entire URT network state. [21] develops an inspiring simulation model to study the
13
influence of primary train delays and operation interruption on passenger delays in
14
15 the URT network. Using a mesoscopic time-driven simulation model, it realizes train
16 and passenger’s entire travel processes with the given train timetables, passenger route
17 choice probability, and walking time parameters. Trains, passengers, and other events
18 are updated by an unknown time interval. The simulation model can be executed
Fo
19 four times faster than reality. [22] develops a multi-agent simulation model which can
20 describe passengers’ entire travel process to obtain spatial and temporal characteristics
21 of passenger flow in the URT network. The passenger movement in stations is simplified
rP
22 to some queues, but only waiting time has been calculated according to the train
23 operation and the train loading capacity, and other walking times are ignored. In the
24 follow-up research[23], this gap has been filled and a passenger route change switch
ee
25 mechanism based on the time-dependent cost function has been added in a more
26
specific time-driven simulation model. The simulation model can be executed at a
27
28
speed up to ten times faster than actual time, but it is still too sluggish to obtain an
rR
29 entire one-day operation state. [24] proposes a simulation based optimization model
30 for calibrating passenger route choice patterns in the URT system based on AFC data.
31 The various types of passenger walking time are aggregated to one value called related
ev
32 walking time, which means the walking times of entering, exiting, and transfer are
33 simplified. In the follow-up research, [25] deals with the train capacity as a dynamic
34 value and considers boarding failure since the degree of congestion on the train and
iew
35 the platform will influence the passengers’ boarding willingness. The optimization
36 method determines the route choice actions and simulation results of travel time are
37 compared to the AFC data. The specific development method of the simulation model
38 is not interpreted in these two essays. Aiming to reduce the network-wide passenger
39
congestion, [26] proposes a simulation-based optimization method to study where,
40
On
when and what type of guidance information should be released to the passengers. The
41
42 corresponding agent-based simulation model is developed to model the entire passenger
43 travel process in the URT network and capture passenger responses to the guidance
44 information. Still, the deficiency is that the frequency of loading the passengers into
ly
45 the network is 15 minutes, which will deeply impair the accuracy of the model. The
46 maximum passenger loading rate of a station is 24 persons per minute, which is not a
47 peak travel demand.
48 In conclusion, the above research pays particular attention to implement macro-
49 scopic simulation and microscopic simulation to study components of the passenger
50 travel process and train running process in various aspects of the URT system. How-
51 ever, research with the purpose of studying the entire passenger travel process and the
52 train running process simultaneously in the URT network through a mesoscopic simu-
53
lation model is relatively few. Furthermore, the comprehensive development methods
54
55
of the simulation model have not been provided.
56
57
58
59 5
60
1
2
3
4 2.1.2. Multi-agent simulation applied in URT system
5 The multi-agent simulation theory is one of the most used methods in research about
6
URT system. Due to the autonomy and interactivity of the agents, this method is
7
8
mainly used to simulate the pedestrian movement process in the URT stations to
9 provide relative evaluation information for further development or determination. [27]
10 develops a multi-agent simulation model of passenger transfer processes in a multi-
11 mode rail transfer station and uses the developed simulation model to generate data
12 for an optimization model which aims to support staff assignment plans decisions.
13 Based on the multi-agent simulation technology, [28] optimizes the pedestrian flow
14 and construct the micro-level complexity within simulated environments of different
15 railway stations. Using the simulation results, it discusses whether various space de-
16 sign methods can improve pedestrian flow efficiency and passenger experience. [29]
17 proposes a multi-agent-based simulation model from the investigation of movement
18
Fo
characteristics of passengers to study the complicated interactions among passengers

19
and other entities like stairways or trains in large URT stations, which is useful to
20
formulate and evaluate the operation schemes of URT trains.
21
rP
22 Even though the purpose is studying the network operation, as we stated before,
23 the multi-agent simulation models developed in [8, 22, 23, 26, 30] also still mainly
24 focus on constructing the passenger agents and train agents. The connection among
ee
25 agents and the realization of the overall network operation are usually not clearly
26 clarified. [31] develops a multi-agent simulation model of a URT line to study the
27 metro train operation under emergencies and uses a parallel computing method that
28
rR
is proposed to accelerate the simulation process. Although it considers the URT station
29 as a type of agent, the total architecture of the simulation model of a URT line has
30 not been presented. Therefore, besides the passenger and train agents themselves,
31 how they collaboratively implement the entire network operation simulation and what
ev
32 correspondingly further techniques are required for developing the overall simulation
33
model has not been found in prior studies.
34
iew
35
36
2.2. Passenger route choice model in urban rail transit network
37
38 The passenger route choice problem, which is modelling passenger choice patterns
39 when multiple alternative routes exist between a pair of origin-destination(OD)
40
On
stations in a URT network, has received much scholarly attention in recent years.
41
A generally used method is inferring based on AFC data and considering various
42
factors simultaneously. By analyzing mathematical distributions of each component
43
44 of the passenger travel time between an OD-pair collected from AFC equipment, [32]
ly
45 proposes an estimation method of passenger route choice proportion in the URT net-
46 work, which is verified with numerical experiments under scenarios of predetermined
47 proportions. Considering the waiting time and the number of transfers, [33] develops
48 a probabilistic model to estimate how the passengers choose routes and trains. The
49 results are compared with travel routes recommended by Apps on smartphones. [34]
50 mergers various influence factors into a logit model of route choice behavior, which is
51 calibrated by modifying the parameters according to AFC data. [35] uses a clustering
52 algorithm to process the actual travel time from AFC data for recognizing which
53 routes are chosen and the respective proportion of choosing. [36] also pays attention to
54 the clustering method and adds the travel time thresholds determination to generate
55
more tenable passenger route choice sets in the URT network. [37] divides passengers
56
57
of the Beijing URT system into eight types based on socio-economic attributes of
58
59 6
60
1
2
3
4 passengers, which aims to improve the traditional logit model of passenger route
5 choice. In a latest study[38], the data of Automatic Vehicle Location are combined
6 with AFC data to infer passenger itineraries by the route choice model, so that
7 the left behind passengers can be described more accurately. Considering all of the
8 above evidence, it seems that the research reviewed here reports reliable passenger
9 route choice models in URT networks. However, the validation of proposed models
10 is carried out in diverse but unconvincing methods, such as comparing with other
11 models, comparing with survey data, and using manually synthetic data.
12
13
Summarizing the above research, the mesoscopic simulation is preferable to ac-
14
15 curately and exhaustively model the synchronized train and passenger traffic of the
16 URT network accurately and exhaustively to study passenger flow assignment, passen-
17 ger route choice behavior, and URT train timetabling. However, as shown in Table 1,
18 the simulation models in the literature can hardly handle the large-scale URT network
Fo
19 time-efficiently. The URT network simulation model lacks systematic descriptions of

20 the overall architecture and the passenger-train agent transmission process. To solve
21 the limitations, we focus on the detailed modelling method for synchronized simulat-
rP
22 ing both the passenger and train actions in the URT network, which will be a reliable
23 and high-efficiency tool for validating passenger route choice models and evaluating
24 operation situations of the URT network.
ee
25
26 Table 1. Characteristics comparison of closely related studies
27
28
rR
Detailed
29 Simulation
URT
Simulation Passenger
Simulation
simulation
Publications network execution
30 methodology
scale
time period volume
speed
modelling
31 method
ev
8 lines, 4.5 times faster

32 [21] time-driven 7:00-11:30 421,763 No
170 stations than real time
33 12 lines, 10 times faster
[22] multi-agent 7:00-12:00 1,871,611 No
34 183 stations than real time
iew
35 [23] time-driven 18 lines, 5:00-24:00 5,425,015 8.5 times faster No

17 lines, broadly reported as
37 [26] time-driven 7:00-9:00 unknown No
276 stations “too time-consuming”
38 11 lines, 10 times faster
[24, 25] discrete-event 18:00-19:00 unknown No
40
On
this paper multi-agent 7 lines, 5:00-24:00 1,682,752 750 times faster Yes
42
43
44
ly
45
46 3. Problem description
47
48 In this section, we present the problem of developing the synchronized passenger and
49 train traffic simulation model(SPTTSM) of the URT network, then, by describing the
50 passenger travel process, train running process, and the URT network management,
51 the difficulties of modelling are unveiled.
52
53
54 3.1. Overall problem
55
56 The purpose of the SPTTSM is to provide a reliable evaluation tool for testing var-
57 ious global management research of the URT network. Hence, the expected outputs
58
59 7
60
1
2
3
4 of the SPTTSM contain some statistical indicators of the URT network, such as the
5 simulated travel time of each passenger, the deviation between the simulated travel
6 time and the actual travel time, etc. These indicators can be used to judge whether the
7 SPTTSM can accurately model the URT network operation and to evaluate the effects
8 of given management measures. The calculation and generation of the indicators rely
9 on the simulation of the entire URT system operation. Therefore, the overall problem
10 is how to realize the sub-processes of the URT network operation in the SPTTSM, in-
11 cluding the passenger travel process, the train running process, the network structure,
12
and management realization. Significantly, the passenger exchange between trains and
13
platforms and the process of passengers travelling together with the running trains
14
15 are the synchronization requirements in the simulation model of the URT network.
16 The passenger exchange between trains and platforms is the passengers’ boarding and
17 alighting action[39]. It is necessary to simultaneously update the number of passengers
18 on-board the train and the number of passengers waiting on the platform. Further-
Fo
19 more, how to identify passengers who have alighting and boarding requirements is the
20 basis of realizing the exchange. Therefore, the simulated train must be able to con-
21 vey on-board passengers to succeeding stations together and record passengers’ travel
rP
22 information.
23 Multi-agent simulation is the technology our study employs, which is widely used
24 in many industries, including research on pedestrian, traffic, military, and virus
ee
25 diffusion[40, 41]. In a multi-agent system, each agent takes actions individually ac-
26
cording to its own principles, parameters, and attributes. Another advantage of multi-
27
28
agent simulation is allowing communication and interaction among agents. In the URT
rR
29 network, passengers can be treated as agents since people decide when to enter the
30 station and take which train independently or may travel following others and in-
31 teract with trains. On the other hand, trains also can be processed as agents with
ev
32 the parameters of the inherited timetables and principles of accelerating, decelerating,

33 and stopping at stations. Passenger agents can also be attributes of train agents so
34 that passenger boarding and alighting could be treated as the processes of combining
iew
35 and stripping between passenger agents and train agents. Moreover, each agent can
36 output information or data dynamically and constantly before dissipating. Therefore,
37 the multi-agent simulation is an appropriate method, and passenger agents and train
38 agents can be designed to collect data for calculating the statistical indicators.
39
40
On
41
3.2. Passenger travel process modelling
42
43 The entire passenger travel process in the URT network is consist of the following
44
ly
components: checking ticket and entering the station, walking to the platform, waiting
45 for the train, boarding the train, travelling on-board the train, alighting the train,
46 walking to the platform(transfer, if needed), walking to the exit, checking ticket and
47 exiting the station. The process is depicted in Figure 1.
48
According to Figure 1, the time cost during the passenger travel process can be cate-
49
50
gorized into three types: walking times, waiting times, and on-board travel times. Train
51 headways and running speeds predominantly decide the waiting times and on-board
52 times, but the passengers’ walking times are various due to the different station build-
53 ing structures and their walking speeds. Therefore, it is preferable that the SPTTSM
54 can simulate passenger walking processes in each station. However, a large-scale URT
55 network usually contains hundreds of stations, modelling all stations in the SPTTSM
56 will lead to the excessive complexity. Therefore, we consider providing the data of
57
58
59 8
60
1
2
3
Location
4 The destin-
5 nation station
6
7 Time elapsed on-
board a train
8 The transfer
station Time elapsed in a
9 station (walking)
10 Time elapsed in a
11 station (waiting)
Passenger action
12
Passenger movement
13
14 The origin
15 station Time
16 Enter the
origin station
Board
the train
Alight
the train
Board
the train
Alight
the train
17 Walk to the Wait for Travel on- Walk to the Wait for Travel on- Walk to
platform the train board the train platform the train board the train the exit
18
Fo
19
20 Figure 1. A instance of passenger travel process
21
rP
22
23
walking times as the parameters for the SPTTSM. An effective method to obtain
24 walking time data is developing a microscopic simulation model of passenger move-
ee
25 ment processes for one station in the URT network[42]. But it is a time-consuming,
26 repetitive without innovation, and less realizable task due to hundreds of stations.
27 Hence, an attainable and reasonable method to provide walking times for SPTTSM
28
rR
should be adopted, especially this research is to evaluate the global measures and
29 passenger route choice patterns, rather than management for each station.
30 Another obvious difficulty is how to deal with the computation pressure and com-
31 plexity derived from the massive passenger volume in most megacities, which can be up
ev
32 to millions of passengers. Loading each passenger one by one is very time-consuming,

33 and processing millions of agents at the same time is a tough task that requires better
34
computer hardware. Moreover, to easily obtain the indicators in an acceptable shorter
iew
35
time, instead of running at the realistic speed, the SPTTSM should have access to
36
37 run at a higher time-scale, e.g., 500 times faster than actual time, which will further
38 ascent the computation pressure. Therefore, a simplification method for numerous pas-
39 senger agents that can reduce computation pressure and guarantee a lower time cost
40 is preferred.
On
41 Facing the first challenges, referring to [43, 44], we simplify the passenger walking
42 times to normal distributions as the parameters of passengers based on realistic data,
43 which are easily obtained by mature computer vision technologies or simple question-
44
ly
naires. As for the second difficulty, referring to [45], aggregating passenger individuals
45 to passenger groups is an efficient, reasonable, and easy-applicable method for large-
46 scale passenger simulation. The details of an agent aggregating multiple passengers
47 are introduced in the next section.
48
49
50
3.3. Train running process modelling
51
52 The train running process in the URT network contains train stopping at the stations
53 and train running on the line. The pure running time between two consecutive sta-
54 tions and dwell time at stations are given by the timetables. As shown in Figure 2,
55 the timetable specifies the arrival time, departure time, and dwell time at each sta-
56
tion for each train. For example, the red thick solid line stipulates that the current
57
58
59 9
60
1
2
3
4 train arrives at station k is 10:04:20 and stops 45 seconds for passengers boarding and
5 alighting. Considering the rapid promotion and application of the Automatic Train Op-
6 eration(ATO) system, trains running strictly according to the given timetable become
7 more common and easy to realize. Since trains running on the tracks, the simulation
8 of URT lines, including each station along the line, should be developed together with
9 the train running process.
10
11 A part of the timetable
12 Station k
13 Station k+1
in: 10:07:10
in: 10:04:20 out: 10:08:00 in: 10:10:40 in: 10:14:20 in: 10:18:15
14 out: 10:05:05 out: 10:11:35 out: 10:15:00 out: 10:18:55
Station k+2
15
16 Station k+3 Station k Station k+1 Station k+2 Station k+3 Station k+4
17 Station k+4
18
Fo
10:00:00 10:10:00 10:20:00

19
20 Figure 2. A instance of train running process
21
rP
22 In the real world, when a train is running on the line, the on-board passengers are
23 travelling on the train synchronously. Therefore, the train agent should have the ability
24 to contain all on-board passengers and save their travel information, including travel
ee
25 demands, the selected routes in the network, and the time spent. In our method, a set
26 used to store the passenger agents on-board the train is constructed as an attribute of
27
each train agent. When a train is running in the railway sections, the moving entity
28
rR
29
is actually a combination of agents, including a train agent and plenty of passenger
30 agents stored in it.
31 When a train stops at the station, on-board passengers can alight from the train
ev
32 to the platform, and then, waiting passengers board the train from the platform.
33 Hence, the synchronization of passenger exchange between trains and platforms has
34 to be realized. In other words, similarly, a pool used to store waiting passenger agents
iew
35 should be constructed in the simulation model for each station in the URT network.
36 Furthermore, a multi-level nested structure is designed for the storage pool to facilitate
37 the identification of boarding passengers, especially in the situation that passengers
38 want to board trains of different lines in a transfer station.
39
40
On
41 3.4. Network modelling

42
43 The URT network operation process is the combination of the above passenger travel
44 process and train running process. We continue to complete the network modelling.
ly
45 Network topological structure should be established in the top level of the SPTTSM,
46 since the URT lines have to be linked by the transfer station, and passengers will choose
47 their routes based on the connections between stations. In reality, the shortest route
48 in time scope between the OD-pair is preferred by the vast majority of passengers. If
49 the congestion occurs on the platform of the origin station and more than one route
50 are available, passengers may choose another route with a longer train running time
51
but a shorter waiting time to reduce the total travel time and improve comfortability.
52
53
Therefore, the passenger route choice patterns may influence the passenger distribu-
54 tions and network operation states. It must be a variable interface function for the
55 URT network, so that passengers can be correctly assigned to the route they choose.
56 Transfer stations should be modeled specially since they exist on more than one line.
57 Each line has the corresponding platforms in the transfer station. If a passenger’s origin
58
59 10
60
1
2
3
4 station is a transfer station, the passenger should be assigned to the correct platform
5 according to his travel route. Moreover, when passengers transfer in the station, how
6 to transmit passengers to another platform in the same station? These problems are
7 considered in the development method of SPTTSM introduced in the coming sections.
8
9
10 3.5. Indicators for network traffic evaluation
11
12 For using the developed SPTTSM to validate the passenger route choice patterns and
13 evaluate the network operation, some indicators are proposed as follows.
14
15 • Average simulated passenger travel time of a OD-pair:
16
17
τRp,epm − τRp,b1
P
18
Fo
o
p∈P d p
19 ȳo,d =
P o o, d ∈ S o 6= d (1)
d
20
21
rP
where Pdo is the set of passengers travel from station o to d; Rp is the route chosen
22
by passenger p, including the origin and the destination station; Rp1 , Rp2 , ..., Rpm are
23
24 the stations of the route Rp , so Rp1 is the origin station and Rpm is the destination
station; τRp,epm is the leaving time of passenger p from station Rpm , which is the time
ee
25
26 he checks ticket to exit station d; τRp,b1 is the arriving time of passenger p at station
27 p
28 Rp1 , which is the time he checks ticket to enter station o. Noted that, there are some
rR
29 different situations for the passenger arriving time and leaving time at each station.
30 For the origin station, the arriving time is the time passenger enters the station and
31 the leaving time is the time passenger boards a train; for the transfer station, the
ev
32 arriving time is the same as the train arriving time and the leaving time is the time
33 passenger boards another train; for the destination station, the arriving time is same
34 as the train arriving time and the leaving time is the time passenger exits the station;
iew
35 for other stations, the arriving and leaving time are identical with trains.
36
37 • Average relative deviation between the simulated and the actual travel time:
38
39
40 p,e p,b
On
X τRpm − τRp1 − ap /ap

41 ∆ȳ = (2)
42 |P |
p∈P
43
44
ly
where P is the set of all passengers; ap is the actual travel time of passenger p. Noted,
45 with replacing the P by Pdo or setting a time period for calculating, this indicator
46
can be calculated for a OD-pair or all passengers travelling during a particular time
47
48
period.
49 • Average simulated travel time of all passengers in a time period:
50
51
52

τRp,epm τRp,b1
P
−
53 ȳ [tb ,te ] =
p∈P p
tb < τRp,epm ≤ te (3)
54 K
55
56 where tb and te is the beginning time and the end time of the time period t; K is the
57 number of passengers whose time of exiting station is in the time period t.
58
59 11
60
1
2
3
4 • Average simulated passenger waiting time in the station:
5
6
7 XX
8 win = τRp,e1 − τRp,b1 − Φwi (s) (4)
p p
9 s∈S p∈Pds
10
11
12 X
X
wtra = τRp,eps − τRp,bps − Φtr (s, vi , vj ) vi , vj ∈ Vs (5)
13
s∈S tra p∈P s,tra
14
15
16
17
win + wtra
w̄ = (6)
18 |P |
Fo
19
20 The waiting time means the time passengers spend on the platforms waiting to board
21 an available train. The average passenger waiting time should be calculated by two
rP
22 categories, waiting time at the origin stations of all passengers and waiting time at
23 transfer stations of transfer passengers, since the transfer passengers have to wait for
24 another train at the transfer station. For the passengers depart at the origin stations,
ee
25 the passenger waiting time can be calculated as Eq(4). S is the set of all stations.
26
τRp,b1 is the arriving time of passenger p at station Rp1 , i.e., the time of passenger p
27 p
28 for checking ticket to enter the origin station; τRp,e1 is the time of passenger p leaving
rR
p
29 the station Rp1 , i.e., the time of passenger p boards on a train. Φwi (s) is the normal
30 disruption function of walking time from the entrance to the platform at station s. So
31 excluding the walking time from the total time passenger p spends in the origin station,
ev
32
the waiting time can be obtained. Similarly, Eq(5) calculates the transfer passengers’
33
34 waiting time. S tra is the set of all transfer stations. τRp,eps and τRp,bps are the arriving time
iew
35 and leaving time of passenger p at the transfer station s, respectively. Φtr (s, vi , vj ) is
36 the normal disruption function of walking time between the platform of vi and the
37 platform of vj at the transfer station s.
38 Based on the above evaluation indicators, the accuracy of passenger route choice
39 patterns and the situation of network operation can be quantified, so that which
40
On
stations are the bottlenecks of the whole URT network can be recognized.
41
42
43
44 4. Key definition of the fundamental agents
ly
45
46 As mentioned before, using the multi-agent simulation method to develop the
47 SPTTSM, passengers and trains are the fundamental agents since they are moving
48 entities in the URT network. The design of passenger agent and train agent are intro-
49 duced respectively as follows.
50
51
52 4.1. Passenger batch agent
53
54 4.1.1. The definition of passenger batch agent
55
56 In order to cope with the numerous passenger agents derived from massive passenger
57 volume, we propose an aggregation method named passenger batch agent to generate
58
59 12
60
1
2
3
4 the passenger agents. Each passenger agent is a passenger batch, which consists of a
5 group of passengers. The passengers that can be aggregated into a passenger batch
6 agent have to satisfy the following conditions:
7
8
(1) have the same origin station
9 (2) have the same destination station
10 (3) enter the origin station almost simultaneously during a short time period, i.e., 30s
11 (4) choose the exactly same route in the URT network
12 If some passengers meet the above conditions, they share the same spatial and
13
temporal track in the URT network and can be aggregated into a passenger batch
14
agent. This situation is common for group passengers travelling with friends or family
15
16 and is also possible for other passengers who have the same travel demands. For
17 example, in Figure 3, a simple URT network instance, five passengers enter station
18 4 successively at 9:30:00∼9:30:30 and choose the route 4-5-6-7-11-13 from station 4
Fo
19 to station 13. These five passengers can be aggregated into a passenger batch agent.
20 Hence, in the simulation model, all of them board a train and leave the station at
21 9:34:55, pass by station 5,6, then transfer at station 7 and board another same train of
rP
22 LineC, and finally exit the destination station 13 at 9:59:23. Note that, in the model
23 of this paper, each short time period is divided fixedly by the simulation clock(i.e.,
24 begins at 0s or 30s of one minute). We do not consider the actual passenger group
ee
25 features, so the passengers who travel together in the real world may be distributed
26 into different passenger batch agents. We leave the impact of passenger group on the
27
simulation result to the future study when such data is available in the passenger
28
rR
29
information system.
30 Enter station 4 Aggregated to
1 2 3 Line A
31 during 9:30:00 a passenger Line B
ev
~9:30:30 batch agent

32 Line C
33 4 5 6 7 8
Station
34 Transfer
Transfer station
iew
35 Board the train

and leave station
36 at 9:34:55 Train of Line B
37 9 10 11 12 Train of Line C
38 A passenger batch
agent example
39 13
Alight the train
40 and exit station 13
On
at 9:59:23
41
42 Figure 3. A simple instance of a passenger batch agent’s travel process
43
44
ly
As for the walking process of exiting the destination station after arriving by train,
45 passengers always desire to exit the station as soon as possible. Since passengers ag-
46 gregated in a passenger batch agent arrive at the destination station simultaneously
47
in the same train, it is natural that they have the almost same walking process and
48
49
exit the station together.
50 In summary, by aggregating a certain number of passengers who have the same
51 travel process to a passenger batch agent, instead of developing multiple agents for
52 each passenger individual, the total amount of agents in the SPTTSM can be reduced.
53
54 4.1.2. Variables and parameters of passenger batch agent
55
56 Based on the proposed passenger aggregation method, some variables and parameters
57 are included as shown in Table 2 to complete the design of the passenger batch agent.
58
59 13
60
1
2
3
4 Noted, though the parameters are designed for passenger batch agent, the statistical
5 unit is still each passenger rather than a passenger batch agent, since the evaluation
6 indicators in Section 3.5 are calculated by each individual’s data. That is, some pas-
7 sengers have completely identical total travel times when calculating the evaluation
8 indicators, but which actually have differences in the real world. However, the differ-
9 ence of travel time is less than 30s due to the condition(3) above, which is acceptable
10 compared to the total travel time that may be up to more than 1 hour. Therefore, to
11 guarantee the accuracy of the simulation model and cooperate with the aggregation
12
of successive entering passengers, the passenger loading frequency of the SPTTSM
13
should be set to the value that equals the short time period of aggregation processing,
14
15 i.e., 30 seconds.
16
Table 2. Variables and parameters of a passenger batch agent
17
18
Fo
Items Description
19 ρ the passenger batch
20 Hρ the number of passengers aggregated in passenger batch agent ρ
21 ôρ the origin station of passenger batch agent ρ, ôρ ∈ S
rP
22 dˆρ the destination station of passenger batch agent ρ, dˆρ ∈ S

