Mixed-integer programming enhances train schedules and resilience in disruptions on a large railway network, indicating effective recovery strategies.
Train operators typically prepare detailed timetables for daily operations. Nevertheless, the intricate network structure and extensive daily activities render railway networks highly vulnerable to disruptions. Large-scale disruptions necessitate rapid recovery actions involving coordinated adjustments to train timetables, rolling stock, and crew schedules. Even after revised timetables are computed, local operational conflicts−such as track and platform assignment constraints−may still render solutions infeasible in practice. This study addresses the real-time, integrated rescheduling of freight services and track assignments under multiple resource-specific disruptions. A mixed-integer linear programming model is proposed at the operational level, employing mesoscopic modeling, regulatory constraints, and business priorities. To ensure scalability, the model is embedded within a rolling-horizon framework with an adaptive spatial band, in which only a committed subset of decisions is executed and the remaining plan is re-optimized as new information becomes available. The framework enables priority-aware train sequencing and flexible use of infrastructure to enhance resilience. Using real-world data from the Netherlands railway network (423 trains, 60 stations), we demonstrate that the proposed approach generates operationally feasible and high-quality schedules within practical computational limits across a range of disruption scenarios. Results indicate that short disruptions are largely absorbed before trains reach their terminal stations, whereas longer disruptions exhibit persistent delay propagation downstream; moreover, flexible facility substitution significantly curtails network-wide spillover effects. A sensitivity analysis of the look-ahead horizon highlights computational trade-offs, providing guidance on the choice of an appropriate horizon length.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haque et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: