JL
J.I.J. Lakeman
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
Master thesis
(2026)
-
J.I.J. Lakeman, M.Y. Maknoon, J. Aoun, E. Quaglietta, David Koopman, Thomas van den Berg
Cost-effective migration to European Train Control System (ETCS) Hybrid Train Detection (HTD) is challenging because residual trackside train detection (TTD) remains valuable during partial Train Integrity Monitoring (TIM) deployment but incurs lifecycle cost. Existing studies mainly evaluate predefined layouts or optimise virtual subdivision, leaving unresolved which TTD boundaries should remain and when they should be removed.
This paper formulates residual TTD design as a staged bi-objective optimisation problem jointly selecting TTD layouts and TIM deployment. An analytical blocking time model distinguishes VSS-level and TTD-level release and represents heterogeneous traffic through cumulative running time differences. Maximum expected line headway is balanced against discounted lifecycle and deployment cost. A representative Pareto alternative is selected and evaluated independently in RailSys.
On the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere-Lelystad (SAAL) corridor in the Netherlands, the selected brownfield trajectory reduces the inherited 44-boundary layout to 21, 20, 16, and 12 active boundaries as TIM deployment increases from 0.15 to 0.95. Relative to retaining all 44 boundaries, modelled discounted cost falls from \texteuro\,4.61 million to \texteuro\,2.03 million, a 56\% reduction, while worst expected line headway increases by approximately 5\%. Intermediate Pareto alternatives preserve approximately current analytical headway performance at substantially lower cost than full retention. Brownfield and greenfield cases attain similar headways, while traffic composition changes the spatial value of optional boundaries. Microscopic evaluation shows that nominal cost-capacity performance does not guarantee equivalent disturbance recovery during low-TIM stages.
Overall, the estimated cost reductions suggest that designing residual TTD by location and migration stage is financially prudent, provided that boundary removal is coordinated with TIM deployment and does not compromise required capacity or operational stability.
...
This paper formulates residual TTD design as a staged bi-objective optimisation problem jointly selecting TTD layouts and TIM deployment. An analytical blocking time model distinguishes VSS-level and TTD-level release and represents heterogeneous traffic through cumulative running time differences. Maximum expected line headway is balanced against discounted lifecycle and deployment cost. A representative Pareto alternative is selected and evaluated independently in RailSys.
On the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere-Lelystad (SAAL) corridor in the Netherlands, the selected brownfield trajectory reduces the inherited 44-boundary layout to 21, 20, 16, and 12 active boundaries as TIM deployment increases from 0.15 to 0.95. Relative to retaining all 44 boundaries, modelled discounted cost falls from \texteuro\,4.61 million to \texteuro\,2.03 million, a 56\% reduction, while worst expected line headway increases by approximately 5\%. Intermediate Pareto alternatives preserve approximately current analytical headway performance at substantially lower cost than full retention. Brownfield and greenfield cases attain similar headways, while traffic composition changes the spatial value of optional boundaries. Microscopic evaluation shows that nominal cost-capacity performance does not guarantee equivalent disturbance recovery during low-TIM stages.
Overall, the estimated cost reductions suggest that designing residual TTD by location and migration stage is financially prudent, provided that boundary removal is coordinated with TIM deployment and does not compromise required capacity or operational stability.
...
Cost-effective migration to European Train Control System (ETCS) Hybrid Train Detection (HTD) is challenging because residual trackside train detection (TTD) remains valuable during partial Train Integrity Monitoring (TIM) deployment but incurs lifecycle cost. Existing studies mainly evaluate predefined layouts or optimise virtual subdivision, leaving unresolved which TTD boundaries should remain and when they should be removed.
This paper formulates residual TTD design as a staged bi-objective optimisation problem jointly selecting TTD layouts and TIM deployment. An analytical blocking time model distinguishes VSS-level and TTD-level release and represents heterogeneous traffic through cumulative running time differences. Maximum expected line headway is balanced against discounted lifecycle and deployment cost. A representative Pareto alternative is selected and evaluated independently in RailSys.
On the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere-Lelystad (SAAL) corridor in the Netherlands, the selected brownfield trajectory reduces the inherited 44-boundary layout to 21, 20, 16, and 12 active boundaries as TIM deployment increases from 0.15 to 0.95. Relative to retaining all 44 boundaries, modelled discounted cost falls from \texteuro\,4.61 million to \texteuro\,2.03 million, a 56\% reduction, while worst expected line headway increases by approximately 5\%. Intermediate Pareto alternatives preserve approximately current analytical headway performance at substantially lower cost than full retention. Brownfield and greenfield cases attain similar headways, while traffic composition changes the spatial value of optional boundaries. Microscopic evaluation shows that nominal cost-capacity performance does not guarantee equivalent disturbance recovery during low-TIM stages.
Overall, the estimated cost reductions suggest that designing residual TTD by location and migration stage is financially prudent, provided that boundary removal is coordinated with TIM deployment and does not compromise required capacity or operational stability.
This paper formulates residual TTD design as a staged bi-objective optimisation problem jointly selecting TTD layouts and TIM deployment. An analytical blocking time model distinguishes VSS-level and TTD-level release and represents heterogeneous traffic through cumulative running time differences. Maximum expected line headway is balanced against discounted lifecycle and deployment cost. A representative Pareto alternative is selected and evaluated independently in RailSys.
On the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere-Lelystad (SAAL) corridor in the Netherlands, the selected brownfield trajectory reduces the inherited 44-boundary layout to 21, 20, 16, and 12 active boundaries as TIM deployment increases from 0.15 to 0.95. Relative to retaining all 44 boundaries, modelled discounted cost falls from \texteuro\,4.61 million to \texteuro\,2.03 million, a 56\% reduction, while worst expected line headway increases by approximately 5\%. Intermediate Pareto alternatives preserve approximately current analytical headway performance at substantially lower cost than full retention. Brownfield and greenfield cases attain similar headways, while traffic composition changes the spatial value of optional boundaries. Microscopic evaluation shows that nominal cost-capacity performance does not guarantee equivalent disturbance recovery during low-TIM stages.
Overall, the estimated cost reductions suggest that designing residual TTD by location and migration stage is financially prudent, provided that boundary removal is coordinated with TIM deployment and does not compromise required capacity or operational stability.