capacity, business objectives, success factors and ... · pdf file• factors affecting...

Felix Schmid, School of Civil EngineeringClive Roberts, School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering

College of Engineering and Physical SciencesBCRRE, University of Birmingham

Capacity, Business Objectives, Success Factors and Measurement of KPIs

IRSE Seminar 29 March 2012Delivering Business Performance

Including some Lessons from BCRRE Projects

Slide No: 2

IRSE Seminar 29 March 2012 - Delivering Business Performance

Slide No: 3


Overview of presentation• From the triangle of

railway capacity to the pentagon and hexagon;

• Who are we working for:• Passengers?• Freight users?• Government?

• Two research projects:• Deciding on viable actions

– the capability trade-off tool;

• ON-TIME – measuring and enhancing performance.

Slide No: 4


The old railway is getting fuller and fuller

Slide No: 5


Strategic triangle of railway capacity

TIMETABLE DESIGN

ROLLING STOCK INFRASTRUCTURE

© Swiss Railways (SBB-CFF)

Slide No: 6


Strategic square of railway capacity

TIMETABLE

DESIGN

ROLLING STOCK

INFRASTRUCTURE

FARES AND

TARIFFS

With thanks to Robin Hirsch

Slide No: 7


Strategic pentagon of railway capacity

STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES

ROLLING STOCKINFRASTRUCTURE

FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

Slide No: 8


STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

Very short term strategy: change tariffs

Slide No: 9


Managing capacity by means of tariffs• Discourage demand:

• Selectively increase fares;• Selectively increase goods tariffs.

• Encourage demand:• Introduce season tickets;• Reduce passenger fares;• Reduce goods tariffs.

• Control demand:• Introduce market pricing;• Imitate budget airlines.

• Advantages:• Cheap and cheerful approach to capacity management;• Can be implemented quite rapidly.

• Drawbacks:• Likelihood of customer dissatisfaction;• Potential loss of traffic;• Increased complexity of fare system.

Slide No: 10


Short term strategy: change timetables

STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

Slide No: 11


Managing capacity using timetables• Discourage demand:

• Run trains at unsociable times;• Extend journey times by introducing more stops.

• Encourage Demand:• Add stops to improve market penetration;• Regularise timetable (fixed interval / clockface);• Re-time trains to coincide with demand;• Establish better connections.

• Improve Resource Use:• Reduce turn around times;• Reduce dwell times;• Reduce conflicts;• Reduce staff inefficiency.

• Generally quite low cost but thought intensive;• Generally quite quick.

Slide No: 12


Short to medium term strategy: staffing

STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

Slide No: 13


Managing capacity through staff changes• Employ more staff:

• Can increase reliability;• Can enhance revenue.

• Reduce staff numbers:• Can enhance productivity;• Can save money.

• Change staff incentive schemes:• Enhance / reduce basic salary vs. overtime;• Revenue linked bonus.

• Enhance staff training:• Better performance;• Better communication with customers.

• Drawbacks:• Can be relatively slow• Can be high cost due to training and wage bills;• Can be high risk due to strike action.

Slide No: 14


Medium term strategy: change trains

STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

Slide No: 15


Managing railways through rolling stock• Rectify rolling stock:

• Increase reliability;• Increase availability.

• Modify rolling stock:• Reduce number of seats;• Increase number of seats;• Faster access / egress;• Enhance quality.

• Buy new rolling stock:• Higher capacity;• Greater comfort;• Greater acceleration levels;• Higher speeds;• Reduce performance spread;• Move to electric trains;• More flexible use of trains.

Slide No: 16


Long term strategy: infrastructure changes

STA

FF

RESO

URC

ES


FARES A

ND

TARIFFS

TIMETABLE DESIGN

It might even be a hexagon!

Slide No: 18


Managing capacity through infrastructureBrains and software:• Enhance railway control:

• Shorter track-sections;• Automatic train protection;• Automatic train operation.

• Monitor the system:• Condition monitoring;• Data analysis.

• Enhance information:• For staff;• For passengers;• For shippers.

• Manage the system;• Traffic supervision;• Traffic regulation;• Traffic optimisation.

• Integrate maintenance and operations.

Concrete, bricks and mortar:• Enhance stations:

• More tracks;• Better connections;• Better passenger facilities

• Improve track and junctions:• Improve reliability;• Electrify network;• Grade-separate junctions;• Enhance alignments;• Reduce gradients.

• Disruptive implementation;• High cost, long term:

• French high-speed lines;• High-speed 2.

• High risk:• Thameslink 2020;• Crossrail.

It might even be a hexagon!

Slide No: 19


Lakes, mountains, a terminus and concrete

©Th

omas

Sch

mid

, 201

2

Slide No: 20


Infrastructure in a land of plenty...

Clive Roberts and Felix Schmid, BCRRE, UoBVijay Ramdas and Jonathan Shawe, TRL

with grateful thanks to the Department for Transport

How do we decide between strategic capacity management actions?

Slide No: 22


Capital expenditure

CostService

Working capital

vers

us

versusversus

versus versus

versus

Manufacturing strategy’s trade-off pairs

Slide No: 23


Setting the sceneSetting the scene

•• What is the definition of rail network capacity?What is the definition of rail network capacity?

•• Where, how and why is capacity lost?Where, how and why is capacity lost?

•• What modelling tools are available to support What modelling tools are available to support rational rail capability traderational rail capability trade--off decisions?off decisions?

•• A project sponsored by the DfTA project sponsored by the DfT

Slide No: 24


Outcomes of capability trade-off project• Attempt to define capacity:

• No single definition;• Linked to policy, objectives, operational philosophy…

• Measurement metrics (various):• Trains per hour;• Number of passengers/tonnes of freight moved;• Number of train paths (of dominant vehicle?);• Percentage of train paths used;• Load factors of trains;• ...

• Factors affecting capacity (various):• Rolling stock;• Signalling;• Timetabling;• ...

Slide No: 25


Lost capacity – stakeholder view 1

Slide No: 26



Slide No: 27



Slide No: 28


Conclusions on capability• No single view;• Line- and route-specific characteristics;• Lack of systems approach and no easy-to-use

tools to support this.

System Capacity Examples:The bad, the ugly and the good!

Slide No: 30


Heathrow Airtrack Project I

Slide No: 31


Heathrow Airtrack Project II• A feasibility study to identify possible new rail

connections to Heathrow was carried out in 1984;

• In 2003, planning formally began;• A route, that became known as Airtrack, was

proposed to join Heathrow T5 with direct rail services to: Reading, Guildford and London Waterloo.

Slide No: 32


Heathrow Airtrack abandoned III

In April 2011, nearly 8 years after work began on the project, the scheme was scrapped;The project was shelved due to the impact of increased road traffic congestion at the 15 level crossings on the route:

6 crossings closed ~60% of the time;4 crossings closed ~50% of the time;5 crossings closed ~30% of the time.

The project decided that building bridges or tunnels was “not feasible or justifiable”.

Slide No: 33


South West Trains upgrade programme I

In 2001, 785 new vehicles were ordered to replace South West Trains’ slam-door stock;

The new trains were to replace the existing out-dated rolling stock and improve capacity;

The new trains have a higher acceleration rate, which has a positive effect on capacity.

Slide No: 34


South West Trains upgrade programme II

The introduction of the new fleet was delayed due to the power system not being capable of operating the proposed timetable for the new stock;Network Rail spent £1 billion upgrading the power supply to take account of this;In terms of capacity, the trains’ faster acceleration is in practice counterbalanced by the need to dwell longer at each station, as the trains have fewer doors;Since introduction, the trains’ interior layout has been remodelled to improve capacity.

Slide No: 35


Chiltern Railways Project ‘Evergreen’ I

Since taking on the franchise in 1996, Chiltern committed to undertake a series of journey and capacity improvement projects;A whole-system approach has been taken to consider what upgrades have been required in each phase;The range of capability factors impacting on capacity that were addressed include:

Junction layout;Signalling;Line speed;Passenger handling facilities;Train characteristics.

Slide No: 36


Chiltern Railways Project ‘Evergreen’ II

Evergreen 1 Doubling of line from Aynho Junction to Princes Riseborough; new platforms at Princes Riseborough and Haddenham and Thame ParkwayEvergreen 2 Realignment of the route through Beaconsfield to increase speed; improve signalling from High Wycombe to Bicester and from Princes Riseborough and Aylesbury; new platforms at MaryleboneEvergreen 3 (Phase 1) Junction remodelling at Neasden, Northolt and Aynho; a platform loop at Princes Riseborough; a turnback siding at Gerard’s Cross; removal of speed restrictions

Slide No: 37


Systems approach to capacity – the issues:

Slide No: 38


Maintenance needs;Timetable quality and punctuality;System complexity vs. Affordability;Reliability;Efficient use of infrastructure;Padding and recovery time;Data;Train fleet heterogeneity;Soft solutions;Regulations;Where and why do things go wrong;Innovation and maturity;Implementation of new approaches / systems.

Systems approach to capacity – the issues:

Approach to risk – radical solutions;Business case;Automated solutions;Effective use of technology;Resilience and security – degraded modes, less fragile systems;Interdependencies;Freight and passenger traffic trade-offs;Knowledge & history;Trade-offs – sensible, practical;....Peak movements – demand management;Metrics – what do we value?

Slide No: 39


Realising the Potential of GB Rail• The Value for Money

Study highlighted:• The marked importance of

early purpose definition for complex whole-system transport programmes;

• The criticality of early engagement between stakeholders to identifying the most cost-effective whole-system solutions;

• A lack of the right models and tools to support early-stage concept development.

Slide No: 40


Overall Strategy

System Requirements

Functional Decomposition

Technology decision

Detailed Design

Scheme Upgrade

Verification Process

Integration Process

Test of Subsystems

Test of System

Validate to Requirements

Micro simulation

Time

Decomposition

Macro view

Micro view

Macro simulation

Capturing current system

Integration

Increasing depth

When should capacity be considered?

Slide No: 41


Typical project cost behaviour

20%

40%

60%

Pro

gram

me

Cos

t

80%

100%

Cost Incurred

Cost Committed

Cost Influence

Purpose Development Delivery OperateConcept

©A

tkin

s 201

1

Slide No: 42


Committed cost – tunnel boring machines

©Th

omas

Sch

mid

, 201

1

Slide No: 43


When should capacity be considered?

Strategic

assessment

Business

justification

Delivery

strategy

Investment

decision

Readiness

for service

Ops review

and benefits

realisation

Capability assessment1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Output

definition

Pre‐

feasibility

Option

selection

Single

option

selection

Detailed

design

Construct,

Test and

commission

Scheme

Hand

back

Project

Close

out

Railway system delivery

Slide No: 44


“Macrosimulation”

•Gut instinct

Decision making approaches

Microsimulation

•RailSys

•PRIME

•OpenTrack

Macrosimulation

•???

Exhaustive

modelling

Slide No: 45


Trade-off approach: a matrix model• Decompose the rail system into individual

components: • Characterise the route;• Allocate component attributes .

• Functional aspects:• Relative impacts on capacity (impact factors);• Impact of varying component attributes.

• Prioritise between capabilities:• Overall impact;• Feasibility of improvement.

Slide No: 46


Overall view of matrix model

Existing Condition (Value)

Railway Line Capacity

Overall Impact Score

Feasibility for Improvement

Combined Impact and Feasibility Score

Infrastructure Capacity or Timetable Capacity (Trains/hour)

Train Capacity (Passengers or Tonnes/Train)

Usable Capacity Minimum headway time

Regular recovery time Dwell time Waiting time Buffer time Special recovery time Train capacity (Carriages-

Wagons/train)

Carriage-Wagon capacity (Spaces/carriage or

Tonnes/wagon)Contextual ( G / I / B ) Financial ( H / M /

L ) Technical ( E / D )

10 3 1 1 1 2 1 5 3

Rail system

Railway Infrastructure

Track

Track Utilisation (CUI or Trains/track/hour) -

Track condition

Track Structure (Line Speed, mph) -

Min Curve (m) -

Max Gradient -

Station

Platform Utilisation (Trains/platform/hour) -

Platform Length -

Passenger Handling Facilities -

Junction Characteristics -

Distance between Stations/Junctions -

Power Supply -

Signalling -

Vehicle Fleet

Train Heterogeneity (Max/Min Speed Ratio) -

Train characteristics

Train Utilisation (Seat Occupancy) -

Car / Wagon Characteristics

Carriage Utilisation (Seat Occupacy) -

Door Characteristics -

Braking System (braking rate) -

Operations

Safety Rules -

Priority Rules -

Traction Type -

Environment Protection Rules -

Station Stops -

Public Performance Measure of Feeding -

Timetabling Techniques -

Maintenance Strategy -

Slide No: 47


Decomposing the rail system

Rail System

Slide No: 48


Decomposing the rail systemHigh-level components

Rail System

Rolling Stock OperationsInfrastructure

Slide No: 49


Rail System

Vehicle fleet OperationsInfrastructure ???

High-level componentsDecomposing the rail system

Slide No: 50



Rail System

Infrastructure

Signalling Power Supply StationTrack Junctions

Component attributes - infrastructure

Distance Stn/Jct

Slide No: 51



Rail System

Infrastructure

Signalling Power Supply StationTrack Junctions Level

Crossings


Distance Stn/Jct

Slide No: 52



Rail System

Infrastructure


Crossings ???


Distance Stn/Jct

Slide No: 53



Rail System

Infrastructure


Crossings ???


Distance Stn/Jct

UtilisationCondition Platform

Slide No: 54



Rail System

Vehicle fleet

Heterogeneity Train characteristics

Car/WagonCharacteristics

BrakingSystem Utilisation

Component attributes – rolling stock

Min/Max

Speed ratioAcceleration

Slide No: 55



Rail System

Operations

PriorityRules

PPM Adjacent sections

TimetablingTechniques

Safety Rules

StationStops

EnvironmentProtection

MaintenanceStrategy

Component attributes – operations

Electrical supply

Slide No: 56


Functional decomposition

Railway Line

Rolling StockInfrastructure/Timetable

MinimumHeadway

RegularRecovery Time

UsableCapacity

DwellTime

BufferTime

WaitingTime

SpecialRecovery Time

Infrastructure or timetable capacity

Slide No: 57


Functional decomposition

Railway Line

Rolling StockInfrastructure/Timetable

Number ofCarriages

Carriage/WagonCapacity

Train capacity

Slide No: 58


Matrix model – rail system components

Slide No: 59


Matrix model: functional impact factors

Slide No: 60


Matrix model: prioritisation of options

Lei Chen, Linsha Dai, Menglei Lu, Clive RobertsFelix Schmid

BCRRE, University of Birmingham

And, finally, defining quality: an output of the project ON-TIME

Slide No: 62


Slide No: 63


Slide No: 64


Objective measures for ON-TIME• Transport Volume:

• Passengers/section/time;• Tonnes /section/time;• Volume/section/time.

• Journey Time:• Journey time without

transfer times.• Connectivity:

• