Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 809–830 | Cite as

The dynamic vehicle rescheduling problem

Original Paper

Abstract

The pre-planned schedules of a transportation company are often disrupted by unforeseen events. As a result of a disruption, a new schedule has to be produced as soon as possible. This process is called the vehicle rescheduling problem, which aims to solve a single disruption and restore the order of transportation. However, there are multiple disruptions happening over a “planning unit” (usually a day), and all of them have to be addressed to achieve a final feasible schedule. From an operations management point of view the quality of the final solution has to be measured by the combined quality of every change over the horizon of the “planning unit”, not by evaluating the solution of each disruption as a separate problem. The problem of finding an optimal solution where all disruptions of a “planning unit” are addressed will be introduced as the dynamic vehicle rescheduling problem (DVRSP). The disruptions of the DVRSP arrive in an online manner, but giving an optimal final schedule for the “planning unit” would mean knowing all information in advance. This is not possible in a real-life scenario, which means that heuristic solution methods have to be considered. In this paper, we present a recursive and a local search algorithm to solve the DVRSP. In order to measure the quality of the solutions given by the heuristics, we introduce the so-called quasi-static DVRSP, a theoretical problem where all the disruptions are known in advance. We give two mathematical models for this quasi-static problem, and use their optimal solutions to evaluate the quality of our heuristic results. The heuristic methods for the dynamic problem are tested on different random instances.

Keywords

Disruption management Vehicle rescheduling Heuristic method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partionally supported by National Research, Development and Innovation Office - NKFIH Fund No. SNN-117879.

References

  1. Balogh J, Dávid B (2014) An algorithmic framework for real-time rescheduling in public bus transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 mini-conference on applied theoretical computer science (MATCOS), pp 29–33Google Scholar
  2. Bertossi A, Carraresi P, Gallo G (1987) On some matching problems arising in vehicle scheduling models. Networks 17(1):271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodin L, Golden B (1981) Classification in vehicle routing and scheduling. Networks 11(1):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodin L, Golden B, Assad A, Ball M (1983) Routing and scheduling of vehicles and crews: the state of the art. Comput Oper Res 10(1):63–212Google Scholar
  5. Bunte S, Kliewer N (2009) An overview on vehicle scheduling models. J Public Transp 1(4):299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clausen J, Larsen A, Larsen J, Rezanova NJ (2010) Disruption management in the airline industry-concepts, models and methods. Comput Oper Res 37(5):809–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clausen J, Larsen A, Larsen J (2005) Disruption management in the airline industry—concepts, models and methods. Tech. rep., informatics and mathematical modelling, Technical University of Denmark, DTUGoogle Scholar
  8. Dávid B, Krész M (2013) Application oriented variable fixing methods for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem. Acta Cybern 21(1):53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dávid B, Krész M (2014) A model and fast heuristics for the multiple depot bus rescheduling problem. In: 10th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT), pp 128–141Google Scholar
  10. Desrochers M, Lenstra J, Savelsbergh M, Soumis F (1988) Vehicle routing with time windows: optimization and approximation. Veh Routing Methods Stud 16:65–84Google Scholar
  11. Huisman D, Freling R, Wagelmans AP (2004) A robust solution approach to the dynamic vehicle scheduling problem. Transp Sci 38(4):447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huisman D, Wagelmans AP (2006) A solution approach for dynamic vehicle and crew scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 172(2):453–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jespersen-Groth J, Potthoff D, Clausen J, Huisman D, Kroon LG, Maróti G, Nielsen MN (2007) Disruption management in passenger railway transportation. Tech. rep., Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Kliewer N, Mellouli T, Suhl L (2006) A time-space network based exact optimization model for multi-depot bus scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 175(3):1616–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lettovsky L (1997) Airline operations recovery: an optimization approach. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  16. Li JQ, Borenstein D, Mirchandani PB (2007) A decision support system for the single-depot vehicle rescheduling problem. Comput Oper Res 34(4):1008–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li JQ, Mirchandani PB, Borenstein D (2007) The vehicle rescheduling problem: model and algorithms. Networks 50(3):211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li JQ, Mirchandani PB, Borenstein D (2009) A lagrangian heuristic for the real-time vehicle rescheduling problem. Transp Res Part E Logis Transp Rev 45(3):419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Löbel A (1997) Optimal vehicle scheduling in public transit. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  20. Pillac V, Gendreau M, Guéret C, Medaglia AL (2013) A review of dynamic vehicle routing problems. Eur J Oper Res 225(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Psaraftis H (1988) Dynamic vehicle routing problems. Veh Routing Methods Stud 16:223–248Google Scholar
  22. Psaraftis HN (1995) Dynamic vehicle routing: status and prospects. Ann Oper Res 61(1):143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Teodorovic D, Stojkovic G (1995) Model to reduce airline schedule disturbances. J Transp Eng 121(4):324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Juhász Gyula Faculty of Education, University of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations