Advertisement

Public Transport

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 193–215 | Cite as

Decision support for scheduling security crews at Netherlands Railways

  • Hilbert Snijders
  • Ricardo L. Saldanha
Original Paper

Abstract

We address the problem of scheduling work of security guards operating on trains and stations, and explain how operations research is suitable for solving a problem that adds new challenges to classical crew scheduling. Planning the work of these security guards is challenging because it requires dealing not only with the complexity inherent to crew scheduling problems but also with an optimisation goal that itself is defined more in qualitative than quantitative terms. Our contribution to handling these challenges is summarised as follows:
  • we describe the problem and model it as a shortest path problem and a set covering problem with additional constraints;

  • we adapt an existing heuristic that is based on Lagrangian relaxation, subgradient optimisation, column generation and greedy heuristics to be applicable to the problem (for instance, we add an improvement step based on local search);

  • we implement the resulting solution method, resulting in a software prototype named TUTIS;

  • we test TUTIS with a real problem instance supplied by Netherlands Railways.

Experimental results lead security experts to believe that the prototype not only presents meaningful results in terms of scheduling work, but also can help decide the way security guards will be deployed in the future.

Keywords

Crew scheduling Operations research Railway planning Security patrolling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all who contributed to this work. Hans Munk initialized the research, provided the data, and gave invaluable insights on the work processes of V&S teams. Luís Albino, Jorge Roussado, Rudi Araújo and Filipa Morgado developed the prototype. Luís and Jorge gave essential contributions on the solution method for job assignment. Finally, we would like to thank Martin van Meerkerk for the dedication he put into working with us on job generation.

References

  1. Abbink EW, Albino L, Dollevoet T, Huisman D, Roussado J, Saldanha RL (2011) Solving large scale crew scheduling problems in practice. Public Transp 3(2):149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borndörfer R, Sagnol G, Swarat E (2012) A case study onoptimizing toll enforcements on motorways. In: Ravizza S, Holborn P (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd student conference on operational research. Open acess series in informatics, vol 22, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  3. Borndörfer R, Langenhan A, Löbel A, Schulz C, Weider S (2013) Duty scheduling templates. Public Transp 5(1–2):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borndörfer R, Sagnol G, Schlechte T, Swarat E (2016) Optimal duty rostering for toll enforcement inspectors. Ann Oper Res pp 1–24Google Scholar
  5. Huisman D (2007) A column generation approach for the rail crew re-scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 180(1):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lau HC, Gunawan A (2012) The patrol scheduling problem, practice and theory of automated timetabling. In: PATAT, pp 175–192Google Scholar
  7. Meerkerk M (2014) Scheduling security and service personnel at Netherlands Railways. Master’s Thesis, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Morgado E, Martins JP (1998) Crews-ns: scheduling train crew in The Netherlands. AI Mag 19(1):25–38Google Scholar
  9. Ordóñez F, Tambe M, Jara JF, Jain M, Kiekintveld C, Tsai J (2013) Handbook of operations research for homeland security. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Pita J, Jain M, Marecki J, Ordóñez F, Portway C, Tambe M, Western C, Paruchuri P, Kraus S (2008) Deployed armor protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the los angeles international airport. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: industrial track, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  11. Pita J, Tambe M, Kiekintveld C, Cullen S, Steigerwald E (2011) Guards: game theoretic security allocation on a national scale. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  12. Potthoff D, Huisman D, Desaulniers G (2010) Column generation with dynamic duty selection for railway crew rescheduling. Transp Sci 44(4):493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shieh E, An B, Yang R, Tambe M, Baldwin C, DiRenzo J, Maule B, Meyer G (2012) Protect: a deployed game theoretic system to protect the ports of the united states. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 13–20Google Scholar
  14. SISCOG (2016) http://www.siscog.eu
  15. Teamcore (2016) Teamcore research group, University of Southern California. http://teamcore.usc.edu/projects/security
  16. Thorlacius P, Clausen J (2010) Scheduling of inspectors for ticket spot checking in urban rail transportation. In: Trafikdage ved Aalborg Universitet 2008. http://research.create.usc.edu/nonpublishedreports/71
  17. Tsai J, Kiekintveld C, Ordóñez F, Tambe M, Rathi S (2009) Iris—a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks.In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009) Google Scholar
  18. Yin Z, Jiang AX, Johnson MP, Kiekintveld C, Leyton-Brown K, Sandholm T, Tambe M, Sullivan JP (2012) Trusts: scheduling randomized patrols for fare inspection in transit systems. In: Proceedings of the 24th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (IAAI-12), pp 2348–2355Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands RailwaysUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.SISCOG-Sistemas Cognitivos, SALisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations