view pdf (2 mb)

TTG submission for National Land Transport Productivity Framework Issues Paper - October 2016.doc PAGE 1

Ref: 08062

4 October 2016

Stan Ghys Business Development Manager TTG Transportation Technology P/L Level 3 / 225 Clarence Street Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia e: [email protected] p: 61 (0)2 9249 0100

Attention: Productivity Framework National Transport Commission Level 15/628 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

Dear Sir / Madam,

TTG TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY P/L SUBMISSION FOR

NATIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PRODUCTIVITY FRAMEWORK ISSUES PAPER

Thank you for the opportunity to make this 26 page submission for the National Land Transport Productivity Framework Issues Paper, including referenced documents.

As detailed, a key recommendation is that Transport Ministers at both Federal and State Government level familiarise with digital technologies that are improving productivity in overseas rail operations, such as Driver Advisory Systems and Schedule Optimisation for “Smart” rail networks, and take a leadership role to ensure the industry collaborates to produce, openly publicise and coordinate the implementation of digital technology roadmaps, with immediate benefits and to 2040, rather than current silo thinking, inaction and competition within the country.

Such digital technologies improve productivity through improved on-time running, rail network capacity, throughput and recovery from disruptions, while helping pay for themselves by reducing energy consumption, plus environmental benefits, as detailed herein. They can also automatically generate data with reports to better measure, monitor and manage performance through time.

This could be supported by mandating energy efficiency in the transport sector (including government-owned electric train operations) considering the ease of achieving target greenhouse gas emissions set by the COP21 – United Nations Conference on Climate Change, for both electric and diesel trains, and reducing carcinogenic emissions from diesel trains estimated to cost Australian health $65,000,000 per annum (report commissioned by NSW Environmental Protection Authority).

We would be happy to provide further details and analysis in an advisory capacity, with the benefit of TTG Transportation Technology having a global view of a wide variety of transport operations and technical solutions for improving the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations, and being recognised as a world-leader in the field, with international HQ in Australia.

Kind Regards, TTG Transportation Technology P/L

Stan Ghys Business Development Manager (Asia-Pacific & Americas)

mailto:[email protected]


Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Managing Productivity ............................................................................................................................. 5

United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................... 5

Europe ................................................................................................................................................. 7

USA & Canada .................................................................................................................................... 8

Australia – In comparison .................................................................................................................... 9

Background ........................................................................................................................................... 11

NTC Questions & TTG Answers ........................................................................................................... 19

1. What should be included? ............................................................................................................. 19

2. What gaps are there? .................................................................................................................... 24

3. How should the results be collected, presented and maintained? ................................................ 25

4. How would you use the productivity framework? .......................................................................... 26


Introduction TTG Transportation Technology is a member and proud supporter of the Australasian Railway Association (ARA), a not-for-profit member-based association that represents rail throughout Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia, with members including rail operators, track owners and managers, manufacturers, construction companies and other firms contributing to the rail sector.

The ARA contributes to the development of industry and government policies in an effort to ensure Australia’s passenger and freight transport systems are well represented and will continue to provide improved services for Australia’s growing population and industries.

In a 2014 submission to the Productivity Commission, the ARA advised:

Australia has a significant challenge to ensure that transport infrastructure keeps pace with population and economic growth and helps boost the nation’s productivity. Our population is expected to grow from 23 million to 38 million by 2050 and our cities will be doubled in size. The freight task is forecasted to double by 2030. Productivity growth of at least 1.6% a year is required to maintain the growth in national income.

Passenger and freight rail offers a number of benefits including the ability to:

Reduce traffic congestion

Improve urban amenity

Reduce cost of living

Help communities achieve their environmental goals

Promote public health; and

Reduce social isolation. For more information on advantages of passenger and freight rail, the ARA urges the Commission to refer to the True Value of Rail report (Deloitte Access Economics, 2011).

The report notes financial benefits of rail over road transport:

for passenger transport, every trip made on rail rather than road can reduce costs to society by between $3 and $8.50, depending on the city.

for freight transport, the savings are estimated to be around 95 cents per tonne kilometre (e.g. around $150 for a typical container transported between Melbourne and Brisbane).

However, Australia’s rail operations face the challenges of increasing population and freight task.

Internationally, a range of digital technologies are being developed and deployed to meet such challenges. These focus on improving the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations, and therefore productivity, as well as environmental benefits.

Critically, the solutions span both above and below rail operations and various train operators, with ongoing collaboration, leadership and cooperation rather than silo thinking and competing within a country.


For example, Driver Advisory Systems display real-time advice to drivers to increase throughput by improving on-time running of trains to critical timing points (a “smart” rail network), reducing congestion and speeding recovery from disruptions while enabling individual train operators to reduce their energy consumption and environmental emissions. Energy consumption is a major operational cost.

Such solutions moderate the movement of passenger or freight trains sharing the same rail network. Reduced congestion also enables trains to run freely, for further energy savings. The technology also reduces maintenance costs of both trains and tracks by reducing wear and tear through smoother train handling, and improves safety by improving the pacing of trains and driver situational awareness throughout every train trip.

As detailed in the next section, “Background” on Page 11:

Numerous operators in the U.K. have deployed Driver Advisory Systems and their Rail Safety & Standards Board lists such benefits, for both diesel and electric trains.

NSW Environmental Protection Authority commissioned a report that found Driver Advisory Systems to be the most cost effective solution for reducing emissions, comparing nine different measures and on a $ per tonne of emissions basis. They also estimated the cost to Australian health from diesel train emissions at $65,000,000 per annum.

In many countries, there is collaboration to form leadership teams, develop digital technology roadmaps, openly publicise and implement them with coordination and cooperation across their industry. The roadmaps ensure immediate benefits from simple and low-cost solutions that span above and below rail operations, such as Driver Advisory Systems, and step-wise progression toward complimentary solutions that require more investment and time to implement, such as replacement of wayside signals with in-cab signalling and Automatic Train Operation, potentially integrating optimisation modules already used and proven in Driver Advisory Systems.

However, Australia lacks such ongoing collaboration, leadership and cooperation, and is therefore missing immediate and longer term opportunities to improve productivity through improved performance, efficiency and safety, as well as environmental benefits. This is detailed in the following comparison to the U.K., Europe and USA / Canada, for example, including reference documents.

It was also the subject of our presentation as key sponsor of the Australasian Railway Association – Telecommunications & Technology Forum in July 2016. The presentation was titled “Optimising The World’s Railways – An Australian Technology Perspective” and a copy is available upon request.


Managing Productivity

United Kingdom

The U.K rail industry has ongoing collaboration with a Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG) representing all stakeholders in the rail industry: from train operators to rolling stock owners, the infrastructure manager, to freight companies, the government, and the regulator.

The following diagrams show their development and deployment of a digital technology roadmap with immediate solutions and step-change through to 2040. Their rail industry is improving productivity via improved performance, efficiency and safety with:

Digital technology roadmap clearly detailed, publically available and coordinated, with timeframes (“control periods”)

Collaboration with leadership rather than competing (real competition are roads, other countries, increasing demands and costs)

Industry-wide rather than fragmented by region or above vs below rail operator

Tactical focus on benefits now, not just long term strategy and things stalling in the interim

Embed enabling technology then evolve from there, with step change

References:

The Future Railway, United Kingdom, 2012, Technical Strategy & Leadership Group (TSLG)


Europe

In April 2016, a joint roadmap for digital railways was presented by four European rail industry associations (CER, CIT, EIM & UIC). Aims to strengthen co-operation within rail sector and with third parties, versus “silo thinking” (their words)

Objectives include:

Increased capacity through the use of “internet of things” concepts as well as sensors, artificial intelligence and automation to enhance reliability, efficiency and performance.

Connected railways with high-availability data connections for systems and customer services such as passenger information and ticketing.

Competitive railways making the most of standardised and shared data.

Creating the necessary policy framework to foster innovation by identifying and tackling obstacles created by current regulatory frameworks.

References:

A Roadmap for Digital Railways, Europe, 2016, Railway associations CER, CIT, EIM & UIC.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/digital-railway-roadmap-unveiled.html


USA & Canada

USA & Canadian rail industry collaborate with interchanges, sharing rolling stock and facilities, and investment to progress technical solutions.

They held a workshop on “Digital Technology and Railway Security” in Washington in May 2016, run by UIC (International Union Of Railways) in conjunction with its first Meeting of Regional Assembly for North America (NARA).

Participants included the five railways and authorities from USA and Canada within the UIC Regional Assembly for North America: Federal Railroad Administration, Association of American Railroads, California High Speed Rail Authority, National Railroad Passenger Corp. Amtrak, and VIA Rail Canada.

In the same week, UIC was involved in sustainability report re: Climate Conference COP21.

Freight: The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has a roadmap titled “Railroad Industry Priority Technology Goals and Directions for the Next 20 Years”. They update that every 3 to 4 years, as they did in 2008, 2011 and 2015. While regarding freight operations, it includes a focus on:

Assisted Train Handling and Energy Management

Enhanced Situational Awareness

Automated Train Operations

Integrated Planning and Control Systems

Enabling technologies and “Big Data” analytics

Passenger: The American Public Transport Association (APTA) also set a shared vision with their TransitVision 2050 report and conducts a regular review of new technologies and uses.

Moreover, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) requires that the operators, states and other stakeholders “Design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation corridor equipment.”

References:

Railroad Industry Priority Technology Goals and Directions for the Next 20 Years, USA, 2008, Association of American Railroads (AAR) and Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI)

Final Report of APTA’s TransitVision 2050 Task Force, USA, 2008, American Public Transport Association

http://www.uic.org/com/IMG/pdf/cp13_nara_en.pdf

http://www.aar.org/


Australia – In comparison

However, Australia’s rail industry suffers from a lack of collaboration and such digital technology roadmaps to improve productivity via improved performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations, as well as environmental benefits.

In comparison, there is silo thinking across the industry, with disconnects between above and below rail operators, government being pre-occupied with infrastructure rather than treating rail as a business operation that can be optimised and competition between train operators, while the real competition comes from roads and other countries. There is also a silo approach within the departments of government rail operations.

Also, without visibility of digital technology roadmaps, suppliers, R&D organisations and skilled workers currently need to second guess and virtually stalk individual organisations and people within the organisations for information, which then changes depending on who you talk to, if they leave or there is a restructure.

For example, the writer’s personal experience in Australia and views include:

Federal Government Interstate Rail Operator – Difficulty receiving data and information from them that would enable Driver Advisory Systems to be more readily and cost effectively deployed for train operators (e.g. track gradient data and temporary speed restrictions).

Rail operator also tends to tell train operators to drive at the speed limit, even if there is an upcoming red signal, resulting in trains needing to slow/stop then waste fuel getting back up to speed. Fuel consumption is a major cost for train operators, impacts the environment and is deemed to be carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation. Driver Advisory Systems can improve on-time running and pacing of trains to reduce red signals and moderate the speeds of trains approaching red signals, rather than going fast only to then stop and start again.

Federal Government Coal Train Network Operator – Has a major project to improve the performance of the coal train network. Driver Advisory Systems would improve pacing of trains, rather than using restrictive signalling, and speed recovery from disruptions, effectively becoming a “smart” railway network. Part of the business case would be reduced fuel consumption for train operators and reduced environmental emissions. Yet a silo approach with lack of leadership and collaboration between above and below rail operators seemingly prevent that. Our study of their operation estimated the cost of a coal train stopping at just one red signal then needing to get back up to speed at over 80 Litres of wasted fuel, plus wear and tear, and environmental emissions. There would be a very quick return on a small investment and a Driver Advisory System could even be deployed on portable off-the-shelf tablets, for example, as was the case on SNCF’s high-speed TGV trains across France.

State Rail Authority, RailCorp, Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains & NSW TrainLink – Restructures and lack of digital technology roadmap prevent continuity for immediate opportunities to improve performance, efficiency and safety. Now planning major investments in sophisticated technologies in the long term rather than step change. Furthermore, division of RailCorp into separate organisations responsible for timetabling and energy costs has split the business case for Driver Advisory Systems, which can improve both on-time running and energy efficiency. A silo approach and lack of transparency now hinders this.

State Government Regional Operator – A silo approach with a lack of leadership and digital technology roadmap means they invested in a successful trial of Driver Advisory Systems on their diesel trains yet don’t have a consensus to step forward within their organisation, despite being able to achieve a quick and ongoing Return On Investment, plus environmental and specific safety benefits identified in their operation.

Government-owned electric train operators (e.g. Sydney Trains, Metro Trains Melbourne and Queensland Rail) – Appear to lack assigned responsibility for electricity use / costs and recognition it’s from environmentally polluting coal-fired power stations. Electricity consumption also spans trains and infrastructure so no-one takes responsibility for the trains. This can be improved by fitting electricity meters to trains, or the Energymiser

® Driver

Advisory System can automatically estimate and reduce this, as detailed later.


We agree with the National Transport Commission’s comment that “Ideally, the transport industry connects Australia by moving people and freight to where they’re needed, at the time they’re needed, with minimal cost, time and energy consumption and maximum safety. In today’s global economy this requires a national response and level of interoperability and visibility across both modes and jurisdictions”.

Australia’s “On Track To 2040” roadmap was released in 2012 but it is too broad considering advancements in digital technologies and their interoperability. It spans materials and manufacturing, monitoring and management, power and propulsion, without a focus on digital technologies as other countries do.

Our recommendations to improve Australia’s productivity are provided overleaf, in response to the questions raised by the National Land Transport Productivity Framework Issues Paper. The following section provides further background and references.

References:

On Track To 2040, Australia, 2012


Background TTG Transportation Technology is recognised as a world-leading specialist for improving and optimising the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations during both planning stages and in real-time, throughout every day of operation.

With international HQ in Sydney, we have worked in collaboration with above and below rail passenger and freight rail operators across Australia and internationally, the broader rail industry, Rail Collaborative Research Centre (Rail CRC) and the University of South Australia for over 18 years (world-leading researchers who have produced over 70 peer reviewed papers on the subject).

For example, over 4,000 units of our Energymiser® Driver Advisory System (DAS) have been

deployed across 5 continents to date, including passenger and freight trains across the congested and complex U.K. rail network, high-speed passenger trains across France, travelling over 300 km/hour, and heavy-haul trains across Australia, N.Z. and Africa, including some of the world’s longest and heaviest iron ore trains.

This provides drivers real-time advice on how to control a train to minimise energy use while improving on-time running to critical timing points and recovery from disruptions, automatically factoring in upcoming terrain, speed limits and train performance while adapting to changing conditions. Optimal control strategies are displayed to drivers using hardware TTG specifically designed for rolling stock or portable tablet computers such as iPADs, as a stand-alone system, or we can readily integrate Energymiser

® DAS with safe working in-cab signalling

systems , for example.

Hitachi and Bombardier are now integrating the Energymiser® optimisation module as part of

their new train builds, including Automatic Train Operation (ATO).

We also provide specialist consulting services with clients such as Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), Transport for NSW, Network Rail (U.K) and Indian Railways, with a current energy efficiency study being overseen by the World Bank, for example.

For example, we conduct detailed studies and simulations of rail operations to optimise new track alignments and train schedules / timetables to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions.

TTG is also recognised with numerous awards, including a national Export Award from government in 2014 and both Technical Innovation and Supplier Export awards from the Australian rail industry in 2015.


Benefits are improved productivity with improved performance, efficiency and safety of rail, including:

Increased throughput of passengers and freight

Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) increase the throughput of passengers and freight by improving on-time running of trains to critical timing points across a “smart” rail network and reducing congestion.

For example, the following article regards First Group’s experience deploying DAS. They are a world leading operator in the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and USA with £6B+ revenue (Source: railmagazine.com, March 2011)

Connected Driver Advisory Systems (C-DAS) can also improve recovery from disruptions on rail networks, as detailed later, including comments from Network Rail and the Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB) in the U.K.

Energymiser DAS also enables operators to capture and report on delay attributes, to better understand and manage their performance through time.


Reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs

Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) reduce energy consumption of both diesel and electric trains, and energy consumption is a major operational cost.

For example, the following shows KiwiRail saved over 3,000,000 Litres of fuel in the first year of deploying DAS. They are New Zealand’s nation government-owned freight operator.

Energymiser® DAS has reduced energy consumption and associated environmental

emissions by up to 20% or more during controlled trials (we typically recommend 5% savings be used in business cases for deploying DAS on metropolitan passenger rail operations).

DAS also reduces maintenance costs due to smoother train handling, which reduces wear and tear on trains and railway tracks (as well as improving passenger comfort).


Reduced environmental emissions (carbon and carcinogenic)

Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) also reduce environmental emissions for both diesel and electric trains. This includes carbon and carcinogenic emissions.

o For example, Energymiser® DAS has reduced energy consumption and associated

environmental emissions by up to 20% or more during controlled trials.

o In 2012, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority commissioned a report that compared different technologies and found DAS to be the most cost effective solution for reducing emissions from diesel trains, considering nine different methodologies and on a $ per tonne of emissions basis. They also estimated the cost to Australian health from diesel train emissions to be approaching $65,000,000 per annum.

Source: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/locoemissrep.pdf

o Also in 2012, the World Health Organisation officially declared diesel emissions to be carcinogenic.

Source: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf

o DAS reduces carbon emissions by reducing the energy consumption of diesel and electric trains, which is topical considering the COP21 - United Nations Conference on Climate Change.

Also, by improving on-time running of trains and capacity of rail networks, DAS helps shift transport from congested roads to more environmentally-friendly rail.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/locoemissrep.pdf

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf


Improved safety given improved pacing of trains and driver situational awareness.

For example, refer to the previous First Group article regarding reduced red signals (SPADs) and the following comments by Network Rail in the U.K., including Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB) representative (Source: GB Operational Concept: C-DAS, Technical Services: Asset Management, Network Rail)

The implementation of any DAS is intended to deliver benefits in the quality, cost and efficiency of train operation. With S-DAS, the expected benefits are:

a) Improved Safety

b) Train regulated to the working timetable - fewer restrictive signals

c) Overall lower sectional running speeds

d) Advance warning of locations where speed restrictions change

e) Lower PSR / station approach speeds to PSRs / stations / known conflict points with extended coasting

f) Reminder of next station calling point, thus reducing missed stations / run-overs

g) Improved fuel efficiency (up to ~15% reduction on diesel trains)

h) Reduced wear and tear due to reduced braking and lower running speeds

i) Improved capture of delay attribution data

When DAS is operating in Connected mode (i.e. able to receive schedule updates and to feedback train position to traffic regulation centres) the expected benefits are all of those anticipated above and in addition:

a) Improved recovery from disruption

b) Train regulation to revised schedule

c) The potential for regulation to optimise for network capacity or performance

d) Support for improved conflict resolution (based on trains’ predicted running)

e) Further improvements in energy, carbon, and wear and tear, due to schedule revisions being available near-real time and thus usable by C-DAS for late running trains.

In addition, both DAS variants may support a future anticipated capability to optimise energy consumption based on locally available electrical power supply or power tariffs/budgets.


Business Intelligence

This includes “big data”, data visualisation, KPI dashboards and self-service analytics enabling rail operators to quickly and easily measure, better understand, monitor and manage their rail operations through time and make informed evidence-based decisions, including:

o on-time running to critical timing points and delay attributes

o energy consumption

o tonne-kilometres travelled by driver or vehicle, for example

o driver achievement in terms of optimal train running

The frequency can be much higher than the annual report suggested by the National Land Transport Productivity Framework Issues Paper, as the system improves real-time performance, efficiency and safety, automatically generates and transmits log data for online reporting throughout day of operation.

The following are example reports:

o Maps show varying punctuality of trains throughout trips and clusters of delays on the rail network with ability to drill down to the reasons for individual delays (attributes).

o Dashboard summarises energy consumption, system usage and the top reasons for delays.

o You can also drill down for more detailed analysis, such as driver achievement versus the optimal speed profile for a journey, in terms of improved on-time running to critical timing points on a rail network and reduced energy consumption.


Low cost and quick deployment with high ROI

DAS can give a high and ongoing Return On Investment (ROI), with Energymiser® DAS

typically having less than 2 years ROI and quick to deploy with ongoing savings. For example:

o KiwiRail saved 3,000,000 Litres of fuel within their first year of deploying DAS across New Zealand, as detailed above.

o SNCF is quickly deploying DAS on iPADs, for their TGV trains travelling across France at up to 320 kilometres per hour, as covered in the following media release.

KiwiRail and SNCF are their national government-owned freight and passenger rail operators, respectively.

Source: www.ttgtransportationtechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Media-Release-SNCF-Rolling-Out-Energymiser-DAS-23-January-2015.pdf

http://www.ttgtransportationtechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Media-Release-SNCF-Rolling-Out-Energymiser-DAS-23-January-2015.pdf

http://www.ttgtransportationtechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Media-Release-SNCF-Rolling-Out-Energymiser-DAS-23-January-2015.pdf


Complimentary with other technologies being deployed internationally

DAS is also interoperable with other digital technologies, including ATMS, ETCS/ERTMS and CBTC safety systems for in-cab signalling, Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and Traffic Management Systems for real-time updates of train schedules (C-DAS).

This is evident from the U.K.’s digital technology roadmap just after Page 5. For example, we have interfaced Energymiser

® DAS or its optimisation module with:

o Bombardier Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and Hitachi Train Control Management System (TCMS), as part of their new train builds (initially Spain and U.K., resp.)

o SNCF (France) on-train system, running along-side ATO.

o Network Rail (U.K.) rail operations systems for automated updates of train timetables and Temporary Speed Restrictions

o “Junction Scheduler” to prove C-DAS concept through Heathrow Airport Junction in collaboration with Network Rail and First Group (U.K.).

o Thales and Hitachi Traffic Management Systems as C-DAS model offices (U.K.)

o KiwiRail vigilance system (New Zealand)

o Numerous energy metering systems (U.K.)

Hardware Agnostic

As demonstrated in the following diagram, Energymiser® DAS can be retrofitted to existing

trains, deployed on portable devices like iPADs or integrated with other on-train displays and systems – e.g. Hitachi and Bombardier are integrating the Energymiser

® optimisation module

with their new train builds, including Automatic Train Operation (ATO).

This video provides further details and shows the solution in action –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHKEw4gzbOQ&feature=em-upload_owner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHKEw4gzbOQ&feature=em-upload_owner


NTC Questions & TTG Answers

1. What should be included?

1.1 Do you agree with the high-level indicators below strike a balance between simplicity and sufficient detail to provide meaningful information about productivity to assist transport decision-makers?

tonnes moved per driver

tonnes moved per vehicle

number of employees and full/part-time split

hours worked (volume)

wage costs of the labour (value)

total fuel costs (value).

level of regulation

journey time reliability

infrastructure quality

ability to track and trace consignments

port turnaround times.

Yes, we agree with the above indicators. However, we recommend these also be normalised for comparison and benchmarking between transport services, cover freight and passenger trains, include both fuel and electricity consumption, and environmental emissions, for example. Energy consumption is a major operational cost for transport and the sector is the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in Australia.

Moreover, this submission details how energy consumption and throughput of rail operations can be simultaneously optimised, with side benefits including improved safety, reduced maintenance costs and reduced emissions. The solutions can pay for themselves in less than 2 years while delivering ongoing productivity and the other benefits.

We recommend adding the following indicators:

a) Gross tonnes transported per kilometre per hour.

b) Fuel consumption in terms of both volume and (unsubsidised) cost.

c) Electricity consumption for traction energy in electric trains, measured in terms of both kWh and cost, and separately to electricity consumption from infrastructure or auxiliary devices such as air-conditioning on trains. Energy is also a major operational cost for electric trains and also has associated environmental emissions from coal-fired power stations.

d) Environmental emissions associated with fuel and electricity consumption, measured in tonnes of carbon and carcinogenic emissions (nitrous oxides and particulate matter)

e) Energy consumption per gross tonne kilometre (GTK) – this provides a normalised measure of energy efficiency, whether fuel or electricity, with related financial and environmental benefits (the amount of energy consumed to transport 1 tonne over 1 kilometre)

f) Environmental emissions per gross tonne kilometre (GTK)

g) Calculated mechanical work done by trains per gross tonne kilometre (GTK). This enables energy efficiency between train trips to be compared even when there is no way of directly measuring their energy consumption. We can calculate this given GPS data logs of train trips, track gradients, train performance data and gross weights.

h) “Actual” versus “optimal” mechanical work done per gross tonne kilometre (GTK). We can calculate the optimal train trip that ensures both on-time running to all timing points on a rail network and minimal energy consumption (costs and emissions). The performance of individual train trips can be compared to the optimal case, given the above data, train timetables and permanent / temporary speed restrictions.

i) Temporary speed restrictions (TSRs) due to track work, for example. These also impact productivity and energy efficiency. In fact, we were commissioned by the New Zealand government to assist in analysing the cost of TSR’s across their rail network.


Fuel or electricity consumption need to be measured to an accuracy greater than target reductions in energy consumption or environmental emissions (e.g. sight gauges for diesel trains are generally not accurate enough but diesel consumption can be accurately determined if logging which notch / throttle the trains is in through time and given known fuel flow rates for each notch / throttle).

Alternatively, mechanical work calculations are estimates of the work done by trains at the interface between their wheels and tracks, without factoring in inefficiencies in their drive chain or energy consumed while idling. These enable comparison of the energy efficiency between trips, as an estimate.

Energymiser® DAS advises drivers on the optimal speed profile throughout each train trip, to improve

on-time running and minimise energy consumption, and also doubles as a GPS data logger, which we use to determine the mechanical work done.

1.2 Do you believe the indicators below are appropriate and should be included? Should they be reported on every time along with the ‘main’ indicators above?

Advances in and use of technologies Yes, we recommend this include indicators to cover:

a) Collaboration and visibility: The extent to which above and below rail operators are collaborating to develop digital technology roadmaps and ensure these are openly publicised and implemented with ongoing leadership, coordination and cooperation across their industry. The roadmaps should ensure immediate benefits from simple and low-cost solutions that span above and below rail operations, such as Driver Advisory Systems, and step-wise progression toward complimentary solutions that require more investment and time to implement, such as replacement of wayside signals and Automatic Train Operation, potentially integrating optimisation modules used in Driver Advisory Systems.

b) Use of digital technologies at planning stage: The extent to which digital technologies are used by rail operators to optimise trains schedules to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions (TTG also provides specialist consulting services to do this, with respect to train services, track gradients, train performance characteristics, speed limits, etc).

Currently, rail operators tend to insert slack only into the last leg of their timetables, with trains then running unnecessarily fast and consuming excessive energy before the last leg. Intermediate timing points are often unachievable and/or reliability is particularly susceptible to disruptions on the rail network.

c) Use of digital technologies throughout day of operation, in real-time: The extent to which trip optimisation technologies such as Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) and Connected DAS are deployed, as detailed previously, or the extent to which their trip optimisation modules are included with Automatic Train Operation (ATO).

d) Inclusion of business intelligence for reporting: The extent and frequency to which business intelligence technologies are included with such systems. As detailed previously, Driver Advisory Systems may capture “big data” and include data visualisation, KPI dashboards and self-service analytics enabling rail operators to quickly and easily measure, better understand, monitor and manage their rail operations through time and make informed evidence-based decisions, such as:

a. on-time running to critical timing points and delay attributes

b. energy consumption

c. tonne-kilometres travelled by driver or vehicle, for example

d. driver achievement in terms of optimal train running


New management techniques and production processes Yes, as detailed above, this would best include the combination of:

o Optimising current and new train schedules, to maximise throughput and minimise subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions.

o Optimising trips throughout every day of operation, in real-time, using Driver Advisory Systems (or their optimisation modules in the case of Automatic Train Operation).

o Use of Driver Advisory Systems with advanced reporting to quickly and easily measure, better understand, monitor and manage rail operations through time and make informed evidence-based decisions.

Additional workforce skills and policies designed to motivate, better deploy and retain staff Yes, as detailed above, have policies encouraging leadership and collaboration to produce, openly publicise and coordinate the implementation of digital technology roadmaps so that suppliers, R&D organisations and skilled workers don’t need to second guess what the rail industry will require. For example, in the absence of these:

o TTG and University of South Australia currently have a 3-year research project, jointly funded by TTG and the Australian Research Council. We are recognised as world-leading experts in the field of optimising the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations. Considering busy intercity rail corridors, we are developing additional ways to determine the efficient movement of multiple trains, using Connected Driver Advisory Systems or Automatic Train Operation with trip optimisation.

However, our current focus is on overseas markets that have such digital technology roadmaps with leadership and collaboration, which lack in Australia.

o We are aware of a major passenger rail operator in Australia who is deploying CBTC technology to replace wayside train signalling with in-cab signally, to ensure safety with increased throughput, but is struggling with a lack of technical support engineers in Australia, who would have had to second guess the need, while rail operators in other states are going in different directions, all in the absence of digital technology roadmaps and with a fragmented silo approach.

Also introduce leadership roles that are responsible for both the on-time running and energy efficiency of rail operations and collaboration with other above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations, rather than having a silo approach between on-time running versus energy efficiency, above versus below rail operators, between train operators, etc.

The nature and quality of infrastructure and networks

Yes but we recommend the government stop being pre-occupied with infrastructure and treat rail as a business operation that can be optimised, including current and new train schedules, and real-time operations, as detailed in this submission. Improvements in rail capacity and recovery from disruptions can be achieved with a far lower investment than building more infrastructure, with Driver Advisory Systems being a proven example.

Furthermore, we note that government-owned electric train operators appear to lack assigned responsibility for electricity use / costs and recognition it’s from environmentally polluting coal-fired power stations. Electricity consumption also spans trains and infrastructure so no-one takes responsibility for the trains. This can be improved by fitting electricity meters to trains, or our Energymiser® Driver Advisory System can estimate this, as detailed herein.


Openness to trade and investment and the availability of finance Yes, we recommend this include:

o Leadership and collaboration to produce, openly publicise and coordinate the implementation of digital technology roadmaps, so suppliers and R&D organisations can help improve the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations.

o Executive commitment to proactively trial proven technologies from local suppliers who provide good support and have an international track-record while understanding that full deployment may require a competitive tender, as standard.

How responsive the allocation of resources is across businesses and industries to changes in market conditions Yes, including human and financial resources. For example, and as noted above:

o Introduce leadership roles that are responsible for both the on-time running and energy efficiency of rail operations and collaboration with other above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations, rather than having a silo approach between on-time running versus energy efficiency, above versus below rail operators, between train operators, etc.

o Executive commitment to fund trials of proven technologies from local suppliers who provide good support and have an international track-record while understanding that full deployment may require a competitive tender, as standard.

Economies of scale Yes, maximum performance and efficiency benefits from digital technologies such as Driver Advisory Systems can be achieved when all trains on a rail network are fitted, becoming a “smart” network, with their movements being moderated across the network, improved capacity, faster recovery from disruptions, and further reductions in energy consumption and environmental emissions.

Natural events Yes, natural events can impact performance and efficiency while tracking and reporting on these can enable technical solutions to be optimised. For example:

o Train schedules can be optimised to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption, environmental emissions and the impacts of natural events.

o Driver Advisory Systems such as Energymiser® DAS can automatically adapt to

changing conditions and speed recovery from disruptions such as natural events while also enabling delay attributes to be captured and reported. Operational rules can then be configured within the systems to optimise their response (e.g. define priority versus general trains such that the system attempt to have priority trains get back on time while general trains are allowed to stay late to minimise energy consumption and environmental emissions).


Incentives for innovation Yes, as noted above, we recommend incentives to:

o Introduce leadership roles that are responsible for both the on-time running and energy efficiency of rail operations and collaboration with other above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations, rather than having a silo approach between on-time running versus energy efficiency, above versus below rail operators, between train operators, etc.

o Run trials of proven technologies from local suppliers of digital technologies, such as Driver Advisory Systems, who provide good support and have an international track-record while understanding that full deployment may require a competitive tender, as standard.

o Resolve the issue of government-owned electric train operators appearing to lack assigned responsibility for electricity use / costs and recognition it’s from environmentally polluting coal-fired power stations. Electricity consumption also spans trains and infrastructure so no-one takes responsibility for the trains. This can be improved by fitting electricity meters to trains, or our Energymiser

® Driver Advisory

System can estimate this, as detailed herein.

We recommend that transport ministers at both federal and state level familiarise with such digital technologies and consider introducing mandates for energy efficiency which could also deliver the productivity benefits, including improved on-time running, rail network capacity, throughput and recovery from disruptions, while helping pay for itself through energy savings, plus environmental benefits.


2. What gaps are there?

2.1 Are there other indicators we should consider as a starting point in the framework, noting that they can be expanded upon in future?

1. Please note the list of gaps and additional indicators recommended at Points 1.1 and 1.2 above.

These should be addressed with urgency, considering the situation detailed in this submission – i.e. major investments being planned or considered by above and below rail operators but without adequate industry collaboration, digital technology roadmaps and visibility to suppliers and R&D organisations, and with the substantial benefits of lower cost, step-wise solutions being foregone in the interim.

2. We have recommended the following to the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) and the Rail Industry Safety & Standards Board (RISSB), who are reviewing at the time of writing:

With urgency, the rail industry needs to hold workshops between above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations to collaborate on creation of 20 year digital technology roadmaps, publically detailing digital technologies and timelines for improving the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations, with ongoing leadership and cooperation for implementation.

We recommend the National Transport Commission review this with the ARA and RISSB:

a) Industry-wide digital technology roadmaps rather than fragmented by region or above vs below rail operator, without suppliers, R&D organisations and skilled workers needing to second guess

b) Cooperation to improve productivity rather than just competition between Australian train operators – the real competition is from roads and overseas

c) Tactical focus on benefits now, not just long term strategy and things stalling in the interim. Embed enabling technology then evolve from there, with step change

d) Indicators to track, report and manage the above

3. We recommend the National Transport Commission not only conduct surveys of the industry but also pro-actively encourage the use of proven methods for improving the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations at both planning stages and throughout every day of operation, in real-time, such as Driver Advisory Systems or inclusion of their optimisation modules with Automatic Train Operation and optimisation of current train schedules, to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions.

4. As noted above, we recommend that transport ministers at both federal and state level familiarise with such digital technologies and consider introducing mandates for energy efficiency which could also deliver the productivity benefits, including improved on-time running, rail network capacity, throughput and recovery from disruptions, helping pay for itself through energy savings, plus environmental benefits.

5. We also recommend indicators be introduced to ensure a functioning market for transport in Australia, with increasing passenger and freight demands and congestion, impacts on productivity, society, energy efficiency and the environment.

For example, the Australasian Railway Association’s 2012/3 submission to the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure – Inquiry into Road Access Pricing detailed the need for reform in road access pricing (effectively subsidised) versus rail, in the case of freight transport:

Australia needs a functioning market for freight transport and the functioning market must: 1) allow for the full recovery of the cost of road infrastructure, 2) maintain competitive neutrality between modes of transport; and 3) give accurate price signals to road users.

The indicators need to cover such aspects for both passenger and freight transport.


3. How should the results be collected, presented and maintained?

3.1 Do you agree that a simple industry survey would be beneficial and scalable for collecting industry information against the indicators? Would this sufficiently supplement the current MFP to measure land transport productivity in Australia? If so, what kinds of operators should we ensure are included in the survey sampling? What format (online, phone, paper) should an industry survey take?

Yes, a survey would be beneficial, to a degree, but we strongly recommend the National Transport Commission also pro-actively encourage the use of proven methods for improving the performance, efficiency and safety of rail operations at both planning stages and throughout every day of operation, in real-time, such as Driver Advisory Systems or inclusion of their optimisation modules with Automatic Train Operation and optimisation of current train schedules, to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions.

The survey would best be an online one that is first brainstormed in a workshop with government, above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations, etc then circulated as a draft for review and feedback from the transport industry (TTG also wishes to be part of the workshop, review and regular survey).

The survey should then go to the Operations Managers, or equivalent positions, in all above and below rail operators (rail network and train operating organisations), and other transport operators.

The survey should list all such transport operators and give them, suppliers and R&D organisations the opportunity to rate each transport operator in accordance with the above indicators. Thus, each above and below rail organisation will be assessed by the broader industry, rather than relying on self-assessment regarding their level of visibility and cooperation regarding the development and implementation of digital technology roadmaps, for example.

3.2 If you don’t agree a survey is appropriate, in what other ways do you think this information could be collected?

We recommend the survey be supplemented by business intelligence available with Driver Advisory Systems such as Energymiser

® DAS. As detailed with examples in this submission, this includes “big

data”, data visualisation, KPI dashboards and self-service analytics enabling rail operators to quickly and easily measure, better understand, monitor and manage their rail operations through time and make informed evidence-based decisions, including:

o on-time running to critical timing points and delay attributes

o energy consumption

o tonne-kilometres travelled by driver or vehicle, for example

o driver achievement in terms of optimal train running

The frequency can be much higher than the annual report suggested by the National Land Transport Productivity Framework Issues Paper, as the system improves real-time performance, efficiency and safety while automatically generating and transmitting log data for online reporting throughout day of operation.

3.3 Who is best placed to design the detail of the National Land Transport Productivity Framework and any associated survey methodology? Is it preferable to have the framework designed by a government, industry or independent/academic institution?

The survey would best be an online one that is first brainstormed in a workshop with government, above and below rail operators, suppliers and R&D organisations, etc then circulated as a draft for review and feedback from the transport industry (TTG also wishes to be part of the workshop, review and regular survey).


4. How would you use the productivity framework?

4.1 Would an annual ‘productivity snapshot’ report provide suitable frequency to balance information needs with the administrative burden of collecting/reporting the results?

Yes, though we suggest this initially be 6 monthly and recommend the survey be supplemented by business intelligence available with Driver Advisory Systems such as Energymiser

® DAS, as detailed

above. Such reporting is online throughout every day of operation rather than just annually.

4.2 What activities would you use the results of the productivity framework to inform or influence?

We would use the results to:

a) Identify above and below rail operators who could benefit from assistance to further develop their digital technology roadmap for improving productivity via improved performance, efficiency and safety, as well as environmental benefits. This would include a review of the current Driver Advisory System landscape and their trip optimisation algorithms in the case of Automatic Train Operation, with TTG providing the benefit of both a local and global view.

b) Identify rail operators who could benefit from having their current and new train schedules optimised to maximise throughput while minimising subsequent energy consumption and environmental emissions.

c) Provide feedback to the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) and the Rail Industry Safety & Standards Board (RISSB), who liaise with all members and would presumably become part of a leadership team for finalising digital technology roadmaps, publicising them and coordinating implementation, similar to the U.K. rail industry.

END OF SUBMISSION

view pdf (2 mb)

Documents