Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-8
Selection of the best alternative of railway traction for passenger transportation using the analytic hierarchy process method distributive and ideal modes
The rail industry uses a variety of traction types for passenger transport, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The renewal and development of a country’s rolling stock is aimed at selecting the optimal strategy and practical means to achieve the best result. A quantitative analysis of the different rail traction alternatives and the selection of the best alternative allows the optimal development strategy to be identified. The aim of this study is to present a methodology for assessing the quality criteria of traction rolling stock for rail passenger transport and to select the best traction alternative based on these criteria. This study has developed a framework of nine factors (criteria) that affect the quality (serviceability) of rolling stock. The significance of the criteria in terms of their normalised relative weights was calculated using rank correlation and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methods. The study used the judgements of 22 experts whose opinions were in agreement. The AHP method was used to compare four types of traction for each criterion: diesel (DT), electric contact (ET), battery electric (BT) and hydrogen (HT). The novelty of research – distributive and ideal modes of the AHP method were used to evaluate all types of traction for selection the best alternative among them according to the original formulae provided by the authors. The results show that the agreed opinions of the expert team, expressed as normalised relative weights, have the highest mean values for ET (0.3866 and 0.3808). The second highest ranking is for BT (0.2164 and 0.2239). DT (0.2160 and 0.2060) is not far behind. The lowest ranking is that of HT (0.1810 and 0.1893). It can therefore be concluded that ET is the best traction alternative for passenger transport. The results of the study may prove useful for decision makers in the field of rolling stock fleet development strategy and dynamics.
BotteMD’AciernoLPasqualeAD, et al.Optimal motion of a rolling stock fleet under traction power system constraints. IEEE Trans Transp Electrific2023; 9(1): 1554–1563.
3.
RadhakrishnanRSchenkerM. Optimization algorithm for minimizing railway energy consumption in hybrid powertrain architectures: a direct method approach using a novel two-dimensional efficiency map approximation. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2024; 238(7): 765–774.
4.
YangSLiuC. Discrete modeling and calculation of traction return-current network for 400 km/h high-speed railway. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2023; 237(4): 445–457.
LiXZhuCLiuY. Traction power supply system of China high-speed railway under low-carbon target: form evolution and operation control. Elec Power Syst Res2023; 223: 109682.
7.
YuanJPengLNiZ, et al.Research on voltage comprehensive compensation system and control strategy of high-speed railway traction network. Energy Rep2023; 9: 732–741.
8.
WuQColeCMcSweeneyT. Applications of particle swarm optimization in the railway domain. Int J Real Ther2016; 4(3): 167–190.
9.
SunXLinSFengD, et al.Post-disaster repair optimization method for traction power supply system of electrified railways based on train operation loss. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2024; 250: 110301.
10.
CheYLyuXWangX. Time sequence three-phase probabilistic power flow calculation for power system including traction station load of high-speed railway. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst2023; 152: 109222.
11.
WangYLiuJGouJ, et al.Optimization method of power supply mode and connected to external power grid of CZ railway traction station. Energy Rep2023; 9: 1201–1210.
12.
DincelENakHAkkayaŞ, et al.Robust control of railway traction system. IFAC-PapersOnLine2018; 51(25): 171–177.
13.
KapetanovićMNúñezAvan OortN, et al.Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of traction alternatives for regional railways. Energy Convers Manag2024; 303: 118202.
14.
PribulaDDolinayováAKendraM. Alternative propulsion in railway passenger transport – the way to green transport. Transp Res Procedia2024; 77: 43–50.
15.
XuXKentSSchmidF. Carbon-reduction potential of electrification on China’s railway transport: an analysis of three possible future scenarios. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2021; 235(2): 226–235.
16.
PopovichNDRajagopalDTasarE, et al.Economic, environmental and grid-resilience benefits of converting diesel trains to battery-electric. Nat Energy2021; 6(11): 1017–1025.
17.
KamelTAmorPPolaterN, et al.Development of a smart hybrid drive system with advanced logistics for railway applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy2024; 52: 559–576.
18.
CoombeDFisherPHoffrichterA, et al.Development and design of a narrow-gauge hydrogen-hybrid locomotive. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2016; 230(1): 181–192.
19.
DingDWuXY. Hydrogen fuel cell electric trains: technologies, current status, and future. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science2024; 17: 100255.
20.
XuZZhaoNYanY, et al.Hydrogen supply chain for future hydrogen-fuelled railway in the UK: transport sector focused. Int J Hydrogen Energy2024; 86: 1–13.
21.
ZhangYYuJZhaoN, et al.Particle swarm optimization for a hybrid freight train powered by hydrogen or ammonia solid oxide fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy2024; 72: 626–641.
22.
PuHCaiLSongT, et al.Minimizing costs and carbon emissions in railway alignment optimization: a bi-objective model. Transp Res D Transp Environ2023; 116: 103615.
23.
RuvioABayrakO. A preliminary design of a hybrid train’s on-board batteries for a 25 kV-50 Hz high speed railway line. J Energy Storage2024; 84: 110966.
24.
GurrìSSantacaterinaEGuarreraM, et al.Driving modal shift on low-traffic railway lines through technological innovation: a case study in Piedmont (Italy) including hydrogen fuel-cells as an alternative. Transp Res Procedia2023; 69: 99–106.
25.
AlkharabshehAMoslemSDulebaS. Evaluating passenger demand for development of the urban transport system by an AHP model with the real-world application of amman. Appl Sci2019; 9(22): 4759.
26.
StenströmCParidaALundbergJ, et al.Development of an integrity index for benchmarking and monitoring rail infrastructure: application of composite indicators. Int J Real Ther2015; 3(2): 61–80.
27.
DulebaS. An AHP-ISM approach for considering public preferences in a public transport development decision. Transport2019; 34(6): 662–671.
28.
PishdarMGhasemzadehFMaskeliūnaitėL, et al.The influence of resilience and sustainability perception on airport brand promotion and desire to reuse of airport services: the case of Iran airports. Transport2019; 34(5): 617–627.
29.
TothADPadayacheeJVilakaziS, et al.Analytic hierarchy process methodology in part selection for fused deposition modelling in the South African railway industry. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2023; 237(6): 725–733.
30.
FengDLinSHeZ, et al.A technical framework of PHM and active maintenance for modern high-speed railway traction power supply systems. Int J Real Ther2017; 5(3): 145–169.
31.
MaskeliūnaitėLSivilevičiusH. The model for evaluating the criteria describing the quality of the trip by international train. Technol Econ Dev Econ2014; 20(3): 484–506.
32.
FischerTReinoldSLichtenbergM, et al.Farewell diesel: on the way to climate neutrality using alternative drives and fuels in rail passenger service and rail transport. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2024; 238(3): 284–291.
33.
MaskeliūnaitėLMeilusLSivilevičiusH. Application of expert evaluation methods in determining the significance of criteria for usability of railway traction rolling stock. Transport2023; 38(2): 77–86.
34.
FarhanJFwaTF. Pavement maintenance prioritization using analytic hierarchy process. Transp Res Rec: J Transport Res Board2009; 2093(1): 12–24.
35.
KendallMDickinsonGJ. Rank correlation methods. 5th ed.Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 272.
36.
MaskeliūnaitėLSivilevičiusH. Identifying the importance of criteria for passenger choice of sustainable travel by train using ARTIW and IHAMCI methods. Appl Sci2021; 11(23): 11503.
37.
MontgomeryDC. Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
38.
SivilevičiusHMartišiusM. The significance of the factors increasing the asphalt pavement recycling rate in the country, determined using multiple-criteria decision-making methods. Appl Sci2023; 13(22): 12226.
39.
SaatyTL. Analytic hierarchy process. In Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Wiley, 2005.
40.
LiaoMSDingJFLiangGS, et al.Key criteria for evaluating the green performance of ports. J Test Eval2016; 44(4): 1791–1801.
41.
ŠakalysRSivilevičiusHMiliauskaitėL, et al.Investigation and evaluation of main indicators impacting synchromodality using ARTIW and AHP methods. Transport2019; 34(3): 300–311.
42.
TahaHA. Operations research an introduction. New Jersy: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2011.
43.
SaatyTLVargasLG. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2012, vol 175.
44.
FarhanJFwaTF. Pavement maintenance prioritization using analytic hierarchy process. Transp Res Rec: J Transport Res Board2009; 2093(1): 12–24.
45.
SivilevičiusHBražiūnasJPrentkovskisO. Technologies and principles of hot recycling and investigation of preheated reclaimed asphalt pavement batching process in an asphalt mixing plant. Appl Sci2017; 7(11): 1104.
46.
SachsL. Statistische auswertungsmethoden. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1972.
47.
ShinHSYuJWDadvarS, et al.Statistical evaluation of different sample sizes for local calibration process in the highway safety manual. Transp Res Rec: J Transport Res Board2015; 2515(1): 94–103.
48.
NavikasDSivilevičiusHBulevičiusM. Investigation and evaluation of railway ballast properties variation during technological processes. Constr Build Mater2018; 185: 325–337.
