Advertisement

On the Complexity of Train Assignment Problems

  • Thomas Erlebach
  • Martin Gantenbein
  • Daniel Hürlimann
  • Gabriele Neyer
  • Aris Pagourtzis
  • Paolo Penna
  • Konrad Schlude
  • Kathleen Steinhöfel
  • David Scot Taylor
  • Peter Widmayer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2223)

Abstract

We consider a problem faced by train companies: How can trains be assigned to satisfy scheduled routes in a cost efficient way? Currently, many railway companies create solutions by hand, a timeconsuming task which is too slow for interaction with the schedule creators. Further, it is difficult to measure how efficient the manual solutions are. We consider several variants of the problem. For some, we give efficient methods to solve them optimally, while for others, we prove hardness results and propose approximation algorithms.

Keywords

Vertex Cover Maintenance Station Minimum Vertex Cover Train Schedule Vehicle Schedule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Alimonti and V. Kann. Hardness of approximating problems on cubic graphs. In Proc. 3rd Italian Conference on Algorithms and Complexity, LNCS 1203, pages 288–298, Berlin, 1997. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Bertossi, P. Carraresi, and G. Gallo. On some matching problems arising in vehicle scheduling models. Networks, 17:271–281, 1987.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Brucker, J.L. Hurink, and T. Rolfes. Routing of railway carriages: A case study. Memorandum No. 1498, University of Twente, Fac. of Mathematical Sciences, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.R. Bussieck, T. Winter, and U.T. Zimmermann. Discrete optimization in public rail transport. Mathematical Programming, 79:415–444, 1997.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Carpaneto, M. Dell’Amico, M. Fischetti, and P. Toth. A branch and bound algorithm for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem. Networks, 19:531–548, 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Crescenzi and L. Trevisan. On approximation scheme preserving reducibility and its applications. In Proc. 14th Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 880, pages 330–341, Berlin, 1994. Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Dantzig and D. Fulkerson. Minimizing the number of tankers to meet a fixed schedule. Nav. Res. Logistics Q., 1:217–222, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Desrosiers, Y. Dumas, M.M. Solomon, and F. Soumis. Time Constrained Routing and Scheduling. Elsevier, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Erlebach, M. Gantenbein, D. Hürlimann, G. Neyer, A. Pagourtzis, P. Penna, K. Schlude, K. Steinhöfel, D.S. Taylor, and P. Widmayer. On the complexity of train assignment problems. Technical report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH), 2001. Available at http://www.inf.ethz.ch/.
  10. 10.
    R. Freling, J.M.P. Paixão, and A.P.M. Wagelmans. Models and algorithms for vehicle scheduling. Report 9562/A, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Löbel. Optimal vehicle scheduling in public transit. PhD thesis, TU Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Optimization, approximization and complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43:425–440, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Ribeiro and F. Soumis. A column generation approach to the multiple-depot vehicle scheduling problem. Operations Research, 42(1):41–52, 1994.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Schrijver. Minimum circulation of railway stock. CWI Quarterly, 6(3):205–217, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Erlebach
    • 1
  • Martin Gantenbein
    • 2
  • Daniel Hürlimann
    • 3
  • Gabriele Neyer
    • 4
  • Aris Pagourtzis
    • 5
  • Paolo Penna
    • 2
  • Konrad Schlude
    • 2
  • Kathleen Steinhöfel
    • 6
  • David Scot Taylor
    • 2
  • Peter Widmayer
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Engineering and Networks LaboratoryETH ZentrumZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Theoretical Computer ScienceETH ZentrumZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of Transportation, Traffic, Highway- and Railway-Engineering (IVT)ETH HönggerbergZürichSwitzerland
  4. 4.SMA and Partners Ltd., Transportation Engineers, Planners and EconomistsZürichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolUK
  6. 6.GMD - FIRSTBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations