Journal of the Operational Research Society (1998) 49, 1130±1145 #1998 Operational Research Society Ltd.

d. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/98 $12.00

http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/jor

Maintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a

genetic algorithm
C Sriskandarajah1, AKS Jardine2 and CK Chan2
1
University of Toronto and 2Mass Transit Railway Corporation, Hong Kong
We have developed a Genetic algorithm (GA) for the optimisation of maintenance overhaul scheduling of rolling stock
(trains) at the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC). The problem is one of combinatorial optimisation.
Genetic algorithms (GAs) belong to the class of heuristic optimisation techniques that utilise randomisation as well as
directed smart search to seek the global optima. The workshop at MTRC does have dif®culties in establishing good
schedules for the overhaul maintenance of the rolling stock. Currently, an experienced scheduler at MTRC performs this
task manually. In this paper, we study the problem in a scienti®c manner and propose ways in which the task can be
automated with the help of an algorithm embedded in a computer program. The algorithm enables the scheduler to
establish the annual maintenance schedule of the trains in an ef®cient manner; the objective being to satisfy the
maintenance requirements of various units of the trains as closely as possible to their due dates since there is a cost
associated with undertaking the maintenance tasks either `too early' or `too late'. The genetic algorithm developed is
found to be very effective for solving this intractable problem. Computational results indicate that the genetic algorithm
consistently provides signi®cantly better schedules than those established manually at MTRC. More over, we provide
evidence that the algorithm delivers close to optimal solutions for randomly generated problems with known optimal
solutions. We also propose a local search method to recon®gure the trains in order to improve the schedule and to balance
the work load of the overhaul maintenance section of the workshop throughout the planning horizon. We demonstrate that
the recon®guration of trains improves the schedule and reduces cost signi®cantly.

Keywords: maintenance scheduling; rolling stock; optimisation; genetic algorithms

Introduction machine or equipment is concerned with an economic

trade-off between the overhaul and the unit production
Maintenance management is an important function as
cost.6 In deterministic maintenance problems, the machines
industries=service organisations are making an effort to
are not subject to failure but their unit production costs
increase productivity and product=service quality to be
increase with usage. Several research papers have been
competitive in the global market place. Preventive main-
devoted to provide mathematical models of these type of
tenance is undertaken to keep equipment in a speci®ed
problems in various manufacturing=service contexts (see for
condition, taking into account both the cost of undertaking
example Jardine).6,7
maintenance activities and the consequence of equipment
Kralj and Petrovic8,9 provided a review of various
failures. Therefore, the scheduling of maintenance activ-
models that have been developed to solve the problem of
ities is an important topic since smart scheduling will
maintenance scheduling for energy generator units in
reduce the overall maintenance budget.
electric power systems. A majority of the literature formu-
Comprehensive bibliographies for classical scheduling
lates the problem as an integer program and devises a
problems appear in the works of Conway et al,1 Baker,2
branch and bound algorithm for its resolution. Escudero10
Lawler et al,3 Pinedo4 and others. The literature, however,
presented a large scale mixed integer programming model
does not cover the area of maintenance scheduling but is
to determine the optimal maintenance schedule of produc-
focused on manufacturing settings. The work by Paz and
tion units under the time allocation and labor assignment
Leigh5 is the ®rst one to review the issues, results and
constraints. Hyunchul et al11 presented a genetic algorithm
research needs concerning maintenance scheduling
combined with simulated annealing techniques for main-
problems that arise in manufacturing=service organisations.
tenance scheduling of thermal units in electric power
They also describe how such problems vary from classical
systems. Christer and Doherty12 obtained the optimal over-
scheduling problems. The overhaul decision regarding a
haul schedule for soaking pits in the steel industry, the
objective of their study being to minimise the total operating
and overhaul costs. The maintenance scheduling problem
Correspondence: Prof C Sriskandarajah, School of Management, Univer- under a deterministic environment for several non-identical
sity of Texas at Dallas, 2601 N Floyd Road, Richardson, Texas 75083-
0688, USA. machines is studied by Sule and Harmon,13 Hariga,14
E-mail: chelliah@utdallas.edu and Duffuaa and Ben-Daya.15 Other works relevant to

maintenance scheduling are those by Chakravarty and
Balakrishnan,16 Anily et al,17 and Banerjee and Burton.18
In this paper we study a complex maintenance schedul-
ing problem of trains providing service in an underground
railway system in Hong Kong. The detailed operational
aspect related to the maintenance scheduling problem is
provided in section 2 while the problem description is
presented in section 3. In section 4, we propose a genetic
algorithm (GA) to solve the maintenance scheduling
problem. The GA is parameterised in section 5. Computa-
tional tests for the maintenance scheduling problem are
described in section 6. In section 7, we propose a local
search method to recon®gure the trains in order to improve
the schedule that saves cost signi®cantly. Finally, in section
8 we concluded the study.
Operational aspects
The Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) of Hong
Kong was established in 1975 to provide an ef®cient,
effective and reliable public transport system in Hong
Kong. The service commenced in 1979. New lines were
added incrementally and existing lines were extended in
stages. At present, the system that is fully operational,
consists of three lines, namely Tsuen Wan (TWL), Kwun
Tong (KTL) and Island Line (ISL). These train lines are
separate but intersect with each other at several inter-
changes. The services are provided seven days a week,
with long operating hours each day. Typically, the service
starts each day at 5:00 am and terminates at around 2:00 am
of the following day. There are about 95 trains in the
system. The minimum number of trains required during the
peak time for TWL, KTL and ISL are 32, 20 and 19,
respectively while for the preferred level of service, the
number of trains required during the peak time for TWL,
KTL and ISL are 34, 26 and 25, respectively. Hence a total
of 85 trains are required for the preferred level of service
during the peak hours. The excess capacity of trains is used
for the purpose of maintenance, emergencies, modernisa-
tion and modi®cation of trains. The maintenance tasks for
the rolling stock (trains) are classi®ed into two categories,
running maintenance and overhaul maintenance. In the case
of running maintenance, each train is pulled out of the line
every 15 days to perform a certain set of maintenance tasks
called an H-check and every 45 days to perform an
additional set of maintenance tasks called an L-check.
The durations of H- and L-checks are about one hour and
six hours, respectively. Each line has its own depot for
performing the running maintenance of trains providing
service in its line. Since the running maintenance does not
consume signi®cant time, trains can be pulled out of the
line regularly, maintained, and put back into service. The
number of trains that can be pulled out at any time from
each line depends on the service demand in that line. A
typical service demand pattern for a line in a day is shown
C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1131
in Figure 1. The MTRC is performing the running main-
tenance task well. They do have dif®culties, however, in
establishing good schedules for the second category (over-
haul maintenance or called C-checks which take between
16 and 22 days at MTRC) which is a very important but
dif®cult scheduling problem to solve. Currently, an experi-
enced scheduler at MTRC performs this task manually. In
this paper, we study the problem in a scienti®c manner and
propose ways in which the task can be automated and
optimised.
Maintenance overhaul scheduling
Annual maintenance overhaul scheduling is an important
function of the workshop at MTRC. The performance of the
MTRC greatly depends on the maintenance overhaul sche-
dule that has to satisfy a number of constraints such as the
number of trains simultaneously maintained is limited,
work force assignment and many others. In dealing with
the scheduling problem, usually one has to incorporate
multiple objectives relating to economic, reliability and
technological concerns. The optimisation criteria consid-
ered here will be described later in this section.
In this paper, we examine a unique and highly challen-
ging maintenance overhaul scheduling problem at the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation. For the purpose
of planning, the scheduling horizon of one year is divided
into days which includes holidays. The train consists of
eight cars as shown in Figure 2. The maintenance require-
ments of each car is brie¯y shown in Table 1. For example,
a car requires a C1-check when it is ®ve years old. The A-
car is the power car that consists of a driving cab and part
of control equipment whereas the B-car is the same as the
A-car but it does not have a driving cab. The C-car which
does not have a driving cab, is also a power car that carries
the pantograph and remaining control equipment. The D-
car which is a non-power car, is known as a trailer. Until
recently, the MTRC had been maintaining their ¯eet, car by
car, known as car based maintenance. In other words, cars
A and C that must be maintained as one unit (AC unit), can
be separated from the train and maintained independently
regardless of the maintenance schedule of other units.
Similarly, cars B and C must be maintained as one unit
(BC unit). Therefore, a train consists of ®ve maintenance
units (or train units), two AC units, one BC unit and two D
units. The front unit of the train is known as AC-odd unit
while the back of the unit is called AC-even.
Recently, the MTRC changed their maintenance policy
from car based maintenance to train based maintenance. In
the latter case, a train is maintained as a single entity. This
policy change creates a dif®cult maintenance scheduling
problem. Due to their previous policy, the various units of a
train actually running in a line may require different main-
tenance requirements at different due dates; see for example
Tables 2 and 3 that are obtained from the date base at
1132 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11

Figure 1 Service demand pattern.

Figure 2 Train.

Table 1 Overhaul maintenance, C-checks

Type Frequency Description

C0-check 2.5 years Train structural inspection.
Train control system calibration/testing.
C1-check 5.0 years Train structural inspection.
Train control system calibration/testing.
Major components servicing.
C2-check 7.5 years All 2.5 years tasks.
Flexible hose hard time replacement.
C3-check 10.0 years All 5.0 years tasks.
Rubber parts except ¯exible hose hard time replacement.
C4-check 12.5 years Same as 2.5 years tasks.
C5-check 15.0 years All 7.5 years tasks.
Gangway skirt hard time replacement.
A/C air duct cleaning.
Fibre glass cab front painting.
C6-check 17.5 years Same as 2.5 years tasks.
 C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1133

Table 2 Example of due dates of a train at ISL sj ˆ start time of maintenance work of job Jj.
fj ˆ completion time of maintenance work of job
Train No. 25 AC-odd AC-even BC D D Jj .
Serial No. 247 264 452 756 757 ak(ij) ˆ earliness penalty of unit i of job Jj requiring
C-check C3 C1 C5 C1 C1 maintenance type k(ij) if fj 4 dij.
Due date 30±4±94 03±5±94 04±4±96 10±8±94 22±7±94 bk(ij) ˆ tardiness penalty of unit i of job Jj requiring
Start date 19±3±94 14±3±95 02±10±95 25±2±94 23±3±95
Finish date 09±4±94 07±4±95 27±10±95 22±3±94 31±3±95
maintenance type k(ij) if fj > dij.
wek…ij† ˆ earliness weight of unit i of job Jj requiring
maintenance type k(ij) if fj 4 dij.
Table 3 Example of due dates of a train at TWL wlk…ij† ˆ tardiness weight of unit i of job Jj requiring
maintenance
 type k(ij) if fj > dij.
Train No. 40 AC-odd AC-even BC D D 1 if fj > dij
Uij ˆ
Serial No. 179 242 443 688 742 0 otherwise.
C-check C4 C3 C4 C3 C2
Due date 18±2±95 27±5±94 29±11±94 30±1±95 07±11±94 The objective function W is the minimisation of the total
Start date 03±6±95 24±2±95 01±7±94 05±7±95 19±12±94 cost of earliness and tardiness (or the total penalty for not
Finish date 20±6±95 30±3±95 12±7±94 18±7±95 29±12±94 satisfying the due dates), where
n P
P v n P
P v
W ˆ Uij bk…ij† … fj ÿ dij † ‡ …1 ÿ Uij †ak…ij† …dij ÿ fj †:
MTRC. Consequently, for the purpose of maintenance, the jˆ1 iˆ1 jˆ1 iˆ1
scheduler has to ®nd a suitable common due date for each …1†
train so that the due dates of individual units do not deviate
too much from the common due date since there is a cost The reason behind the choice of the objective function will
associated with undertaking the maintenance tasks either become clear in the next subsection. Note that the words
`too early' or `too late' (`too tardy'). So we are faced with `job' and `train' which mean the same in the treatment of
the problem of scheduling trains that have to meet the due our scheduling problem, are used interchangeably.
dates of train units as closely as possible. We achieve this by The maintenance duration of each train depends on the
selecting an appropriate objective function which will be maintenance requirements of various units consisting of the
de®ned shortly. train. At MTRC, this duration pj of train Jj is estimated as
We use the following notation: follows:
Pv
n ˆ the number of trains to be maintained in a mik…ij†
planning horizon (one year). pj ˆ iˆ1 ‡ y: …2†
xM
J1, J2, . . . , Jn ˆ the set of trains (jobs) to be maintained in a
planning horizon. The values for mik(ij) are given in Table 4.
v ˆ the number maintenance units in each train x ˆ manhours per day per person ˆ 7.75.
(v ˆ 5, in our case). M ˆ Total number of persons available at the work
k ˆ the maintenance type, where k ˆ 0, 1, . . . , shop ˆ 89.
6. y ˆ Number of days required for recommissioning and
k(ij) ˆ the maintenance type required by unit i of testing of the train at the end of maintenance
train Jj, where k(ij) ˆ 0, 1, . . . , 6. Note that work ˆ 8 days.
k(ij) ˆ 2 means that unit i of train Jj requires
C2-check type maintenance. Note that in the duration of processing the maintenance
i ˆ 1 denotes AC-odd unit. work of a train, all maintenance tasks are performed in the
i ˆ 2 denotes AC-even unit. beginning of the duration while at the end of the duration (8
i ˆ 3 denotes BC unit. days) commissioning and testing are carried out. Due to
i ˆ 4 and i ˆ 5 denote D units. capacity limitation in the workshop, the maintenance sche-
s ˆ {Js(1), Js(2), . . . , Js(n)}, a sequence of dule has to satisfy the important constraint that the number
maintaining the trains. of trains simultaneously maintained is limited to two and
Js(r) ˆ the job in the rth position in the sequence s.
dij ˆ due date of unit i of train Jj. Table 4 Work force requirement (manhours)
qij ˆ serial number of unit i of train Jj. mik kˆ0 kˆ1 kˆ2 kˆ3 kˆ4 kˆ5 kˆ6
mik ˆ work force requirement (in manhours) of
unit i for the maintenance type k. i ˆ 1, 2 581 1314 1256 1314 650 2200 646
iˆ3 581 1314 1256 1314 650 2261 646
pj ˆ the processing time or maintenance duration i ˆ 4, 5 261 400 300 500 300 775 251
(in number of days) of job Jj.
1134 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11

Figure 3 A train maintenance schedule.

their overlap is limited to not more than 8 days. In other cumulative manhours of 7961 units is used if the C0-check
words, the maintenance tasks of a train can be started is done one month early (Table 4). In other words,
during the commissioning and testing period of the train (7.961  1000  z)=30 Hong Kong dollars will be wasted
that is scheduled previously. Therefore, the maintenance for being one month early in this case, where z is the cost of
schedule of trains will take the form as shown in Figure 3 one manhour in Hong Kong dollars. The weight for earli-
which does not include holidays. The workshop functions ness in this case is taken as 7.961 which means the unit
one shift (8 hours) per day. Since the workshop does not weight cost of being one month early is (1000  z)=30.
function during Sundays and public holidays, the schedules Similarly, the weights for all train units for each C-check
that we develop later include holidays for obtaining mean- can be estimated and are given in Table 5.
ingful Gantt charts. It has to be noted that the jobs are not It is dif®cult to estimate the customer service component
split (no pre-emption), that is, when a train is brought to the due to unreliable trains. Since the customer service and the
workshop, the processing of the maintenance work of the cost of maintenance are equally important to MTRC, we
train is not interrupted and all the maintenance tasks for the assume the unit weight cost of being one month late is
train must be ®nished before processing the next job. (1000  z)=30 which is the same as above. Moreover it is
Moreover, in order to maximise the utilisation of workshop natural to provide larger weights to the older units over the
capacity, no idle time is allowed (except holidays and the younger units, power units over non-power units. The
short breaks during the work days) during the processing of weights for lateness are established as in Table 6 after
jobs or in between jobs. intense discussion and consultation with the maintenance
personnel at MTRC. The weights given in Table 6 is
comparable to that given in Table 5. Note that the power
Weighting scheme units (AC, BC) having important components such as trac-
Since it is dif®cult to meet the due dates of all the train tion motors, control systems, are given larger weights than
units in a schedule, we must establish a weighting scheme the non-power unit (D).
that re¯ects the objectives of MTRC and captures the cost Note that the objective function is the minimisation of W,
(penalties) of earliness and tardiness into the objective the total penalty for not satisfying the due dates (see (1)).
function. The scheme is developed in consultation with We need to de®ne the penalties (bk…ij†, ak…ij†) and this will be
the maintenance personnel at MTRC. As can be seen done shortly. Ideally, the MTRC wants to maintain the train
shortly, the weighting scheme provides meaningful penal- units within three months of the due dates. Any deviation of
ties for both earliness and tardiness. more than three months from the due dates is not desirable
Maintaining the train too soon may be costly because of due to the nonlinear nature of the cost (penalty) of being too
the need for extra manpower. Maintaining the train too late early or too tardy. Thus, we further re®ne our weighting
may cause unreliable trains in the system which in turn scheme to take into account the nonlinearity and de®ne the
affects customer service. For example, if a train fails in an
underground tunnel between stations, it adversely affects
the welfare of the passengers. While it is dif®cult to Table 5 Weights if dij 7 fj 4 90
measure the social cost associated with unreliable trains, wek…ik† kˆ0 kˆ1 kˆ2 kˆ3 kˆ4 kˆ5 kˆ6
it is pointed out that both customer service and the cost of
maintenance are equally important to MTRC. Now we i ˆ 1, 2 7.961 7.380 6.066 4.810 3.496 2.846 0.646
iˆ3 8.022 7.441 6.127 4.871 3.557 2.907 0.646
establish an appropriate weighting scheme to penalize the i ˆ 4, 5 2.785 2.526 2.126 1.826 1.326 1.026 0.251
maintenance work of train units being carried out either
`early' or `tardy'. Therefore, the most appropriate objec-
tives in this scheduling problem, are the minimisation of
the total penalty for not satisfying the due dates for being Table 6 Weights if fj 7 dij 4 90
both early and tardy. Firstly, we discuss the penalty of wlk…ik† kˆ0 kˆ1 kˆ2 kˆ3 kˆ4 kˆ5 kˆ6
earliness. Suppose an AC-odd unit requiring C0-check is
maintained one month early. Since the interval between the i ˆ 1, 2 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
iˆ3 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
C-checks are 2.5 years (30 months), all the subsequent C- i ˆ 4, 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
checks will also be due one month early. This means, a

penalties in the following intervals: 0 to 3 month interval, 3
to 6 month interval, 6 to 9 month interval, more than 9
months. The details are as follows (we assume, one
month ˆ 30 days):
If the ®nish time of job Jj is later than the due date and
… fj ÿ dij † 4 90, then the penalty is bk…ij† ˆ wlk…ij† . If the
®nish time of job Jj is earlier than the due date and (dij ±
fj) 4 90, then the penalty is ak…ij† ˆ wek…ij†.
Similarly for 90 < (fj ± dij) 4 180, the penalty is
bk…ij† ˆ 2wlk…ij† while for 90 < (dij ± fj) 4 180, the penalty
is ak…ij† ˆ 2wek…ij† .
For 180 < ( fj ± dij) 4 270, the penalty is bk…ij† ˆ 10wlk…ij† and
for 180 < (dij 7 fj) 4 270, the penalty is ak…ij† ˆ 10wek…ij† .
For 270 < ( fj ± dij), the penalty is bk…ij† ˆ 100wlk…ij† and for
270 < (dij ± fj), the penalty is ak…ij† ˆ 100wek…ij† .
Note that the deviations of ®nish time from due date of
more than 3, 6 and 9 months are penalized by assigning
increasing weights in those intervals.
Related scheduling problems
The standard classi®cation scheme for scheduling problems
(Graham et al.19) can be denoted c1 j c2 j c3 j , where c1
indicates the scheduling environment, c2 describes the job
characteristics or restrictive requirements, and c3 de®nes the
objective function to be minimised. Under c1, we may have
1, a single machine environment where jobs can be
processed on a single machine one job at a time. The
processing of job Jj is pj. Under c2, we may have dj, the
due
P date for job Jj. Under c3, we may wish to minimize
wjT j, the total weighted tardiness P of the problem. The
weight for job Jj is wj. 1 j dj j wjTj denotes the minimisa-
tion of the total weighted tardiness in a single machine
environment where the tardiness, Tj ˆ max{0, fj 7 dj} and fj
is the ®nish time of job Jj in a schedule.P
Note that the classical problem, 1 j dj j wjTj is a special
case of our problem. If we set all earliness weights equal to
zero, the due dates for all ®ve units of each train equal and
bk…ij† ˆ wlk…ij† , i ˆ 1, . . . , v, for each train Jj regardless of the
amount P of tardiness, thenPour problem is equivalent to
1 j dj j wjT j, where wj ˆ P viˆ1 wlk…ij† . Lawler,20 and Lenstra
et al21 show that 1 j dj j wjTj is strongly NP-hard, see
Garey and Johnson22 for related de®nitions. Therefore,
there is no hope of ®nding a polynomial time algorithm
for our problem. Hence, in the next section, we develop a
heuristic optimisation technique known as a Genetic algo-
rithm for solving this combinatorial optimisation problem.
The Earliness=Tardiness problem (E=T problem) which
is well studied in the literature is also close to our problem.
The problem can be stated as follows: a given set of n jobs
to be processed on a single machine with the objective of
®nding a schedule that minimises total early and tardy costs.
Each job Jj has a processing time pj, a due date dj, a linear
C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1135
earliness penalty aj and tardiness penalty bj, Baker and
Scudder23 reviewed the E=T problem literature. A well
studied special case of the E=T problem involves minimis-
ing the total absolute deviations of completion time about a
common due date, that is, aj ˆ bj ˆ 1 and dj ˆ d for all jobs
Jj,24,25 the problem is shown to be NP-hard.25 A more
general model allows earliness and tardiness to be penalized
differently (a 6ˆ b).23 The E=T model gets more complicated
when earliness and tardiness are penalized differently
among the jobs (aj 6ˆ bj all jobs Jj).24 The most general
E=T model in the literature relaxes the common due date
assumption. Each job has its own due date and may have
different earliness and tardiness penalty costs. This E=T
model has been studied by Fry et al,26 Ow and Morton,27
and others. Heuristics have been developed for this problem.
One such heuristic is the sequence by earliest due date rule
(known as EDD). Using an empirical study, Fry et al26
reported the best results for a heuristic that ®rst ®nds an
EDD sequence and then improves the solution by applying a
local search procedure known as adjacent pairwise inter-
changes of jobs. Ow and Morton27 also observed similar
performance of an EDD sequence. All of the above studies
deal with linear penalties. Our problem is much more
complicated than the E=T problem in the sense that each
job consists of ®ve maintenance units having ®ve due dates.
Therefore the simple EDD sequence is not meaningful in
our context. Moreover, units of a train may have different
penalty costs which are nonlinear with respect to the amount
of earliness and tardiness.
In the next section, we describe and illustrate an algo-
rithm (known as a genetic algorithm) based on evolutionary
search methods to tackle our maintenance scheduling
problem. The research into the use of genetic algorithms
for the solution of real world maintenance scheduling
problems is still in its infancy.11 But the application of
genetic algorithms to various ®elds including scheduling is
gaining momentum in the recent years.28
Genetic algorithms
Most of the combinatorial optimisation problems belong to
the class of NP-hard problems for which probably no
polynomial time algorithm can be found.22 This motivated
researchers to develop heuristics for solving large combi-
natorial optimisation problems. Genetic algorithms (GAs)
belong to the class of heuristic optimisation techniques that
utilise randomisation as well as directed smart search to
seek the global optima. The creation of GAs was inspired
by evolutionary processes through which life is believed to
have evolved to its present forms.29 Other such popular
techniques are simulated annealing30 and tabu search.31,32
GAs have been regarded as being more general and ab-
stract than these two other approaches.4 In developing the
1136 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11
heuristics, researchers looked for parallels in other ®elds
and in nature to mimic them. Conceptualised by Holland,33
GAs mimic Darwin's natural evolution of biological organ-
isms. In natural evolution, organisms reproduce through
crossover and mutation, and the ®ttest member of the
population will survive, two ®ttest parents are likely to
produce ®tter progenies (offspring).
GAs have been applied to solve scheduling prob-
lems.28,34,35 When applied to our scheduling problem,
GAs view sequences (of train) as individuals (the candidate
schedules or solutions), which in turn are members of a
population. Each individual (a schedule) is characterised
(merited) by its ®tness (for example, the total penalty for
not satisfying the due dates). Therefore the ®tness of an
individual is measured by the associated value of the
objective function (here the total penalty for not satisfying
the due dates, the smaller the better). The GA procedure
works iteratively (emulating an algorithm) with the
members of the population and each new iteration in the
GA terminology being referred to as a generation.
In the GA environment a generation of individuals
consists of surviving individuals of the previous generation
and some new solutions or progenies from the previous
generation. While the GA is iterating, population size is
usually kept constant from one generation to the next. The
progenies are produced through reproduction, mating by
crossover and mutation of the individuals of the previous
generation (parents).
Emulating their biological heritage, individual solutions
in the GA are also often referred to as chromosomes, their
makeup being unique, consisting of the juxtapositioning of
subchromosomes, or genes, as in biology. It is the presence
of certain subchromosomes or genes that imparts each
chromosome its individual and sometimes unique charac-
teristic. In the current scheduling practice at MTRC, an
experienced scheduler selects about 27 trains that require
maintenance in the next 12 months, and develops an
intuitive schedule manually. Therefore, we de®ned a
vector of 1 27 to represent an organism (chromosome).
We want the vector to contain all the potential 27 trains that
require maintenance in the next 12 months (see Figure 4 for
a chromosome representing a schedule of six trains). The
total penalty for not satisfying due dates measures the
®tness of that organism. The GA begins with a population
of randomly generated vectors where trains are kept in a
random order. Each entry in the vector represents a train
and its maintenance units. The maintenance requirements
of units in each train determines the maintenance duration
of the train. Therefore, a maintenance schedule can be con-
Figure 4 A Chromosome for scheduling six trains.
structed by taking the trains in the order in which they
appear in the chromosome, then ®tness of the schedule can
be evaluated. The ®ttest chromosomes are selected from the
population and reproduced whereby the second generation
is created. Reproduction is through two operations: cross-
over and mutation. In crossover, the two ®ttest chromo-
somes are mated to get two new offsprings. In mutation, a
®ttest chromosome is used to produce offspring by adjacent
pairwise interchange, or three point interchange etc. The
®tness of the offspring is evaluated. Then the weakest
member of the population is killed and others are used to
produce the third generation. This procedure is repeated
until the desired number of generations are created.
`Selection' is a key operation in GA search. Selection in
the context of scheduling may be used to optimise the
objective functions. The purpose of selection is to propa-
gate high ®tness characteristics in the population and to
eliminate from the population the weaker individuals,
keeping the search directed toward the minimization of
the objective functions. One effective way of doing selec-
tion is to select the elite (higher ®tness solutions) in the
population and then reproduce them in proportion to their
relative ®tness.29 A parameter (elite fraction or e) controls
what upper fraction of the population is treated as elite,
many other variations are possible.
It has to be noted that each chromosome must represent a
maintenance schedule of trains without any ambiguity. For
example, consider scheduling six trains according to chro-
mosome given in Figure 4. A schedule representing the
chromosome can be established as shown in Figure 3. Note
that the ®rst entry in the chromosome consist of units
corresponding to the ®rst train scheduled, the second
entry in the chromosome consists of units corresponding
to the second train scheduled, and so on.
Crossover
The `crossover' operator lets suitably chosen pairs of
individuals mate with each other to produce progenies. In
our case, crossover is implemented slightly differently from
the manner it is done in simple numerical optimisation. One
has to worry here about preventing infeasible solutions
(schedules) from being created, using special methods
described below.
Different crossover operators can be used. We use `two-
point' crossover in which two points are randomly selected
for dividing one parent. The elements outside the selected
two points are always inherited from one parent to the
child. The elements inside will be transferred from the
second parent as they appear in the order which is taken
from left to right, two children are produced in this way as
illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.
 C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1137

Figure 5 Parents.

Figure 6 Children.

Mutation achieved by proportional selection. The parents with higher

relative ®tness are used for reproduction with higher
A mutation in a chromosome may be equivalent to an
probabilities. This method is referred to as Roulette
adjacent pairwise interchange in the corresponding
Wheel Parent Selection. As a result, this method gives a
sequence. As the GA iterates, in each generation the `®ttest'
chance to even the weakest member of the population to
individuals reproduce and the least ®t die. The birth, death,
reproduce. Goldberg29 proposes selecting from only a top
and reproduction processes that determine the characteris-
fraction of the population. This is done by assigning a value
tics of the next generation of solutions can be a complicated
for the elite fraction (e). However, our GA considers all the
process. This process is a function of the ®tness levels of
members of the population (that is, e ˆ 1) whereby we give
the individuals of the current generation and the rates of
an opportunity to all members to reproduce in proportion to
mutation, crossover and reproductionÐthe controlling
their relative ®tness, we now write the steps of our GA. In
elements or operators of the genetic evolutionary process.
this procedure, ps stands for population size, pc stands for
`Mutation' is the other operator utilised in the genetic
crossover probability, pm stands for mutation probability,
algorithm, the mutation operator is a mechanism by
and ngen stands for the number of generations desired.
which local search is performed, by introducing small
Crossover probability gives the chance that a selected pair
changes (randomly) in the makeup of an individual. A
of parents will be crossed over. If not crossed over, they
few variations of mutation in seeking optimum schedules
remain as new children in the population. Similarly, muta-
are considered in the literature for scheduling problems, we
tion probability gives the chance that a child obtained by
use the `shift change' mutation. In this mutation, a column
crossover will be mutated.
of chromosome at one position is removed and put at
another position as shown in Figure 7. The two positions
are randomly selected. In Figure 7, the column 6 of child 1
Algorithm GA
is removed and inserted in between columns 2 and 3.
Selection of parents for reproduction requires the inge- Step 1. Initialise ps, pc, pm, ngen, set i ˆ 0
nuity of the GA user. Selecting good parents are likely to Step 2. Generate ps random vectors (sequences of trains)
produce good offsprings. On the other hand currently lesser Step 2.1. Set m ˆ 0
®t parents might produce the best ever offspring. Therefore Step 3. Select two parents from the population randomly
the trade-off between further exploiting promising regions and crossover as explained above to obtain two
of the search space while at the same time also exploring children. m ˆ m ‡ 1.
other regions has to be optimised. This optimisation is Step 4. Mutate the children based on mutation probability

Figure 7 Children.
1138 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11

Step 5. Estimate the ®tness of the children
Step 6. if m < ps=2 go to Step 3.
Step 7. Kill the weakest members of the population and
record the current best sequence and the corre-
sponding objective function value.
Step 8. i ˆ i ‡ 1, if (i ˆ ngen) stop else go to Step 2.1.
As with the parameterisation of GAs, these observations
may be problem-domain speci®c rather than being valid in
all situations. A key challenge in the application of GAs is
the optimisation of the computational effort in balancing
exploration (of the solution space) and exploitation (of the
features of good solutions or sequences produced along the
way). This balance is affected greatly by the choices of the
different GA parameters, including population size (ps), the
probability of crossing two parents (pc), and the probability
of mutation (pm). The problem itself is one of optimisation,
and guidelines here are still rather few.34,36
Parameterisation of the GA
A fundamental result in genetic algorithms, the schema
theorem,29 by itself is insuf®cient to guide the effective use
of GAs in global optimisation. It does not indicate what
speci®c values should be chosen for the different GA
parameters, namely ps, pc, pm, etc., and the different
schemes that introduce a controlled amount of randomness
while the GA is executing. However, it is well known that
the GAs ef®ciency depends to a high degree upon the
selection of these `control parameters'.36 A further compli-
cation exists because it is also widely reported that `opti-
mum parameter settings' may be problem-speci®c, and that
the effects of these parameters may interact. Indeed, Davis36
noted that crossover and mutation effects can interact and
`support each other in important ways'. Moreover, he
observes that a judicious blend of mutation and crossover
does better than either one alone to strike a good balance
between exploration of the total solution space and exploita-
tion of good solutions currently at hand. It is easy to see,
therefore, that the optimisation of ps, pc, pm, etc. itself is a
global search problem and one that must be tackled in the
problem domain of interest, before we apply the GA in a
`production run'. However, we note that rather little care is
extended at the present time to optimising the GA param-
eters, before such production runs are made.
The GA search `process' is controlled by multiple factors
(here starting conditions, ps, pc, pm) whose effects may
possibly interact. It is also a process without a known
response structure. In order to ®nd good parameters, it
would then be natural to study the problem empirically for
the various parameter settings. However, we caution GA
users that the speci®c parameter values arrived at in this
manner may be strongly context-speci®c, and therefore not
valid in all GA applications or even in scheduling applica-
tions involving different problem structures and objectives.
The experimental layout for our maintenance scheduling
application was full factorial, involving three parameters
(factors) with two or three possible values each, judged to
be the likely suitable values. We select typical scheduling
data for year 1996 at MTRC with 27 trains for our
experiment. Each `setting' in these experiments involved
parameterising the GA according to the rows in Table 7 and
then running the GA from certain initial condition for a
given number of generations (here 50), in a pilot run
fashion. The objective value of the best schedule produced
in each such run would be an indication of the parameters'
combined performance. Furthermore, to remove the bias of
the starting sequence, ten randomly produced initial start-
ing (job) sequences were tested in each setting, providing
the necessary replications; these ten starting sequences
were kept unaltered in each of the full factorial settings.
A good combination of parameter values would have two
properties. Firstly, it would produce a lower objective value
average of the best schedules reached in the replicated runs.
Secondly, it would produce these best values with high
consistency, or a lower variance. Therefore, a well-parame-
terised GA would converge towards the global optimum
rapidly, and consistently, regardless of the algorithm's

