No abstract

This research paper explores the manner in which passenger rail transit organizations plan for and manage unplanned service disruptions through an international survey of practices. The research reported here included semistructured interviews of those staff responsible for service disruption management within 71 international transit agencies. Results suggested that 20% of agencies had parallel transit systems that could be used by commuters whose service was disrupted. Most of these systems existed in inner-city contexts. Track intrusions, medical emergencies, weather extremes, and track and rolling stock failures were common causes of unplanned disruptions. Bus bridging was the most common response to line blockages, while transfer of passengers to the next train was the most common approach to individual rolling stock failures. Track crossovers were widely seen as critical to manage responses to disruptions. A small minority, mostly in cold climates, also saw crossovers as a cause of unplanned failures. Most agencies used spare buses as bus-bridging vehicles. Only 45% actively retracted buses from existing scheduled bus services. Some of these agencies did acknowledge that retraction often was done in extenuating circumstances, however. Rarely did agencies have a strategic reserve of buses for bus-bridging purposes. This paper discusses the implications of the study findings for further research and practice. This paper also documents that all responses to unplanned disruptions can be categorized according to the key disruption characteristics of duration, cause, time, and location, and it provides a typology of response mechanisms on the basis of such characteristics.

No abstract

This paper explores the importance of providing track crossovers in addressing the issue of replacement bus services in response to unplanned rail service disruptions by using a case study in Melbourne, Australia. Crossovers determine the point from which rail replacement bus services can operate and thus are critical in determining the scale, costs, and benefits of rail disruption management. Despite research evidence that provision for crossovers is important in managing rail disruption, the research literature gives little guidance concerning how it can be achieved and what the relative costs and benefits of providing crossovers are. Theoretical modeling evaluated passenger and operator impacts of alternative crossover plans for a case study of unplanned service disruptions on a suburban rail line in Melbourne. Results showed that an additional crossover reduced user rail disruption costs by 78% to 96%, while bus hire costs were reduced by 63% to 93%. Results suggested that only a few rail disruptions annually would make the provision of track crossovers financially viable on the basis of savings in rail replacement bus service costs. Research found that locating crossovers as close as possible to areas of major disruption provided the most benefits for users and operators. Sensitivity tests showed that even with significantly lower ridership and a lower frequency of disruption, the addition of crossovers was financially positive and generated substantial user benefits. All highlighted results are with respect to the one suburban rail line under analysis. Provision of additional track crossovers appears to be a highly positive means of reducing costs and improving services. However, research indicates that crossovers can cause disruption on some rail systems, and this factor needs to be considered in rail planning.

No abstract