© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
This paper evaluates the potential for virtual and moving block control systems to increase the capacity of existing North American freight rail corridors to meet future traffic demand. In 2019, US Class I railroads transported 1.6 billion tons of freight across their rail network. To create capacity for a projected increase in freight rail transportation demand of 24% by 2045, billions of dollars must be invested yearly in the mainline route network. As for-profit companies with limited capital budgets, US Class I railroads have a strong economic incentive to properly match mainline capacity to traffic demand. While investing in new track infrastructure does increase network capacity, recently installed Positive Train Control technology and its associated modern communications network may allow virtual and moving block systems to be developed as lower cost alternatives to manage projected traffic increases. Thus, the potential capacity and performance benefits of virtual and moving block systems relative to existing fixed block wayside signal systems should be quantified in a realistic mainline corridor operating scenario. The authors obtained actual route topology and historical train operating data for a longdistance (>2,000 km long) double-track US Class I railroad mainline and developed a novel dispatching algorithm and train simulation framework to compare average train speed under each control system and several levels of projected future train traffic. The simulation results indicate that virtual and moving block systems can substantially increase average train speed compared to existing fixed block systems, especially under high levels of train traffic. Alternatively, virtual and moving block systems can be used to preserve the existing average train speed while increasing the total number of trains handled. The quantitative results of these simulation experiments enable railway practitioners to more accurately evaluate the costs and benefits of investing in these emerging train traffic control technologies.
Positive Train Control, moving block, virtual block, freight rail, capacity analysis, simulation
[1] Association of American Railroads (AAR), Railroad Facts, 2020 Edition, Association of American Railroads: Washington, D.C., USA, 2020.
[2] U.S. Department of Transporation (USDOT), Beyond Traffic 2045, U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, D.C., USA, 2016.
[3] Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA), Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. H. R. 2095, 110th Congress, 2nd session, 2008.
[4] Meteorcomm LLC, ITCR 1.1 System Architecture Specification, Federal Railroad Administration: Washington, D.C., USA, 2012.
[5] Xishi, W., Bin, N., Yun, L., & Ming, Z., Analysis of moving autoblock system (MAS) and its computer simulation method. Computers in Railways V, Vol 2, WIT Press: Southampton, UK, pp. 267–279, 1996.
[6] Lee, J.D., Lee, L.H., Cho, C.H., Jeong, P.G., Kim, K.H., & Kim, Y.J., Analysis of moving and fixed autoblock systems for Korean high-speed railway. Computers in Railways VII, WIT Press: Southampton, UK, pp. 842–851, 2000.
[7] Institute of Transport Science RWTH Aachen, Influence of ETCS on Line Capacity - Generic Study, International Union of Railways (UIC): Paris, France, 2008.
[8] Dick, C.T., Impact of Positive Train Control on Railway Capacity, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Urbana, IL, USA, 2000.
[9] Moore Ede, W.J., How CBTC Can Increase Capacity. Railway Age, April, pp. 49–50, 2001.
[10] Moore Ede, W.J., Moving Block in Communication-Based Train Control: Boon or Boondoggle? Transportation Technology Center, Inc.: Pueblo, CO, USA, 2005.
[11] Dick, C.T., Mussanov, D., Evans, L.E., Roscoe, G.S., & Chang, T.Y., Relative capacity and performance of fixed and moving block control systems on North American freight railway lines and shared passenger corridors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(5), pp. 250–261, 2019. doi.org/10.1177/0361198119841852
[12] Diaz de Rivera, A., Dick, C.T., & Evans, L.E., Improving railway operational efficiency with moving blocks, train fleeting and alternative single-track configurations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2674(2), pp. 146–157, 2020. doi.org/10.1177/0361198120905842
[13] Diaz de Rivera, A., Dick, C.T., & Evans, L.E., Potential for moving blocks and train fleets to enable faster train meets on single-track rail corridors. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 146(8), 04020077, 2020. doi.org/10.1061/ JTEPBS.0000403
[14] Diaz de Rivera, A. & Dick, C.T., Illustrating the implications of moving blocks on railway traffic flow behavior with fundamental diagrams. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 123, 102982, 2021. doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.102982
[15] Roscoe, G.S., Dispatching Logic, Corridor Simulation, and Train Following Algorithms to Quantify the Benefits of Virtual and Moving Block Control Systems on North American Freight Railroad Mainlines, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Urbana, IL, USA, 2021.
[16] Jaekel, B. & Albrecht, T., Comparative analysis of algorithms and models for train running simulation. Journal of Rail Transport Planning and Management, 4(1-2), pp. 14–27, 2014. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2014.06.002
[17] Dirsh, W.F. & Singh, S.P., Train Energy Model Validation Using Revenue Service Unit Coal Train Data, Association of American Railroads: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991.
[18] Ning, B., Absolute braking and relative distance braking train operation control modes in moving block systems. Transactions on the Built Environment, 34, 1998.
[19] Li, K., Gao, Z., & Ning, B., Modeling the railway traffic using cellular automata model. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 16(6), pp. 921–932, 2005. doi.org/10.1142/ S0129183105007613