This paper analyses the occurrence of temporary speed restrictions in railway infrastructure associated with railway track geometry degradation. A negative binomial regression model is put forward to estimate the expected number of temporary speed restrictions, controlling for the main quality indicators of railway track geometry degradation and for the maintenance and renewal actions/decisions. The prediction of temporary speed restrictions provides a quantitative way to support the assessment of unavailability costs to railway users. A case study on the Lisbon–Oporto Portuguese line is explored, comparing three statistical models: the Poisson, the ‘over-dispersed’ Poisson and the proposed negative binomial regression. Main findings suggest that the main quality indicators for railway track geometry degradation are statistically significant variables, apart from the maintenance and renewal actions. Finally, a discussion on the impacts of the unavailability costs associated with temporary speed restrictions is also provided in a regulated railway context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank the support and collaboration of the Portuguese Railway Infrastructure Manager, REFER, E. P. E, and of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the project MODURAIL (PTDC/SEN-TRA/112975/2009) and MIT Portugal program through the PhD Grant (SFRH/BD/33785/2009).
Compliance with ethical standards
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and MIT Portugal. Portuguese Railway Infrastructure Manager (REFER).
Stenström C, Parida A, Galar D (2014) Performance indicators of railway infrastructure. Int J Railw Technol 1(3):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veiseth M, Olsson N, Saetermo IAF (2007) Infrastructure’s influence on rail punctuality. WIT Trans Built Environ 96:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickerman R (2004) Maintenance incentives under different infrastructure regimes. Util Policy 12(4):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson NO, Haugland H (2004) Influencing factors on train punctuality—results from some Norwegian studies. Transp Policy 11(4):387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen IA (2010) Railway Network timetabling and dynamic traffic management. Int J Civ Eng 8(1):19–32Google Scholar
Murali P, Dessouky M, Ordóñez F, Palmer K (2010) A delay estimation technique for single and double-track railroads. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 46(4):483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlake B, Barkan C, Edwards J (2011) Train delay and economic impact of in-service failures of railroad rolling stock. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2261:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinov M, Şahin İ, Ricci S, Vasic-Franklin G (2013) Railway operations, time-tabling and control. Res Transp Econ 41(1):59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman MF (2009) Statistical estimation of railroad congestion delay. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 45(3):446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vansteenwegen P, Van Oudheusden D (2007) Decreasing the passenger waiting time for an intercity rail network. Transp Res Part B Methodol 41(4):478–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen OA, Landex A, Frederiksen RD (2008) Passenger delay models for rail networks. Sched Based Model Transp Netw Theory Appl 46:27Google Scholar
Higgins A, Kozan E, Ferreira L (1995) Modelling delay risks associated with train schedules. Transp Plan Technol 19(2):89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade AR, Teixeira PF (2011) Biobjective optimization model for maintenance and renewal decisions related to rail track geometry. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2261:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade AR, Teixeira PF (2014) Unplanned-maintenance needs related to rail track geometry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport 167(6):400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar