RTC = "Rail Traffic Controller" Railroad Operations Modeling / Simulation Software

 Takes a rather expensive laptop or desktop to run it, too.  Unless you want to wait a week for an answer and hope the computer doesn't crash in the meantime.

RWM

Paul:
Thanks for the link.  Boy, that sure was fun.  Good thing they dont have a "lite" version of that as I wouldnt get much work done.

RWM, is that used as a simulator for projections and "what ifs" or is it used in conjunction with railroad operations?  Which brings me to another question...how are dispatchers monitored and graded for their work?  Are there simulations run (daily or as needed) with supervisors grading or critiquing the dispatcher?

Which brings up another question.  At what point will a dispatcher simply line up the trains and monitor the artificial intelligence handle the movement of trains over a district???? or is that how it works now.

The visuals on the website were interesting, particularly the Chicago Rail Improvement Study with actual rail lines in Chicago.

Back in the day, it was always interesting to spend time in towers where you really captured the feel of a railroad.  It was much more interesting than being trackside with a camera.  Of course the ideal was being in a tower with a camera.

Do you ever see the time this kind of information would be available for the casually interested person? I doubt it because of security issues, but look at the availability of information now vs 10, 20 and 30 years ago. 

ed

$45K per seat? Given the obviously small size of the target market, that may be a bargain.

Or not. Guess you won't go out and pick up a copy at your local Office Depot, though.

MP173

Paul:
Thanks for the link.  Boy, that sure was fun.  Good thing they dont have a "lite" version of that as I wouldnt get much work done.

RWM, is that used as a simulator for projections and "what ifs" or is it used in conjunction with railroad operations?  Which brings me to another question...how are dispatchers monitored and graded for their work?  Are there simulations run (daily or as needed) with supervisors grading or critiquing the dispatcher?

Which brings up another question.  At what point will a dispatcher simply line up the trains and monitor the artificial intelligence handle the movement of trains over a district???? or is that how it works now.

The visuals on the website were interesting, particularly the Chicago Rail Improvement Study with actual rail lines in Chicago.

Back in the day, it was always interesting to spend time in towers where you really captured the feel of a railroad.  It was much more interesting than being trackside with a camera.  Of course the ideal was being in a tower with a camera.

Do you ever see the time this kind of information would be available for the casually interested person? I doubt it because of security issues, but look at the availability of information now vs 10, 20 and 30 years ago. 

ed

RTC is used to:

1. Test the capacity of a given set of infrastructure and train configurations (length, hp/ton, train speed regimes)
2. Determine optimal running times and fuel burns for an "unconstrained" train (no train meets or other events en route.
3. Determine effects of changes in track geometry such as increasing curve unbalance or reducing curve degrees.
4. Determines effects of changes in FRA track class or Method of Operation on running times and line capacity.
   
5. Compare performance of different trains or vehicles on the same territory.
6. Determine the level of infrastructure necessary to obtain a desired level of train performance (quantity of recrews, train delay minutes, etc.)
7. Determine net occupancy times for roadway at-grade crossings and rail-rail at-grade crossings, and times of day those occur.
8. Test proposed schedules for a railway that is operated on a rigid schedule, such as a subway or commuter rail line, for their feasibility, recovery capability, and locations of meet/pass events.

RTC is not used to try to model or preplan a freight railway or mixed freight/passenger railway on a daily or real-time basis.  It's not feasible.  It takes far too long to run the model for each new set of desired parameters; the model cannot account for all the unpredictable stuff that happens in real time all the time; and the model only seeks out one reasonably possible set of meet-pass events.  It doesn't create the best possible case -- that would take a very large supercomputer and a lot of time because there are billions of possible combinations to test even in a simple case.  In fact, the model often does a lot of dumb stuff.  One of the things I do is look over the results to see if the results look like something that is real, or not real.

RTC does not replace a human dispatcher, nor is it or other expert software systems likely to any time soon.  Software can just now beat most humans most of the time in extremely simple rules-bases, non-variable systems such as chess and checkers.  Railway dispatching is the most complex thing I've ever done, if it's to be done well.  Several railways and CAD manufacturers tout their "auto-route" features.  All these are are simple meet-pass event tools that have only 1 or 2 degrees of freedom.  They can't plan more than two events in advance.  A train dispatcher on a typical single-track railway might be planning 10 events in advance.  I'm not enough of a mathematician to calculate how many possibilities that creates but it is a lot.

No, you're not going to see model outputs. Not due to security concerns (it would be useless).  But because the information is far too proprietary because it tells you a lot about the railway's pricing power.  Adverse RTC models are run, by the way ...

RWM

So who generally owns or licenses the RTC software?  Is it consulting/engineering firms or the actual railroads?  My guess is the consultants/engineers.

Does the purchase price include the data or nodes for each line, or is that individually loaded for a segment of line?  What about the actual testing of capacity issues?  Are actual events used (such as real trains with actual hp/tonnage/length, etc) or are these hypothesized? 

RWM, why determine the optimal times for unconstrained trains?  What is that purpose?  Is it for determining a baseline of costs for operations?

What are "adverse RTC models"? 

Finally, proprietary costing issues...are those more dangerous in the hands of competitors or customers?  My guess is the railroads all know the costs involved for operating not only their segments, but the competitors.

ed

MP173

RWM, why determine the optimal times for unconstrained trains?  What is that purpose?  Is it for determining a baseline of costs for operations?

ed

When you determine the optimal times for unconstrained trains, you are essentially finding the upper bound on a performance measure, i.e., that's the best you can do. This is a very important piece of information when putting together the bigger picture, knowing that what you probably will do is going to be worse than that.

MP173

So who generally owns or licenses the RTC software?  Is it consulting/engineering firms or the actual railroads?  My guess is the consultants/engineers.

The Class 1s.  A few of the big commuters.  A couple of consulting firms that have a rail operations specialty practice.  A couple of independent experts.  The STB.  The FRA.  A couple of research arms of the industry, federal government, etc.

Does the purchase price include the data or nodes for each line, or is that individually loaded for a segment of line?

No.  That's 100% user input.  It's expensive to do it -- $1,000 a mile is a ballpark number.  Once you do it for a line you save it, because you do not want to do it twice.

What about the actual testing of capacity issues?  Are actual events used (such as real trains with actual hp/tonnage/length, etc) or are these hypothesized? 

Both historic actuals and proposed future, and blends of both.

RWM, why determine the optimal times for unconstrained trains?  What is that purpose?  Is it for determining a baseline of costs for operations?

Chuck answered that nicely.  It's provides a base line for delay not cost.  

What are "adverse RTC models"? 

One you do of someone else's railway for rate cases.  Or other disputes.

Finally, proprietary costing issues...are those more dangerous in the hands of competitors or customers?  My guess is the railroads all know the costs involved for operating not only their segments, but the competitors. 

No comment.

Railway Man

MP173

Does the purchase price include the data or nodes for each line, or is that individually loaded for a segment of line?

No.  That's 100% user input.  It's expensive to do it -- $1,000 a mile is a ballpark number.  Once you do it for a line you save it, because you do not want to do it twice.

I was wondering about the cost of inputting the data with respect to the software - so for more than 45 miles the cost of inputting data exceeds the cost of one seat of the software - which doesn't really surprise me.

Thanks for the data point!

- Erik 

$1000/per mile.  That is certainly expense data, but as someone once said "knowledge is good".

How detailed is the input data?  Certainly it would include all grade crossings, bridges, etc, but does it include MOW information such as weight and age of rail, the last resurfacing, etc?

I can see where RTC would be valuable for analyzing and potentially eliminating bottlenecks by eliminating restricting speeds, adding or lengthening sidings, adding crossovers (upgrading crossovers), adding additional revenue to a line, etc.  Hard decisions can be made on capex based on ROI. 

How does it account for terminal activities and delays?  Is that all input data?

Is it even used for ROW improvement windows?  Decisions on the types of motive power to be leased/purchased?

How are outlier events handled?  Are Monte Carlo simulations used?

MP173

Certainly it would include all grade crossings, bridges, etc,

Yes.

but does it include MOW information such as weight and age of rail, the last resurfacing, etc?

No.  Not important, only the effect (ie slow orders or track speed) would be entered.

How does it account for terminal activities and delays?  Is that all input data?

Terminal delays can be input and the entrance time varied for each train.

Is it even used for ROW improvement windows? 

Yes.

 Decisions on the types of motive power to be leased/purchased?

Generally no, but it will tell you how changes in the HP assigned to a train affect the operation.

RTC is very slow to run (there is a LOT of things going on), it runs one scenario that the user has set up, it runs exactly the scenario the user has set up, optimizing the set of speed restrictions, physical constraints, train mix, train sizes, entry times and scheduled delays the user has entered.

You set up the base case (normally present case), run the simulation.  Then set up a case with the changes you want to measure (new track, increased HP, new signals, different train size, etc) and run the simulation again.  Compare the results. 

There are additional software packages to measure/simulate train handling and fuel consumption and for network car flow.

Regarding "adverse RTC models": 

Yesterday (04-07-2009) over on the "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates" thread there was a little analysis of the UP's ex-SP route from Colton, Calif. to El Paso, Texas (approx. 792 miles) in terms of the amount of 1 main track (292 miles, 38.3 %) vs. 2 main tracks (470 miles, 61.7 %), based on a list of 18 segments - ranging from 1 to 275 miles in length - which apparently change from 1 to 2 main tracks and back to the other again approx. 15 times over that distance.  For the details, see Page 14 of 15 (currently) of that thread, at:

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/120779.aspx?PageIndex=14 

This morning (04-08-2009) I posed the following 2 comments there, as part of the discussion with john edwards:

" Now, onto a more interesting (to me, anyway) aspect of this, as follows:

Suppose I'm a BNSF executive looking at this publicly available data, and thinking about how it affects the competitive positions of BNSF with UP (ex-SP) on that route, roughly from Texas to LA, or that portion of a longer TransCon route.  What I realize is that UP has to add about 292 miles of 2nd track to be entirely 2 main tracks, including at the Colorado River crossing.  At $1 million per mile - which may be low since most of the easy parts are probably done already - that's a $300+ million capital expenditure for that alone.  That's a significiant chunk of UP's annual CapEx budget - they could probably do it in a single year, but only by deferring other more routine items or adding that amount to the budget.  More importantly, I think it's hard - for a variety of reasons - for most railroads to gear up to install more than around 100 miles of new track per year.  So as a BNSF exec, I'd say that I have a "time window" of 3 to 5 years until this route has enough capacity to be a competitive threat.  As a result, during that 3 to 5 year period BNSF would have a decided advantage on this route in capacity and hence in market dominance, and most importantly, in pricing power.

Any comments or further thoughts on this ?"

His - john edwards - response:

"I think there was a Fred Fairley article in Trains a few years ago that discussed this.  IIRC the gist was that even if UP was double tracked all the way from LA to Chicago via El Paso there was a couple hundred mile disadvantage to BNSF's transcon.  So they could get the slow stuff but not the real fast ($) traffic.  But then again if the economy/rail traffic does what the experts say in a few years it may not matter as both systems will be going at full steam.  (Hey, its a train forum)"

And my reply:

"It may not matter in terms of capacity - both will be full up, in that scenario - but it will matter in terms of revenues.  BNSF could look at UP's route, and estimate UP's cost structure - see the discussion of "adverse RTC model runs" at the several posts dated 04-07-2009 over on the "RTC = "Rail Traffic Controller" Railroad Operations Modeling / Simulation Software" thread - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/151535.aspx (Page 1 of 1).  Then, BNSF could set its rates just a little below UPs likely rates = inherently likely well above BNSF's costs due to that couple hundred mile disadvantage, knowing that UP can't really undercut BNSF too much without UP losing money on the traffic.  Thus, BNSF can make a "super-profit" on that traffic (and my IRA account will thank BNSF, too !)."

Anyone here can to join in with any views on this ?

- Paul North.

Thanks Dave.

Is it an accurate simulator, in your opinion?

ed

MP173

Thanks Dave.

Is it an accurate simulator, in your opinion?

ed

Simulation and reality are not the same thing.  It's a powerful tool.  Tools have limitations.  It's not reality, it's just a way of measuring reality.  An appropriate analogy is the road maps distributed (back in the good old days) by the oil companies.  It will help you get to where you need to go, but it won't drive the car for you.

What I keep having to explain to people who have never been around railway operations is that RTC is only one possible scenario in a world of billions of possible scenarios.  It uses a set of "rules" for determining meet-pass events for trains that are not remotely as sophisticated as what a human can do (nor as badly as a very poor train dispatcher), but what it does do, it does consistently. 

RTC does not model anything other than what you tell it to model, and the real world is filled with variations that are unpredictible in their time of occurrence, nature, effect, and scope.  If you build a model that "proves your trains run" on a given infrastructure, and actually expect the real railway to run just like that, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I can mimic the RTC model on paper.  All it consists of is a set of meet-pass events based on a set of rules for those events, on a given infrastructure, with given train characteristics.

RWM

MP173

Decisions on the types of motive power to be leased/purchased?

For commuter and passenger rail operations, yes. 

How are outlier events handled? 

Input whatever you want -- work window, train delay, whatever.  But because outlier events are by their nature unpredictible, this is fairly meaningless unless it is a regular event such as a work window.

Are Monte Carlo simulations used?

Not in the model software itself.  It's not an appropriate vehicle.  You are not trying to model reality, you are simply trying to reduce a week's worth of paper calculations for one scenario to a 10-minute model run, so that you can compare one scenario with another scenario.  This is not a magic black box tool, it's a paperwork reduction device.

Ed, your questions are quite similar to everyone else's about RTC.  You and everyone else is hoping that someone will invent a device that predicts and measures unpredictibility down to the level of specific events -- a device that would tell you exactly when to sit at the 21 table, push $100,000 in chips out there, and the next hand would guaranteed be a 21 against a dealer's bust.  But all I can tell you is how often, on average, that will happen.  You'll have to sit at the table and play a lot of losing hands to make the averages work out for you.  The world is filled with events of random occurrence.  There are averages for events (e.g., a big meteorite hits Siberia once every 100,000 years and flattens 100,000 acres), but the exact timing of when that event will happen you cannot predict without knowing the position, speed, energy, and condition of every atom in the universe, and then know what every whim every human and every animal is going to have, years in advance.  If you want to model any event in RTC such as the effects of a grade-crossing collision, you can do that.  But all that tells you is the effects of your own design.  It doesn't tell you about any other design, because how could it do that?

RWM

RWM:

Thanks for the very detailed explanations.  The overview of the system seems pretty sound, but has limitations...as does any type of modeling, forecasting, or budgeting.

Obviously the extreme situations are hard to plan for, or budget for.  That is for Warren Buffett and other risk managers (AIG excluded).  By "outliers" I meant more in the line of heavy freight tonnage, extra movements, etc.  I didnt word it well.

Rare is any business operation that runs like clockwork according to plan.  Extreme economic conditions (both busy and slow) are tough to plan for....and dont we know that now!

Anyway, it sounds like a great tool and the explanation offers insite into the planning world.  It sure makes the EJE/CN bottleneck easier to understand, at least as to how it was developed.

Thanks to all,

Ed

Paul:

I see your point on the Sunset/Transcon routings.  Your scenario has probably been worked and reworked several times, by both UP and BNSF.  It all goes back to what RWM and others have stated about the best geographical route...I need to pickup Vance's book sometime.

But, has it been determined that the BNSF routing is the better of the two? 

And, which would you rather have...the high priority UPS fliers or the heavier stack trains?  That is where the simulation could help determine your marketing mix as it applies to costs, pricing, etc. 

Of course, if we have the "lost decade" that Japan experienced, it wont matter for awhile.

ed

MP173

Is it an accurate simulator, in your opinion?

Is it a duplication of real events?  No.  The simulation world is the perfect world.  Trains accelerate at their optimum rate,they brake at the optimum time, the trains are met and crossed over in a best case fashion.

Does it simulate it well enough that you can measure the difference in operation between two scenarios and make an educated decision between the two alternatives?  Yes.

Railway Man

MP173

So who generally owns or licenses the RTC software?  Is it consulting/engineering firms or the actual railroads?  My guess is the consultants/engineers.

The Class 1s.  A few of the big commuters.  A couple of consulting firms that have a rail operations specialty practice.  A couple of independent experts.  The STB.  The FRA.  A couple of research arms of the industry, federal government, etc.

Does the purchase price include the data or nodes for each line, or is that individually loaded for a segment of line?

No.  That's 100% user input.  It's expensive to do it -- $1,000 a mile is a ballpark number.  Once you do it for a line you save it, because you do not want to do it twice.

 I'm pretty interested in computer simulation software, so I googled up
a couple articles.  Footnote at the bottom will help you chase them.

This is pretty impressive stuff.  

I have a remark based strictly on computer software principles.  I
assert that there is a software engineer's opportunity here.

The RTC program - at least the version I've read about - demands
extensive input preparation.  

A paper ("Meetpass") signed by Shughart discusses RTC and other
similar, saying of RTC "Very detailed, and complex input data
requirements requiring days of analyst effort".  $1000 per mile in
RWM's estimation.

Is it possible that problem generation is the "rate determining" fact
that constrains analysis studies?  

I suggest that the value of RTC might be much enhanced if there were a
computerized assist for this task of problem generation.  This would be
no small project - would require software engineering skills as
professional as the people who built the simulator.  

If it really happened that problem generation became "simple" then
myriad more runs could be made.  Simulation studies could be used in
different ways if they were "cheap".

John


Footnotes
google "Rail Operations Analysis Methodology"
google "Dingler 9-12-08"
http://www.innovativescheduling.com/files/meetpass_presentation.pdf