Journal of the Operational Research Society (2000) 51, 666682 #2000 Operational Research Society Ltd.

ety Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/00 $15.00

www.stockton-press.co.uk/jors
Testing schedule performance and reliability for train
stations
M Carey* and S Carville
University of Ulster, Northern Ireland
On busy congested rail networks, randomdelays of trains are prevalent, and these delays have knock-on effects which
result in a signicant or substantial proportion of scheduled services being delayed or rescheduled. Here we develop and
experiment with a simulation model to predict the probability distributions of these knock-on delays at stations, when
faced with typical patterns of on-the-day exogenous delays. These methods can be used to test and compare the reliability
of proposed schedules, or schedule changes, before adopting them. They can also be used to explore how schedule
reliability may be affected by proposed changes in operating policies, for example, changes in minimum headways or
dwell times, or changes in the infrastructure such as, layout of lines, platforms or signals. This model generates a
reliability analysis for each train type, line and platform. We can also use the model to explore some policy issues, and to
show how punctuality and reliability are affected by changes in the distributions of exogenous delays.
Keywords: rail transport; timetabling; simulation; reliability
Introduction
Busy complex railway stations having dozens of platforms
and subplatforms with more than several hundred trains per
day arriving and departing are common in Europe and Asia.
Trains of different types and speeds arrive and depart on
multiple conicting lines and are subject to restrictions or
preferences concerning which lines and platforms they can
use. They also have various dwell time and headway
requirements, typically have desired or preferred arrival
and departure times, and have various costs or penalties for
deviating from these times. To ensure that all of these
constraints are met, detailed schedules are usually
constructed months in advance, and the timetable is usually
published.
To generate good feasible schedules for such busy
stations, various methods have been developed.
1
However,
these are deterministic methodsand do not indicate how
the schedule will perform when faced with the delays
which typically occur. When the schedule is implemented,
on-the-day (deviations from the schedule) are common, due
to passengers boarding and alighting, operating delays,
failures of equipment or rolling stock, weather, accidents,
etc. These delays in-turn cause further knock-on delays, for
example a train arriving or departing late may block and
delay the arrival or departure of other trains. It is important
to keep delays down to a low level, otherwise knock-on
delays can quickly escalate. In Britain, for example,
between 5% and 20% of trains arrive or depart late at
typical busy stations.
In view of this, the present paper is concerned with
developing methods for illustrating and quantifying the
behavior of train station schedules when faced with typical
patterns of on-the-day exogenous delays. In considering the
reliability of a schedule we can take the exogenous delays as
given, so that a reliable schedule is then one in which
exogenous delays cause the least knock-on delays. We there-
fore introduce typical patterns of exogenous delays and use a
simulation approach to obtain the distributions of knock-on
delays. We explore how delays, platform allocations and
reliability are affected by increasing the average size of
exogenous delays, or increasing the number of trains affected
by such exogenous delays, or by some scheduling rules.
Previous work on train scheduling has been mainly
developing deterministic methods, methods and algorithms
for constructing schedules.
19
But deterministic scheduling
is not our concern here. Previous stochastic simulation
models of train movements trains have been mainly
concerned with simulating rail freight movementsparti-
cularly through marshalling yards, or simulating trains
meeting and passing on single-track lines, and generally
assume the trains are not timetabled. They are not
concerned with scheduled trafc at busy complex stations,
which is the concern here Halloway and Harker
10
describe
an interesting simulation for scheduled trafc but deal with
trains meeting and passing on tracks without stations. Chen
and Harker
11
estimate delays for scheduled trains, but
again for meeting and passing on lines rather than at
stations. One reason for this is that in North America
*Correspondence: Prof M Carey, Faculty of Business and Management,
University of Ulster, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland.
E-mail: m.carey@ulst.ac.uk
busy multi-platform rail stations are almost nonexistent,
whereas in Europe and Asia they are common.
There are also some deterministic simulation models of
train movements, including movements through junctions
and stations, but these do not consider the effects of the
random delays which are prevalent in train services. Such
deterministic models are useful for feasibility testing of
schedules, which is not the purpose of this paper. We
assume throughout that the schedule for which we wish
to estimate reliability is already a feasible schedule. By a
feasible schedule we mean that if there are no unscheduled
delays of any kind to any of the trains in the schedule, then
there are no conicts between the times (arrival or departure
times, dwell times, platform occupation times, etc.) of any of
the trains in the schedule, so that all trains in the schedule
can run exactly according to the schedule. Furthermore, we
assume that a feasible schedule satises all minimum head-
ways which are required between trains arriving or depart-
ing, connecting, dwelling at platforms, etc.
Train operators or planners often use words other than
feasible to refer to a feasible schedule. In British rail
operations such a schedule is referred to as a `proven'
schedule, and the process of checking the schedule for
feasibility is called proving the schedule. Deterministic
simulation programmes are sometimes used for detailed
proving of a schedule, that is, for detailed checking for
feasibility, and this is sometimes referred to as testing the
reliability of the schedule. However, such schedule proving
packages are deterministicthey do not consider exogen-
ous unscheduled delays or disturbances. In contrast, in this
paper we are concerned with testing the reliability of
already proven feasible schedules, by considering how
reliable they are in the presence of typical patterns of
delays and disturbances.
We use the phrase `exogenous delays' or `initial delays'
to refer to the dozens of causes of delay recorded daily on
rail networksdelays due to breakdown or underperfor-
mance of rolling stock, points failures, crew lateness, line
maintenance, obstacles on lines, delays in passenger board-
ing or alighting, etc. These exogenous delays frequently
cause knock-on delays to other trains. For example, if a
train is late leaving a station platform this may delay the
arrival of the next train scheduled to use the platform,
which may in turn delay further trains. Or, if a train arrives
late its scheduled platform may be already occupied, so that
the train has to be sent to a different platform which may
delay trains scheduled for that platform. In this paper we
are concerned with knock-on delays caused at a single
station. In view of this, the delays incurred by trains prior to
arriving at the station are treated as exogenous delays, even
though they may be due to knock-on delays incurred at
earlier stations. Therefore knock-on delays here means only
the knock-on delays caused at the current station.
Finally, we should note the limitations of this paper, and
what is not covered in it. We are not attempting to model
the full complexity of the rail industry but are simulating a
component of it, namely a busy station. The general train
planning problem involves a much wider range of conict-
ing objectives and constraints. It includes, matching train
services to travel demands, minimising journey times,
avoiding trains conicting not just at one station but at
all stations, junctions and track over which they pass,
planning for different speed and stopping patterns, and
producing schedules that make efcient use of rolling
stock and train crews. We do not deal with these issues
in this paper. Nor do we discuss the sophisticated systems
and decision processes that are used in signalling and
control nor the role of train planners, signalmen and train
controllers who make very complex decisions based on
years of experience, and without which the system could
not operate.
The research in this paper involved cooperation with
many people in the rail industry. It was carried out over
several years, dating back to a few years before the rail
industry in Britain was privatised in the mid-1990s. This
involved meetings and discussions with train planners, and
operators and managers at all levels in British Rail and
then, after privatisation, in Railtrack and Train Operating
Companies. Because of this time-span, and personnel
changes in the industry, our contacts changed over time
and some have moved within the industry and some moved
out. From train planners we collected detailed data on train
operations, preferences, station layout, etc, (see below and
Carey and Carville
1
and Carey
12
) for a number of stations,
in particular Leeds, Manchester and York. The experiments
reported here are based on a Leeds station since we had the
most complete data set for that station. Much of this data
was not available in published or printed form. To verify
the train scheduling rules that we used, we took a draft
annual timetable produced by train planners at British Rail
(BR), using their existing, partially manual, timetabling
methods, and showed that our scheduling=simulation
programme could generate almost exactly the same time-
table. We checked any differences between our timetable
and theirs and found that any differences were due to their
having made exceptions to their own stated timetabling
rules. However, it should also be noted that the results of
some of the main experiments in this paper could not be
veried by comparing with observed results from BR or
Railtrack, since there are no comparable observed results.
For example, we experimented (see below) with varying
the distribution of exogenous delays, varying the percen-
tage of trains that suffer exogenous delays, and with not
allowing platform changes on-the-day. These are experi-
ments that the train companies would not wish to conduct
with actual trains. However, we discussed the results of
these experiments with train planners, and they found the
results were consistent with their expectations. In some
cases they had no rm prior expectations or the results were
considered somewhat different than they may have
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 667
expected, for example, average knock-on delays were
larger or smaller than expected. However, even in these
cases the results were found equally interesting and infor-
mative. Finally, we should note that this was not a project
commissioned within the rail industry and the initiative for
conducting it came from the authors.
The simulation approaches illustrated in this paper may
be used in various ways. They may be used by train
planners, managers or operators in testing the reliability
of proposed station schedules before adopting them. They
may also be used in exploring how schedule reliability
would be affected by proposed changes in operating poli-
cies, for example, changes in minimum headways or dwell
times; or proposed changes in train services, for example,
numbers of times of trains; or proposed changes in the
infrastructure, for example, layout of lines, platforms,
signals, etc; or major incidents or accidents, etc. To
assess the effects of proposed changes, run the simulation
programme with and without the proposed changes, to
generate distributions of knock-on delays for the before
and after scenarios, and compare these. The distributions to
compare, and the costs or benets of changes in these
distributions, will depend on the context and on the change
being considered. Furthermore, the decision for or against
any change may be affected by the issues referred to in the
previous paragraph. As examples we consider how relia-
bility is affected by permitting, or not permitting, platform
assignments to be changed on-the-day, or by allowing late
trains to depart after less than their normal minimum dwell
times.
Outline of the rescheduling or dispatching model
To estimate how exogenous delays affect the train schedule
(the train timetable and platform allocation) at a station, we
used the ATTPS (automatic train timetabling and platform-
ing system) programme,
1
which is outlined below. Before
we can introduce exogenous delays we also need an initial
schedule to which to apply the exogenous delays. To
generate this initial schedule we again used the ATTPS
programme.
1
(As a further test of our results, we also re-ran
all of the experiments using as the initial schedule the BR
published schedule for the station. The results which we
obtained when starting from this initial schedule were
similar to those reported here based on starting from our
ATTPS based schedule.)
The simplest and most useful way to describe the ATTPS
model is to state what takes as input data, what it produces
as outputs and to outline how the outputs are obtained from
the input data. The input data for ATTPS consists of:
(i) The minimum headways required between trains
(which depend on whether their paths intersect, the
train types, whether each train is arriving or departing,
and from which platforms).
(ii) The minimum dwell time required for each train (which
depends on the train type, and on whether it is a
through train or terminating train).
(iii) The station layout. This includes: the numbers of in-
lines and out-lines, number of through platforms and
terminating platforms and sub-platforms, which lines
are connected to which platforms, which lines conict
(intersect or share a portion of track, or track circuit
section).
(iv) A draft timetable. That is, a list of trains indicating the
train type, the lines on which the train is expected to
arrive and depart respectively, and an approximate or
desired arrival and departure time for each train.
(v) Platform preferences. For example, for each train type,
there may be a different cost or penalty depending on
the platform or subplatform to which a trains is
assigned.
(vi) Train delay costs. For example, for each train or train
type, there may be a different cost or penalty for each
minute by which the scheduled arrival or departure time
deviates from the desired times.
The actual data values that we used in the present paper are
given in Carey and Carville
1
and Carey.
12
Using the above
input data the ATTPS model generates the following
outputs:
(1) A scheduled arrival time, departure time and platform
for each train. These scheduled times and platforms
satisfy all of the data requirements and constraints in
(i)(vi) above.
(2) An analysis of the solution given in (1), including
tables, graphs and distributions of:
(a) deviations of train arrival, dwell and departure times
from their desired times.
(b) changes of train from their most preferred plat-
forms.
(c) times for which each platform is occupied.
The ATTPS algorithms are set out in Reference 1. A
basic version of the algorithm operates as follows. Consider
the trains one at a time in a prespecied order, for example,
order of importance (business or revenue class) and=or
chronological order of desired arrival times. For each train
t, consider assigning the train to each feasible platform in
turn. Assigning the train to a trial platform involves
checking for all conicts which this may incur with already
schedule trains, and nding all adjustments which would
be needed to resolve these conicts. For each trial platform
for train t, the algorithm computes the set of train delays,
platform preference costs, etc., which would be incurred if
train t was sent to that trial platform. By comparing these
delays, costs and penalties for each trial platform, the
algorithm chooses a best platform for train t.
Having assigned train t to a platform, the algorithm
proceeds to the next train in the list, and so on. Other
668 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
features of the algorithm include: in which order to
consider platforms, how to choose among subplatforms of
the same main platform, how delay costs and platform costs
are combined or traded-off, looking ahead before conrm-
ing a platform choice, etc.
In one version of the ATTPS model we required that all
trains go to their already scheduled platformscall this the
xed platform model. In another version we allow trains to
be sent to different platforms if this would reduce lateness
or other penaltiescall this the exible platform model.
Schedule performance, with uniform distributions
of exogenous delays
There is very little published concerning distributions of
train arrival, dwell or departure delays at stations, or which
forms of distributions t best. Also, the parameters of these
delay distributions may vary from station to station, vary
over time, and depend on the train types. In view of this, for
illustrative purposes, we here use two different types of
simple distributions, namely uniform distributions in the
present section and beta distributions in the following
section. We choose parameters for these distributions so
that the mean delays, and the percentages delayed more
than 0, 5, 10 or 15 minutes, are consistent with delays
patterns recorded at various train stations in Britain. In
view of this, we are concerned here with illustrating what
can be done, rather than with nding denitive numerical
results for a particular station.
The experiments and simulations in this section and the
next are different, for example, in this section we simulate
how knock-on delays vary as the range of exogenous delays
increases or decreases, while holding xed the percentage
of trains having exogenous delays. To vary the range of
exogenous delays we simply vary the bounds of the
uniform distribution. In contrast, in the next section we
simulate how knock-on delays vary as the percentage of
trains having exogenous delays varies. In doing this we
keep the distribution of exogenous delays for each train
unchanged.
In this section we introduce exogenous delays drawn
from a uniform distribution, by adding a sample of such
delays to the arrival and dwell times of a sample of trains.
In practice only a certain percentage of trains experience
exogenous delays, and the distribution of these delays can
vary between stations and train types. We experimented
with various percentages and distributions. For the results
below we assume mean delay values ranging from zero up
to greater than or equal to those which are typical in
practice at, for example, various BR stations. In the
experiments reported below we used the following data
and assumptions.
20% of trains, selected at random, experience exogenous
delays to arrival times. (In the next Section we experiment
with different percentages.) These exogenous delays are
uniformly randomly distributed ranging from 2 to 20
minutes. (Since the range of delays varies widely in
practice, in Experiments 3 and 4 below we consider
various ranges, 2 to 2, 2 to 4, and so on up to
2 to 60 minutes.)
Dwell delays: half as many trains experience exogenous
dwell time delays as arrival time delays, that is, dwell
delays for a random 10% of trains. Also, exogenous dwell
delays are uniformly randomly distributed from 0 to 10
minutes. (In Experiments 3 and 4 below we consider
various ranges.)
Minimum dwell time: as well as a scheduled dwell time
there may be an absolute minimum dwell time which can
be used if the train is running late. We introduce this in
Experiment 2 but not in Experiment 1. If a train would
otherwise depart late we allow the scheduled dwell time
to be reduced to not less than a minimum dwell time,
which we assume is fraction, for example, 0.8, 0.6, etc. of
the scheduled dwell time.
The simulation experiments and their results are set out in
more detail below.
Experiment 1 Distributions of knock-on delays and total
delays.
To estimate the distributions of knock-on delays caused
by given distributions of exogenous delays we proceeded as
follows.
(i) Choose the arrival time and dwell time delay distribu-
tions, and the percentages of trains to subject to these
delays, as set out above.
(ii) Using the delay distributions stated above, (a) to the
scheduled arrivals time of each train add a delay drawn
at random from the distribution of exogenous arrival
time delays; (b) similarly, to the scheduled dwell time
of each train add a delay drawn at random from the
distribution of exogenous dwell time delays.
(iii) Simulate running this perturbed timetable for one day,
and record all delays (exogenous and knock-on)see
Figure 1(a).
(iv) Repeat steps (ii)(iii) 1,000 times, to simulate 1,000
dayssee Figure 1(b).
(v) Compute descriptive statistics for the distribution of
delays obtained in (iv). Typical descriptive statistics
used to measure transport reliability or punctuality are:
(a) mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc., of
delays.
(b) the percentage of trains having knock-on delays of
less (or more) than 0, 5, 10, etc., minutes.
In Step (iii), instead of listing all delays we can save storage
space by recording only the numbers of delays between 0
and 5 mins, 5 and 10 mins, etc. Also, we may wish to record
a separate distribution of delays for each type of train, for
example, express, inter-city, local, freight.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 669
Frequency distributions or pdfs of delays obtained in
Step (iv) above are shown in Figures 1 and 2. We also
computed the statistics in (v) (a)(b) for knock-on delays
and for total delays (exogenous delays knock-on delays).
Reliability measures from cumulative delay distributions
Figures 1(a) and 1(b) shows the cumulative distributions
which our simulations yielded for ve measures of delay.
Figure 1(a) is obtained by running the simulation for a
single day ((iii) above), and 1(b) obtained by running the
simulation for 1,000 days ((iv) above). The shapes and
relative positions of the lines in Figures 1(a) and 1(b) are
similar, but the differences between them show that the
averages contained in Figure 1(b) conceal signicant daily
differences.
The percentages of trains delayed more than 0, 5, 15,
etc., minutes can be read directly from the Figure 1. These
are percentages used by train operators, planners, and the
general public, as measures of reliability or performance
for trains. Public transport operators are frequently required
to publish a selection these percentages, for example the
percentages of trains arriving or departing more than 0, 5 or
15 minutes late. In Figure 1 the percentages of trains
delayed more than 0, 5, 15, etc., minutes are consistent
with those recorded in practice for BR stations of this size
and complexity.
Figure 1 (a) Cumulative distributions of delays from a single day simulation. (b) Cumulative distributions of delays from a 1,000-day
simulation.
670 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
We assumed only 20% of trains experience exogenous
arrival delays (U2 to 20)) and 20% experience exogen-
ous delay (U(010)). To illustrate the effects of this in the
simulation consider train delays of 5 minutes or more,
as shown by ordinates in Figure 1(b) corresponding to 5 on
the horizontal axis. We nd 13.1% with exogenous arrival
delays (55 mins) and 7.2% with knock-on arrival delays
(55 mins), which yields 20.3% in total with arrival delays
55 minutes. These 20.3% with arrival delays, plus 9.1%
with exogenous dwell delays (55 mins), caused a total of
25.3% to have departure delays 55 minutes. Recall that in
the simulation we did not allow scheduled dwell times to be
reduced, hence every train arriving late automatically
departed late. These knock-on departure delays could be
reduced by allowing dwell times of late trains to be
reduced, as discussed later. Also, the percentage of trains
with knock-on delays would be signicantly reduced if we
counted only delays greater than say 10 minutes.
We have also generated graphs (not shown here) similar
to Figure 1 for all trains using a particular platform at the
station, or all trains of a particular type, or all trains arriving
or departing on a particular line. This helps identify the
problem platforms, trains or lines, and focuses train plan-
ners attention on these. For example, if a particular train
type is less punctual than others perhaps the minimum
headways for this train type should be increased. Also,
there may be quite different punctuality targets for different
train types, for example, for intercity express trains, local
stopping trains and freight trains.
Typical patterns of relative frequency distributions (or pdfs)
of delay
The data in the cumulative distributions in Figure 1(b) can
instead be presented as the relative frequency distributions
in Figure 2, the former being the integral of the latter. If we
divide the vertical scale in Figure 2 by 100 the curves in the
gure become pdfs (probability distribution functions), and
for brevity we may refer to them as pdfs. One difference
between these Figures 1(b) and 2 is that in the former we
can see the percentage of trains which have zero delays,
which is a majority of the trains. This percentage is now
shown in Figure 2, but could be shown, for each of the
relative frequency curves, as a point mass at delay 0. The
curves in Figure 2 represent only the tail of the pdf
corresponding to trains that are actually delayed, and the
area under each curve is the % of trains actually delayed.
Figure 2 shows the pdfs for ve types of delays. By
denition (exogenous delays of arrivals) (knock-on
delays of arrivals) (total delay of arrivals). The pdfs of
the sum of two random variables is the convolution of the
component pdfs, see for example Reference 13 for con-
volutions). There are no other such direct relationships
between the ve pdfs. Their relative shapes are consistent
with a large busy station such as we simulated but can be
quite different for other types of stations. For example, if
the station had very little trafc then knock-on delays of
arrivals could be negligible even if the exogenous delays
of arrivals were large. Conversely, if the station was
very congested then knock-on delays of arrivals could be
very large even if the exogenous delays of arrivals were
negligible.
Knock-on delays of arrivals or departures can be caused
by any or all of the ve types of delay shown in Figure 1
(note that knock-on delays can be caused by other knock-on
delays). To see this, recall that exogenous delays of arrivals
or of dwell times can cause train time conicts which then
delay (knock-on) the arrival and=or departure of that or
other trains. And these arrival or departure delays can cause
further conicts which delay the arrival or departure of later
trains. Hence the curves (in each Figure, 1 and 2) are all
Figure 2 Relative frequency distributions (or pdfs) of delays from a 1,000-day simulation.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 671
interdependent in a very complex way which is captured
only by the full scale simulation. Each curve (except the
exogenous delay curves) depends on the other four.
Slight uctuations in curves in Figures 1(b) and 2. We
observe that the curves in Figures 1(b) and 2 are fairly
smooth but they have some bumpiness or unevenness,
except for the exogenous delay curves. This unevenness is
not caused by the inherent randomness in the sample of days
in the simulation hence does not go away if we take a larger
sample. The simulation covered 1,000 days and even when
we simulated far more (10,000) or fewer days the shapes of
the curves, including the bumps, remained almost exactly
the same. The slight bumpiness in the curves is due to the
fact that (before we add random disturbances) the daily
timetable, like all timetables, is a set of xed times, which
inevitably have certain patterns. For example, many sched-
uled dwell times tend to be 2, 4, 10, etc., minutes, and many
scheduled arrival and departure times tend to be on-the-hour
or half hour, or 10, 20, etc., minutes after. This can cause
some patterns in the lengths of knock-on delays. If a train
misses a time slot the alternative slots occur after certain
xed intervals, not randomly. This makes some knock-on
delay durations more likely than others. It is perhaps
surprising that the curves in Figures 1(b) and 2 are as
smooth as they are.
Condence intervals for the mean of the delays occurring
on any one day. For each of the 1,000 simulated days we
computed the mean delay d for arrival, dwell and departure
knock-on delays. We found that the distributions of these
daily means are approximately normal. Assuming the mean
daily delay d is normally distributed, an estimate of the 95%
condence intervals for d is: (

d 1:96s) to (

d 1:96s),
where

d and s are the mean and standard deviation
respectively of the 1,000 values of d from the 1,000 day
simulation.
Example Assume 20% of trains experience exogenous
arrival delays distributed U2 to 30) exogenous dwell
delays distributed U(0 to 15). From the 1,000 day simula-
tion we obtained the standard deviations and hence con-
dence intervals shown in the following table.
95% condence interval
Random variable d s.d. of d for d1:96s
Mean over a day of knock-on
delays to arrivals
0.36 0.702 mins
Mean over a day of knock-on
delays to dwells
0.15 0.294 mins
Mean over a day of knock-on
delays to departures
0.39 0.764 mins
Condence intervals for the mean delay (over all days).
Above we computed the condence interval for the `mean
daily delay' d. This spread of mean daily delays is not
reduced by taking a larger sample of days, since the mean
daily delay will vary from day to day and will keep varying
no matter how many days we consider. However, train
operators are also interested in

d, the mean of the `mean
daily delays'. The latter (

d) will converge as we increase the

number of days in the sample, and the condence intervals
will become narrower (the estimates more accurate) the
larger is the sample of days in the simulation. Since the
days in the sample are independent of each other, the central
limit theorem applies, hence we expect the standard devia-
tion of the mean of the `mean daily delays' to be

n 1
p
times smaller than the standard deviation of the `mean daily
delay' given above, where n is the sample size. Therefore
with a sample size of 1,000 days the 95% condence
intervals for the mean of the `mean daily delays' are

1000 1
p
31:6 times smaller than those in the table
above. That is (1:96s=

n 1
p
), hence 0.0222, 0.0093 and
0.0242 minutes respectively, which is less than 2 seconds.
Experiment 2 Punctuality improvement or deterioration
at a stationgetting back on schedule.
A question of interest to transport operators and users is:
`Will the delays encountered at a station mean that trains are
even further behind schedule when they depart from the
station than when they arrived?' At rst sight it may seem
that the distribution of delays must be worse on departure
than on arrival. However, there is a mechanism for helping
get trains back on time if they arrive late. If a train is late it
can depart after a minimum required dwell time rather than
adhering to the original scheduled dwell time. (Suppose a
train has a scheduled dwell time of say 10 minutes and a
minimum required dwell time of 7 minutes. If it arrives 4
minutes late it is ready to leave in the 4 7 11th minute,
that is, only 1 minute late instead of four minutes late. On
the other hand, if the minimum required dwell time is 4
minutes, then it is ready to depart in the 4 4 8th minute,
but of course it is not allowed to leave until its scheduled
time, hence it leaves on time in the 10th minute.)
To investigate this, let,
r
scheduled dwell time minimum required dwell time
scheduled dwell time
and refer to this as the `maximum dwell reduction ratio' or
simply the `dwell reduction ratio'. This dwell reduction
ratio may be different for different trains: for some trains
the scheduled dwell time may already be close to its
minimum and for others it may not. However, for simpli-
city we will assume here that the maximum dwell reduction
r is the same for all trains. In the rest of this section, that is,
Experiments 1, 3 and 4 and we assume that r is zero. In the
following table and in Figure 3 we show the delay distribu-
tions which result from letting the maximum dwell reduc-
tion r be 0.0, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 respectively. To generate
672 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
these results we ran a separate 1,000 day simulation for
each value of r.
Maximum dwell reduction ratio,
r
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8
% of trains with exog arr. delay
less than 5 mins
85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7
% of trains departing less than
5 mins late
72.0 78.0 80.6 82.7
Difference 13.4 7.7 5.1 3.0
% of trains with exog arr. delay
less than 15 mins
91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2
% of trains departing less than
15 mins late
89.4 92.2 93.7 95.4
Difference 1.8 1.0 2.5 4.2
The `difference' rows in the table shows the differ-
ences between the percentage of trains arriving late and the
percentage departing late.
In Figure 3 the vertical axis gives the percentage of trains
less than x minutes late, where x is corresponding lateness
value on the horizontal axis. Hence, the higher the distribu-
tion curve in Figure 3, the lower the percentage of late
trains, or the higher the train punctuality or performance. We
see that, as expected, the larger the dwell reduction ration
r the higher the distribution curve, hence the higher the
percentage of trains departing on time.
As discussed above, we wish to see if train punctuality is
better or worse when trains are departing from the station
than when they arrived. For this we compare the percen-
tages of trains departing late with the percentages having
exogenous arrival lateness: since we are here considering
only one station, the exogenous arrival lateness implicitly
include all delays incurred at all previous stations or on the
lines between them. The graph of exogenous arrival lateness
or punctuality is the straight line in Figure 3. Comparing this
straight line (arrival punctuality) with the curves (departure
punctuality) in Figure 3 shows that for larger values of r the
deterioration in punctuality is less, or the improvement in
punctuality is greater. However, we note that in this exam-
ple, for all levels of r, the percentage of trains having zero
arrival delays is always greater than the percentage having
zero departure delays. This could be different in another
example. For example, if the exogenous dwell delays were
smaller that would decrease the departure delays more than
the arrival delays.
Comparing the straight line (arrival punctuality) with the
lowest of the four curves in Figure 3 shows that if the dwell
reduction ration is r 0 then train punctuality on departure
is always less than on arrival. Now consider say r 0:4.
For this compare the straight line (the arrival punctuality)
with the third up (r 0:4) of the curves in Figure 3. This
shows that if we are concerned with lateness up to about 11
minutes, then departure punctuality is worse than arrival
punctuality. However, if we are concerned with lateness
greater than about 11 minutes, then departure punctuality is
better than arrival punctuality. Similar remarks apply to the
curves for other values of r.
In view of the above, train operators can use the ratio r as
a policy instrument in designing more reliable schedules.
By better management of resources at stations, operators
may be able to cut minimum dwell times hence cut r and
substantially improve punctuality of departures.
Of course it is not only at stations that trains can get back
on schedule. In practice, the scheduled trip times between
stations are sometimes set slightly larger than the minimum
time needed. This extra time or `recovery' time allows late
trains to reduce their lateness. The distribution of arrival
Figure 3 Effect of dwell reduction ratios on total departure delays.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 673
lateness at the next station may then be `better' than the
distribution of departure lateness at the present station.
From a passengers perspective arrival punctuality matters
more than departure punctuality.
Experiment 3 How knock-on delays vary with size of
exogenous delays.
In Experiment 3 we simulated 1,000 days to obtain the
distribution of knock-on delays (and distribution of total
delays) when the exogenous delays are from a uniform
distribution with bounds 0 and UL. We repeated this
simulation experiment for 25 different values of UL, start-
ing at UL 0 minutes and increasing in steps of 2 minutes
up to UL 48. Also, we assumed exogenous dwell delays
are on average about half as long as exogenous arrival
delays, i.e., if the exogenous arrival delay is 2 to 20 the
exogenous dwell delay is 0 to 10, since negative dwell
delays are not allowed.
For each of these 25 different simulation experiments we
computed various statistics, for example, the percentage of
trains more than 0, 5, 10, etc., minutes late. Here we graph
some of the results (Figures 4(a)(b)), to show how the
knock-on delays (and total delays) increase as UL the
maximum exogenous delays increases. Since the exogen-
ous delays is uniformly distributed from 2 to UL, the
expected exogenous delay is UL 2=2, which increases
as UL increases. We illustrate the results mainly for
departures delays but the results for arrival and dwell
time delays are similar. It can be seen that the knock-on
delays increase fairly smoothly as the exogenous delays UL
increase. For example, from the lowest curve in Figure 4(a)
we see that if UL is say 10 minutes then 65% of trains
experience no knock-on delay, and if UL is say 20 minutes
then 55% of trains experience no knock-on delay.
The characteristic shapes of the curves in Figures 4(a)
(b) can be explained as follows. Consider the lowest curve
in Figure 4(a). In this curve the number of knock-on delays
increases sharply at rst and then much more slowly. Each
increase in the exogenous delays UL increases the like-
lihood that trains will loose their scheduled time slot and=or
platforms. That is, if a train is late another train may have
arrived at the platform, so that the late trains has to wait or
go to a different platform. However, if a train is so late that
it has already lost its scheduled time slot then any further
lateness may have less effect on how soon it can nd a new
slot, and on whether this causes further knock-on delays.
This causes the curve in Figure 4(a) to atten out. Some-
what similar remarks apply to the next curve in Figure 4(a),
but less so to the other curves. The reason is that the latter
are caused by larger exogenous delays. With larger exogen-
ous delays the trains have already lost their initial sched-
uled time slot, hence any further increases in the size of the
exogenous delay will simply cause a proportionate increase
in knock-on delays.
An interesting feature of the curves is that, except for the
lowest curve, they start off at or near to at. For example,
the curve showing the percentage of trains with knock-on
delays of `430 minutes' is at up until the maximum
exogenous delay UL is 30 minutes. This indicated there are
no knock-on delays greater than 30 minutes unless there are
some exogenous delays greater than 30 minutes. Similarly,
there are almost no knock-on delays greater than 10, 20,
etc. minutes unless there are some exogenous delays
greater than 10, 20, etc. minutes respectively.
Experiment 4 Effect of allowing platform changes on-
the- day.
The most dramatic aspect of the simulation results is the
effect of allowing or not allowing trains to change from their
scheduled platforms. If a train arrives later than scheduled
its scheduled platform may be already taken by a later train.
In that case we could hold the late train until its scheduled
platform is free, or send it to some other platform if one will
be free sooner. Similarly, if a train departs later than
scheduled, the next train scheduled to go to that platform
may either wait until the platform is free, or go to another
platform if one is free sooner. Note that any of these on-the-
day changes of train times or platforms may cause yet
further knock-on changes to following trains.
To explore the effect of allowing on-the-day changes of
platforms we ran the experiments twice. Firstly we requir-
ing that all trains go to their scheduled platforms. We refer
to this as the `xed platform model'. Secondly we ran all
the experiments while allowing trains to be sent to
a different platform if this would reduce lateness or other
penalties (platform desirability). We refer to this as the
`exible platform model'. The results are illustrated in
Figure 5.
We found that allowing platforms to be changed in
response to on-the-day lateness caused a dramatic reduction
in knock-on delays. When exogenous delays are large, for
example, up to 60 minutes, the mean size of knock-on
arrival delays is reduced by about 90% and the mean size of
knock-on departure delays is reduced by about 40%. This
large reduction in the size and number of knock-on delays
is perhaps larger than appears to be expected by rail
operators. It has relevance for the design and operation of
train stations. It suggests it is important that platforms be
feasible for as many of the various train types as possible.
This involves layout of lines and signals, but it also
traveller information systems, and ensuring that travellers
can easily walk from one platform to another. Some
stations are designed so that changing trains from their
scheduled platform is very inconvenient for passengers,
involving long walks up and down stairs perhaps with
luggage. On the other hand, some stations are designed
so that all platforms are quickly accessible from a
convenient central waiting area. In that case the platform
674 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
Figure 4 (a) Train performance decreases with the size of exogenous delays: knock-on departure delays. (b) Train performance decreases
with the size of exogenous delays: total departure delays.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 675
allocation for each train need not be announced until
shortly before its arrival or departure. Indeed, the platform
schedule need not be published in advance. This is the
custom for the main multi-platform terminal stations
around London. However, even in this case it is generally
desirable to have an unannounced planned platform for
each train so that on-the-day train controllers and operators
need worry only about deviations from this schedule.
Fitting equations to graphs of simulation results
The graphs of the simulation results in Figures 1 to 5 are all
fairly smooth. When we initially used small samples of
days, say 10 or 20, the curves were much more jagged and
uctuated randomly about the curves which were obtained.
We increased the sample sizes until we obtained curves
which are almost identical in repeated simulations, and
hence have narrow condence intervals. The smoothness of
the curves is of course not only due to averaging over large
numbers of days, but also to the inherent regularity in the
system being simulated.
Schedule performance, with beta distributions
of exogenous delays
In the previous Section we used uniform distributions
for a set of simulations and experiments. Here we use
different distributions and perform different simulation
experiments.
The pdfs of arrival, dwell and departure delays for
scheduled transport services typically have a nite range,
are unimodal and skewed bell-shaped with a longer tail of
lateness than earliness. This is typically true for train delays
including those on the BR network. One reason for this
skewness is that if a train is running earlier than scheduled
it can get back on schedule by slowing down, whereas if it
is running late it may not get back on schedule as it has to
respect prespecied maximum speeds and accelerations.
The beta distribution pdf has all the above characteristics
of a typical pdf of delays, hence it is often appropriate for
modelling transportation delays and we use it here. Also, it
has four parameters (a, b, T
min
and T
max
dened below),
which gives it more exibility in tting empirical data than
a pdf such as the normal or exponential which have fewer
parameters.
The beta distribution has a pdf f dened on the interval
[0, 1] by,
f x
x
a1
1 x
b1
Ba; b
; 1
where a; b > 0 and Ba; b is the beta function (hence the
name of the distribution). An example of a beta density is
given in Figure 6. The beta density can be rescaled and
Figure 5 Effect on mean size of delays of allowing platform changes on the day.
676 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
shifted to be dened on any nite interval, say [T
min
, T
max
].
The pdf (1) then becomes,
f x
x T
min

a1
T
max
x
b1
T
max
T
min

ab1
Ba; b
: 2
We used shape parameters a 2, b 4, minimum delay
T
min
2, and maximum delay T
max
20 minutes, which
gives the beta distribution in Figure 6. This implies 63% of
delayed trains are more than 5 minutes late, 19% are more
than 10 minutes late, and 2% are more than 15 minutes late,
which is typical of the pattern of exogenous delay for
delayed trains in Britain.
If we apply this distribution of exogenous delays to all
BR trains then, when we add in the resulting knock-on
delays, the total delays would be far in excess of the typical
pattern of delays for BR. However, in practice only a
percentage p of trains experience exogenous delay and
this percentage is often different for different train types
and parts of the rail network. In Experiment 5 we assumed
p 20% of trains chosen at random experience exogenous
delays, with a beta distribution, and we simulate this
occurring every day for a 1,000 days.
In Experiment 6 we experiment with different percen-
tages p, starting at p 0% and increasing in steps of 2% to
50%. We choose a cut-off of 50% as it is unlikely that on
any one day more than 50% of trains arriving would be
subject to exogenous delay (as opposed to a knock-on
delay). We conducted these experiments to show how the
number of exogenous delays affects the number and size of
knock-on delays. This is important to train operators seek-
ing to reduce delays. In particular, we can nd the level of
exogenous delays at which the total delays (exogenous plus
knock-on) will exceed the punctuality targets set for train
operators.
For each day simulated in each of the above experiments
we applied the beta distribution of delays to the train
timetable for a busy station (Leeds). To train arrival
times and station dwell times we added an exogenous
delay drawn at random from the beta distribution. We
then simulated all train arrivals and departures for thou-
sands of days using the ATTPS package,
1
and kept a record
of all knock-on delays and changes of platforms caused by
the exogenous beta distribution delays.
These experiments and their results are set out below.
Experiment 5 Distribution of knock-on delays.
To estimate the distributions of knock-on delays caused
by given distributions of exogenous delays we proceeded as
follows. Steps (iii)(v) are the same as in Experiment 1, and
the comments made there following Steps (iii)(v) also
apply here.
(i) Choose percentages of train to experience exogenous
delays of arrival times and dwell times. We initially
chose p
1
20% for arrivals and p
2
10% for dwell
times.
(ii) Select p
1
% of trains at random and to the arrival time of
each of these trains add a delay drawn at random from
the above beta distribution of delays. Similarly for train
dwell times. For dwell time delays we used a beta
distribution with parameters T
min
2 to T
max
20
minutes.
(iii) Simulate running this perturbed timetable for one day,
and record all train delays (exogenous and knock-on)
for the daysee Figure 7(a).
(iv) Repeat steps (ii)(iii) 1,000 times, to simulate 1,000
dayssee Figure 7(b).
(v) Compute descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard
deviation, etc.) for the distribution of delays in (iv).
An example of the frequency distribution (or pdf) of delays
over 1,000 days, as obtained from (iv), is given in Figure 7.
For comparison, the Figure also shows the pdf of exogenous
delays and the pdf of total delays (exogenous delay
knock-on delays).
Condence intervals for (parameters of) the distribution
of delays
These can be computed in exactly the same way as in
Experiment 1 above. Again, as in Experiment 1 the widths
of the condence intervals are all so small as to be
negligible, indicating that the statistics obtained from the
1,000 day simulation, for example, the mean, median,
percentiles, etc. of delays are accurate simulation estimates.
Experiment 6 How knock-on delays vary with % of
trains subject to exogenous delays.
In the above experiment we simulated 1,000 days to obtain
the distribution of knock-on delays (and distribution of total
delays) when a xed percentage ( p) of trains are subject to
exogenous beta distribution delays. We repeated this simu-
lation experiment for 25 different values of p, starting at
Figure 6 Beta probability density on interval [0, 1] with shape
parameters a 2, b 4.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 677
p 0 and increasing in steps of 2% up to 48%. For each of
these 25 different simulation experiments we computed
various statistics, for example, the percentage of trains
more than 0, 5, 10, etc., minutes late. Here we illustrate
the results, in Figures 8 and 9, to show how the knock-on
delays (and total delays) change as the number of trains
subject to exogenous delays increases. As in the previous
section, the sample of days is so large that the graphs change
Figure 7 (a) Frequency distributions of delays from a single day simulation. (b) Frequency distributions of delays from a 1,000-day
simulation.
678 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
Figure 8 (a) Train performance decreases with the size of exogenous delays: knock-on departure delays. (b) Train performance decreases
with the size of exogenous delays: total departure delays.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 679
little if we repeat the experiment with a different sample.
Hence the condence intervals are extremely small or
negligible for each plotted point on these graphs.
In Figure 8 the curves showing the percentage of trains
having knock-on delays of `410 minutes' are approxi-
mately linear functions of the percentage of trains having
exogenous delays. This seems signicantly different from
Figure 4, but this gure is not really comparable with
Figure 4. In Figure 4 we increased the (average) sizes of
the delays for a xed number of trains, whereas here we do
the reverse. As explained earlier for Figure 3, if we increase
the sizes of the exogenous delays, a stage is soon reached
where these trains have lost their scheduled slots, and have
to nd new slots. Any further exogenous delay has less
additional impact. In contrast, if we increase the number
and proportion of trains that have exogenous delays, then
each additional delayed train may have a similar impact at
least until a high proportion of trains are delayed.
Experiment 7 Effect of allowing on-the-day platform
changes.
The discussion, experiments and results here are similar
to those in Experiment 4, where the distributions of exogen-
ous delays was assumed to be uniform. To explore the effect
of allowing on-the-day changes of platforms, we again ran
the above experiments twice, rst requiring that all trains
must go to their scheduled platform (the `xed platform
model') and second allowing trains to be sent to a different
platform if this would reduce lateness or other penalties (the
`exible platform model'). The results are illustrated in
Figure 9.
Allowing platforms to be changed in response to on-the-
day lateness again causes a substantial reduction in knock-
on delays, but not as much as in the case of uniform delays
(previous Section).
Fitting equations to graphs of simulation results
The graphs of the simulation results in the above gures are
all remarkably smooth curves, and the same comments
apply as in the previous section. Fitting a quadratic equa-
tion to the points in Figure 9 gives an R
2
0:999. This
smoothness implies that almost the same curves would be
obtained by generating only say 5 simulation points instead
of all 25 in the gure. This is useful since it indicates that
we do not need to simulate so many points.
Concluding remarks
In this paper we set out a simulation approach to estimating
reliability for proposed schedules or schedule changes for
a typical busy complex station. To do this, we simulated
running the schedules for hundreds of days, subjected to
distributions of exogenous random delays, incidents, etc.,
which are typical of those occurring in practice. When
conicts of train times or platforms occur we resolve the
conicts by rescheduling trains in a manner typical of those
Figure 9 The effect on departure knock-on delays of allowing platform changes on the day.
680 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6
used in practice. The simulations are useful to develop
understanding of the behavior of knock-on delays at a
station.
We use the simulations to generate distributions of
knock-on delays and total (knock-on plus exogenous)
delays, including numbers and sizes of delays. From
these distributions we can immediately read off measures
of punctuality that are of direct interest to train operators,
for example, the predicted percentage of trains more than
0, 5, 10 or 15 minutes late. Operators in Britain are now
required to record and publish such measures, and to
display them on public notices in stations. And they are
subject to penalties if they fail to meet certain punctuality
targets. It is therefore of interest to operators to be able to
estimate such measures in advance for proposed timetables.
New or revised timetables are produced at regular intervals,
for example approximately every six months in Britain for
the whole rail network. As well as the published timetables,
operators also produce timetables to be used in emergen-
cies, for example, if a certain track is out of operation.
The simulations are also useful in identifying and target-
ing reliability problems or bottlenecks in the system. To do
that, the predicted delay distributions from the simulation
are automatically broken down by train service, train type,
platform, line, etc.
The simulation model can also be used to estimate what
effect proposed changes in operating rules or infrastructure
will have on punctuality. There are a large number of
possible changes for which operators may wish to estimate
and evaluate the effect on reliability. For example, as
regards train operating rules, suppose it is proposed to
reduce minimum headways for some trains, or reduce
minimum dwell times, or dedicate certain platforms to
one train operating company, or restrict one of the
`through' platforms to one-way trafc. As regards infra-
structure, suppose it is proposed to eliminate a platform, or
add a platform, or lengthen a platform so that it could take
intercity trains, or change the track layout so that certain
lines no longer conict. For each of these changes we can
use the simulation model in this paper to evaluate how the
change will affect reliability. To do that we simply run the
simulation without the proposed change, then with the
proposed change and compare the results. These reliability
changes may be sufcient to justify, or to rule out, the
proposed changes. Alternatively, they may have to be
balanced against other costs and benets of the proposed
changes and it may be necessary to attach monetary values
to the changes in reliability. There is an extensive literature
on cost benet analysis hence there is not space to discuss it
further here.
In this paper we use the simulations to explore the effect
of some policy or parameter changes. For example, we use
the simulations to compare a policy of allowing on-the-day
platform changes, with not allowing such changes. Also,
we use the simulations to examine a policy of allowing late
trains to depart after less than their usual minimum dwell
times. We nd that both these policies can have dramatic
effects in improving punctuality.
A further use of the detailed simulation approach of this
paper is in evaluating and validating heuristic measures of
reliability that are widely used in practice. This arises as
follows: A disadvantage of the simulation approach is that
it is time consuming and requires a substantial amount of
data. An alternative that is often adopted in practice is to
use a heuristic or `rule of thumb' ex ante measures
reliability or punctuality. For example, the percentage of
trains that are operating at minimum headways, or the
number of alternative platforms available. Though these
measures are easier and faster to apply, their usefulness
for predicting schedule reliability has not been system-
atically tested. In ongoing research we are testing such
heuristic measures by comparing their predictions with
those obtained from the detailed accurate simulation
approach in this paper. We apply both approaches separately
to rank the reliability of a set of proposed schedules for a
station. If a heuristic measure gives the same ranking of the
schedules as the simulation approach, it can be taken as
potentially useful, at least for that station or context. This of
course does not prove it will be always or everywhere
accurate or useful, but it increases condence in its use.
Therefore, even when heuristic rather than simulation
measures of reliability are used in practice, the detailed
simulation approach is useful as a way of periodically
testing or validating existing or proposed heuristic
measures.
AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank two anonymous referees for their
thoughtful and helpful comments. This research was supported by Engi-
neering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grants
GR=H=48033 and GR=K=75798, which are gratefully acknowledged. The
authors also wish to thank various individuals in Railtrack, its predecessor
British Rail, and the railway industry generally, for their cooperation, advice
and comments. Some of this dates back to the three years Professor Carey
spent at Oxford University as British Rail=Fellowship of Engineering
Senior Research Fellow. However, it is emphasised that none of these
bodies or people assume any responsibility for any of the opinions, results
or data in this paper. All of these are the responsibility of the authors.
References
1 Carey M and Carville S (1997). Scheduling Trains at Busy
Complex Stations: Models, Algorithms and Results. Research
Report, Faculty of Business and Management, University of
Ulster, N. Ireland.
2 Jovanovic D (1989). Improving railroad on-time performance:
models, algorithms and applications. PhD Thesis, and Decision
Sciences Working Paper 89-11-02, Decision Sciences Depart-
ment, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Phila-
delphia.
3 Jovanovic D and Harker PT (1991). Tactical scheduling of rail
operations: the SCAN 1 system. Transp Sci 25: 4664.
M Carey and S CarvilleTesting schedule performance and reliability for train stations 681
4 Kraay D, Harker PT and Chen BT (1991). Optimal pacing of
trains in freight railroads: model formulation and solution. Opns
Res 39: 8299.
5 Carey M (1994). A model and strategy for train pathing with
choice of lines, platforms and routes. Transp Res 28B: 333353.
6 Carey M (1994). Extending a train pathing model from one-way
to two-way track. Transp Res 28B: 395400.
7 Carey M and Lockwood D (1995). A model, algorithms and
strategy for train pathing. J Opl Res Soc 46: 9881005.
8 Brooke DF (1996). Trainplanners' toolkitintegrated approach
to trainplanning, rostering and simulation. In: Allan J et al (eds).
Computers in Railways V, Vol. 1: Railway Systems and Manage-
ment 1996. Computational Mechanics Publications: Southamp-
ton, pp 437446.
9 Hammerton JR (1996). Delivering scheduling solutions for a
changing business world. In: Allan J et al (eds). Computers in
Railways V, Vol. 1: Railway Systems and Management 1996.
Computational Mechanics Publications: Southampton, pp 467
477.
10 Hallowell SF and Harker PT (1998). Predicting on-time perfor-
mance in scheduled railroad operations: methodology and
application to train scheduling. Transp Res 32A: 279295.
11 Chen B and Harker PT (1990). Two-moment estimation of the
delay on single- track rail lines with scheduled trafc. Transp
Sci 24: 261275.
12 Carey M (1995). Train pathing and platforming data for York
and Leeds. Faculty of Business and Management, University of
Ulster, N. Ireland.
13 Feller W (1966). An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its
Applications. Wiley: New York.
Received September 1998;
accepted November 1999 after two revisions
682 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 6