Table 7 Full factorial results for pilot GA runs for best objective value in 50 generations

Experiment
No. ps pc pm Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Average
1 50 0.8 0.05 359.58 342.32 332.73 349.12 352.45 353.51 357.20 361.40 357.80 336.03 350.21
2 50 0.8 0.10 343.76 355.57 330.22 353.66 345.25 341.30 329.43 340.48 338.02 355.77 343.35
3 50 0.8 0.15 350.13 353.23 347.85 322.76 345.39 338.69 349.03 362.56 339.79 327.10 343.65
4 50 0.9 0.05 348.71 333.91 328.35 351.47 343.00 335.68 361.90 362.70 374.04 352.00 349.18
5 50 0.9 0.10 358.83 345.31 334.49 354.87 358.73 336.74 339.47 353.41 338.84 356.78 347.75
6 50 0.9 0.15 338.33 329.47 348.80 327.61 346.58 343.17 355.09 339.62 343.30 344.14 341.61
7 100 0.8 0.05 344.21 329.22 339.21 338.40 322.09 334.18 325.18 333.88 363.07 340.64 337.01
8 100 0.8 0.10 333.39 347.77 323.01 324.73 331.50 326.29 336.72 323.86 336.77 318.25 330.23
9 100 0.8 0.15 329.84 350.39 328.97 332.32 316.45 326.88 327.22 336.98 329.06 328.94 330.71
10 100 0.9 0.05 332.18 336.23 348.52 324.57 325.53 340.32 351.06 332.14 336.69 330.16 335.74
11 100 0.9 0.10 333.94 340.82 331.17 338.46 312.32 341.51 328.41 338.75 332.39 332.14 332.99
12 100 0.9 0.15 313.92 333.83 332.40 333.09 312.83 326.95 333.98 322.65 344.89 303.40 325.79
 C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1139

starting condition. Consequently, the values ps ˆ 100,
pc ˆ 0.9 and pm ˆ 0.15 were selected as the most appropriate
ones (Table 7). A similar result was obtained for the
scheduling data for the year 1997.
Computational results
As indicated above, our methodology to seek an optimal
job sequence to minimise the total penalty for not satisfying
the due dates involved two stages. The ®rst aimed at
parameterising the GA using pilot runs and a relatively
limited number of iterations. The second stage was the
production run of the GA incorporating the values of ps, pc
and pm uncovered in stage one. Thus, we set, ps ˆ 100,
pc ˆ 0.9, pm ˆ 0.15.
In order to compare the performance of our GA to the
manual schedules developed at MTRC, the codes for the
GA were rewritten in Turbo Pascal. All tests were
performed on a Pentium (586) machine. We now describe
the performance of the GA for the year 1997 maintenance
scheduling problem with 27 jobs (trains). The data is given
in Table 8. The workshop does not function during Sundays
and public holidays. January 8, 1997 which is the start date
of the planning horizon, is set equal to day one, the due
dates and holidays are given in days with reference to this
starting date (see Tables 8, 9).
One hundred iterations of the GA with a random start
delivered a `best' sequence with the shortest objective
function value of 304.92. The sequence was J4, J5, J1, J6,
J 2, J 3, J 10, J 12, J 11, J 7, J 8, J9, J16, J15, J18, J14, J13, J21, J22,
J17, J19, J20, J26, J23, J24, J25, J27. The corresponding
schedule is given in Table 10. Several other good sequences
were delivered along the way. Note that the manually
established schedule (Table 11) at MTRC has the objective
function value of 422.87. We thus obtained a 27.89 percent
improvement which is equivalent to 11 793 844.30 Hong
Kong Dollars (approximately 0.95 million Sterling Pounds)
according to the monetary value attached to the weighting
scheme presented above, a similar result was obtained for
the scheduling data for the year 1996.
The computing time for each generation with a single
randomised start was about 1.1 seconds (110 seconds for
100 generations) on a Pentium (586) machine executing the
program code in Turbo Pascal. This requirement is rela-
tively short when we consider the size of the solution space,
which is 27!, because of its permutative character. The
effectiveness of the GA-based approach in delivering good
maintenance schedules, nevertheless, is evident.

Table 8 The data for 1997 scheduling problem with 27 trains

AC-odd AC-even BC D D
Train
Jj q1j k(1j) d1j q2j k(2j) d2j q3j k(3j) d3j q4j k(4j) d4j q5j k(5j) d5j
J1 221 4 7135 174 4 65 412 5 92 647 4 222 656 4 207
J2 235 4 119 144 5 102 451 5 142 659 4 245 633 4 235
J3 227 4 85 238 4 112 423 5 151 756 2 256 652 4 253
J4 157 4 132 170 5 113 461 4 186 675 4 273 674 4 259
J5 237 4 201 234 4 132 482 2 198 668 4 283 662 4 288
J6 245 4 220 190 5 132 484 2 202 666 4 299 671 4 293
J7 241 4 228 240 4 137 483 2 253 670 4 307 661 4 312
J8 265 2 243 112 4 139 419 5 260 686 4 327 665 4 319
J9 163 5 245 232 4 143 480 2 263 696 4 341 673 4 332
J10 125 5 265 132 4 171 444 5 281 690 4 347 655 4 353
J11 247 4 274 110 4 192 481 2 290 685 4 364 672 4 357
J12 165 5 277 230 4 208 447 5 292 682 4 370 708 4 379
J13 271 0 294 172 5 236 486 0 294 663 4 382 765 0 383
J14 121 6 315 258 2 248 470 5 298 664 4 388 764 0 383
J15 183 5 348 246 4 264 446 5 305 687 4 401 669 4 396
J16 147 6 353 186 5 286 467 5 312 667 4 417 657 4 426
J17 115 6 378 270 0 294 471 5 319 676 4 441 683 4 432
J18 203 5 381 116 6 297 448 5 323 684 4 445 692 4 455
J19 275 0 386 130 6 327 465 5 332 727 3 468 658 4 460
J20 273 0 393 128 6 348 472 5 341 689 4 475 729 3 482
J21 257 2 420 160 6 370 462 5 385 731 3 490 725 3 488
J22 119 6 425 180 5 375 485 2 356 730 3 501 732 3 496
J23 261 2 458 206 5 385 450 5 361 734 3 504 726 3 509
J24 145 6 458 272 0 385 443 5 368 770 0 509 735 3 514
J25 277 0 452 274 0 401 428 5 482 733 3 523 728 3 526
J26 209 5 472 104 6 438 440 5 489 742 3 538 738 3 530
J27 129 6 503 208 5 477 425 5 496 744 3 543 772 0 539
1140 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11

Table 9 Public holidays for the year 1997 Table 11 Manual schedule: year 1997

5 12 19 26 30 31 32 33 40 47 Jj pj sj fj Schedule
54 61 68 75 80 81 82 83 88 89
96 103 110 117 124 131 138 145 152 153 J1 18 0 21 08 January±28 January
159 166 172 173 174 175 176 180 187 194 J2 20 12 38 20 January±14 February
201 208 215 222 223 229 236 243 250 253 J3 18 26 50 03 February±26 February
257 264 267 268 271 276 278 285 292 299 J4 18 41 62 18 February±10 March
306 313 320 327 334 341 348 352 353 355 J5 16 52 71 01 March±19 March
359 362 369 376 383 390 397 404 411 418 J6 19 62 87 11 March±04 April
J7 16 75 98 24 March±15 April
J8 19 89 111 07 April±28 April
J9 19 101 123 19 April±10 May
Table 12 provides more results for the year 1997 sche- J10 20 114 137 02 May±24 May
J11 16 128 147 16 May±03 June
duling problem at MTRC, note that the objective function
J12 20 138 162 26 May±18 June
value W and the corresponding percentage improvement r J13 18 153 178 10 June±04 July
obtained (from the best solution in the initial population) by J14 19 164 191 21 June±17 July
the GA heuristic at various generations are given. Each row J15 20 182 205 09 July±31 July
represents a randomised start with the manual schedule J16 20 196 219 23 July±14 August
J17 18 210 232 06 August±27 August
included as one member of its initial population, ngen ˆ 0
J18 20 223 246 19 August±10 September
represents the initial population. It has to be observed that J19 18 237 259 02 September±23 September
the GA improves the manual schedule ®nally converging J20 18 248 273 13 September±07 October
towards good solutions with objective function values J21 19 261 287 26 September±21 October
between 305 and 330. The percentage improvement of the J22 19 278 300 13 October±03 November
J23 22 290 316 25 October±19 November
solution is about 22±28% for each start from the solution
J24 18 307 328 11 November±01 December
obtained manually. Note that most of the improvement is J25 18 318 339 22 November±12 December
obtained within 50 generations. We observe similar results J26 21 330 357 04 December±30 December
in Table 13 for the year 1997 scheduling problem at MTRC. J27 20 345 372 19 December±14 January
Each row represents a randomized start where the manual

schedule is not included in the initial population. Note that

Table 10 GA schedule for year 1997 after 100 generations again the GA improves the schedule ®nally converging
Jj pj sj fj Schedule
towards good solutions with objective function values
between 305 and 340. The percentage improvement of the
J4 18 0 21 08 January±28 January solution is about 80±88% for each start from the initial best
J5 16 12 34 20 January±10 February
solution. It is possible to improve the solution in some cases
J1 18 21 45 29 January±21 February
J6 19 36 58 13 February±06 March by running the GA again with another randomized start but
J2 20 49 72 26 February±20 March with the previously obtained GA schedule included in its
J3 18 63 87 12 March±04 April initial population. In this case, in order to obtain good
J10 20 75 102 24 March±19 April performance of the GA, the mutation rate has to be
J12 20 93 116 11 April±03 May
increased to pm ˆ 0.25 and other parameters required to be
J11 16 107 126 25 April±13 May
J7 16 117 135 05 May±22 May set at the same previous values. For example, if we run the
J8 19 126 148 14 May±04 June GA again for the problem in row 5 of Table 13, the solution
J9 19 139 162 27 May±18 June is improved from the value 340.68 to 320.95.
J16 20 153 181 10 June±07 July We generate some random problems that resemble the
J15 20 167 195 24 June±21 July
real problem. Table 14 shows the objective function value
J18 20 185 209 12 July±04 August
J14 19 199 221 26 July±16 August obtained by the GA heuristic at various generations for
J13 18 212 234 08 August±29 August random problems. Each row represents a random problem
J21 19 225 247 21 August±11 September with a randomised start. The GA improves the schedule and
J22 19 238 261 03 September±25 September converges towards good solutions in each problem. The
J17 18 251 275 16 September±09 October
percentage improvement of the solution is about 55±65%
J19 18 264 288 29 September±22 October
J20 18 279 300 14 October±03 November for all the cases from the initial best solution.
J26 21 290 315 25 October±18 November In order to test the GA performance with respect to the
J23 22 306 331 10 November±04 December optimal solutions, we generate ten random problems whose
J24 18 322 343 26 November±16 December optimal function value is zero (that is, W ˆ 0). The ®rst ®ve
J25 18 334 357 08 December±30 December
problems that are generated from the year 1997 scheduling
J27 20 345 372 19 December±14 January
data with 27 trains, are obtained by generating random
 C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1141

Table 12 GA runs for scheduling of 27 trains: year 1997 dataÐmanual schedule used in initialisation

ngen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 W 422.87 421.25 368.92 352.67 334.94 330.46 328.03 328.03 328.03 328.03 328.03
r 0.0 0.38 13.00 16.60 20.79 21.85 22.43 22.43 22.43 22.43 22.43
2 W 422.87 398.52 358.19 326.71 321.60 310.21 306.84 306.84 306.84 306.84 306.84
r 0.0 5.76 15.30 22.74 23.95 26.64 27.44 27.44 27.44 27.44 27.44
3 W 422.87 420.05 389.00 346.76 335.97 327.79 319.99 316.35 313.80 313.14 313.14
r 0.0 0.67 8.01 18.00 20.55 22.48 24.33 25.19 25.79 25.95 25.95
4 W 422.87 416.61 360.78 325.42 320.75 319.04 317.66 317.66 317.66 317.66 317.66
r 0.0 1.48 14.68 23.04 24.15 24.55 24.88 24.88 24.88 24.88 24.88
5 W 422.87 408.00 366.31 335.73 326.71 320.64 320.51 314.40 313.91 313.91 313.91
r 0.0 3.52 13.37 20.61 22.74 24.18 24.21 25.65 25.77 25.77 25.77

Table 13 GA runs for scheduling of 27 trains: year 1997 dataÐManual schedule not used in initialisation

ngen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 W 1817.72 928.94 424.23 365.42 350.73 336.98 332.06 320.19 308.24 307.44 307.44
r 0.0 48.90 76.66 79.90 80.70 81.46 81.73 82.38 83.04 83.09 83.09
2 W 2683.25 1013.18 402.61 368.20 347.91 338.61 331.06 330.12 330.12 330.12 330.12
r 0.0 62.24 85.00 86.28 87.03 87.38 87.66 87.70 87.70 87.70 87.70
3 W 1604.93 918.04 509.64 390.43 363.13 342.06 334.09 332.10 329.29 328.62 328.56
r 0.0 42.80 68.25 75.67 77.37 78.69 79.18 79.31 79.48 79.52 79.53
4 W 2600.45 1214.84 460.59 365.63 334.13 324.50 323.97 318.56 315.98 311.65 311.65
r 0.0 53.28 82.29 85.94 87.15 87.52 87.54 87.75 87.85 88.02 88.02
5 W 1629.66 961.15 439.72 395.23 378.50 359.87 352.07 343.81 340.68 340.68 340.68
r 0.0 41.02 73.02 75.75 76.77 77.92 78.40 78.90 79.10 79.10 79.10

Table 14 GA runs for scheduling of 27 trains: random problems

ngen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 W 4137.94 2789.44 1791.59 1598.17 1516.79 1498.57 1490.43 1454.91 1450.21 1437.60 1433.26
r 0.0 32.59 56.70 61.38 63.34 63.78 63.98 64.84 64.95 65.26 65.36
2 W 7289.85 5538.73 4202.82 3527.55 3444.29 3426.32 3409.18 3402.71 3399.59 3336.51 3334.90
r 0.0 24.02 42.35 51.61 52.75 53.00 53.23 53.32 53.37 54.23 54.25
3 W 5338.29 3641.45 3084.79 2760.55 2647.53 2521.30 2518.21 2443.44 2395.73 2326.02 2326.02
r 0.0 31.79 42.21 48.29 50.40 52.77 52.83 54.23 55.12 56.43 56.43
4 W 5240.66 3337.89 2766.11 2711.68 2690.52 2674.46 2666.75 2652.03 2639.46 2580.86 2567.96
r 0.0 36.31 47.22 48.26 48.66 48.97 49.11 49.40 49.63 50.75 51.00
5 W 6863.44 4408.47 3361.20 2844.98 2680.29 2645.34 2643.03 2643.03 2630.69 2630.69 2630.69
r 0.0 35.77 51.03 58.55 60.95 61.46 61.49 61.49 61.67 61.67 61.67

Table 15 GA runs for scheduling of 27 trains: random problems

Problem No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Optimal W 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
W by GA (100 gen) 4.69 2.76 5.47 4.77 7.83 4.40 3.42 1.76 7.66 3.33
Best initial 230.91 318.35 408.25 201.96 399.30 336.00 384.16 401.78 406.12 382.20
Worst initial 5788.86 5611.59 6064.92 7018.57 5246.51 6977.54 6835.24 7483.46 7405.35 6136.81
r (at 100 gen) 97.97 99.13 98.66 97.64 98.04 98.69 99.11 99.56 98.11 99.13
1142 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11
schedules for trains then setting the due dates of all ®ve
units for each train equal to its ®nish time in the schedule.
Similarly, another ®ve problems are generated from the
recon®gured train data for the year 1997 (refer to next
section for the details of recon®guring trains). For each
problem tested, Table 15 shows the optimal and GA solu-
tions, and the corresponding percentage improvement r
obtained by the GA at 100 generations. The table also
provides the best and worst solution in the initial population.
The values of r indicate that the GA performs extremely
well on the tested problems.
Recon®gure trains for better schedule
As we pointed out earlier, recently the MTRC changed
their maintenance policy from car based maintenance to
train based maintenance, in the latter case, a train is
maintained as a single entity. This policy change creates a
dif®cult maintenance scheduling problem. Due to their
previous policy, the various units of a train actually running
in a line may require different maintenance requirements at
different due dates. It is possible although not preferred, that
for the purpose of maintenance, the scheduler may request
to dismantle the trains and then recon®gure them according
to the maintenance requirements and due dates of various
units in the trains. This ¯exibility may lead to a better
schedule with lower penalty. Consider the examples of
typical maintenance requirements of two trains that are
given in Tables 16 and 17. In this case, a scheduler may
have to dismantle the trains X and Y shown in Tables 16 and
17, respectively to recon®gure to form maintenance units as
follows:
Recon®gured Train 1 consists of the following:
AC-even unit form train X having due date 22 requiring
C5-check
Table 16 Overhaul maintenance requirement of train X
Unit type Maintenance requirement Maintenance due date
AC-odd C1-check
AC-even C5-check
BC C0-check
D C4-check
D C6-check
Table 17 Overhaul maintenance requirement of train Y
Unit type Maintenance requirement Maintenance due date
AC-odd C0-check
AC-even C5-check
BC C3-check
D C4-check
D C6-check
AC-odd unit form train Y having due date 24 requiring
C0-check
BC unit form train Y having due date 23 requiring C3-
check
D unit form train X having due date 25 requiring C4-
check
D unit form train Y having due date 26 requiring C6-
check
Recon®gured Train 2 consists of the following:
AC-even unit form train Y having due date 75 requiring
C5-check
AC-odd unit form train X having due date 91 requiring
C1-check
BC unit form train X having due date 89 requiring C0-
check
D unit form train X having due date 72 requiring C6-
check
D unit form train Y having due date 78 requiring C4-
check.
Note that in order to satisfy the due dates, a schedule
needs to be established so that the maintenance of recon-
®gured Train 1 is completed by the due date around 22
while for the recon®gured Train 2, it can be ®nished by the
due date around 72.
In recon®guring trains, the scheduler must also balance
the work load allocated to each train. Since manhours
required by C-checks (Table 4) are different, it is undesir-
able to allocate three or more units requiring C5-check to
one recon®gured train. Thus we are faced with the problem
of recon®guring trains to provide a schedule that meets the
due dates of their units as closely as possible and to balance
the work load throughout the planning horizon (one year).
The workshop would like to obtain this balance through the
two following constraints.
Constraint R1 Total manhours required to maintain a
train should not exceed 22 days capacity of workshop (or
22 7.75 89 manhours).
91 Constraint R2 Total manhours required to maintain a
22 train should not be less than 16 days capacity of workshop
89 (or 16  7.75  89 manhours).
25
72 In our scheduling application, note that the number of
trains that can be maintained in the next 12 months is about
27 and each train has ®ve units. We now describe an
algorithm (called Switch) that improves the solution
obtained for 27 trains by the algorithm GA of the previous
24 section. The idea behind the algorithm which is based on a
75 local search procedure, is as follows. Let s ˆ {J1, J2, . . . ,
23 Jn} be a sequence of jobs obtained by the algorithm GA.
78
26
Note that all the jobs ®rst satisfy the constraints R1 and R2,
as it was the original train con®guration given by the
 C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1143

workshop at MTRC. The algorithm Switch ®rst starts by Table 19 Schedule for year 1997 after recon®guring the trains
calculating the total penalty improvements achieved by
interchanging the AC-odd unit of the ®rst job J1 in the Jj pj sj fj Schedule
sequence s with the AC-odd unit of all other jobs Jj, j ˆ 2, J4 20 0 23 08 January±30 January
. . . , n. Then it interchanges a pair of AC-odd units that still J5 20 14 41 22 January±17 February
satis®es the constraints R1 and R2 and provides the largest J1 16 28 50 05 February±26 February
J6 19 41 63 18 February±11 March
improvement. A tie is broken arbitrarily. The procedure is
J2 18 54 74 03 March±22 March
repeated for all other AC-odd units of jobs Jj, j ˆ 2, . . . , n. J3 19 65 92 14 March±09 April
Similarly, all the possible interchanges are considered for all J10 20 78 106 27 March±23 April
AC-even, BC and D units as described above. J12 19 97 119 15 April±06 May
For the year 1997 scheduling problem, we obtain the J11 20 110 133 28 April±20 May
J7 20 124 147 12 May±03 June
objective function value of 229.65 which corresponds to a
J8 18 138 160 26 May±16 June
total of 45.69% improvement (equivalent to 19 320 930.30 J9 18 149 171 06 June±27 June
Hong Kong Dollars or approximately 1.55 million Sterling J16 20 162 190 19 June±16 July
Pounds) from the original manual schedule. Note that this J15 19 181 203 08 July±29 July
total improvement corresponds to the improvement made J18 21 194 218 21 July±13 August
J14 19 209 232 05 August±27 August
by both algorithms GA and Switch. The composition of
J13 20 223 246 19 August±10 September
trains and the schedule after the recon®guration are shown J21 19 237 260 02 September±24 September
in Tables 18 and 19, respectively. According to the sche- J22 18 250 274 15 September±08 October
dule given in Table 19, the recon®gured train J1 starts its J17 19 262 288 27 September±22 October
overhaul maintenance on 05 February 1997. By comparing J19 18 279 300 14 October±03 November
J20 16 290 309 25 October±12 November
Tables 8 and 18, we note that the recon®gured train J1 is
J26 21 300 324 04 November±27 November
formed by switching AC-odd, AC-even, BC and D units J23 18 315 336 19 November±09 December
from the original trains J4, J5, J4 and J5, respectively. Only J24 19 327 349 01 December±22 December
one D unit (serial number 647) remains unchanged in J1. J25 18 339 364 13 December±06 January
The recon®guration of train J1 alone involves another two J27 18 353 375 27 December±17 January

Table 18 Train composition after recon®guration

AC-odd AC-even BC D D
Train
Jj q1j k(1j) d1j q2j k(2j) d2j q3j k(3j) d3j q4j k(4j) d4j q5j k(5j) d5j
J1 157 4 132 234 4 132 461 4 186 647 4 222 662 4 288
J2 237 4 201 174 4 65 423 5 151 659 4 245 652 4 253
J3 125 5 265 238 4 112 482 2 198 756 2 256 674 4 259
J4 221 4 7135 144 5 102 412 5 92 675 4 273 671 4 293
J5 235 4 119 170 5 113 451 5 142 668 4 283 656 4 207
J6 227 4 85 190 5 132 484 2 202 666 4 299 633 4 235
J7 121 6 315 172 5 236 448 5 323 686 4 327 665 4 319
J8 245 4 220 132 4 171 470 5 298 667 4 417 673 4 332
J9 241 4 228 110 4 192 419 5 260 690 4 347 657 4 426
J10 165 5 277 240 4 137 444 5 281 696 4 341 655 4 353
J11 163 5 245 112 4 139 446 5 305 670 4 307 661 4 312
J12 265 2 243 232 4 143 447 5 292 682 4 370 708 4 379
J13 115 6 378 186 5 286 465 5 332 687 4 401 764 0 383
J14 247 4 274 258 2 248 467 5 312 676 4 441 729 3 482
J15 147 6 353 180 5 375 480 2 263 663 4 382 765 0 383
J16 183 5 348 230 4 208 471 5 319 685 4 364 672 4 357
J17 257 2 420 160 6 370 462 5 385 727 3 468 692 4 455
J18 203 5 381 206 5 385 483 2 253 664 4 388 669 4 396
J19 261 2 458 116 6 297 481 2 290 730 3 501 658 4 460
J20 145 6 458 270 0 294 486 0 294 689 4 475 725 3 488
J21 119 6 425 130 6 327 472 5 341 731 3 490 735 3 514
J22 271 0 294 246 4 264 450 5 361 684 4 445 683 4 432
J23 129 6 503 104 6 438 440 5 489 770 0 509 726 3 509
J24 273 0 393 208 5 477 485 2 356 733 3 523 728 3 526
J25 275 0 386 274 0 401 428 5 482 742 3 538 738 3 530
J26 209 5 472 128 6 348 443 5 368 734 3 504 732 3 496
J27 277 0 452 272 0 385 425 5 496 744 3 543 772 0 539
1144 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 49, No. 11
trains (J4, J5). It has to be noted that a total of 87 switches
are required to recon®gure all 27 trains, which represents a
considerable logistic problem to bring the trains together at
the workshop as the trains are very busy running in three
different lines.
Algorithm switch
Step 1: s, sequence of jobs obtained by algorithm GA,
s ˆ {J1, J2, . . . , Jn}. Wo, the total penalty for not
satisfying the due dates of jobs in the sequence s.
Step 2: For k ˆ 1 to v do
Begin
For i ˆ 1 to n do
Begin
rˆ0
For j ˆ 1 to n do
Begin
For jobs Ji and Jj (i 6ˆ j) interchange units
qv,i and qv, j.
If Constraints R1 and R2 are satis®ed, then
Begin
Calculate the new total penalty W for s.
if W < Wo then
Begin
rˆj
Wo ˆ W
End
End
Interchange units qv,i and qv, j back in jobs
Ji and Jj.
End
if r > 0 then switch units qv,i and qv,r in jobs
Ji and Jr.
End
End
Terminate.
Conclusions
In this paper we have described the use of genetic algo-
rithms for a dif®cult maintenance scheduling problem
encountered in a service organization providing public
transport by means of an underground railway system.
Computational results indicate that the genetic algorithm
is highly effective and can routinely deliver close to
optimal solutions for this problem. The performance of
the algorithm compares well with manual schedules estab-
lished by the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corpora-
tion (MTRC) for the years 1996 and 1997. A total cost
improvement of about 25% is obtained for both years. The
present work supports the view that genetic algorithms can
provide good solutions to dif®cult maintenance scheduling
problems. We also propose a method to recon®gure the
trains in order to improve the schedule that dramatically
reduces cost.
The maintenance schedule for the year 1997 was
submitted to the workshop at MTRC for implementation.
In fact, the maintenance manager was very pleased with the
GA solution. However, the proposal for the recon®guration
of trains was not adopted, as it involves a large number of
switches of units between trains, this was considered
impractical since each switch consumes a lot of time and
manpower and the resources available to perform this
additional task is limited at the workshop. However, in
the future, the MTRC is willing to explore this possibility
with a very limited but feasible number of switches that
improves the solution signi®cantly. It is also recommended
that MTRC adopts a longer term planning horizon, such as
two years, and revises the train schedule annually or
whenever such a need arises. In this way, the MTRC
could move towards global optimisation of their system
rather than the current short term local optimisation invol-
ving the schedule of 27 trains.
AcknowledgementsÐThis research was supported by the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University (Grant No. 351=318). The authors would like to
thank Mr TP Lo, Operations Engineering Manager and his staff of the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation for their outstanding support and
valuable insights during the course of this research.
References
1 Conway RW, Maxwell WL and Miller LW (1967). Theory of
Scheduling. Addison-Wesley: Reading Massachusetts.
2 Baker KR (1974). Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling.
Wiley: New York.
3 Lawler EL, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG and Shmoys DB
(1993). Sequencing and scheduling: algorithms and complexity.
In Graves SC et al (eds). Handbooks in Operations Research
and Management Science 4 North Holland, Amsterdam
445±552.
4 Pinedo M (1995). Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms and Systems.
Prentice Hall: New York.
5 Paz NM and Leigh W (1994). Maintenance Scheduling: Issues,
Results and Research Needs. Int J Opns and Prod Mgmt 14: 47±
69.
6 Jardine AKS (1973). Maintenance, Replacement and Relia-
bility. Pitman Publishing: London.
7 Jardine AKS (1979). Solving industrial replacement problems.
IEEE Proceedings of the 1979 Annual Reliability and Main-
tainability Symposium IEEE, New York 136±141.
8 Kralj B and Petrovic R (1988). Optimal preventive maintenance
scheduling of thermal generating units in power systems: a
survey of problems formulations and solutions methods. Eur J
Opl Res 35: 1±15.
9 Kralj B and Petrovic R (1995). A multiobjective optimisation
approach to thermal generating units maintenance scheduling.
Eur J Opl Res 84: 481±493.
10 Escudero LF (1982). On maintenance of production units. Eur J
Opl Res 9: 264±274.
11 Hyunchul K, Nara K and Gen M (1994). A method for
maintenance scheduling using GA combined with SA. Comp
and Indust Engng 27: 477±480.
12 Christer A and Doherty D (1977). Scheduling overhauls of
soaking pits. Opns Res Q 28: 915±926.

13 Sule DR and Harmon B (1979). Determination of co-ordinated
maintenance scheduling frequencies for a group of machines.
AIIE Trans 11: 48±53.
14 Hariga M (1994). A deterministic maintenance-scheduling
problem for a group of non-identical machines. Int J Opns
and Prod Mgmt 14: 27±36.
15 Duffuaa SO and Ben-Daya M (1994). An extended model for
the joint overhaul scheduling problem. Int J Opns and Prod
Mgmt 14: 37±43.
16 Chakravarty AK and Balakrishnan N (1995). Impact of job-
sequence on the down-time of a deteriorating ¯exible machine.
Eur J Opl Res 87: 299±315.
17 Anily S, Glass C and Hassin R (1994). The scheduling of
maintenance service. Report No. OR57, University of South-
ampton, Faculty of Mathematical Studies, Southampton, UK.
18 Banerjee A and Burton S (1990). Equipment utilization based
maintenance task scheduling in a job shop. Eur J Opl Res 45:
191±202.
19 Graham RL, Lawler EL, Lenstra JK and Rinnooy Kan AHG
(1979). Optimization and approximation in deterministic
sequencing and scheduling: a survey. Annals of Discrete Mathe-
matics 5: 287±326.
20 Lawler EL (1977). A pseudopolynomial algorithm for sequen-
cing jobs to minimize total tardiness. Annals of Discrete
Mathematics 1: 331±342.
21 Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG and Brucker P (1977).
Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Annals of
Discrete Mathematics 1: 343±362.
22 Garey MR and Johnson DS (1979). Computers and Intract-
ability: a Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H.
Freeman and Company: New York.
23 Baker KR and Scudder G (1990). Sequencing with earliness and
tardiness penalties: A review. Opns Res 38: 22±36.
24 Hall NG and Posner M (1991). Earliness±tardiness scheduling
problem i: weighted deviation of the completion times about
common due date. Opns Res 39: 836±846.
C Sriskandarajah et alÐMaintenance scheduling of rolling stock using a genetic algorithm 1145
25 Hall NG, Kubiak W and Sethi SP (1991). Earliness-tardiness
scheduling problem ii: deviation of the completion times about
a restrictive common due date. Opns Res 39: 847±856.
26 Fry T, Armstrong, R and Blackstone J (1987). Minimizing
weighted absolute deviation in single machine scheduling: a
Survey. IIE Trans 19: 445±450.
27 Ow P and Morton T (1989). The single machine early-tardy
problem. Mgmt Sci 35: 177±191.
28 Dowsland KA (1996). Genetic algorithms-a tool for OR? J Opl
Res Soc 47: 550±561.
29 Goldberg DE (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimiza-
tion and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading: Massa-
chusetts.
30 Connolly DT (1992). General purpose simulated annealing.
J Opl Res Soc 43: 495±505.
31 Glover F (1989). Tabu Search-Part I. ORSA J on Comput 1:
190±206.
32 Glover F (1990). Tabu Search-Part II. ORSA J on Comput 21:
4±32.
33 Holland JH (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Arti®cial
Systems. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
34 Chen CL, Vempati VS and Aljaber N (1995). An application of
genetic algorithms for ¯owshop problems. Eur J Opl Res 80:
389±396.
35 Murata T and Ishibuchi H (1994). Performance evaluation of
genetic algorithms for ¯owshop scheduling problems. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Genetic Algorithms
IEEE, New York 812±817.
36 Davis L (Ed) (1991). Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. van
Nostrand Reinhold: New York.
Received April 1997;
Accepted June 1998