Downloaded from orbit.dtu.

dk on: May 08, 2024

Developing the UIC 406 Method for Capacity Analysis

Khadem Sameni, Melody; Landex, Alex; Preston, John

Published in:
Proceedings for 4th International Seminar on Railway Operations Research

Publication date:
2011

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):
Khadem Sameni, M., Landex, A., & Preston, J. (2011). Developing the UIC 406 Method for Capacity Analysis. In
Proceedings for 4th International Seminar on Railway Operations Research http://www.iaror.org

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
 You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
 Developing the UIC 406 Method for Capacity Analysis
Melody Khadem Sameni
Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment
University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

Alex Landex
Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark,
Bygningstorvet 116V, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

John Preston
Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment,
University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
This paper applies an improvement cycle for analysing and enhancing capacity utilisation
of an existing timetable. Macro and micro capacity utilisation are defined based on the
discrete nature of capacity utilisation and different capacity metrics are analysed. In the
category of macro asset utilisation, two methods of CUI and the UIC 406 are compared
with each other. A British and a Danish case study are explored for a periodic and a non-
periodic timetable: 1- Freeing up capacity by omitting the train that has the highest
capacity consumption (British case study). 2- Adding trains to use the spare capacity
(Danish case study). Some suggestions are made to develop meso indices by using the
UIC 406 method to decide between the alternatives for adding or removing trains.

Keywords
Railway capacity, UIC 406, CUI

1 Introduction
Privatization of European railways, concerns for the environment and sustainability,
higher fuel costs and road congestion have resulted in enormous growth in railway
passenger and freight in the past decade [3, 32]. This has not been matched by enough
increase in capacity, making railway networks more and more saturated. Many European
railways are struggling to accommodate necessary train services on their limited
infrastructure or tackling ‘the railway capacity challenge’. In this regard, efficient
management and planning for measuring capacity and enhancement measures are needed.
To improve capacity utilisation and allocation, an improvement cycle is needed as shown
in Figure 1.

1
 Define railway
capacity

Measure capacity
utilisation

Analyse capacity
utilisation

Improve capacity
exploitation

Control

Figure 1 - DMAIC improvement cycle for railway capacity based on [35].

Railway and road are two modes of transportation that face capacity constraints on
their main infrastructure as well as their nodal bottlenecks; hence comprehensive
overview of capacity is very much needed. Table 1 compares the status of capacity
manual for these two modes of transportation. Contrary to road transportation, many
aspects of railway capacity have not been systematically explored and as expressed by
TRB Rail Capacity Joint Subcommittee, the need for railway capacity manual is felt [19].

Table 1- Capacity manual for road and railway transportation.

Road Railway
Name Highway Capacity Capacity leaflet
Manual
Published by Transportation International Union of
Research Board (TRB) Railways (UIC)

First edition 1950 2004

Latest edition 2010 2004
Number of pages >500 24

This paper analyses the improvement cycle for railway capacity utilisation and makes
some suggestions for possible improvements of current practices. Different definitions of
railway capacity and lean capacity utilisation are explored. Strengths and weaknesses of

2
current capacity metrics are discussed. Two major analytical methods of UIC 406 [31]
that is used in continental Europe and Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI) [10]which is used
Great Britain are compared. In the later sections methods to enhance capacity utilisation
are studied in two case studies.

2 Defining Railway Capacity

The first step toward improving the utilisation (and exploitation) of the railway
infrastructure is to define railway capacity. When railway capacity is defined, it is
possible to develop methods to measure it. However, unlike other modes of transportation,
there is no unique definition for railway capacity. In this section current major definitions
of capacity are provided, the discrete nature of capacity utilisation is discussed and a new
approach is suggested toward defining the railway capacity.

2.1 Definitions of Railway Capacity

Railway capacity is the outcome of close interaction between different subsystems of the
railway: rolling stock, infrastructure and timetable that link these together as shown in
Figure 2.

This complex interaction has been expresses through different definitions:

• “Capacity is the level of traffic (i.e. number of trains per day) that a rail line
can accept without exceeding a specified limit of queuing time”. [24]
• “The ability of the carrier to supply as required the necessary services within
acceptable service levels and costs to meet the present and projected
demand.” [15]

Figure 2- Parameters in railway capacity [18]

3
 • “Capacity is the highest volume (trains per day) that can be moved over a
subdivision under a specified schedule and operating plan while not
exceeding a defined threshold.” [17]
• “Line capacity is the maximum number of trains that can be operated over a
section of track in a given period of time, typically 1 hour.” [30]
• “Capacity is measured as the count of valid train paths over a fixed time
horizon within an optimal master schedule”. [12]
• “The maximum number of trains that may be operated using a defined part of
the infrastructure at the same time as a theoretical limiting value is not
reached in practice.” [11]
• UIC [31] has concluded that: “A unique, true definition of capacity is
impossible.”

UIC [31] states that railway infrastructure capacity is a trade-off between the number
of trains, heterogeneity, average speed and quality of service (stability). This is due to
discrete nature of capacity utilisation which is discussed is the following section.

2.2 Discrete Nature of Capacity Utilisation

Passengers and freights cannot use the railway infrastructure directly; they are packed into
batches of trains. Railway capacity is used in discrete steps (as opposed to road capacity
that can be continuously used till it is saturated at a standstill level). These discrete steps
can be taken in various ways and different combinations of train types, speed and levels of
service. This explains why International Union of Railways has concluded that “Capacity
as such does not exist” and “Railway infrastructure capacity depends on the way it is
utilised”[31]. However, there can be indirect measures of defining capacity and how
utilising it generates added value. Value is an expression of “the relationship between
function and resources where function is measured by the performance requirements of
the customer (such as quality of service) and resources are measured in materials, labour,
price, time, etc. required to accomplish that function” [26].

Analysis of railway network can be done at different levels of macro, meso and micro as
described in detail by Erol et al.[16] and Gille et al. [13]. It is also important to consider
different levels of capacity utilisation. Hereby we define two categories for it:

• Macro capacity utilisation : Quantity of discrete steps to use railway capacity

(e.g. the number of trains)

• Micro capacity utilisation: Quality of discrete steps to use railway capacity (e.g.
Load factor)
To efficiently utilise the railway capacity, both aspects should be considered.

2.3 Lean Capacity Utilisation

Having a purely macro or micro approach toward capacity would not lead to efficient
capacity utilisation: Too much effort for micro capacity utilisation would lead to
overloading and neglecting it would cause capacity challenges at macro level where the
network is saturated while some trains have very low load factor.

4
 An example of this was described by Smith [28] for some train services in the south of
England:

• Overloading at peak hours (125–150 percent)

• Overall load factor: 25 percent
• Many empty seats being hauled around off-peak
• Hauling empty seats long distances to satisfy short distance demand (e.g.
South West Trains from Weymouth and Exeter to meet the Woking demand)
• Trains carrying few passengers around the fringes of country while there is
overcrowding in the central parts of the network.

To avoid waste of capacity, it is important to consider how value is generated by using

the capacity of infrastructure and define capacity accordingly. Figure 3, schematically
shows a simplified version of capacity utilisation. Therefore, railway capacity can be
defined as “the ability of infrastructure to generate value by moving passengers (or
freight) toward their destination”. Formulae (1) and (2) encompass this concept.

Distance

Micro capacity Destination

utilisation n

Passengers

d
S Macro capacity
utilisation
Origin
α

Time

Figure 3- Lean capacity utilisation.

Lean capacity utilisation = f (macro capacity utilisation × micro capacity utilisation) (1)
Lean capacity utilisation = f (n × d × tan (α )) = f (n.S ) (2)

The area marked as S in Figure 3, resembles blocking stairs and how macro capacity
consumption is calculated by the UIC 406 and CUI methods. This definition of capacity
has also some similarities with the concept of ‘traffic energy’ as defined by Hertel [13]
where he defines traffic energy as traffic flow (number of trains per unit of time)
multiplied by average speed [23]. This definition of capacity suggests to add an element
of micro capacity utilisation (like load factor) to the above mentioned approaches.

5
3 Measuring Capacity Utilisation
Railway infrastructure is a scarce and expensive resource which should be allocated and
utilised as efficiently as possible. Capacity utilisation should be quantified to analyse how
well it is utilised.

3.1 Analysing Metrics of capacity utilisation

Different metrics can be used for measuring capacity utilisation. Dingler [7] has recently
studied current metrics for measuring capacity of a freight railway mainly for North
America. Here, Dingler’s [7] approach is continued to analyse metrics of capacity
utilisation for passenger services in three main categories of throughput, quality of service
and asset utilisation. Strengths and weaknesses of each type of metric are briefly
summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Analysing metrics of capacity utilisation. Based on [7] and [16]

Category Examples Description Strengths Weaknesses
Throughput Number of How many Easily Does not
M trains, train-km passengers can measurable and reflect
a be transported understandable quality of
c over a period of service
r time
o
M Number of
ic passengers,
r Passenger-km,
o seat-km
Level of service Average delay, Measures Important for Indirect
percentage of reliability and general public measure
cancelled or timeliness heavily
late trains (e.g. depends on
Public how
Performance saturated the
Measure in network is.
Great Britain) Does not
take
scheduled
waiting time
and
timetable
supplements
into account
which are a
waste of
time for
passengers
Macro Asset Capacity Estimating how Important to A measure
utilisation Utilisation saturated the estimate how of macro
Index (CUI), network is efficiently the capacity

6
 Total time infrastructure is utilisation,
utilisation of utilised does not
infrastructure reflect the
(UIC 406 actual value
method), of trains,
Number of load factor
trains per km of and how
infrastructure in close the
a given time passengers
period are standing
(micro
capacity
utilisation)
Micro asset Load factor Estimating how Important to A measure
utilisation crowded the estimate how of micro
passenger trains efficiently the capacity
are rolling stock is utilisation,
utilised and the does not
level of reflect how
comfort for saturated the
passengers network is
(macro
capacity
utilisation)

3.2 Comparing UIC 406 and CUI Timetable Compression Methods

The quality of timetable determines how well capacity is utilised and how stable the
operation is. Extensive research has been carried out on different aspects of scheduling
and rescheduling trains, punctuality, reliability and stability of timetables which have been
reviewed by Cordeau et al.[5] Tornquist [29], Hansen and Pachl [11] and Lusby et al.[20].

The major characteristics of timetables and how they affect capacity utilisation are
illustrated in Table 3. Scheduled waiting time and punctuality are respectively defined as
“An artificial increase in the overall timing of a train which is caused by the resolution of
conflicts during the scheduling process” and “The percentage of trains which arrive at
(depart from, pass) a location with a delay less than a certain time in minutes” [11].

Heterogeneity of traffic is caused by variations in speed and stop patterns as well as

variations in headways. To measure heterogeneity, speed ratio has been defined by
Krueger [17] and sum of shortest headway reciprocals was suggested by Vromans et al.
[33]. Landex [18] proposes to use the ratio of the headway at departure station ( htD,i ) to the
following headway ( htD,i +1 ) multiplied by the ratio of headways for arrival at stations ( htA, i
and htA,i +1 ). To provide a formula independent of number of trains, the result is divided by
the number of headways minus 1 ( h N −1 ).

7
   D D   A A 
 min  ht ,i ; ht ,i +1  × min  ht ,i ; ht ,i +1  
∑   hD D   hA A 
  t ,i +1 ht ,i   t ,i +1 ht ,i  
Heterogeneity = 1 − (3)
h N −1

Table 3- Major timetable characteristics and capacity utilisation

Scheduled
waiting time
Average waiting
[23] [13] time
Relative sensitivity

Maximum
of waiting time
Max

Min

Capacity
LF
Traffic
energy

Traffic flow
Recomme
nded area

Uneconomic Loss of
area customers

Heterogeneity Number of trains

Maximum number of trains
Based on [18]

Minimum number of trains

Heterogeneity
0 1

8
Punctuality

[1]

The less time the infrastructure is idle can be an indirect measure of how well it is
utilised. Therefore, timetable compression methods try to figure out the ratio of time that
infrastructure is effectively used compared to the total available time.
The UIC 406 method has successfully been applied in several European railways.
Höllmüller and Klahn [14], Wahlborg [34], and Landex [18] apply the UIC 406 method to
Austrian, Swedish, and Danish railway networks respectively.
Confessore et al. [4] combine a discrete event simulation approach with the UIC 406
compression method to calculate the commercial capacity of a line in Italy (measured in
number of trains). The general workflow is shown in Figure 4. In the simulation phase
they cover factors that are not accommodated in the optimization phase mainly stochastic
traffic perturbation.

Figure 4 - Simulation-based approach to capacity assessment [4].

