## 4 Experimental Simulations and Results
### Results
#### 4.2.2 Case 2: Full-Line Strategy Optimization (D1-D9)  
Using the proposed ESS-NSGA-III algorithm, this study conducted a comprehensive comparison of three operation strategies: the minimum running time strategy, the punctual operation strategy, and the delayed operation strategy. The minimum running time strategy served as the baseline reference, while the punctual and delayed operation strategies were derived respectively from the Pareto-optimal solution sets corresponding to the planned and delayed operational schedules for each section, as detailed in Table 7. Figure 6 presents the comprehensive performance metrics of the three operational strategies, encompassing energy consumption, passenger comfort, safety parameters, and operational duration. Comparative analysis reveals significant inter-strategy variations in segment-specific metrics, while a uniform trend alignment across all track segments highlights characteristic performance patterns inherent to each operational methodology. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Algorithm** & **Energy Consumption (J)** & **Punctuality (s)** & **Comfort (m/s\({}^{3}\))** & **Safety** \\ \hline ESS-NSGA-III & 1.3241 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 0.1 & 0.0197 & 0.8201 \\ NSGA-III & 1.3325 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 0.3 & 0.0201 & 0.8228 \\ NSGA-II & 1.3832 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 0.4 & 0.0199 & 0.8251 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison between the evaluation index parameters optimized by the different algorithms for section D1–D2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Section** & **Planned Operational Schedule (s)** & **Delayed Operational Schedule (s)** \\ \hline D1–D2 & 150 & 180 \\ D2–D3 & 210 & 240 \\ D3–D4 & 150 & 180 \\ D4–D5 & 180 & 210 \\ D5–D6 & 180 & 210 \\ D6–D7 & 150 & 180 \\ D7–D8 & 210 & 240 \\ D8–D9 & 150 & 180 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Planned and delayed operational schedules for each section. Table 8 summarizes the cumulative performance metrics of the three operational strategies across the D1-D9 section. Comparative analysis demonstrates that the punctual operation strategy exhibited significant improvements over the minimum running time strategy, extending the total running time by 186.3 s while achieving substantial reductions in key performance indicators. Specifically, it reduced the energy consumption by 4.0707 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) J (29.51%), improved the comfort by 0.0780 m/s\({}^{3}\) (36.10%), and enhanced the safety by 1.2244 (15.30%). The delayed operation strategy further extended the operational duration by 426.3 s compared to the minimum running time strategy, yielding even greater performance enhancements. This strategy achieved reductions of 7.2903 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) J (52.86%), 0.1045 m/s\({}^{3}\) (48.35%), and 2.1901 (27.38%) in energy consumption, comfort, and safety, respectively. The complete speed, energy, and power profiles derived from the three strategies are illustrated in Figures 7-9, respectively. Comparative analysis reveals that the punctual operation strategy, when compared to the minimum running time strategy, demonstrated an effective allocation of switching points, traction ratios, and braking ratios across each section. This approach maximized the use of coasting phases, thereby minimizing the  
Figure 6: Comparison between four indicators for the three strategies for each section: (**a**) energy consumption, (**b**) comfort, (**c**) safety, and (**d**) running time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Strategy** & **Energy Consumption (J)** & **Running Time (s)** & **Comfort (m/s\({}^{3}\))** & **Safety** \\ \hline Minimum running time strategy & 1.3793 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 1193.5 & 0.216 & 8.000 \\ Punctual operation strategy & 9.7223 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 1379.8 & 0.138 & 6.776 \\ Delayed operation strategy & 6.5027 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 1619.8 & 0.112 & 5.810 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison of cumulative indicators across the three operational strategies in sections D1–D9.