A Cost and Passenger Responsible Optimization Method for the Operation Plan of Additional High-Speed Trains in a Peak Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the peak period of a railway system, operators typically add additional trains to provide increased capacity to satisfy the increasing passenger demand. The paper proposes a new optimization framework for designing the operation plan, which includes the number of additional trains, train type, stop plan, and timetable, for additional trains in a peak period. A space-time network representation is used to obtain a feasible primary operation plan by finding a set of feasible space-time paths in the space-time network. Considering simultaneously the passenger demand and the trains’ total travel times, we formulate a biobjective integer programming model for generating a cost and passenger responsible primary operation plan. A set of loading capacity constraints are formulated in the model to guarantee a suitable loading capacity for each station’s passenger demand and better service for passengers. The CPLEX solver is used to solve the proposed model and to generate the optimal operation plan. Two sets of numerical experiments are conducted on a small-scale rail corridor and on the Wuhan-Guangzhou rail corridor to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. The results of the experiments show that the primary operation plan can be obtained within an acceptable computation time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".