Konstruktion av framtidsrobusta trafikupplägg

• Main Author: Zhang, Yujin
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: KTH, Transportplanering, ekonomi och teknik 2015
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-191158

The timetable planning process in Sweden today can be considered as an annual process. The process dictates that operators who wish to claim capacity on the national rail network should apply for it in April the year prior; capacity claim in this case means both operating railway traffic and also possession. The current timetable planning process implies that the operators’ general production planning process is also annual one because the infrastructure manager (Trafikverket in Sweden) only has to inform the operators about definite infrastructural changes one year at a time. The consequence of this is that an operator could not be certain of the definite conditions more than a year at a time and it is fully possible that a certain route may receive a supplement two years in time that will cause an established traffic system to collapse and thus needing to revise the production plan for that year. The aim of this degree project is to examine whether it is possible to generate a model or process chart to enable production planning several years ahead in time. The model should be able to take infrastructural changes into account and therefore guaranteeing the sustainability of a certain traffic system over a number of years. The degree project will use the Mälarbanan project as a case study. The method applied for the degree project is to first introduce the topic of timetable planning (chapter 2). Because the timetable planning process is harmonized within greater parts of EU and follows certain standards, the processes in Switzerland and the Netherlands will also be described in chapter 2 and finally compared to the process in Sweden enlightening the differences. After having described the general process, the report will shift focus to focusing on how to construct such a model that fulfills the aim of the project (chapter 3). Much of the material and arguments made in chapter 3 are directly gathered from the author’s own professional experience as a traffic planner at SJ AB meaning that certain terms used in the chapter will also be SJ-specific. The author believes however that the process chart itself is applicable to any railway operator within the frames of Trafikverket’s timetable planning process. Chapter 4 of the report is dedicated to the Mälarbanan case study where the focus is set on describing the infrastructural conditions and how the model created in chapter 3 should be applied to Mälarbanan. The main result of the degree project is a process chart describing how a railway operator should plan its production several years in time given the infrastructural conditions today. The main result from the Mälarbanan case study is the assessment of two different traffic scenarios proposed at the moment. Because the Mälarbanan case study is still an ongoing investigation within SJ AB no definite conclusions and recommendations could be made at the time of this degree project’s submission.