9
 Lindner and Pachl [19] provide some recommendations for improving the UIC 406
method and possibilities of using it in North American railways.
The CUI method is the measure used in the Great Britain for capacity analysis and is
based on the minimum headways derived from Network Rail’s ‘Rules of Plan’[2]. Train
paths are squeezed together up to minimum headway times. There are two types of
headway times used: fast and slow. The fast headway time is used when the preceding
service does not stop at that station otherwise the slow headway time should be used for
timetable compression.

CUI method is the measure used in the UK for capacity analysis and it based on the
minimum headways derived from Network Rail’s ‘Rules of Plan’. Train paths are
squeezed together up to minimum headways. There are two types of headways used: fast
and slow. Fast headway is used when the preceding service does not stop at that station
otherwise the slow headway should be used for timetable compression. [2]

Timetable
compression

a) CUI method [9].

.

b) UIC 406 method [18]

Figure 5 - Timetable copression methods.

10
 The results of timetable compression according to the UIC 406 and CUI methods are
compared for a small case study in the South of Great Britain between Southampton
Central station and Basingstoke and for the trains that move towards London Waterloo.
The timetable was compressed for the morning peak hours from 7:00 am to 10:00 am.
Results from timetable compressions for the case study are illustrated in Figure 6 and
Figure 7.

Comparing the results it is seen that the average capacity utilization index by the CUI
method is 1.6% higher than the UIC 406 method (Table 4). This can be explained by the
fact that in the CUI method, minimum headway is considered at the node, while in the
UIC 406 method the minimum headway is considered for a link. However, to generalize
the results, more case studies are needed. Parts of the nodal capacity constraints are
roughly considered using the CUI method, e.g. longer headway times are set when there is
a change from quadruple tracks to double tracks at Shawford station. Therefore, the
capacity utilisation from Shawford to Winchester link is considerably higher than the UIC
406 result.

Eastleigh
St. Denys

Southampton Swaythling Southampton Shawford Winchester Waller’s Micheldever Worting Basingstoke

Central Airport Parkway Ash Junction

35.5% 30.5% 32.2% 31.6% 35.5% 42.7% 31.6% 31.6% 33.8% 27.2%

Figure 6 - Timetable compression according to the CUI method.

Eastleigh
St. Denys

Southampton Swaythling Southampton Shawford Winchester Waller’s Micheldever Worting Basingstoke

Central Airport Parkway Ash Junction

30.1% 39% 28.6% 30.5% 40% 21.8%

Figure 7 - Timetable compression according to the UIC 406 method.

Table 4 - Comparing UIC 406 and CUI results for a casestudy.

Mean Maximum

UIC 406 31.6% 42.7%

CUI 33.2% 40%

11
4 Analysing and improving Capacity Utilisation
By using the UIC 406 method and the related feature in version 6 of RailSys [25], the
capacity utilisation for a British and a Danish case study are analyzed. Some suggestions
are made to develop the UIC 406 method as a meso capacity analysis tool for determining
which train to remove for freeing up capacity and which train to add for using spare
capacity.

4.1 South West Main Line case study in Great Britain: freeing up capacity

The British case study as mentioned above is South West Main Line which is one of
the congested routes in Great Britain’s railway network. The route is a major commuter
route to London and is also critical for freight traffic from Port of Southampton. [22]

As Figure 8 shows, current passenger loading levels are near capacity and the
projected demand shows that it would be over capacity in 2030 [6]. The percentage of
passengers standing during the morning peak period (7:00 am to 10:00 am) in the trains
operated by South West Trains is the second highest in Great Britain (17%) [21]. Table 5
and Figure 9 illustrate how capacity utilisation adds up as more trains merge towards
London Waterloo.

Figure 8- South West Main Line region according to Route Utilisation Strategy [1] and
loading factor between Southampton Central and Worting during morning peak hours [4].

12
 There is a sudden jump in capacity utilisation from Shawford to Winchester due to the
change from quadruple tracks to double tracks. During the morning peak period, there are
no freight trains, and due to platform restrictions at London Waterloo station, no more
passenger trains can be added during the morning peak hours. An interesting fact is that
average capacity utilisation per train (capacity utilisation divided by number of trains) is
around 1%, although the length of line section incrementally increases. It starts from
1.04% and reaches 1.96% for the line section from Southampton Central to Worting (10
stations).

Table 5- Capacity utilisation from Southampton Central station towards London Waterloo
during morning peak hours
Capacity Capacity Number of Average
utilisation utilisation from trains (7:00 capacity
from Southampton am- 10:00 utilisation
previous Central am) per train
station to this (Cumulative)
station
(Individual)
St. Denys 30.1% 30.1% 29 1.04%
Swaythling 21.2% 33.5% 31 1.08%
Southampton 20.7% 36.3% 31 1.17%
Airport Parkway
Eastleigh 24.7% 43.2% 31 1.39%
Shawford 28.6% 55.6% 39 1.43%
Winchester 30.5% 70.5% 40 1.76%
Waller’s Ash 30.9% 77.8% 40 1.95%
Micheldever 27.8% 81.1% 41 1.98%
Worting 31.6% 84.3% 43 1.96%

90.00%
81.10%
80.00% Cumulative
Individual 77.80%84.30%
70.00% 70.50%
60.00%
55.60%
50.00%
33.50% 43.20%
40.00%
28.60% 30.90% 31.60%
30.00% 30.10% 36.30%
30.50% 27%
20.00% 24.70%
21.20%20.70%
10.00%
0.00%
Ea ay
t P ng

h
er
d

g
ys

er
h

As
ig

tin
or

st
kw

ev
li
en

le
h

or
e
aw

ld
r's
yt

ar
.D

st

ch

W
he
a

le
Sh

in
Sw
St

al

ic
W
or

M
rp
Ai
on
pt
am
h
ut
So

Figure 9- Capacity utilisation for the morning peak hours (7:00 am – 10:00 am)

13
 If it is intended to remove a train to free up some capacity, the decision can not be
solely made upon macro capacity utilisation (i.e. how much a train blocks the
infrastructure). Table 6 shows some examples for capacity utilisation after omitting trains.
Micro capacity utilisation (i.e. load factor) should also be considered. Therefore the
following methodology is suggested:

1. Calculating capacity utilisation for each scenario of omitting a train.

2. Developing a meso capacity utilisation criteria.
3. Calculating the meso capacity utilisation index for each scenario.
4. Choosing the best alternative.

Table 6- Capacity utilisation after omitting a train

Capacity Meso capacity
Utilisation after index after
omitting the omitting the
Train Type Name Origin Destination train train
170_1x2C 1754 2R26 TOTTON ROMSEY 83.3% 2
220_1x4C 13 4M71 SOTON CLPHMJC 80.7% 1.1
220_1x4C 2105 3B92 STDENYS BSNGSTK 81.8% 1.6
220_1x4C 2386 1T26 PHBR WATR 81.2% 1.3
442_1x5C 1595 1B26 POOLE WATR 67.5% 0.3
442_2x5C 2276 1B32 SOTON WATR 79.2% 2

Different meso capacity utilisation indexes can be proposed. Hereby we suggest using the
following for this case study:

Micro capacity lost

Meso capacity index = (3)
Macro capacity gained by omitting the train

ncl
Meso capacity index to free up capacity = (4)
Cb − C a
Cb : Capacity utilisation before omitting the train
Ca : Capacity utilisation after omitting the train
n cl : Number of carriages lost

In this regard, the numerator considers how much micro capacity would be lost and the
denominator considers how much macro capacity would be freed up by omitting the train.
The number of carriages for different trains varies between 2 to 10. As the time period
considered was for morning peak hours, the load factor of all trains was considered high
and only the number of carriages is used. However, more complicated indexes can be
developed according to the distribution of loading factor during the peak hours.

Calculating this meso capacity index for all trains, it can be advised which train is the

14
‘weakest link of the chain’, the one with the lowest meso capacity index. For this case
study, the ‘weakest link of the chain’ was the stopping train from Poole to London
Waterloo (1B26).

4.2 Suburban railway network case study in Denmark: using spare capacity

The UIC 406 capacity method can not only calculate the capacity utilization but can
also examine how many extra trains that can be operated. This is done by adding more
trains to the timetable after the timetable compression and gives an indication of how
much extra capacity will be used. However, the methodology does not describe which
type of trains should be added to the timetable. To analyse the sensitivity of the UIC 406
method when adding more trains, the line section from Holte to Hellerup (Figure 10) on
the Copenhagen suburban railway network is analysed.

The line section form Holte to Hellerup has two train routes – E and B – that are
operated in a fixed interval timetable [27] with a 10 minute frequency each. The operation
from Holte to Hellerup is heterogeneous as train route B stops at all stations while train
route E skips 5 stops. The analysis covers a 12 hour period from 6:30 to 18:30 where the
line section has a capacity utilization that has been calculated to 75.5%.
With no quality factor it is examined how many trains that can be added to the
timetable in this 12 hour time period. The results are either:

• 62 extra B trains or
• 45 extra E trains or
• 21 B trains and 22 E trains alternately (43 trains in total) or
• 22 E trains and 21 B trains alternately (43 trains in total)

Figure 10- The analysed section from Holte to Hellerup. Based on [8]

15
 Figure 11- Blocking time stairs of B and E trains and safety overlap for E trains

With a difference of up to 19 trains in the analysis period, the result shows that the
UIC 406 method is highly sensitive to which kind of trains that is added to the compressed
timetable. If the two train routes are added alternately, the fewest trains can be added due
to the heterogeneity. However, the difference between the two train routes B and E when
added homogeneously is more surprising as the difference is 17 trains. The reason for this
big difference is that train route E arrives to Holte from Hillerød station while train route
B starts from Holte. When train route E arrives at Holte station it reserves a safety overlap
after the exit signal (Figure 11) resulting in a long block occupation time which is not
necessary for train route B that turns around at the station (at a separate platform track).

As discussed above, for adding extra trains there are different options possible. Purely
based on macro capacity utilisation, it can not be advised which to choose. Therefore a
meso capacity index is needed. For the scenario of adding trains, the following meso
index is suggested:
Micro capacity gained
Meso capacity index to add trains = (5)
Macro capacity lost

n et
Meso capacity index to add trains = (6)
C a − Cb
Ca : Capacity utilisation after adding extra trains
Cb : Capacity utilisation before adding extra trains
n et : Number of extra trains

Further meso capacity indices (e.g. by considering load factor) can be developed to
decide how to add extra trains. Alternatives that yield higher meso capacity indices are
more efficient which in this case study would be options with more B trains.

16
5 Conclusions
Different aspects of the railway capacity and improvement cycle, from definition to
analysing, improving and controlling capacity utilisation, need to be explored more
comprehensively and systematically like the Highway Capacity Manual. The nature of
railway capacity is even more complicated than road capacity as it is a multidisciplinary
area. In this paper, major definitions of railway capacity are studied and the concept of
lean capacity utilisation is suggested by differentiating between macro and micro capacity
utilisation. Ignoring each of these aspects would result in a waste of capacity and
resources and/or a low quality of service. Current metrics of capacity utilisation all have
strengths and weaknesses which are discussed. The UIC 406 method and the CUI method
by compressing the timetable estimate how much the infrastructure as a resource is not
idle. The results of these two methods are compared with each other for a case study. Both
methods generate close average capacity utilisation while the CUI method generates some
1% higher average as it considers headways times at nodes which encompass part of nodal
capacity constraints.

For analysing and improving capacity exploitation, two case studies are done: 1-
Freeing up capacity by omitting the train that has the highest capacity consumption (South
West Main Line between Southampton Central and Worting in Great Britain). 2- Adding
extra trains to use the spare capacity (line section form Holte to Hellerup in Denmark).
Solely based on macro capacity utilisation, the decision can not be made regarding which
trains to add or to remove. Therefore some meso indices are suggested to extend the UIC
406 method as a tool for making decisions in such cases.

References
[1] Abril, M., et al., An assessment of railway capacity. Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2008. 44(5): p. 774-806.
[2] Armstrong, J., I. Hood, and J. Preston. Automating the Production of Train
Graphs and the Calculation of CUI Values in 3rd International Seminar on
Railway Operations Modelling and Analysis. 2009. Zurich, Switzerland.
[3] Association of train operating companies, Ten-year European Rail Growth
Trends. 2007: London.
[4] Confessore, G., et al. A simulation-based approach for estimating the
commercial capacity of railways in Winter Simulation Conference 2009. Austin,
TX, USA.
[5] Cordeau, J.F., P. Toth, and D. Vigo, A survey of optimization models for train
routing and scheduling. Transportation Science, 1998. 32(4): p. 380-420.
[6] Department for Transport, Delivering a sustainable railway. 2007: London.
[7] Dingler, M., Understanding the Impact of Operations and New Technologies on
Railroad Capacity, in Civil Engineering. 2010, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign: Urbana-Champaign, USA.
[8] DSB, Trains in Denmark (Tog i Danmark). 2009.
[9] Faber Maunsell. Recalculating the Capacity Charge Tariff for PR2008. 2007
12/08/2010]; Available from:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/strategicbusinessplan/charg
es/faber%20maunsell%20capacity%20chargetariff%20report%20%20october%2

17
 02007%20.pdf.
[10] Gibson, S., Allocation of capacity in the rail industry. Utilities Policy, 2003.
11(1): p. 39-42.
[11] Hansen, I.A. and J. Pachl, eds. Railway timetable and traffic. 2008, Eurailpress:
Hamburg.
[12] Harrod, S., Capacity factors of a mixed speed railway network. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2009. 45(5): p. 830-841.
[13] Hertel, G., Die maximale Verkehrsleistung und die minimale
Fahrplanempfindlichkeit auf Eisenbahnstrecken. ETR, 1992. 41(10): p. 665–671.
[14] Höllmüller, J. and V. Klahn, Implementation of the UIC 406 capacity calculation
at Austrian railways, in 1st International Seminar on Railway Operations
Modelling and Analysis, I.A. Hansen, et al., Editors. 2005: Delft, The
Netherlands.
[15] Kahan, A.M., Railway capacity analysis and related methodology 1979,
Canadian transport commission: Ottawa/Hull, Canada.
[16] Khadem Sameni, M., et al. Profit-Generating Capacity for a Freight Railroad. in
90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 2011. Washington,
D.C., USA.
[17] Krueger, H. Parametric modelling in rail capacity planning. in 1999 winter
simulation conference. 1999.
[18] Landex, A., Methods to estimate railway capacity and passenger delays, in
Department of Transport. 2008, Technical university of Denmark: Kgs. Lyngby.
[19] Lindner, T. and J. Pachl, Recommendations for Enhancing UIC Code 406
Method to Evaluate Railroad Infrastructure Capacity, in 89th Transportation
Research Board annual meeting. 2010: Washington, USA.
[20] Lusby, R., et al., Railway track allocation: models and methods. OR Spectrum,
2009.
[21] Network Rail, Network Rail Initial Strategic Business Plan - Control Period 4
2006: London.
[22] Network Rail, Route Plans - South West Main Line. 2009: London.
[23] Pachl, J., Railway Operation and Control. 2nd ed. 2009, Mountlake Terrace
(USA): VTD Rail Publishing.
[24] Peat Marwich and Partners, Passenger service costing, the impact of
freight/passenger interference on capacity and cost, in Prepared for transport
Canada. 1977: Montreal.
[25] RMCon. RailSys information brochure. 2009; Available from:
http://www.rmcon.de.
[26] SAVE, Value standard and body of knowledge. 2007, SAVE International: USA.
[27] Schittenhelm, B. Identification of timetable attractiveness parameters by an
international literature review. in Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg
University. 2008. Aalborg, Denmark.
[28] Smith, D., Timetabling is the culprit in ‘empty seats’ problem, in Rail
Professional. 2009, Rail Professional Ltd: Cambridge
[29] Tornquist, J., Computer-based decision support for railway traffic scheduling
and dispatching: A review of models and algorithms, in 5th Workshop on
Algorithmic Methods and Models for Optimization of Railways. 2005.
[30] Transportation Research Board, Rail Transit Capacity, in Transit capacity and
quality of service manual. 2003: Washington, US.
[31] UIC, Capacity (UIC code 406). 2004, International Union of Railways (UIC):

18
 Paris, France.
[32] UIC, Rail transport and environment ; facts and figures. 2008, International
Union of Railways (UIC).
[33] Vromans, M.J., R. Dekker, and L. Kroon, Reliability and Heterogeneity of
Railway Services. European Journal of opeational research, 2004. 172(2): p. 647-
665.
[34] Wahlborg, M., Applicationof the UIC Capacity leaflet at Banverket in 1st
International Seminar on Railway Operations Modelling and Analysis, I.A.
Hansen, et al., Editors. 2005: Delft, The Netherlands.
[35] Wisner, J.D., K.-C. Tan, and G.K. Leong, Principles of supply chain
management : a balanced approach. 2009, Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.

19