Please Build this entire Model using Arena Simulation Software (Rockwell) to model and optimize the following problem with all details included:

SM Theme Parks is the parent company for a series of theme amusement parks located primarily in the southern part of the United States. Most of these parks are small to midsize. However, we are currently completing plans for a major theme park to be called Bayou Adventure World. This complex will actually contain four distinct parks: Frog Pond, Skunk Hollow, Gator Island, and Raccoon Corner. Customers can enter Bayou Adventure World at any of the four parks and use the provided transportation to travel between them. There will be several forms of transportation, including boats, a steam railroad, horse and wagon, and open-air buses. These transportation options are mostly theme-oriented and will only carry a small proportion of the people who will want to move between parks. The major transportation option is to be a people-mover system. The peoplemovers (which are basically trains) will be on a continuous loop: Frog Pond to Skunk Hollow to Gator Island to Raccoon Corner and back to Frog Pond. Although the type of people-mover has been selected and the track designed, the system still needs to be sized to meet the needs of Bayou Adventure World. This system can accommodate up to eight trains. Each train consists of one or more cars, with each car having a capacity of approximately 25 people. The objective is to size the system so that it minimizes the number of times that waiting customers are not able to board the people-mover because it is full. Ideally, there would always be room for any waiting customers. However, it is understood that a design that always meets demand may result in a very expensive system. In designing similar types of systems, we have chosen not to look at the amount of time that a customer has to wait for a people-mover, but to look at the proportion of time that a people-mover leaves a station when people are unable to board. So in comparing different designs, you should consider the following performance categories: 1. Train leaves a stop with no people waiting to board, 2. Train leaves with 1 to 24 people still waiting, 3. Train leaves with 25 to 49 people still waiting, and 4. Train leaves with 50 or more people still waiting. We believe that a properly designed system would have very few, if any, Type 4 occurrences. We would also like to minimize the number of Type 2 and 3 occurrences. At the same time, we would like to keep our investment at a minimum. We have requested and received cost figures from the people-mover manufacturers. These costs included initial capital, operating, and maintenance costs for the projected life of each unit. The cost for the first car of each train is $800 per day. The cost for additional cars is $500 per day per car. The trains are computer-controlled and fully automatic. Although there can be slight variations in travel time between parks, you can probably assume that the times (in minutes) given below are accurate enough for this study. There are two possible modes to consider for customer loading and unloading. The first option requires that customers board from one side and exit from the other. When a train stops at a station, the unload doors open for 30 seconds to allow passengers to exit. Then the load doors open for 45 seconds to allow new customers to board. The doors close and the train leaves the station. The second option uses a single side for both unloading and loading. When the train stops at a station, the doors open and customers are allowed to both board and exit at the same time. This option normally allows for the doors to be open for 2 minutes. Since these times are computer-controlled, the only variation results when a customer does not allow a door to close. This usually results in a 10 -second delay. The first option is the most desirable as it allows for a more orderly and controlled boarding and exiting process. However, this option costs an additional \$20 per day per car. It is also possible that the second option might require additional cars. We would like to know the relative merits of these options. Since Bayou Adventure World is not yet operational, demand data for this system have been based on our experiences with other parks. We plan to design the system to meet an above-average (but not peak) day of expected attendance. Customers may have to wait longer on busier days, but we feel that this is not a problem. We will take advantage of well-below-average attendance days to conduct preventive maintenance on selected trains. Bayou Adventure World is scheduled to be open between 10 AM and 10 PM daily. Our projected customer arrivals (arrivals per hour) to each station are given below. Although there will probably be more variations, we can only provide hourly rates at this time. These are customers who arrive at a station (e.g., Frog Pond station) and want transportation to another station. The people-mover manufacturer recommends that we start the trains a few minutes before we open the gates each day so that the system is fully functional when the first customers arrive. The trains will also continue to run after the closing time for approximately one-half hour, or until all customers have departed the park. The number of customers who can board a train at any station depends on the capacity of the train and the number of current occupants. Thus, we realize that there must be a mechanism for determining the number of customers exiting at each station. The table below provides these data in terms of the expected percent of customers who will exit each station based on where they boarded. For example, 39% of the customers who board the train at Skunk Hollow will exit at Gator Island. Although each of the cars is designed for a capacity of 25, the actual capacity can vary. You often find that a few extra people will squeeze on board instead of waiting for the next train. You also see situations where trains leave the station with empty seats, even though there is a line of people waiting to board. The seats may not be easily visible or a group of people may not want to split up. Thus, it's not clear what the actual capacity is under heavy-load conditions, but it should be close to 25 . During a recent meeting of our design engineers, an option with more complex system operation logic was proposed. The current system is designed to stop at each station for a fixed period of time; i.e., the load and unload time. The new logic would have the train stop for the normal time and depart only if it were full, or almost full. If not, it would wait a short period of time for additional customers. It would continue to load arriving customers until the train became full, another train arrived at the station, or some reasonable period of time had elapsed. The people-mover manufacturer has assured us that this type of logic can be implemented, but we are unsure of the impact on the system. From this simulation study, we would like to know what configuration would provide the most cost-effective solution while achieving high customer satisfaction. This solution should be given in terms of the number of trains and the number of cars per train. Note that all trains need not have the same number of cars. In comparing or presenting alternative configurations, provide cost data (operational cost per day). Since we will not provide additional information during the analysis period, you are encouraged to make additional reasonable, documented assumptions. We look forward to receiving your report and reviewing your proposed solution