23 the chosen route of ρ from ôρ to dˆρ , a set of stations: {Rρ1 , Rρ2 , . . . , Rρm }, Rρc
Rρ
is the current station ρ locates, 1 ≤ c ≤ m
24 ρ,b ρ,b ρ,b
τ ρ,b
ee
the set of arriving time of ρ at each station: {τR 1 , τR2 , . . . , τRm }

25 ρ,e ρ,e
ρ ρ
ρ,e
ρ
26 τ ρ,e the set of leaving time of ρ at each station: {τR 1 , τR2 , . . . , τRm }
ρ ρ ρ
27
28
rR
29
30
31
4.2. Train agent
ev
32 A train agent is developed to model one train solely, does not require the aggregation
33 method. As we mentioned before, trains run consistent with the given timetable. The
34 variables and parameters of a train agent are shown in Table 3. To realize the syn-
iew
35
36 Table 3. Variables and parameters of a train agent
37
38 Items Description
39 n the train number
40
On
Capn the maximum loading capacity of train n

41 n
the set of stations along the service route of train n, in the order of train
running direction, index by n
42 i
σn,b the arrival time of train n at station n
43 i
n i
σn,e the departure time of train n from station n
44 n
ly
i
i
u the running speed of train n in the section between station n n
i and i+1
45 n n
i ,i+1
λn the set of passenger batch agents on-board train n currently
46
47
48 chronization of the train agent and the on-board passenger batch agents, the set λn is
49 constructed to store passenger batch agents. In addition, due to the different running
50 directions, i.e., upstream and downstream, the n can be different for trains running
51
on the same URT line. Furthermore, even two trains running in the same direction
52
53
on the same line, if a stop-skip measure or a short train service route (the last stop-
54 ping station is an intermediate station, not terminal station) is applied by the given
55 timetable, the stations in the set n will also be different. The arrival time and depar-
56 ture time at each station are also given by the timetable. Due to the concentration on
57 the function of train loading and conveying passengers in this study, the train running
58
59 14
60
1
2
3
4 process between two consecutive stations can be simplified to the cruise movement, so
5 that the uniform speed can be calculated by the distance and the arrival/departure
6 time.
7
8
9 5. The procedure of developing simulation model for a URT network
10
11 Based on the fundamental agents defined above, the detailed procedures of developing
12 the SPTTSM are elaborated in this section.
13
14
15 5.1. Overall framework
16
17 The SPTTSM of the URT network is a complex dynamic system that perpetually gen-
18
Fo
erates numerous agents of passengers and trains and models their various activities.
19 We develop the SPTTSM using Railway Library and Process Modelling Library of
20 Anylogic software. Based on the fundamental agents defined above, a bi-level archi-
21
rP
tecture of the SPTTSM, including the URT network agent and the URT line agent, is
22
established and shown in Figure 4.
23
24 Data interfaces Output indicators
ee
25
26 ;8:4KZ]UXQ'MKTZ
27 · Passenger batch agent generation

· Passenger assignment
28
rR
· Store pool for passenger batch

29 agents waiting in stations
30 Train running Passenger batch Passenger batch Passenger batch agents

31 parameters agents (Boarding)
agents (Transfer) (Arrive at destination)
ev
32
33 ;8:2OTK'MKTZ ;8:2OTK'MKTZ ;8:2OTK'MKTZ
34 ·Track entities of Line 1 ·Track entities of Line 2 ·Track entities of Line 3 ĂĂ

iew
·Train running process ·Train running process ·Train running process

35 ·Passenger boarding and alighting ·Passenger boarding and alighting ·Passenger boarding and alighting
36
37
Figure 4. The overall framework of the SPTTSM
38
39
40 The upper level of the model is the URT network agent. The data interfaces of the
On
41 model are constructed firstly, including passenger AFC data, passenger route choice
42 pattern, walking time parameters, and train timetable. The URT network agent gen-
43 erates the passenger batch agents according to the AFC data, and then selects a travel
44 route with the topological structure of the given URT network and the input route
ly
45 choice pattern. The storage pool for passenger batch agents waiting for a train in each
46 station is established here. The function of calculating and outputting indicators is
47 also included. The train running parameters derived from the given timetable and the
48 passenger batch agents who board a train are transmitted to the URT line agents. The
49 passenger batch agents, who need to transfer to another line or exit the destination
50 station after they alight, are transmitted back to the URT network agent.
51
The lower level of the model is several parallel URT line agents. Each line agent
52
53
represents a URT line, respectively. In a URT line agent, the track entities, includ-
54 ing tracks in each station and between two consecutive stations, are modeled using
55 Railway Library of Anylogic software. The train agents generated according to the
56 timetable run on tracks. When a train stops at a station, passenger boarding and
57 alighting processes are realized. It is noted that the transfer passenger batch agents
58
59 15
60
1
2
3
4 are transmitted back to the URT network agent rather than be sent to another URT
5 line agent directly. There are two reasons for this significant design. On the one hand,
6 if passenger batch agents are sent among all URT line agents directly, a transmit link
7 should be constructed between every two line agents sharing the same transfer sta-
8 tion. That means many transmit links have to be built due to the multiple transfer
9 stations among lines in the URT network. It impairs the flexibility of the model devel-
10 opment method. On the other hand, for a transfer station, since the walking processes
11 of entering the station and transfer are both simplified to time parameters of normal
12
distributions, developing a function that can model such two processes simultaneously
13
in the upper level is a more convenient method than realizing the transfer walking
14
15 process in each line agent respectively. More details are clarified later.
16 Some assumptions in developing the SPTTSM are listed as follow.
17 (1) There is no disruption during train running processes. The timetable reschedul-
18
Fo
ing and real-time train adjusting are treated as predetermined settings of

19
timetables[46].
20
(2) Once entering the station, the passenger will not change the predetermined travel
21
rP
22 until arrives at the destination station.

23 (3) There is no disruption during the passengers’ entire travel processes.
24 (4) Passengers always desire to travel to their destination as soon as possible and will
ee
25 not procrastinate in the walking processes.

26 (5) Passengers are evenly distributed on platforms under the station staff guidance.
27 (6) Passengers comply with the principle that alight first and then board strictly.
28
rR
(7) Passengers do not procrastinate when the train dwells at the station, so all pas-
29 sengers can alight or board the train, except there is no more loading capacity.
30
31
ev
32 5.2. URT network agent

33
34 In the SPTTSM, there is only one URT network agent. The flow chart of the URT
iew
35 network agent is shown in Figure 5 and the corresponding realization in Anylogic is

36 shown in Figure 6.
37
38 URT Network Agent
*GZGOTZKXLGIKY
39 Train
timetable AFC data
Passenger route
choice pattern
Walking time
parameters
40
On
6GXZȺ 6GXZȻ 6GXZȼ 6GXZȽ

41 Passenger travel
Select travel route
demand loading
42 Statistical
data
43 Passenger batch
agent generation
Passengers walk
to platform
44
ly
Passenger
45 assignment
Storage pool for Passengers Passengers batch
passenger batch agents
46 waiting on platforms walk to exits agent demolition
47
48 Train running
parameters
Passenger batch agents
(Transfer to another line)
(Boarding trains)
(Arrive at the
: delay-launch
process
destination station)
49
50
Figure 5. The flow chart of the URT network agent
51
52
53
In Figure 6, the input AFC data are connected to the model by the EXCEL file
54 “AFCData” and stored in the “PassengerDemandOD”. The “BatchSource” module is
55 called by “LoadStationPassenger” to load travel demands of entering passengers for
56 each station during the current 30s time interval. These actions correspond to Part I
57 of Figure 5
58
59 16
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Figure 6. The realization of the URT network agent in Anylogic
17
18
Fo
19 Corresponding to the Part II of Figure 5, in Figure 6, the “RouteChoice” module

20 is a queue using “SelectRoute” to decide a travel route for each passenger based on
21 the network topological structure. “SelectRoute” is the interface of the predetermined
rP
22 passenger route choice pattern. Then, the passengers are aggregated to passenger batch
23 agents according to the identical origin station, destination station, and the selected
24 route. The upper limit of the current time interval is recorded as the time of entering
ee
25 the origin station of each passenger batch agent. Afterwards, passenger batch agents
26
are assigned to the exact platform by “AssignToPlatform”. This action is obviously
27
28
simple if the origin station is a non-transfer station with only one URT line. However,
rR
29 if the station is a transfer station, we should distinguish which line that passenger
30 batch agents choose and then assign them to the correct platform in the station.
31 The distinguishing process is also an indispensable step for passengers transfer in the
ev
32 station, so the transfer passenger batch agents are sent to “AssignToPlatform” after
33 being transmitted back from the URT line agent. Therefore, when a passenger batch
34 agent enters a transfer station or transfers to another line in the station, we compare
iew
35 the next station of each line that crosses at the station and the next station of the
36 route that the passenger batch agent chooses. For example, in Figure 7, a passenger
37 batch agent enters the Station 5. The next station of the route it chooses is Station 6.
38 For assigning it, we traverse the stations that are linked directly with station 5 based
39
on the topological structure of the URT network, i.e., Station 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10. With
40
On
the match of Station 6, we can distinguish that the passenger batch agent chooses
41
42 Line B and travels in the downstream direction. The transfer passenger batch agents
43 can be also distinguished in this way, so that they can be transmitted to the platform
44 of another line in the transfer station.
ly
45 After being assigned, passenger batch agents should walk to the platform and wait
46 for trains, which corresponds to Part III of Figure 5. The process of walking to the
47 platform is realized by “BatchWalkToPlatform”, which is a delay-launch function. The
48 code in it can be launched after a given time. Therefore, using this function, after a
49 given delay time, which equals the walking time of entering station, a passenger batch
50 agent can be stored in a storage pool. Such delay process is actually modelling the
51 walking process from the entrance to the platform in the station. The storage pool G
52 for passenger batch agents waiting in the station, i.e., “WaitingPassnegerBatch”, has a
53
four-level nested structure as shown in Figure 8. For station s on line v, two sub-pools,
54
55
Gup down
v,s and Gv,s , are established for the platforms of upstream and downstream direc-
56 tion, respectively, to store the passengers waiting for trains. When a passenger batch
57 agent completes the walking process, it is sent to the corresponding sub-pool. It should
58
59 17
60
1
2
3
1 2
4
5
6 Line A
7 Line B
8 4 5 6 Line C
9
3GZIN Station
10
11 Transfer station
12
9 The chosen route
13 10
14
15 Figure 7. Distinguishing the chosen line
16
17
18
Fo
be emphasized that more than one URT lines cross at a transfer station. Therefore, in
19 “WaitingPassnegerBatch”, for a transfer station, the sub-pools should be prepared for
20 each platform of all URT lines that cross at this station, respectively. For example, in
21
rP
Figure 8, a storage pool is designed for the network instance in Figure 3. Station 11
22
is a transfer station of Line A and Line C, so that the four sub-pools of this station
23
are constructed, i.e., Gup down up down
A,11 , GA,11 , GC,11 and GC,11 . At the same time, after trans-
24
ee
25 A passenger batch agent

26 Storage Pool G for the URT network waiting for the train
27 Line A Line B Line C
28
rR
Station 1 Station 4 Station 9

29
30 Station 5 Station 5 Station 5

ev

34
iew
Station 11
35
36 Station 13
37
38
Figure 8. The structure of the storage pool for waiting passengers in Anylogic
39
40
On
fer passenger batch agents being transmitted back to the “AssignToPlatform”, the
41
“BatchWalkToPlatform” is also called to realize the transfer walking process and then
42
43 store them in “WaitingPassnegerBatch”, which is similar to the entering passenger
44 batch agents. The only difference for transfer passenger batch agents is that the time
ly
45 parameter of delay-launch is the transfer walking time. Hence, the walking process of
46 entering and transfer are realized by one function, and the storage of entering and
47 transfer passenger batch agents can be executed synchronously. Noted, the EXCEL
48 file “WalkTimePara” provides the parameters of normal distributions, i.e, the mean
49 value µ and the standard deviation δ, of entering, exiting, and transfer(if exist) walking
50 time of each station. Specially, for the transfer connection at the station, the build-
51 ing architectures that link the platforms of different lines may be extremely different,
52 which leads to various transfer walking times between the platforms of different lines.
53 Therefore, the normal disruption functions of transfer walking time should be provided
54
according to the lines cross at the station, e.g., for station 5 in Figure 3, the normal
55
56
distribution functions Φtr (5, A, B), Φtr (5, B, C), Φtr (5, A, C) should be provided. Af-
57 ter completing the above entering or transfer walking processes and being stored in
58
59 18
60
1
2
3
4 “WaitingPassnegerBatch”, passenger batch agents begin to wait for an available train.
5 When a train stop at the station, the boarding and alighting processes occur, so that
6 the synchronization of passenger batch agents is realized, which are developed in URT
7 line agents.
8 Passenger walking to exits is also a time-elapsed process, which is similar to the
9 process of walking to the platform. Therefore, corresponding to Part IV of Figure
10 5, after alighting the train at the destination station, the passenger batch agents are
11 transmitted back to the module “BatchWalkOut”. Then, “BatchExit”, a delay-launch
12
function like “BatchWalkToPlatform”, is called to realize the walking process to the
13
exits with the given time parameters. Finally, the indicators can be calculated and
14
15 passenger batch agents are demolished by the module “BatchSink”.
16 In summary, the URT network agent primarily generates the passenger batch agents,
17 store all passengers that are waiting for trains, and realizes all the passenger walking
18 processes.
Fo
19
20
21 5.3. URT line agent
rP
22
23 The URT line agent, which is the lower level of the SPTTSM, must realize the train
24 running process, which synchronized the passenger travel on-board trains. Also, based
ee
25 on the passenger exchange between train agents and the storage pool in the URT
26 network agent, the boarding and alighting processes between trains and platforms are
27 modeled to achieve the synchronization. URT line agents are developed for each line
28
rR
in the URT network, respectively, but the method of developing each URT line agent
29 is similar. The main differences are the number of stations and the track entities of the
30 line. Therefore, the development method of the URT line agent is introduced using an
31 instance of a single line.
ev
32
33
34 5.3.1. Train running process simulation
iew
35 Firstly, the track entities and stations are built. Using the parameters of the distance
36
between two adjacent stations, including their locations, distance, and links between
37
each other, the tracks and switches are built as shown in Figure 9. Then, the flow
38
39 chart of train running process is shown in Figure 10 and the corresponding realization
40 in the Anylogic software is shown in Figure 11.
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46 Figure 9. A part of the built URT line entity
47
48
49 澻濙濢濙濦濕濨濙澔濨濦濕濝濢濧澔
濈濦濕濝濢濧澔濡濣濪濙澔
濕濢濘澔濕濦濦濝濪濙澔濕濨澔
濈濦濕濝濢濧澔濘濫濙濠濠澔澽濧澔濨濜濙澔濠濕濧濨澔
濍濈濦濕濝濢濧澔濘濝濧濤濣濧濙
濖濭澔濨濜濙澔濨濝濡濙濨濕濖濠濙濕濨澔濨濜濙澔濧濨濕濨濝濣濢濧濨濕濨濝濣濢澳
50 濗濩濦濦濙濢濨澔濧濨濕濨濝濣濢
51 濂
52
53 Figure 10. The flow chart of the train running process
54
55 Train agents are generated by “TrainSource” according to each specified train num-
56 ber and its operation task in the given timetable. Noted that, instead of generating
57
58
59 19
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Figure 11. The realization of the train running process in Anylogic
13
14
15 train agents at the terminal stations, a new train agent is generated at the depot yard,
16 and the reversing train agent is generated at the turn-back track. Then, using “Train-
17 Move” module, the train agent runs to the next station with the given direction and
18
Fo
the running speed parameters. When arriving at the current station, “Delay” module
19 makes the train agent dwells to realize passenger synchronization, i.e., the passenger
20 boarding and alighting processes. After the dwell time set by the timetable, a judg-
21
rP
ment that whether the current station is the last station of the current service route
22 is executed by “SelectOutput”. The train agent will be thrown back to “TrainMove”
23
to continue running to the next station. Significantly, as a variable of the train agent,
24
the set of on-board passengers is synchronized moving when the train is moving. Thus
ee
25
26 passenger batch agents can travel from one station to another, which constitutes the
27 passenger spread in the URT network. The train agents are demolished by “TrainDis-
28 pose” after completing the final dwell at the last station. In other words, after arriving
rR
29 at the last station of the current service route, even the train stock unit has a next
30 reverse operation task with a new train number, it will still be demolished after it
31 completes the current service task in the simulation model. A new train agent for the
ev
32 reverse operation task will be subsequently generated instead.

33
34
iew
35 5.3.2. Boarding process simulation

36 The boarding process simulation is realized by “PassengerBatchBoarding” in Figure
37 11. Since the waiting passenger batch agents are stored in sub-pools of each platform
38 in the “WaitingPassnegerBatch”, the boarding process can be realized easily. When a
39
train agent n dwells at station s of line v, we traverse passenger batch agents stored
40
On
41
in Gup down
v,s or Gv,s , and transmit them into the set of on-board passenger batch agents,
42 i.e., λ . However, each train has a maximum loading capacity Capn . Therefore, not
n
43 all waiting passenger batch agents can board the train, a judgment that whether the
44 remaining loading capacity is enough should be executed for each waiting passenger
ly
45 batch agent before they complete the boarding process. Correspondingly, a passenger
46 batch agent decomposition is developed to ensure the loading capacity of the train
47 agent can be fully utilized. As shown in Figure 12, still using the instance in Figure
48 3, when a train of Line A running in the downstream direction dwells at station 11,
49 the waiting passenger batch agents stored in GdownA,11 are traversed. In this process, a
50 next passenger batch agent which intends to board aggregates 5 passenger individ-
51 uals, but the remaining loading capacity is only 2 passengers. Therefore, it should
52
be decomposed into two passenger batch agents. The new passenger batch agent has
53
2 passengers and can board the train, and the original passenger batch agent has 3
54
55
passengers but has to wait for the next train. And the traversing can be ended since
56 the train has no more loading capacity. Noted, except the number of aggregated pas-
57 sengers, other parameters and variables should be copied from the original agent to
58
59 20
60
1
2
3
4 the new agent. Based on the above actions, the synchronization of the passengers on
5 the platform and the passengers on-board the train are completed.
6
New passenger batch
7 Loading capacity:
agent, H²=2, boarding
Line A
1798/1800
8 Line C
9 Original passenger Station

batch agent,
10 11 H²=3, waiting
Transfer station
11 Train of Line A
12 A passenger
batch agent
13
14 Figure 12. The decomposition of a passenger batch agent
15
16
17
18
Fo
5.3.3. Alighting process simulation

19
Now we turn to the development of the passenger alighting process, which corresponds
20
to the function “PassengerBatchAlighting” in Figure 11. When a train agent dwells
21
rP
22 at the station, two types of passengers need to alight. The first is the passengers
23 whose destination station is the current station. They need to alight the train and
24 exit the station. The second is the passengers who need to transfer to another train
ee
25 at the current station. We design an algorithm as follows to select such two types of
26 passengers from the set of the on-board passengers of the train. In Algorithm 1, the
27 traversal of the passenger batch agents on-board the train is realized by line 2∼10. If
28
rR
a passenger batch agent’s destination station is the same as the current station (line
29 3), that means it has arrived at the destination, so it needs to alight the train and exit
30 the station. Noted that, trains operating on one URT line may have different service
31 routes. That means, except for the terminal stations, the intermediate stations could
ev
32 also be the last station of a train’s service route. Therefore, if the train has arrived at
33
its last station(line 6, condition 1), the passenger batch agents travelling to succeeding
34
stations have to alight and transfer to another available train with a longer service
iew
35
36 route. Since such passengers do not need to walk to other platforms, they can be
37 treated as same-platform transfer passengers with no transfer walking time. The other
38 judgment is, if the next station of the route that the passenger batch agent chooses and
39 the next station of the train service route are different (line 6, condition 2), that means
40 the passenger batch agent needs to alight and transfer to another line. Such passenger
On
41 batch agents are removed from the set of on-board passengers of the train. The rest
42 passenger batch agents stay on-board the train and continue their travel. Since the
43 passenger walking processes of exiting and transfer are realized in the upper level, i.e.,
44
ly
the URT network agent, the alighting passenger batch agents are transmitted back to
45 the URT network agent.
46
47 Algorithm 1 Algorithm of distinguishing passengers need alight
48 Require: train agent n, the set of on-board passenger batch agents λn , the set of
49 stations along the service route n , the current station ni
50 1: The set of passenger batch agents that need alight: α = ∅
51
2: for each passenger batch agent ρ in λn do
52
53
3: if dˆρ = ni then
54 4: Add ρ to α
55 5: else
56 6: if i = |n | or Rρc+1 6= ni+1 then
57 7: Add ρ to α
58
59 21
60
1
2
3
4 8: end if
5 9: end if
6 10: end for
7 11: Remove all elements of α from λn
8 Ensure: α.
9
10
11 5.4. The total architecture of the simulation model
12
13 Based on the above URT network agent and URT line agents, the entire simulation
14 of passengers and trains can be described as Figure 13. All actions about passenger
15 route choice and walking in the station are constructed in the URT network agent.
16 And all actions about passenger travelling on-board the train and train running are
17 constructed in URT line agents.
18
Fo
19 濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔濇濨濕濦濨
激濣濕濘澔濤濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔澷濜濣濣濧濙澔澻濙濢濙濦濕濨濙澔濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔濋濕濠濟澔濨濣澔濨濜濙澔濋濕濝濨澔濚濣濦澔濨濜濙澔
濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔濤濠濕濨濚濣濦濡澔濣濚澔
20 濨濦濕濪濙濠澔濘濙濡濕濢濘濧濨濦濕濪濙濠澔濦濣濩濨濙澔濖濕濨濗濜澔濕濛濙濢濨濧澔濕濧濧濝濛濢濡濙濢濨濨濜濙澔濧濨濕濨濝濣濢澔濨濦濕濝濢澔濨濣澔濘濙濤濕濦濨
21
rP
澷濕濢澔
22 濂濙濙濘澔
濂
濖濣濕濦濘澳
澵濠濝濛濜濨澔濨濜濙澔濨濦濕濝濢澔濍
濨濦濕濢濧濚濙濦澳
23 濍
24 濆濙濕濠濝濮濙濘澔濝濢澔濉濆濈澔
濢濙濨濫濣濦濟澔濕濛濙濢濨
濂
濂
澶濣濕濦濘濝濢濛澔
濨濜濙澔濨濦濕濝濢
ee
25 濆濙濕濠濝濮濙濘澔濝濢澔濉濆濈澔
濠濝濢濙澔濕濛濙濢濨濧濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔
濨濦濕濪濙濠澔濚濝濢濝濧濜
澵濠濝濛濜濨澔濨濜濙澔濨濦濕濝濢澔
濕濢濘澔濫濕濠濟澔濨濣澔濙濬濝濨
濍澽濧澔濘濙濧濨濝濢濕濨濝濣濢澔
濧濨濕濨濝濣濢澳
26 濇濨濕濦濨澣澹濢濘
濈濦濕濪濙濠澔濣濢澡
27 濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔濕濗濨濝濣濢澷濜濙濗濟澔濕濠濠澔濤濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔
濖濕濨濗濜澔濕濛濙濢濨濧澔濣濢澡濖濣濕濦濘澔濨濜濙澔濨濦濕濝濢
28 濖濣濕濦濘澔濨濜濙澔濨濦濕濝濢
rR
濄濕濧濧濙濢濛濙濦澔濞濩濘濛濙濡濙濢濨
29 濈濦濕濝濢澔濕濗濨濝濣濢
澽濧澔濠濕濧濨澔濈濦濕濝濢澔濘濫濙濠濠澔濕濨澔濈濦濕濝濢澔濡濣濪濙澔濕濢濘澔濕濦濦濝濪濙澔
濈濦濕濝濢澔濇濨濕濦濨
澻濙濢濙濦濕濨濙
30 濈濦濕濝濢澔濞濩濘濛濙濡濙濢濨濈濦濕濝濢澔濘濝濧濤濣濧濙濍
濤濣濧濝濨濝濣濢澳濨濜濙澔濧濨濕濨濝濣濢濕濨澔濨濜濙澔濢濙濬濨澔濧濨濕濨濝濣濢濨濦濕濝濢澔濕濛濙濢濨濧
31 濂
ev
32
33 Figure 13. The flow chart of the total simulation model
34
iew
35 Passengers are loaded by the 30s time interval. After choosing a travel route, the
36 passengers are aggregated to passenger batch agents. Then, the passenger batch agents
37 are assigned to their origin station. The next action is walking to the platform, a time-
38 elapsed process realized by a delay-launch function in Anylogic. The waiting passenger
39 batch agents are stored in a storage pool. When a train arrives and dwells at the
40
On
station, passenger batch agents board the train if there is enough loading capacity.
41 A passenger batch decomposition is applied here to guarantee the loading capacity
42
can be fully used. Then, passenger batch agents travel to the next station on-board
43
the train agent. When the train agent arrives at the next station, the traversal of all
44
ly
45 passenger batch agents is executed to distinguish which passenger batch agents need to
46 alight the train to exit or transfer. These alighted passengers complete their walking
47 processes and the rest passengers stay on-board the train to continue their travel.
48 Specially, for the same-platform transfer passengers, i.e., the passengers who need to
49 travel to the succeeding stations of the current train’s service route, they transfer
50 to another train with a longer service route at the current train’s last station, and
51 the agent transmission processes are identical except the transfer time parameters are
52 set to 0 seconds, since they do not need to walk to other platforms. Passenger batch
53 agents are demolished after they exit their destination station, and the train agents
54 are demolished after they dwell at the last stations of their service routes.
55
56
57
58
59 22
60
1
2
3
4 6. Simulation experiments
5
6 In this section, we concentrate on the application of the SPTTSM. Using the above
7 development methods, a simulation model of a large-scale URT network is built. After
8 verifying its accuracy and effectiveness, it is used to validate different passenger route
9 choice patterns and evaluate operation states using AFC data of multiple days.
10
11
12 6.1. A large-scale example
13
14 We select the URT network of Chongqing, China as the modelling scenario. As shown
15 in Figure 14, the URT network of Chongqing contains 7 lines and 148 stations. To make
16 it easier to read, we replace the station name with the station index. The total length
17
18
Fo
-GU(GU.[ 2OGT.[G

1UTM-GTM9W[GXK
0[8KT(G
19
-[GT?[K2[

=GTM0OG@N[GTM ?[K2GO )KTZXGR6GXQ=KYZ )KTZXGR6GXQ )KTZXGR6GXQ+KYZ 2[9NGT ?[(KO9W[GXK 9N[GTM,KTM7OGU
20
9U[ZN]KYZ
;TO\KXYOZ_

2UTM,KTM^O

>OGTM0OG-GTM

)[O?[T

)NGTM,[2[

.[O>OTM 9N[GTM2UTM

:KXSOTGRUL0OGTM(KO
21
:NK+>65 :NK+>65 (O0OTM /TZKXTGZOUTGR'OXVUXZ
rP
-GXJKT)KTZKX -GXJKT
(KO(KO @N[GTM?[GT(KO
)GO0OG
22 )GU0OG=GT

*GT.K

?[GT?GTM

0OT:UTM2[

9NGTM=GT2[ .[GT9NGT6GXQ )NGTM.K
:KXSOTGRUL0OGTM(KO
/TZKXTGZOUTGR'OXVUXZ
0OT9NGT9O
23
2O0OG
.[>OG0OK

0OT?[

9GT?G=GT

:UTM0OG?[GT@O
24
)NUTM-[GTM

(GU9N[O-GTM .KO9NO@O
0O[7[.K 2UTM:U[9O 3OT>OT0OG?[GT
>OTM,[9W[GXK .K3[2[
ee
)NUTM7OTM4UXZN8GOR]G_ -GTM)NKTM
25
9ZGZOUT4UXZN9W[GXK )[T:GT
1GTM@N[GTM

(O9NGT *G>[K)NKTM =KO*OGT?[GT -[GTM*OGT 8KT.K
?[GT 3OT'T'\KT[K :U[:GTM :GO6OTM)NUTM
26
*G@N[2OT
@NKTM0OG?[GT@O )NUTM7OTM4UXZN8GOR]G_
0OGT*OTM6U )NKT0OG7OGU 2GO0OG7OGU 9ZGZOUT9U[ZN9W[GXK

9N[GTM(KO
:GTM0OG?[GT@O 9NO@O6OTM :GTM0OG:[U
27

9NO0OTM6U

8GT0OG(G
0OG@NU[2[

.UTM7O.K-U[
2UTM:U[9O6GXQ

=[2O*OGT

28
)O7O1U[
rR

*G2UTM9NGT
.[G.[O?[GT .[GTM4O(GTM .UTM:[*O 0OGTM(KO)NKTM
2OK9NO3[

29 ?GTM-UTM7OGU

*G9NO(G

-[GT?OT7OGU

@KTM0OG?GT
2O?[)NO

.[GTM.[G?[GT

-XGTJ:NKGZKX

30 9NG6OTM(G

>OGU2UTM1GT
.[G>OT0OK

*G>O-U[
4O[0OGU:[U

2OT0OGTM3KT

9NGTM>OT0OK
>OGU9NO@O
31
2O@O(G
2OGTM2[1U[
ev
,U:[-[GT 0OGU)NGTM1U[

3G0OG?GT
32 -GU3OGU)[T

>OK:GO@O

+ 2OTM 7O>OTM-GTM
:UTM?[GT0[

2O[0OG6OTM
9NO7OGU6[ 9NO?U[2[ *G6OTM
33
?[GT0OG-GTM

-UTM3GU
4GT6OTM

)NGTM9NKTM7OGU

34
>OK0OG=GT

9O-UTM2O 7O[0OG=GT

iew
3G=GTM)NGTM ?GTM0OG6OTM

35
*G*[1U[

6OTM'T

*G?GT)[T

@UU

2O[-UTM2O
)NUTM7OTM:KINTURUM_
GTJ([YOTKYY;TO\KXYOZ_
)NG?[GT
36
:OGT:GTM(GU

>OT9NGT)[T

)NUTM7OTM0OGU:UTM;TO\KXYOZ_
37

0OGU7OGU
(G-UTMRO

7O2UTM
2OTK 2OTK 2OTK 2OTK
38 0OT0OG=GT

2O[0OG(G

0O[-UTM2O
2OTK
9ZGZOUT
2OTK
:XGTYLKX9ZGZOUT
2OTK
:KXSOTGR9ZGZOUT

39 (GO0[9O

.[G>O

)NG2[1U[ 9ZGZOUTOTJK^GTJYZGZOUTTGSK
@UU
40
?[*UTM 0OT@N[ ?[.[2[ >[K:GTM=GT
On
*G0OGTM *G9NGT)[T
41
42 Figure 14. Chongqing URT network
43
44 of the URT lines is 269.15km and the daily passenger volume is more than 1,500,000,
ly
45 which is a large-scale scenario. The operation time of the entire URT network is 6:00-
46 24:00, and there are more than 1900 trains running in the network during the daily
47 operation period. The AFC data of 10/22/2018, including 1,682,752 passenger travels,
48 is selected to implement the following experiments, and some of its examples are shown
49 in Table 4. The standard train loading capacity is 1468, 632(1292), 1125(1500), 1935,
50 1935, 1440, and 1935 of the trains of Line 1, Line 2(high-capacity type), Line 3(high-
51
capacity type), Line 4, Line 5, Line 6, and Line 10, respectively. The peak coefficient
52
53
is 1.2 for the maximum loading capacity.
54 Using a laptop with i5-8265U @ 1.6GHz CPU and 8G RAM, the execution time of
55 the simulation model with all passengers in one-day operation is 86s, which is a short
56 enough time for applications. The execution time includes the time of system warm-
57 up and statistic indicators calculation. The warm-up process calculates and saves all
58
59 23
60
1
2
3
4 Table 4. The AFC data of Chongqing URT network at 10/22/2018
5
6 Index CardID OriStation EnterTime DesStation ExitTime
1 20235169 1-17 06:06:04 6-9 07:30:01
7 2 12153954 2-2 06:12:31 2-7 06:40:12
8 3 912612658 2-2 06:12:51 3-27 07:08:48
9 4 989967781 2-2 06:12:55 3-27 07:08:56
10 5 13159683 1-2 06:14:43 1-20 07:17:18
11 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
12 1682748 22524395 3-4 23:41:19 3-2 23:57:18
13 1682749 13486575 3-6 23:41:20 3-4 23:50:59
14 1682750 22296528 3-6 23:41:31 3-4 23:51:16
15 1682751 905020766 3-6 23:41:34 3-4 23:51:13
16 1682752 12546768 3-6 23:43:24 3-3 23:54:20
17
18
Fo
19 available passenger routes between each OD-pair in advance to avoid redundant actions
20 and waste of computation capacity, since the passenger routes will be called by the
21
rP
“SelectRoute” function repeatedly when each passenger enters the station.

22
23
24 6.2. The verification of the proposed simulation model
ee
25
26 Before implementing further experiments, we verify the effectiveness of the above
27 development method of the SPTTSM.
28
rR
Firstly, we illustrate the effects of the passenger aggregation method. Using the
29 proposed passenger individual aggregation method, the 1,682,752 passenger travels
30 are aggregated to 1,104,955 passenger batch agents, which means the aggregation
31 level(i.e., the ratio of the number of generated passenger agents to the total number of
ev
32
passengers) is about 65.66%, and the computation pressure is reduced deeply. For more
33
details, the passenger individual amount of each hour, the generated passenger batch
34
agent amount of each hour, and the aggregation level of each hour during the one-day
iew
35
36 operation of 10/22/2018, are demonstrated in Figure 15. It is evident that, during the
37
Passenger individual
38 Passenger batch agent
0.9
39 Passenger aggregation level
0.781
40 200000 0.8
On
number of actual passenger individual
0.749 0.733
& simulated passenger batch agent
0.72 0.732 0.722 0.721 0.735 0.71 0.729 0.734 0.727 0.742
passenger aggregation level
41 0.665 0.7
0.625
42 0.619
0.578 0.585
150000 0.6
43
44 0.5
ly
45 100000 0.4
46 0.3
47
48 50000 0.2
49 0.1
50 0 0.0
51
0
00 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0- 0
0
:0
:0
:0
10 0:0
11 11:0
12 12:0
13 13:0
14 14:0
15 15:0
16 16:0
17 17:0
18 18:0
19 19:0
20 20:0
21 21:0
22 22:0
23 23:0
:0
-7
-8
-9
24
52
-1
00
00
00
0-
6:
7:
8:
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
9:
53 time period
54
55 Figure 15. The passenger aggregation level of each period at 10/22/2018
56
57
58
59 24
60
1
2
3
4 morning and the evening peak hours, the aggregation levels are lower, especially in
5 8:00-9:00 and 18:00-19:00, the aggregation levels are 0.578 and 0.585, respectively. The
6 reason is that, during the peak hours, the passenger volume is much larger than other
7 time periods, the number of passengers entering a station during a 30s time interval
8 will increase. The probability of two or more entering passengers travelling to the same
9 destination and taking the same route may be increased, and the amount of passenger
10 individuals aggregated in a passenger batch agent could also be increased, both of
11 which lead to the increased aggregation level. For the off-peak hours, the aggregation
12
levels are relatively lower but stable, especially remaining similar when the number of
13
passenger volume is very low in the last two hours, which can prove that group travel
14
15 may not be a rare phenomenon.
16 Secondly, the synchronization of the boarding, alighting, and on-board passengers
17 during the train’s running process are illustrated. As shown in Figure 16, a train of
18 Line 1 in Chongqing URT network runs from Station 1-1 to 1-23. During its operation
Fo
19
20 current on-board passengers
number of alighting/boarding/on-board passengers
number of passengers travel between two stations

total boarding passengers at current station
21 400
50
rP
total alighting passengers at current station

22 the passenger travel processes
between two stations 45
350
23
40
24 300 39 passengers
ee
25 travel from station

1-1 to station 1-2
35
26 250 30
27
200 25
28
rR
29 150
20
30 15
31 100
ev
10
32
50
33 5
34 0 0
iew
35
BiS1-24
Jiao 1- nZi
QiX 1-3 ou
Lia 1-4 ng
u
ing
ing
Lu
Zi
oPu
Ma 1-11n
Xia 1-1 n
Sha 1-13an
Yan 1- Ba
Lie 1-15o
Mu
Po
Lai 1-19 i
We 1-2 o
Che 1-2 an
Da 1-2 iao
Jian 1-23ng
gPo
han
E'L1-5
CiQ1-16
Be
DaP1-6
Shi 1-17
Xie 1-8
Qia
ia
uKo
Cu
iKo
Shi 1-7
Shu 1-18
Tai
Shi 1-9
You
Jing
ngK
JiaY
ngK
nYu
nJia 1
Ga
Che
g
Xia 1-1
oM 0
oLo 2
Xue 2
Shi
JiaQ
Q
iDia 0
ang
e
Qia
Din
Pin
gG 14
iao
Cha 2
Ga 1-1
oSh
ong
ngL
ing
36
37 Stations
38
39 Figure 16. The passenger travel processes synchronized with a train’s running process
40
On
of Line 1 in Chongqing URT network

41
42
process, when it dwells at a station, the boarding and alighting passengers complete the
43
44
interaction processes, which results in changing the on-board passengers of the train.
ly
45 The number of on-board passengers(soiled black line) remains fixed when the train is
46 running in the sections between two adjacent stations, which means passengers travel
47 on-board the train synchronously without any data losing. Additionally, since the
48 boarding passengers have different alighting stations and the alighting passengers come
49 from different boarding stations, the specific passenger travel processes synchronized
50 with this train are demonstrated using the combination of colored dotted lines and
51 up/down triangles. For example, as we highlighted in Figure 16, 39 passengers get
52 on at Station 1-1 and get off at Station 1-2, which makes the bar of the number of
53 alighting passengers at Station 1-2 is 39 in the histogram. Since Station 1-1 and 1-
54 2 are transfer stations, for the 39 passengers, the travel process between these two
55
stations is probably only a part of the entire passenger travel process.
56
Then, we focus on the travel process of a single passenger batch agent. It should
57
58
59 25
60
1
2
3
4 be noted that no extra route choice pattern is used, passengers always choose the
5 temporal shortest route since passengers usually know the scheduled running time
6 instead of distances between stations from station guidance information. 5 passenger
7 batch agents are selected randomly from all passenger batch agents travel from Station
8 1-13 to 1-3. The simulation results of them are shown in Table 5. For the Agent 3
9 in Table 5, 4 passengers enter the Station 1-13 during 12:35:30∼12:36:00 and their
10
11 Table 5. The simulation results and relative travel time deviations of 5 passenger batch
12 agents travel from Station 1-13 to Station 1-3
13
14 Aggregated
Passenger Actual Actual Actual travel Simulated Relative
15 batch agent
CardID in
EnterTime ExitTime time(s) travel time(s) deviation
16 this agent
17 Agent 1
22567540 8:02:03 8:32:00 1797
1655
7.90%
321079 8:02:07 8:32:06 1799 8.00%
18
Fo
13756435 8:43:04 9:08:41 1537 12.75%

19 Agent 2
912759584 8:43:20 9:10:25 1625
1733
6.71%
20 907879154 12:35:48 13:03:47 1679 0.30%
21 907263270 12:35:49 13:04:22 1713 2.28%
rP
Agent 3 1674
22 910660708 12:35:53 13:03:39 1666 0.48%
912316927 12:35:53 13:03:44 1671 0.18%
23
910104497 17:26:04 17:51:03 1499 12.21%
24 20369763 17:26:09 17:50:29 1460 15.21%
ee
25 Agent 4 12030342 17:26:11 17:50:30 1459 1682 15.28%

26 12098001 17:26:16 17:50:34 1458 15.36%
27 22314095 17:26:17 17:51:10 1493 12.66%
13756435 18:31:11 18:57:55 1604 8.23%
28
rR
Agent 5 1736
912759584 18:31:19 18:57:51 1592 9.05%
29
30
31 destination station is Station 1-3, so that they are aggregated into a passenger batch
ev
32 agent. The simulated travel process is as shown in Figure 17. The upper limit of the
33 time period, i.e., 12:35:30, is used as the entering time of this passenger batch agent.
34 The passenger batch agent exits the Station 1-3 at 13:03:24 in the simulation, so
iew
35 that its simulated travel time is 1674s. The average actual travel time of these four
36
passengers is 1682.5s, and the relative travel time deviation of each passenger is only
37
0.30%, 2.28%, 0.48%, and 0.18%. That is, the four passengers’ entire travel processes
38
39 are modeled accurately. The simulation results of the other four passenger batch agents
40 and the relative travel time deviations of each aggregated passenger are also listed in
On
41 Table 5. The relative deviations of each passenger are not stable but still acceptable,
42 which means their travel processes are depicted reasonably.
43
44
ly
AT: 12:35:30

45 9NG6OTM(G LT: 12:39:17
46
>OGU2UTM1GT
AT: 12:41:35
LT: 12:42:10 AT: 12:59:26 AT: 13:02:11
47 LT: 12:59:59 LT: 13:03:24

48
2OGTM2[1U[ 7O>OTM-GTM
AT: 12:46:45 AT: 12:50:32
3G0OG?GT LT: 12:47:19 LT: 12:51:12 + 2OTM
49 AT: 12:44:50
LT: 12:45:22

-GU3OGU)[T

9NO7OGU6[

>OK:GO@O

9NO?U[2[ AT: 12:57:29
50 AT: 12:48:45 AT: 12:52:33
LT: 12:58:03 AT - arrival time at this station
LT - leaving time from this station
51 LT: 12:49:15 LT: 12:53:08 *G6OTM
AT: 12:54:36
LT: 12:55:30
52
53
54 Figure 17. The travel process of a passenger batch agent in the simulation model
55
56 Afterwards, we obtain the passenger travel times of some OD-pairs in a one-day
57 operation. The passengers still choose the shortest route. The selected OD-pairs, the
58
59 26
60
1
2
3
4 actual data, and the average simulated travel time using the simulation model are
5 listed in Table 6. The average relative deviations between the simulated travel time
6 and the actual travel time (∆ȳo,d ) are calculated. Figure 18 shows the distributions of
7 relative deviations from each passenger of the selected OD-pairs. For OD-pair Station
8 1-13 to 1-3, Station 3-36 to 3-14, and Station 6-18 to 6-6, the ∆ȳo,d is 12.91%,
9
10 Table 6. The travel time simulation results of 5 OD-pairs
11
12 Origin Destination Average actual Average simulated Average relative
13 station Station travel time(s) travel time (ȳo,d ) (s) deviation (∆ȳo,d )
14 1-13 1-3 1622 1747 12.91%
15 2-12 2-9 770 662 32.06%
3-36 3-14 3844 3371 13.64%
16 6-18 6-6 2181 2075 7.47%
17 10-6 6-13 1655 1357 30.14%
18
Fo
19
20
100 100 100 100 100
Percentage(%)
Percentage(%)
Percentage(%)
Percentage(%)
Percentage(%)
21
rP
80 80 80 80 80
22 60 60 60 60 60
40 40 40 40 40
23 20 20 20 20 20
24 0 0 0 0 0
0%-10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
>50%
0%-10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
>50%
0%-10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
>50%
0%-10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
>50%
0%-10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
>50%
ee
25
26 Relative Deviation Relative Deviation Relative Deviation Relative Deviation Relative Deviation
27 (a) From 1-13 to 1-3 (b) From 2-12 to 2-9 (c) From 3-36 to 3-14 (d) From 6-18 to 6-6 (e) From 10-6 to 6-13
28
rR
29 Figure 18. The deviation distributions of passengers’ travel time of the 5 OD-pairs
30
31 13.64%, and 7.47% respectively, and according to Figure 18(a)(c)(d), more than 80%
ev
32 of passengers’ relative deviations of travel time are less than 20%, which are acceptable
33 results. For the OD-pair Station 2-12 to 2-9, the ∆ȳo,d is 32.06%, and about 90% of
34 passengers’ relative deviations are less than 50%. However, the difference between the
iew
35 actual average travel time and the simulated average travel time is 108s, which is an
36 acceptable value. Simultaneously, due to the short travel distance, the simulated travel
37
time is only about 11min. Therefore, compared to other OD-pairs with longer travel
38
times, the same time difference will lead to a more significant relative deviation. For the
39
40 OD-pair Station 10-6 to 6-13, which transfers at the Station 6-10, the ∆ȳo,d is 30.14%.
On
41 The deviation distribution is shown in Figure 18(e). About 70% of passengers’ relative
42 deviations are less than 30%, which is acceptable, but more than 20% of passengers’
43 relative deviations are more than 50%, which is the major cause of large ∆ȳo,d and may
44 be explained by the following reasons. In the real world, passengers may choose another
ly
45 alternative route in the URT network due to the crowded trains and platforms and
46 long waiting times of the shortest route. Moreover, some disruptions during passengers’
47 travel processes, such as losing tickets, forgetting to alight the train, and boarding
48 a train in the opposite direction, are ignored in the simulation model. Also, some
49 unanticipated situations may occur to passengers, especially in the transfer walking
50 processes, e.g., an unforeseen long time is required to find the transfer channel due to
51
the passengers’ unfamiliarity or unclear guidance information. It can not be covered
52
53
using the normal distributions of walking time given by Chongqing URT managers.
54 From the above analysis, we can observe that the simulation model can describe
55 passengers’ travel processes of some OD-pairs accurately. For the validation of the
56 entire network operation, the passenger route choice pattern has to be considered due
57 to the complexity of the URT network. Therefore, we turn to the applications of the
58
59 27
60
1
2
3
4 simulation model in the following sections.
5
6
7 6.3. The validation of the passenger route choice patterns
8 In this section, the developed simulation model is used to validate different passenger
9
route choice patterns. We refer to two route choice models introduced in [47] and [48].
10
11
The route choice models usually concentrate on the scenarios that passengers have
12 multiple available routes to travel from the origin station to the destination station.
13 The comfortability, congestion in trains and stations, and train headways are usually
14 considered to choose a route. Such influence factors are included in the two referred
15 passenger route choice models. Now we validate them and compare their effects.
16 Firstly, 10 OD-pairs with multiple possible routes are selected to validate the pas-
17 senger route choice patterns. Then, the simulation model is executed for a one-day
18
Fo
operation with the two route choice patterns, respectively. The actual travel time,
19 the simulated travel time, and the average relative deviations between them of the
20 10 OD-pairs are listed in Table 7. All the average relative deviations maintain an ac-
21
rP
ceptable level, which means the passengers’ route choice actions are modeled precisely.
22
Comparing the two passenger route choice patterns, most average relative deviations
23
under [48] are less than [47], except the OD-pair Station 6-4 to 2-7 and Station 6-14
24
to 10-7.
ee
25
26 Table 7. The simulation results of travel time and deviation for 10 OD-pairs under
27
two passenger route choice patterns
28
rR
29
Pattern 1 [47] Pattern 2 [48]
30 Origin Destination Average
Average Average Average Average
Station Station actual
31 simulated relative simulated relative
ev
travel time(s)
32 travel time(s) deviation travel time(s) deviation
33 1-16 2-6 2317 2350 15.84% 2322 10.03%
34 1-1 3-21 1635 1556 20.40% 1536 20.08%
iew
1-4 10-5 2507 2183 22.65% 2244 22.07%

35 2-6 3-1 3473 2941 22.06% 2958 21.57%
36 2-12 3-39 4910 4327 19.58% 4323 19.38%
37 1-2 5-7 2799 3015 15.88% 2801 8.86%
38 3-27 2-2 2449 2140 17.64% 2136 17.36%
6-4 2-7 2724 2354 19.02% 2282 21.16%
39
6-14 10-7 2154 1959 13.34% 1964 15.45%
40
On
10-12 3-22 3044 2663 16.50% 2686 15.93%

41
42
43 Secondly, with the two passenger route choice patterns, the average relative devia-
44 tions of all passengers travel in different time periods are listed in Table 8. The time
ly
45 periods are morning peak hours, evening peak hours, common hours, and the entire
46 URT system operation time. Comparing the effects of the two passenger route choice
47 patterns, under the pattern in [48], the average relative deviations in all time periods
48 are lower than the pattern in [47]. Also, considering the above simulation results of
49 the 10 OD-pairs, the passenger route choice pattern in [48] is better for application.
50 It is worthy to note that, the average relative deviations of passenger travel time in
51
morning and evening peak hours are lower than the common hours. The reason is,
52
53
during morning and evening peak hours, the purpose of most passengers’ travels is
54 commuting, which means they take the metro every day and are more familiar with
55 the URT system. On the contrary, for the passengers who travel in 13:00∼15:00, more
56 tourists, older citizens, and people who do not travel using the URT system often
57 are included. They may be inexperienced with the URT stations and lines, so more
58
59 28
60
1
2
3
4 disruptions may occur to them, which lead to unpredictable walking times and the
5 deviation is consequently increased.
6
7 Table 8. The average relative deviation of passengers’ travel time in the network during
8 different time periods
9
10 Time period
Average relative deviation Average relative deviation
11 under Pattern 1 under Pattern 2
07:00-09:00 16.54% 16.28%
12
13:00-15:00 19.86% 19.63%
13 17:00-19:00 16.11% 15.84%
14 06:00-24:00 17.23% 16.93%
15
16
17
18
Fo
19 6.4. The numerical experiments using AFC data of different days

20
To further validate the applicability and scalability of our simulation model, more
21
rP
22
AFC data of different days are included. As shown in Table 9, still using the passenger
23 route choice pattern in [48], we demonstrate the simulation results of AFC data of
24 10/01/2018, 10/14/2018, 10/23/2018, and 10/26/2018, including weekdays, weekends,
ee
25 and public holidays. The operation time is still 06:00-24:00 of each day. The average
26 passenger travel time, the average passenger waiting time, and the average deviation
27 between the actual and simulated travel time are calculated. The total number of
28
rR
passenger volume, the total number of generated passenger batch agents, and the
29 corresponding aggregation level are also included. Moreover, to show the efficiency of
30 our simulation model in different scenarios, the simulation execution time is also listed.
31 To compare conveniently, the results of 10/22/2018 stated in the above experiments
ev
32 are also shown in Table 9.

33
34 Table 9. Simulation results using AFC data of different days
iew
35
36 average average average total total number aggregation simulation
Date
37 travel waiting relative passenger of passenger level execution
38 time(s) time(s) deviation volume batch agent time(s)
10/22/2018
39 1868 264 16.93% 1,682,752 1,104,755 65.66% 86
(Monday)
40
On
10/23/2018 1837 263 18.97% 1,667,363 1,079,349 64.73% 95

41 (Tuesday)
42 10/26/2018 1852 271 18.24% 1,845,375 1,242,713 67.34% 105
43 (Friday)
10/14/2018
44 1830 245 17.45% 1,419,886 952,883 67.11% 81
ly
(Sunday)
45 10/01/2018 1950 251 16.39% 1,685,103 1,009,803 59.93% 92
46 (public holiday)
47
48
49 The simulation results reveal that our simulation model can be applied for different
50 operation scenarios of the Chongqing URT network. For 10/23/2018, which is a week-
51 day like 10/22/2018, all results are similar to 10/22/2018. For 10/26/2018, which is a
52 Friday, the total passenger volume is higher than other weekdays and weekends, the
53 average waiting time is therefore increased slightly. For 10/14/2018, since the passen-
54 ger volume is relatively lower, the average waiting time is decreased. For 10/01/2018,
55
which is the first day of the National Holiday in China, although the total passenger
56
57
volume is similar to weekdays, the peak periods are not obvious, which means less
58
59 29
60
1
2
3
4 inbound rush occurs at stations, so the average waiting time is decreased. The average
5 relative deviations presented in the table maintain stability and are acceptable, prov-
6 ing that the simulation model can accurately depict passengers’ travel processes. As
7 for the aggregation level, again, which is the ratio of the number of generated passen-
8 ger agents to the total number of passengers, is stable on weekdays and weekends. An
9 interesting result is the aggregating level of 10/01/2018 is much higher because more
10 passengers travel with their family or friends on public holidays, which is identical to
11 reality. Significantly, the simulation execution times under the operation scenarios of
12
different days are between the 80s to 105s, which are short enough for application.
13
14
15
16 7. Conclusion
17
18 In this paper, we study a comprehensive development method of the synchronized
Fo
19 train and passenger traffic simulation model for the URT network, which can be ap-
20 plied to validate other global management research. The passenger batch agent, a novel
21 aggregation method for passenger individuals, is proposed to relieve the high compu-
rP
22 tation pressure of the SPTTSM. The network agent and the line agents are designed
23 to exhaustively simulate the overall network operation, the passenger travel and train
24 running processes, the transmission of fundamental agents, especially the synchroniza-
ee
25 tion of boarding, alighting, and on-board travelling processes. From a set of numerical
26
experiments of the Chongqing URT network, the main findings are summarized as
27
28
follows:
rR
29 • With setting the passenger loading frequency to every 30 seconds, 1,682,752

30 passenger travels are aggregated to 1,104,955 passenger batch agents. The ag-
31 gregation level is about 65%, so the total amount of agents and the computation
ev
32 pressure are significantly decreased. The execution time of the one-day operation
33
is 86 seconds, about 750 times fast than the actual time, which is short enough
34
to ensure the model is easy-applicable.
iew
35
36 • Observing the simulated passenger travel time and the deviations between the
37 simulated and the actual travel time of some OD-pairs and the overall network,
38 the developed simulation model can depict the train running process, passenger
39 travel process, and the network operation accurately.
40 • The effectiveness of passenger route choice models proposed in two research [47,
On
41 48] are validated and compared. The simulation results of 10 different OD-pairs
42 show that the passenger route choice behavior under multiple available routes
43 are modeled effectively and accurately both in the two models. The average
44
ly
relative deviations of all passengers in different time periods are lower than 20%,
45 so the two route choice models are also proved appropriate for all passengers. In
46
contrast, the model upgraded in [48] outperforms the other one.
47
• The proposed simulation model can be applied in various operation scenarios,
48
49
including morning and evening peak hours, weekdays, weekends, and public hol-
50 idays. The execution times maintain short enough and stable in the scenarios,
51 so the high simulation efficiency is guaranteed.
52 The study can be extended in several directions. The most obvious next step is, un-
53 der a validated passenger route choice model, how to guide the passengers’ route choice
54
actions to reduce passengers’ travel time, and avoid excessive crowding in the stations
55
56
and trains. The model in this paper is able to perform as an efficient validation tool.
57 Second, the generating approach of passenger batch agents could be more flexible and
58
59 30
60
1
2
3
4 dynamical according to the real-time passenger volume, so that the aggregation level
5 of passengers may be further improved. Additionally, the network resilience research
6 about train running disruptions, initial train delays, passenger travel disruptions, and
7 the sudden passenger rush for a station could be included in the future.
8
9
10 References
11
12
[1] Yan X, Cheng-Xun C, Ming-Hua L, et al. Modeling and simulation for urban
13
rail traffic problem based on cellular automata. Communications in Theoretical
14
15 Physics. 2012;58(6):847–855.
16 [2] Hassannayebi E, Sajedinejad A, Mardani S. Urban rail transit planning using a
17 two-stage simulation-based optimization approach. Simulation Modelling Practice
18 and Theory. 2014;49:151–166.
Fo
19 [3] Gao Y, Yang L, Gao Z. Real-time automatic rescheduling strategy for an urban
20 rail line by integrating the information of fault handling. Transportation Research
21 Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2017;81:246–267.
rP
22 [4] Jiang Z, Gu J, Fan W, et al. Q-learning approach to coordinated optimization

23 of passenger inflow control with train skip-stopping on a urban rail transit line.
24 Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2019;127:1131–1142.
ee
25 [5] Hickish B, Fletcher DI, Harrison RF. Investigating bayesian optimization for
26
rail network optimization. International Journal of Rail Transportation. 2020;
27
28
8(4):307–323.
rR
29 [6] Owais M, Ahmed AS, Moussa GS, et al. Design scheme of multiple-subway lines
30 for minimizing passengers transfers in mega-cities transit networks. International
31 Journal of Rail Transportation. 2021;9(6):540–563.
ev
32 [7] GAO S, WU Z. Modeling passenger flow distribution based on travel time of ur-
33 ban rail transit. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information
34 Technology. 2011;11(6):124–130.
iew
35 [8] Blume SO, Cardin MA, Sansavini G. Dynamic disruption simulation in large-
36 scale urban rail transit systems. In: International Conference on Complex Systems
37 Design & Management. Springer; 2019. p. 129–140.
38 [9] Hänseler FS, Bierlaire M, Scarinci R. Assessing the usage and level-of-service of
39
pedestrian facilities in train stations: A swiss case study. Transportation Research
40
On
Part A: Policy and Practice. 2016;89:106–123.

41
42 [10] Liu J, Hu L, Xu X, et al. A queuing network simulation optimization method
43 for coordination control of passenger flow in urban rail transit stations. Neural
44 Computing and Applications. 2021;:1–25.
ly
45 [11] Zhang Q, Han B, Li D. Modeling and simulation of passenger alighting and board-
46 ing movement in beijing metro stations. Transportation Research Part C: Emerg-
47 ing Technologies. 2008;16(5):635–649.
48 [12] Baee S, Eshghi F, Hashemi SM, et al. Passenger boarding/alighting management
49 in urban rail transportation. In: ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference; Vol. 44656.
50 American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2012. p. 823–829.
51 [13] Shahabi A, Raissi S, Khalili-Damghani K, et al. An event-driven simulation-
52 optimisation approach to improve the resiliency of operation in a double-track
53
urban rail line. Journal of Simulation. 2021;:1–20.
54
55
[14] Zhou F, Li C, Huang Z, et al. Fare incentive strategies for managing peak-hour
56 congestion in urban rail transit networks. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science.
57 2020;:1–22.
58
59 31
60
1
2
3
4 [15] Chen X, Li H, Miao J, et al. A multiagent-based model for pedestrian simulation
5 in subway stations. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 2017;71:134–148.
6 [16] He B, Zhang H, Wen K, et al. Machine learning based integrated pedestrian
7 facilities planning and staff assignment problem in transfer stations. In: Rail-
8 Norrköping 2019. 8th International Conference on Railway Operations Modelling
9 and Analysis (ICROMA), Norrköping, Sweden, June 17th–20th, 2019. Linköping
10 University Electronic Press; 2019. p. 387–408.
11 [17] Zhou M, Dong H, Zhao Y, et al. Optimization of crowd evacuation with leaders
12
in urban rail transit stations. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation
13
systems. 2019;20(12):4476–4487.
14
15 [18] Pan Z, Wei Q, Wang H. Agent-based simulation of hindering effect of small group
16 behavior on elevated interval evacuation time along urban rail transit. Travel
17 Behaviour and Society. 2021;22:262–273.
18 [19] Huang Y, Yang L, Tang T, et al. Saving energy and improving service quality:
Fo
19 Bicriteria train scheduling in urban rail transit systems. IEEE Transactions on

20 Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2016;17(12):3364–3379.
21 [20] Xu X, Yang L, Gao Z, et al. Simulations for train traffic flow on single-track
rP
22 railways with speed limits and slopes. Journal of simulation. 2017;11(4):346–356.

23 [21] Jiang Zb, Li F, Xu Rh, et al. A simulation model for estimating train and passen-
24 ger delays in large-scale rail transit networks. Journal of Central South University.
ee
25 2012;19(12):3603–3613.
26
[22] Yao XM, Zhao P, Qiao K. Simulation and evaluation of urban rail transit network
27
28
based on multi-agent approach. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Manage-
rR
29 ment (JIEM). 2013;6(1):367–379.

30 [23] Yao X, Han B, Yu D, et al. Simulation-based dynamic passenger flow assignment
31 modelling for a schedule-based transit network. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and
ev
32 Society. 2017;2017.
33 [24] Mo B, Ma Z, Koutsopoulos H, et al. Calibrating route choice for urban rail sys-
34 tem: A comparative analysis using simulation-based optimization methods. In:
iew
35 Transportation Research Board 99th Annual Meeting; 2020.

36 [25] Mo B, Ma Z, Koutsopoulos HN, et al. Calibrating path choices and train capacities
37 for urban rail transit simulation models using smart card and train movement
38 data. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 2021;2021.
39
[26] Yin H, Wu J, Liu Z, et al. Optimizing the release of passenger flow guidance
40
On
information in urban rail transit network via agent-based simulation. Applied

41
42 Mathematical Modelling. 2019;72:337–355.
43 [27] Zhang H, He B, Lu G, et al. A simulation and machine learning based optimization
44 method for integrated pedestrian facilities planning and staff assignment problem
ly
45 in the multi-mode rail transit transfer station. Simulation Modelling Practice and
46 Theory. 2022;115:102449.
47 [28] Tang M, Hu Y. Pedestrian simulation in transit stations using agent-based anal-
48 ysis. Urban Rail Transit. 2017;3(1):54–60.
49 [29] Chen S, Zhang Y, Di Y, et al. A multi-agent-based approach for the impacts anal-
50 ysis of passenger flow on platforms in metro stations considering train operations.
51 Transport. 2018;33(3):821–834.
52 [30] Lei Y, Lu G, Zhang H, et al. Optimizing total passenger waiting time in an urban
53
rail network: A passenger flow guidance strategy based on a multi-agent simula-
54
55
tion approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 2022;117:102510.
56 [31] Li Y, Yang X, Wu J, et al. Discrete-event simulations for metro train operation
57 under emergencies: A multi-agent based model with parallel computing. Physica
58
59 32
60
1
2
3
4 A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2021;573:125964.
5 [32] Zhou F, Shi Jg, Xu Rh. Estimation method of path-selecting proportion for urban
6 rail transit based on afc data. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2015;2015.
7 [33] Zhao J, Zhang F, Tu L, et al. Estimation of passenger route choice pattern using
8 smart card data for complex metro systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
9 Transportation Systems. 2016;18(4):790–801.
10 [34] Xu X, Xie L, Li H, et al. Learning the route choice behavior of subway passengers
11 from afc data. Expert Systems with Applications. 2018;95:324–332.
12
[35] Wu J, Qu Y, Sun H, et al. Data-driven model for passenger route choice in
13
urban metro network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 2019;
14
15 524:787–798.
16 [36] Zhu W, Fan Wl, Wahaballa AM, et al. Calibrating travel time thresholds with
17 cluster analysis and afc data for passenger reasonable route generation on an
18 urban rail transit network. Transportation. 2020;47(6):3069–3090.
Fo
19 [37] Li C, Liu X, Bai Y, et al. Route choice model of the major passenger group in
20 urban rail transit: A case study of beijing, china. In: 2020 IEEE 5th International
21 Conference on Intelligent Transportation Engineering (ICITE). IEEE; 2020. p.
rP
22 8–13.
23 [38] Zhu Y, Koutsopoulos HN, Wilson NH. Passenger itinerary inference model for
24 congested urban rail networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Tech-
ee
25 nologies. 2021;123:102896.
26
[39] Luangboriboon N, Seriani S, Fujiyama T. The influence of the density inside a
27
28
train carriage on passenger boarding rate. International Journal of Rail Trans-
rR
29 portation. 2021;9(5):445–460.
30 [40] He B, Chen P, D’Ariano A, et al. A microscopic agent-based simulation for real-
31 time dispatching problem of a busy railway passenger station. In: 2020 IEEE 23rd
ev
32 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC); IEEE;

33 2020. p. 1–7.
34 [41] Zhang H, Lei Y, Lu G, et al. A collaborative method for improving passenger
iew
35 transportation capacity of an over-saturated urban rail transit line. In: Rail-

36 Norrköping 2021. 9th International Conference on Railway Operations Modelling
37 and Analysis (ICROMA), Beijing, China, November 3rd–7th, 2021; 2021.
38 [42] Davidich M, Geiss F, Mayer HG, et al. Waiting zones for realistic modelling of
39
pedestrian dynamics: A case study using two major german railway stations as
40
On
examples. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2013;37:210–

41
42 222.
43 [43] Henderson L. The statistics of crowd fluids. nature. 1971;229(5284):381–383.
44 [44] Cats O. Dynamic modelling of transit operations and passenger decisions Thesis;
ly
45 2011.
46 [45] Tordeux A, Lämmel G, Hänseler FS, et al. A mesoscopic model for large-scale sim-
47 ulation of pedestrian dynamics. Transportation research part C: emerging tech-
48 nologies. 2018;93:128–147.
49 [46] Huang W, Shuai B. Approach and application on high-speed train stop plan for
50 better passenger transfer efficiency: the china case. International Journal of Rail
51 Transportation. 2019;7(1):55–78.
52 [47] Raveau S, Muñoz JC, De Grange L. A topological route choice model for metro.
53
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2011;45(2):138–147.
54
55
[48] Raveau S, Guo Z, Muñoz JC, et al. A behavioural comparison of route choice
56 on metro networks: Time, transfers, crowding, topology and socio-demographics.
57 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2014;66:185–195.
58
59 33
60
1
2
3
Ms. Ref. No.:TJRT-2021-0158.R1
4
5 A hybrid framework for synchronized passenger and train traffic simulation in an urban rail
6
7 transit network
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Response to Editors & Reviewers
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20 Dear editors and reviewers:
21
22 We would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful
23
ee
and constructive suggestions that help us to improve the quality of this paper significantly.
24
25 After carefully studying their comments, major modifications have been made as follows:
26
rR
27
28 • The determination of passenger batch agents is described more clearly.
29
ev
30
• A table is added to show the difference between this paper and the related literature
31
32 more clearly.
iew
33
34
35 Other minor revision are also marked in the revised manuscript. The required content of
36
37 Response to Editors & Reviewers is presented in this letter in the next.
On
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
1. Responses to Editor-in-Chief
4
5
6
Reply: We would like to express our gratitude to the Editors-in-Chief for your time and effort
7
8 in processing our manuscript. We have carefully read all review comments and tried our best
9
10 to address them. Following suggestions from reviewers, we have made changes in the revised
11
12 manuscript. We highlight the changes in red in our current revised manuscript and respond to
13
14 each review comment in the next of this letter.
15
16
I hope that the reviewers and you will find the revised version acceptable for publication.
Fo
17 Please let me know if you have any questions about this submission.
18
19
rP
20
21 2. Responses to reviewers
22
23
ee
24 Again, we would like to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their time and effort
25
in reviewing our manuscript and especially providing constructive comments and valuable
26
rR
27 suggestions for significantly improving the manuscript. Following these comments and sug-
28
29 gestions, we have made changes in the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply to the
ev
30
31 reviewer’s comments is given below, where in each case we quote the reviewer’s comment
32
iew
33 and then explain how we have revised the paper to accommodate the revisions requested.
34
35
For easy cross-referencing, the comments are marked in blue while our responses are in black
36 sans serif fontmat. Meanwhile, the revised contents are highlighted in red.
37
On
38
39
40 2.1. Reviewer 1
41
ly
42 The authors have addressed the previous raised concerns appropriately and improved the
43
44 paper. I am satisfied with the current version and would like to recommend it to be accepted
45
46 for publication.
47
48 Reply: We really appreciate the reviewer for affirming the significance and contributions of our
49
50 paper and for the valuable comments and suggestions in the last round of review, which have
51
52 helped us improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.
53
54
55
56
1
57
58
59
1
2
3
2.2. Reviewer 2
4
5
The revision of this paper is enough. Therefore, I recommend accepting it for publication
6
7 after the minor change.
8
9
10 Reply: We really appreciate the reviewer for recognizing and affirming the significance of our
11 method and for providing us with detailed, insightful, and helpful comments. We next respond
12
13 to the comments of the reviewer item-by-item.
14
15
16
Fo
17
Reviewer Comment 2.1 — It would be clearer to list the difference between current
18 research and this paper in a table at the end of Section 2.
19
rP
20
21 Reply: Thanks for the helpful comment. We add a table to show the difference between this
22
paper and current research that focuses on the mesoscopic simulation of the URT network.
23
ee
24 Revision 2.1 a
25
26 However, as shown in Table 1, the simulation models in the literature can hardly
rR
27
28
handle the large-scale URT network time-efficiently. The URT network simulation
29 model lacks systematic descriptions of the overall architecture and the passenger-train
ev
30
31 agent transmission process. To solve the limitations, we focus on the detailed modelling
32
iew
33 method for synchronized simulating both the passenger and train actions in the URT
34
35 network, which will be a reliable and high-efficiency tool for validating passenger route
36
37 choice models and evaluating operation situations of the URT network.
On
38 Table 1. Characteristics comparison of closely related studies

39
40
41 Detailed
ly
42 URT
Simulation Passenger Simulation simulation
43 Publications Simulation network
44 time period volume execution speed modelling
methodology scale
45
method
46
47 [21] time-driven 8 lines, 7:00-11:30 421,763 4.5 times faster No
48
49
50 [22] multi-agent 12 lines, 7:00-12:00 1,871,611 10 times faster No
51
52
53
54
55
56
2
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 18 lines, 8.5 times faster
5 [23] time-driven 5:00-24:00 5,425,015 No
7 17 lines, broadly reported as
8 [26] time-driven 7:00-9:00 unknown No
9 276 stations “too time-consuming”
10 discrete-
11 [24,25] 11 lines, 18:00-19:00 unknown 10 times faster No
12 event
13
14 this paper multi-agent 7 lines, 5:00-24:00 1,682,752 750 times faster Yes
16
Fo
17
18 Page 8, Section 2
19
rP
20
21
22 Reviewer Comment 2.2 — The short time period is split fixed and independently with
23
ee
24 the passenger, or is it split based on passenger features? For example, five friends are
25
26 traveling; three entered at 9:30:20-9:30:30; two entered at 9:30:35-9:30:46. If the short time
rR
27
28 period is set as 30s, what’s the result of the passenger batch agent? 9:30:00-9:30:30 is fixed,
29
ev
or the detailed time period is flexible with a fixed short time period? Describe more on the
30
31 determination of passenger batch agent.
32
iew
33
Reply: Thanks for the detailed comments. We could like to state that the short time period is
34
35 split fixed and independently with passengers. Using the above example, for the five friends, three
36
37 who entered at 9:30:20-9:30:30 are aggregated in a passenger batch agent, and the other two
On
38
39 who entered at 9:30:35-9:30:46 are aggregated in the other passenger batch agent. That is, the
40
41 passenger batch agent is generated only according to the fixed time period 9:30:00-9:30:30 and
ly
42
9:30:30-9:31:00. This question inspires us that we could aggregate passenger individuals according
43
44 to the real-time inbound volume dynamically in future research. We make the description clearer
45
46 in the manuscript.
47
48
Revision 2.2 a
49 Note that, in the model of this paper, each short time period is divided fixedly by the
50
51 simulation clock(i.e., begins at 0s or 30s of one minute). We do not consider the actual
52
53 passenger group features, so the passengers who travel together in the real world may
54
55
56
3
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 be distributed into different passenger batch agents. We leave the impact of passenger
5
6 group on the simulation result to the future study when such data is available in the
7
8
passenger information system.
9 Page 13, Section 4.1.1
10
11
12 Revision 2.2 b
13
14 Second, the generating approach of passenger batch agents could be more flexible and
15
16
dynamical according to the real-time passenger volume, so that the aggregation level
Fo
17 of passengers may be further improved.
18
19 Page 30-31, Section 7
rP
20
21
22
23
ee
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
On
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
4
57
58
59

TJRT 2021 0158.R2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TJRT 2021 0158.R2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Rail Transportation

Manuscript Type: Original Paper

Date Submitted by the

Complete List of Authors: Zhang, Hongxiang; Southwest Jiaotong University, School of

Southwest Jiaotong University, National United Engineering Laboratory of

and logistics; Southwest Jiaotong University, Comprehensive

Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province; Southwest Jiaotong

Comprehensive Transportation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province;

urban rail transit(URT), multi-agent simulation, passenger batch agent,

Modelling passenger and train traffic is a significant approach to evaluate

Box 610031, Chengdu, China.

25 Compiled June 23, 2022

Modelling passenger and train traffic is a significant approach to evaluate the

32 simulation into a unified model. We propose an efficient multi-agent model to si-

25 optimization models in the realistic operation without strong evidence of beneficial

32 train running process synchronously in a centralized simulation model. Because, the

22 • Multiple changeable parameters are modeled as interfaces of the simulation

29 dated by the simulation model.

characteristics of passengers to study the complicated interactions among passengers

19 time-efficiently. The URT network simulation model lacks systematic descriptions of

8 lines, 4.5 times faster

35 [23] time-driven 18 lines, 5:00-24:00 5,425,015 8.5 times faster No

32 the parameters of the inherited timetables and principles of accelerating, decelerating,

32 to millions of passengers. Loading each passenger one by one is very time-consuming,

10:00:00 10:10:00 10:20:00

41 3.4. Network modelling

X τRpm − τRp1 − ap /ap

~9:30:30 batch agent

35 Board the train

22 dˆρ the destination station of passenger batch agent ρ, dˆρ ∈ S

the set of arriving time of ρ at each station: {τR 1 , τR2 , . . . , τRm }

Capn the maximum loading capacity of train n

27 · Passenger batch agent generation

· Store pool for passenger batch

30 Train running Passenger batch Passenger batch Passenger batch agents

34 ·Track entities of Line 1 ·Track entities of Line 2 ·Track entities of Line 3 ĂĂ

·Train running process ·Train running process ·Train running process

ing and real-time train adjusting are treated as predetermined settings of

22 until arrives at the destination station.

25 not procrastinate in the walking processes.

32 5.2. URT network agent

35 network agent is shown in Figure 5 and the corresponding realization in Anylogic is

6GXZȺ 6GXZȻ 6GXZȼ 6GXZȽ

19 Corresponding to the Part II of Figure 5, in Figure 6, the “RouteChoice” module

25 A passenger batch agent

Station 1 Station 4 Station 9

31 Station 10 Station 6 Station 2

32 Station 11 Station 7 Station 3

32 reverse operation task will be subsequently generated instead.

35 5.3.2. Boarding process simulation

9 Original passenger Station

5.3.3. Alighting process simulation

 )NUTM7OTM4UXZN8GOR]G_ -GTM)NKTM

   

 ,U:[-[GT 0OGU)NGTM1U[

3G=GTM)NGTM ?GTM0OG6OTM 

“SelectRoute” function repeatedly when each passenger enters the station.

number of passengers travel between two stations

total alighting passengers at current station

25 travel from station

of Line 1 in Chongqing URT network

13756435 8:43:04 9:08:41 1537 12.75%

)NUTM7OTM4UXZN8GOR]G_ -GTM)NKTM

,U:[-[GT 0OGU)NGTM1U[

3G=GTM)NGTM ?GTM0OG6OTM

AT: 12:35:30