Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOsman, Mohd Haniff Bin
dc.contributor.authorJack, Anson
dc.contributor.authorKaewunruen, Sakdirat
dc.contributor.authorSussman, Joseph M
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-12T13:25:41Z
dc.date.available2017-07-12T13:25:41Z
dc.date.issued2016-10
dc.identifier.issn18777058
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/110654
dc.description.abstractTrack inspection is purposely performed to recover tracks from defects and damage and eliminate potential safety hazards. It is scheduled through an exhaustive process that usually integrates many disciplines such as optimization, statistics, risk management, etc. Spending so much of a monetary and an emotional investment in an original schedule (referred to as master schedule hereafter) that the scheduler wants to deliver might be a good excuse not to develop a solid ‘Plan B’. Plan B here refers to scheduler responses or a contingency plan when the master schedule does not go as expected. It is found that there is often low to moderate probability of a crisis occurring when a schedule is executed in a real environment. Nevertheless, its impact can leave transportation services to the mercy of the disruption as shown by the Christmas 2014 incident where a huge volume of passengers using King's Cross and Paddington services experienced both inconvenience and discomfort due to engineering delays and train disruption. Thus, this paper aims to discuss the potential of considering ‘Plan B’ or contingency plan if incidents arise that were not expected during track inspection schedule execution. Benefits, general guidelines and relevant strategies for creating a contingency plan are also discussed. We highlight the rationale to support the claim that an original schedule of track inspection jobs should be adapted to respond to a new context e.g. inspection vehicle machine breakdown, new inspection requests, man-made hazards, terrorist attack, extreme weather, climate change, etc. It is however proposed to develop an appropriate set of performance measure that is used to guide rescheduling in track inspection due to financial, equipment inventory, manpower, safety regulations, time and spatial constraints.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission (H2020-RISE Project No. 691135)en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.549en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceElsevieren_US
dc.titleNeed and Opportunities for a ‘Plan B’ in Rail Track Inspection Schedulesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationOsman, Mohd Haniff Bin, Sakdirat Kaewunruen, Anson Jack, and Joseph Sussman. “Need and Opportunities for a ‘Plan B’ in Rail Track Inspection Schedules.” Procedia Engineering 161 (2016): 264–268.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.mitauthorKaewunruen, Sakdirat
dc.contributor.mitauthorSussman, Joseph M
dc.relation.journalProcedia Engineeringen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsOsman, Mohd Haniff Bin; Kaewunruen, Sakdirat; Jack, Anson; Sussman, Josephen_US
dspace.embargo.termsNen_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2153-3538
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6941-2124
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CCen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record