Method for analyzing and generating optimal transportation schedules for vehicles such as trains and controlling the movement of vehicles in response thereto

• US 5,177,684 A
• Filed: 12/18/1990
• Issued: 01/05/1993
• Est. Priority Date: 12/18/1990
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania (University of Pennsylvania)
• Original Assignee: Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania (University of Pennsylvania)
• Inventors: Jovanovic, Dejan, Harker, Patrick T.
• Primary Examiner(s): Black, Thomas G.
• Assistant Examiner(s): AUCHTERLONIE, THOMAS
• Application Number:
  US07/629,417
• Time in Patent Office: 749 Days
• Field of Search: 364/436, 364/424.01, 364/424.02, 364/426.05, 364/446, 364/468, 340/994, 246/2 R, 246/3, 246/5
• US Class Current: 701/117
• CPC Class Codes: B61L 27/12 Preparing schedules
• CPC Class Codes: B61L 27/16 Trackside optimisation of vehicle or train operation
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Abstract

A method of analyzing transportation schedules in a schedule analysis (SCAN) decision support system to determine the feasibility of the schedules is disclosed. In a transportation system, vehicles are delayed to avoid conflicts with other vehicles which would otherwise collide because the vehicles may be travelling along the same travel paths at different speeds or in opposite directions. The invention utilizes information relating to the vehicle travel paths, the vehicle'"'"'s speed and mobility characteristics, a function based on the vehicle'"'"'s on-time performance, proposed transportation schedules and real-time data associated with the travel paths and vehicles. This information is used to provide substantially optimal vehicle schedules with respect to cost resulting from vehicle delay.

Claims

1. A method for controlling the movement of vehicles traveling in a transportation system, comprising the steps of:

(a) inputting data into a processor indicative of at least i) a physical description of a routing network on which said vehicles travel, and ii) a proposed transportation schedule for each vehicle traveling in said transportation system, each proposed schedule having at least a time of departure from a specified origin and a time of arrival at a specified destination;

(b) identifying potential conflicts between two vehicles based on said proposed schedules, and a set of conflict resolution points based upon said routing network and said potential conflicts, each conflict resolution point being a meetpoint at which one of said two vehicles can be delayed to permit the other of said two vehicles to pass thereby avoiding a collision between said two vehicles, said potential conflicts being chronologically sequenced based on said proposed schedules and said conflict resolution points being identified according to said chronological sequence and taking into consideration a possible delay of said one vehicle in each identified potential conflict;

(c) generating an initial meet-pass plan using a depth-first search bounded by delay costs arising from delaying said one vehicle at one of said identified conflict resolution points for each potential conflict for an amount of time such that each potential conflict is resolved without a collision, said initial plan having a delay cost substantially equal to an accumulation of all delay costs resulting from said one vehicle being delayed in each potential conflict, said delay cost defining an upper bound;

(d) estimating a maximum cost benefit arising from shifting from said one conflict resolution point used to resolve each respective potential conflict in said initial meet-pass plan to another conflict resolution point, said shifting resulting in a potential alternative plan;

(e) generating alternative meet-pass plans using the depth-first search bounded by delay costs from said other conflict resolution point in each potential alternative plan where said estimated maximum cost benefit is positive, said alternative meet-pass plan having a delay cost substantially equal to an accumulation of all delay costs resulting from said one vehicle being delayed in each potential conflict, and if said delay cost of said alternative meet-pass plan so generated is lower than said upper bound, the step further comprising replacing said upper bound with said delay cost of said alternative meet-pass plan;

(f) identifying one meet-pass having a substantially minimal delay cost among said initial and alternative meet-pass plans so generated by comparing each alternative meet-pass plan generated to said upper bound; and

(g) controlling the movement of said vehicles according to said identified meet-pass plan, said vehicles being delayed at said identified conflict resolution points for the amount of time specified by said identified meet-pass plan.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein a substantially minimal delay cost is determined according to at least one of the following conditions:

i) said upper bound is zero;

ii) said upper bound is less than or equal to a predetermined value indicative of an acceptable delay cost;

iii) a predetermined time has expired for generating said one identified meet-pass plan and at least said initial meet-pass plan has been generated; and

iv) substantially all alternative meet-pass plans according to step (e) have been generated.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of:

(h) providing an output indicative of a measure of feasibility of said proposed transportation schedules.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of estimating a maximum cost benefit further comprises the step of:

determining a one meet shift maximum net benefit for each potential conflict by shifting said conflict resolution point at which said one vehicle is delayed in said initial meet-pass plan to a conflict resolution point at which said other vehicle of said two vehicles is delayed defining an alternate conflict resolution point;

said step of generating said alternative meet-pass plan being initiated from each alternate conflict resolution point if said one meet shift maximum net benefit so determined is positive.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of estimating delay costs, further comprises the step of:

determining a general meet shift maximum net benefit for each potential conflict by shifting from the conflict resolution at which the one vehicle is delayed in the initial meet-pass plan to a conflict resolution point at which the other vehicle of the two vehicles is delayed defining an alternate conflict resolution point;

generating a lower bound indicative of a lowest delay cost arising from any possible meet-pass plan, said lower bound being further indicative of said delay cost of said initial meet-pass plan minus a sum of one or more of said general meet shift maximum net benefits;

said identified meet-pass plan being determined based on a difference of said upper bound and said lower bound being less than a predetermined tolerance.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein said lower bound is generated after merging said delay costs of each vehicle having at least one of i) a lower delay cost at said identified conflict resolution point and ii) a lesser amount of time delayed at said alternate conflict resolution point as compared to the amount of time delayed at said identified conflict resolution point.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein said vehicles are trains.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein said proposed schedules are revised based upon said identified meet-pass plan.

9. In a transportation system having a plurality of vehicles, each vehicle having a scheduled departure time from an origin and a scheduled arrival time at a destination, there being a routing network defined by travel paths between the origin and destination, and delay points along each path for permitting one vehicle to wait until a second vehicle passes so as to avoid collision, a method comprising the steps of:

(a) inputting into a computer system at least one of the following data indicative of;

(i) a description of said routing network;

(ii) speed and mobility characteristics of each vehicle;

(iii) proposed transportation schedules for each vehicle specifying at least scheduled departure and arrival times;

(iv) a vehicle tardiness function for each vehicle indicative of an importance of each vehicle arriving at its destination on time;

(v) any changes in said routing network,

(vi) any changes in a physical characteristic of any path in said routing network; and

,

(vii) vehicle status in said routing network;

(b) initializing at least one of;

(i) a first variable indicative of a maximum cost due to vehicle delays for said proposed transportation schedules input in step (a), said first variable defining an upper bound;

(ii) a second variable indicative of the minimum cost due to vehicle delays for said proposed transportation schedules input in step (a), said second variable defining a lower bound;

(c) grouping said vehicles into vehicle pairs having a first and second vehicle comprising substantially all possible combinations;

(d) determining, based upon the data input in (a), whether a potential conflict exists between said two vehicles of each vehicle pair, and if so, identifying said vehicle pair as a level,

(e) identifying substantially all delay points at a first level where at least one vehicle in said vehicle pair could be delayed so that the second vehicle in said pair could pass without collision therebetween, defining said delay points so identified as conflict resolution points,

(f) selecting one conflict resolution point identified in step (e) for said first level;

(g) determining an amount of time at least one vehicle in said vehicle pair must be delayed at said selected conflict resolution point so that the second vehicle can pass by without collision therebetween, said amount of time said vehicle is delayed defining a delay time;

(h) updating said vehicles'"'"' scheduled departure and arrival times based upon said delay times determined in step (g);

(i) repeating steps (e) through (i) for each level identified in step (d);

(j) calculating a delay cost, based upon each delay time determined in step (g) and said respective vehicle tardiness functions input in step (a), for each vehicle delayed in step (g);

(k) calculating a cumulative delay cost by adding together said delay costs calculated in step (j), and defining said cumulative delay cost as a plan cost when said delay costs for substantially all levels have been added together;

(l) defining the arrival and departure times for each vehicle at each point along the vehicle'"'"'s travel path between said origin and destination as a current plan if said plan cost is less than said upper bound, and setting said upper bound equal to said plan cost;

(m) selecting an alternative conflict resolution point from said conflict resolution points identified in step (e) but not selected in step (f);

(n) identifying substantially all vehicles whose delays determined in step (g) could be reduced by shifting said selected conflict resolution point to said alternative conflict resolution point selected in step (m), the vehicles so identified defining benefitted vehicles;

(o) estimating, based on said alternative conflict resolution point, an amount indicative of a potential net cost reduction by computing a difference in potential delay reductions at other levels and any delay increases, where said delay reductions and delay increases result from shifting to said alternate conflict resolution point in step (m), said difference computed defining a first maximum net benefit;

(p) repeating step (o), wherein the computation is based on said vehicles arriving at said alternate conflict resolution point on time with respect to their scheduled arrival times, said difference so computed defining a second maximum net benefit;

(q) estimating, based on said alternative conflict resolution point, any cost reduction to said plan cost by merging delays of vehicles which are delayed at different levels over at least partially the same time interval thereby determining each vehicle'"'"'s actual delay time, said estimated cost reduction defining a merged cost decrease;

(r) redefining said lower bound by subtracting at least one of;

(i) said second maximum net benefit; and

(ii) said merged cost decrease

(s) defining said set of conflict resolution points selected in step (f) and (m), the vehicles delayed in step (g) and their respective delay times, and said cumulative delay cost as a fathomed path if any cumulative delay cost is greater than said upper bound, and redefining the cumulative delay cost of said path as said upper bound;

(t) identifying vehicle pairs at levels having both a positive second maximum net benefit and negative first maximum net benefit, and defining the vehicles of said vehicle pairs so identified as potential vehicles;

(u) repeating steps (h) through (l) based on said alternate conflict resolution point selected in step (m) when at least one of the following occurs;

(i) said level for which said alternate conflict resolution point has been selected has a positive first maximum net benefit; and

(ii) at least one benefitted vehicle is a potential vehicle for said level and second maximum net benefits at previous levels are negative;

(v) repeating step (u) until one of the following events;

(i) no alternative conflict resolution points are available to be selected in one of steps (f) and (m);

(ii) said plan cost is less than a tolerance indicative of an acceptable difference between said upper bound and said lower bound, a plan having said plan cost defining a feasible plan; and

(iii) a predetermined time limit has expired and no feasible plans have been identified the step further comprising identifying said current plan as an optimal plan when one of said events has occurred; and

(w) controlling the movement of said vehicles so that the arrival and departure times for each vehicle at each point along the vehicle'"'"'s respective travel path between said origin and said destination is controlled according to said optimal plan.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein step (c) further comprises the steps of:

(i) ordering said vehicles chronologically;

(ii) incrementing said level to a next level and defining said next level as said current level;

(iii) selecting each vehicle pair based upon said order determined in step (i).

11. The method of claim 9, wherein said selection in step (f) is based upon one of the following:

(a) which of said conflict resolution points results in less delay cost where said delay will result in additional cost, and

(b) which of said conflict resolution points will result in less vehicle delay where said delay will not produce additional delay cost.

12. The method of claim 9, wherein said selection in step (m) further comprises the following step:

(i) selecting at least one conflict resolution point identified in step (e) at said current level by determining which conflict resolution point is both physically located closest to said conflict resolution point selected in step (f) and closest to said location of potential conflict, said conflict resolution point defining a meet-shift resolution point.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein step (O) further comprises the following steps:

(i) calculating at least one delay time indicative of a time at least one vehicle is required to wait at said meet-shift resolution point for said other vehicle of said vehicle pair to pass without collision therebetween, thereby reducing said delay time calculated in step (g);

(ii) identifying substantially all delay reductions arising from delaying at least one vehicle at said meet-shift resolution point and thereby reducing said plan cost calculated in step (k);

(iii) summing substantially all potential cost reductions of said current plan which are both later in time than said meet-shift resolution point and physically located in the direction of movement of said delayed vehicle, said summed cost reductions defining a meet-shift maximum cost decrease;

(iv) calculating said delay cost of said delayed vehicle at said meet-shift resolution point and redefining said delay cost as a meet-shift minimum additional cost;

(v) subtracting said meet-shift minimum additional cost from said meet-shift maximum cost decrease resulting in a difference, said difference being the first maximum net benefit.

14. The method of claim 12, wherein step (r) further comprises:

(vi) subtracting said second maximum net benefit from said plan lower bound resulting in a difference, said difference redefining said lower bound if said general-meet-shift minimum additional cost is positive.

15. The method of claim 9, wherein step (p) further comprises the following steps:

(i) determining a reduced delay time compared to said delay time calculated in step (g) which would result if said vehicles delayed at said meet-shift resolution point incurred no previous delay;

(ii) identifying substantially all further cost reductions of said current plan arising from said reduced delay determined in step (i) of this claim 15;

(iii) summing substantially all the additional cost reductions of said current plan arising from delays at conflict resolution points which are both later in time than said meet-shift resolution point and physically located in the direction of movement of said delayed vehicle, said summed delay costs defining a general-meet-shift maximum cost decrease;

(iv) calculating, based on the reduced delay time determined in step (i) of this claim 12, said resulting delay cost and identifying that amount as said general-meet-shift minimum additional cost;

(v) subtracting said general-meet-shift minimum additional cost from the general-meet-shift maximum cost decrease resulting in a difference, said difference being said second maximum net benefit.

16. The method of claim 9, wherein said transportation schedules are train schedules and said vehicles are trains.