4.6 Article

A bidirectional quasi-moving block cellular automaton model for single-track railways

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.127327

关键词

Single track railway; Quasi-moving block; Cellular automata; Train control system

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71861024]
  2. Major Research Plan of Gansu Province, China [21YF5GA052]
  3. 2021 Gansu Higher Education Industry Support Plan, China [2021CYZC-60]
  4. Educational Department of Gansu Province, China [GSSYLXM-04]
  5. United Fund of Lanzhou Jiaotong University
  6. Tianjin University, China [2021057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a bidirectional quasi-moving block cellular automaton model for single-track railways to simulate the impact of quasi-moving block on the passing capacity. The simulation is conducted using the Naqu-Lhasa section of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway as an example. The results show that adjusting the mixed ratio and stop time of freight trains under the quasi moving block can improve the passing capacity, and it is recommended to minimize the distance between stations in the preliminary line design.
In this paper, a bidirectional quasi-moving block cellular automaton model for single-track railways is proposed to simulate the impact of quasi-moving block on the passing capacity of single track railway. The rules of train departure, meeting, entering the station and running in the section are formulated and the Naqu-Lhasa section of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway is taken as an example for simulation. The results show that, under the quasi moving block, with the changes of the mixed ratio and stop time of freight train, the passing capacity is improved compared with the currently adopted automatic inter-station block. Besides, it is found that the passing capacity is the largest under equal station spacing conditions, indicating that the distance between stations should be minimized in the preliminary line design. (C) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据