Freight Train Threading with Different Algorithms

  • Ilankaikone Senthooran
  • Mark WallaceEmail author
  • Leslie De Koninck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9075)


The problem addressed in this paper, of routing and scheduling freight trains within a scheduled passenger rail network, prevails in many large countries. The actual departure and arrival times of freight trains are not important, and nor are their routes. Only a starting station and destination station are specified on the day of travel. The current paper addresses the problem of how to thread the maximum number of freight trains through the passenger network, minimising the latest arrival time of the last freight train. This problem contrasts with the more traditional rail scheduling requirement of matching as closely as possible an ideal schedule. The rail network is modelled topologically, so the size of the network does not grow as the temporal granularity is made finer. Our use of the modelling language MiniZinc enables us to compare several different solvers and solving approaches applied to the model. In particular we investigate constraint programming, using global constraints and constraint propagation; mathematical programming naively, without using any of the decomposition techniques; and finally a hybrid of constraint propagation, learning, and dynamic search control called lazy clause generation. The paper describes two kinds of experiments. Firstly it gives results for a series of benchmark tests to investigate the flexibility and scalability of the algorithm, and secondly it is applied to a freight train scheduling problem on the Victorian rail network in Australia.


MiniZinc Algorithms Freight train scheduling Lazy clause generation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Borndörfer, R., Schlechte, T.: Models for railway track allocation. In: ATMOS 2007–7th Workshop on Algorithmic Approaches for Transportation Modeling, Optimization, and Systems. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cacchiani, V., Caprara, A., Toth, P.: Scheduling extra freight trains on railway networks. Transportation Research Part B 44, 215–231 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caprara, A., Kroon, L., Monaci, M., Peeters, M., Toth, P.: Chapter 3 passengerrailway optimization. In: Barnhart, C., Laporte, G. (eds.) Transportation, Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 14, pp. 129–187. Elsevier (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feydy, T., Stuckey, P.J.: Lazy clause generation reengineered. In: Gent, I.P. (ed.) CP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5732, pp. 352–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gecode Team: Gecode: Generic constraint development environment (2014).
  6. 6.
    Godwin, T., Gopalan, R., Narendran, T.: Freight train routing and scheduling in a passenger rail network: computational complexity and the stepwise dispatching heuristic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 24(4), 499–533 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Liebchen, C., Proksch, M., Wagner, F.: Performance of algorithms for periodic timetable optimization. In: Hickman, M., Mirchandani, P., Voss, S. (eds.) Computer-aided Systems in Public Transport. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 600, pp. 151–180. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mears, C., Schutt, A., Stuckey, P.J., Tack, G., Marriott, K., Wallace, M.: Modelling with option types in MiniZinc. In: Simonis, H. (ed.) CPAIOR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8451, pp. 88–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P.J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G.J., Tack, G.R.: MiniZinc: towards a standard CP modelling language. In: Bessière, C. (ed.) CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741, pp. 529–543. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Opturion: Opturion CPX (2014).
  12. 12.
    Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P.J.: Explaining time-table-edge-finding propagation for the cumulative resource constraint. In: Gomes, C., Sellmann, M. (eds.) CPAIOR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7874, pp. 234–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P.J.: Scheduling optional tasks with explanation. In: Schulte, C. (ed.) CP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8124, pp. 628–644. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P., Wallace, M.: Explaining the cumulative propagator. Constraints 16(3), 173–194 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilankaikone Senthooran
    • 1
  • Mark Wallace
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leslie De Koninck
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Opturion pty ltdMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations