Study on Energy-Saving Train Trajectory Optimization Based on Coasting Control in Metro Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing energy consumption in urban rail transit systems, researchers have paid significant attention to energy-saving train control. In this paper, we propose an effective train trajectory optimization method to reduce the energy consumption based on coasting control, in which coasting control regimes are added to balance running time and energy consumption. For better determining the starting points of coasting control regimes, the whole train running process is divided into several subintervals. Then, aiming to achieve energy efficiency, coasting regimes are added to the subintervals with high energy-saving effects, in which more energy consumption can be reduced with the same running time addition. Based on this, a coasting control method is proposed to generate energy-saving trajectories considering train dynamics, safety, and punctuality. In addition, the proposed method can solve the multisection energy-saving train trajectory optimization problem to obtain optimal running time schemes and related trajectories. Finally, numerical examples based on one of the Beijing metro lines are implemented to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The results show that, for the single-section train control problem, the proposed coasting control algorithm can achieve significant energy-saving effects compared to the practical trajectory and calculate energy-saving trajectory in shorter computation times compared to the dynamic programming method. Meanwhile, for the multisection train control problem, energy consumption can be further reduced by optimizing trajectories and running times integratedly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".