# Research on Railway Emergency Resources Scheduling Model under Multiple Uncertainties
## 4 Instance Analysis
### Formatting of Mathematical Components  
Use Lingo software to find the major accident \(q_{2}\) or the extraordinarily serious accident \(q_{1}\) under different credibility confidence levels \(\lambda_{i}\). Each emergency rescue base provides different types of rescue materials for the two accident sites. The two emergencies both come under the major accident \(q_{2}\), and the relevant calculation results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(j_{1}\) & \(j_{2}\) & \(j_{3}\) \\ \hline Unit rescue cost & [45,55] & [80,90] & [50,65] \\ Unit penalty cost & [20,24] & [30,35] & [24,28] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Unit rescue cost and unit penalty cost of relief supplies (Yuan/100 km). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Rescue Base** & **Reserve Level** & \(j_{1}\) & \(j_{2}\) & \(j_{3}\) & **Probability** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{1}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [24,27,29] & [12,14,15] & [19,23,24] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [30,32,33] & [16,17,18] & [25,27,29] & 0.6 \\  & \(h_{3}\) & [34,35,36] & [19,20,21] & [30,31,32] & 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{2}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [23,28,29] & [12,13,15] & [18,22,23] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [30,31,32] & [16,18,20] & [24,26,28] & 0.6 \\  & \(h_{3}\) & [33,34,35] & [21,22,23] & [29,30,31] & 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{3}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [24,27,28] & [12,13,15] & [18,22,23] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [29,30,32] & [16,18,20] & [24,25,28] & 0.6 \\  & \(h_{3}\) & [33,34,35] & [21,22,23] & [29,30,31] & 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{4}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [23,27,29] & [12,14,15] & [17,22,24] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [30,31,33] & [16,17,18] & [25,27,29] & 0.6 \\  & \(h_{3}\) & [34,35,36] & [19,20,21] & [30,31,32] & 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{5}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [24,28,29] & [12,13,15] & [18,22,23] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [30,31,33] & [16,18,20] & [24,25,28] & 0.6 \\  & \(h_{3}\) & [34,35,36] & [21,22,23] & [29,30,31] & 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(R_{6}\)} & \(h_{1}\) & [23,27,28] & [12,13,15] & [17,21,23] & 0.3 \\  & \(h_{2}\) & [29,30,32] & [16,18,20] & [24,25,28] & 0.6 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(h_{3}\) & [33,34,35] & [21,22,23] & [29,30,31] & 0.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Quantity and probability distribution of \(R_{i}\) materials in each emergency rescue base (items). The two emergencies are both under extraordinarily serious accident \(q_{1}\), and the relevant calculation results are shown in Tables 8 and 9. As for the scheduling scheme under the major emergency \(q_{2}\), with the credibility changes, the second scheduling scheme appears when \(\lambda=0.8\). In the scheme of accident spot \(A_{1}\), due to the Shaowu emergency rescue base \(R_{6}\) being closer to the accident spot, with a reduction in the credibility and relaxation of the constraints, then the amount of dispatched resources at the Shangrao emergency rescue base \(R_{3}\) were reduced and thus increased the amount of dispatched resources at Shaowu emergency rescue base \(R_{6}\). When \(\lambda=1\) and \(\lambda=0.9\), the first decision quantity in the scheduling scheme has not changed, thus with the relaxation of constraints, the reduction of system risks, and the penalties for insufficient supplies, the interval of the overall rescue costs becomes smaller. As for the scheduling scheme under the extraordinarily serious accident \(q_{1}\), due to the high level of the accident, each accident spot requires three emergency rescue bases to rescue together. In the previous three scenarios, the Yingtan emergency rescue base \(R_{2}\) provided rescue for accident point \(A_{1}\), while in this scenario, it provided rescue for accident point \(A_{2}\). It can be seen from the distance that this is in line with the actual needs. With the change in