skip to main content
10.5555/2429759.2430146acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Simulation backbone for gaming simulation in railways: a case study

WSC '12: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation ConferenceArticle No.: 287Pages 1–13
Published:09 December 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Dutch railway is one of the world's busiest. Innovative measures are necessary, to cope with the projected growth of transport demand. The impact of innovations brings uncertainty to the decision makers and experts involved. To reduce this uncertainty, ProRail, the Dutch rail infrastructure manager, has introduced a combined gaming and simulating approach, called the Railway Gaming Suite. The development started by coupling existing simulators using High Level Architecture. It should lead to a flexible and scalable backbone to support the gaming and simulation approach. This way, the traditional application field of the simulators is extended from supporting capacity analysis, timetable robustness and construction to supporting decision making and enhancing insight in the operations. The current Railway Gaming Suite consists of three simulators. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the approach and the underlying toolbox, applied to the concrete case: the Den Bosch station reconstruction.

References

  1. Bekebrede, G. and I. S. Mayer. 2005. Build Your Seaport In A Game And Learn About Complex Systems. Journal of design research 5(2): 273--298Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bekebrede, G. and S. A. Meijer (Forthcoming). Gaming For Innovation In The Health Insurance Sector.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. De Freitas, S. and M. Oliver. 2006. How Can Exploratory Learning With Games And Simulations Within The Curriculum Be Most Effectively Evaluated? Computers and Education 46 (3): 249--264 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Duke, R. D. 1974. Gaming: The Future's Language. Sage, Beverly Hills / London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Duke, R. D. and J. L. A. Geurts. 2004. Policy Games For Strategic Management. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kriz, W. C. and J. U. Hense. 2006. Theory-Oriented Evaluation For The Design Of And Research In Gaming And Simulation. Simulation Gaming 37: 268--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mayer, I. S. (2010) The Gaming Of Policy And The Politics Of Gaming: A Review. Simulation & Gaming 40(6): 825--862 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Meijer, S. A., P. van der Kracht, J. van Luipen, A. Schaafsma. 2009) Studying A Control Concept For High-Frequency Train Transport. In E. Edited by Subrahmanian & J. Schueler, Developing 21st Century Infrastructure Networks:. 1--6. Chennai, India: IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Meijer, S. A., I. S. Mayer, J. van Luipen & N. Weitenberg. 2011. Gaming Rail Cargo Capacity Management: Exploring And Validating Alternative Modes Of Organization. Simulation & Gaming 1046878110382161, first published on February 1, 2011 as doi: 10.1177/1046878110382161 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. De Vries, D. K., L. C. Lodder. 2011. Simulation Study Speed Control For 'S-Hertogenbosch Area And ETMET 2013 Timetable. ProRail report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gartner. 2011. Case Study: Innovation Squared: The Department For Work And Pensions Turns Innovation Into A Game. http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1476216 {Accessed through the web 2011-09-30}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hale, A. and T. Heijer. 2006. Is Resilience Really Necessary? The Case Of Railway. Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Edited by Hollnagel, E., D. D. Woods & Nancy Leveson, Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, UK, pp. 125--147Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hiltbrand, T. and M. Burke. 2011. How Gamification Will Change Business Intelligence. Business Intelligence Journal, Vol. 6: 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollnagel, E., D. D. Woods & Nancy Leveson. 2006. Resilience Engineering: Concepts And Precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. IEEE (2010) IEEE Recommended Practice for Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP), IEEE Std 1730--2010, IEEE Explore.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Klabbers, J. H. G. 2003. Simulation And Gaming: Introduction To The Art And Science Of Design. Simulation and Gaming 34(4): 488--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Klabbers, J. H. G. 2006. Guest Editorial. Artifact Assessment Vs. Theory Testing. Simulation & Gaming 37(2): 148--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mazzarello M., E. Ottaviani. 2007. A Traffic Management System For Real-Time Traffic Optimization In Railways, Transportation Research Part B 41 (2): 246--274Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Meijer, S. A. 2009. The Organization Of Transactions: Studying Supply Networks Using Gaming Simulation. Wageningen Academic. ISBN 9789085853343Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Meijer, S. A. 2012. Gaming Simulations For Railways: Lessons Learned From Modeling Six Games For The Dutch Infrastructure Management. In: Railway Book 1, Intech, ISBN 979-953-307-634-7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Middelkoop A. D., M. Bouwman. 2001. SIMONE: Large Scale Train Network Simulations. In Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, Edited by B. A. Peters, J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros and M. W. Rohrer: 1042--1047. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Middelkoop A. D., L. Loeve. 2006. Simulation Of Traffic Management With FRISO. Computers in Railways X: 501--509.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Noy, A, D. R. Raban and G. Ravid. 2006. Testing Social Theories In Computer-Mediated Communication Through Gaming And Simulation. Simulation & Gaming 37(2): 174--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Peters, V., G. Vissers and G. Heijne. 1998. The Validity Of Games. Simulation & Gaming 29(1): 20--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Rekenkamer. 2011. Besteding Spoorbudgetten Door Prorail. Report to Parliament by Algemene Rekenkamer, The Netherlands (in Dutch)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Steenhuisen, B., W. Dicke, J. A. de Bruijn. 2009. "Soft" Public Values In Jeopardy: Reflecting On The Institutionally Fragmented Situation In Utility Sectors. International Journal of Public Administration Volume 32, Number 6, 491--507(17)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Verbraeck A., S. A. Meijer, M. Seck, R. Kortmann, S. Eker, C. Tekinay and B. van Nuland. 2011. Systems Architecture, Railway Gaming Suite, Work Package 1. Technical Report TU Delft.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Simulation backbone for gaming simulation in railways: a case study

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WSC '12: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference
        December 2012
        4271 pages

        Publisher

        Winter Simulation Conference

        Publication History

        • Published: 9 December 2012

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WSC '12 Paper Acceptance Rate189of384submissions,49%Overall Acceptance Rate3,413of5,075submissions,67%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader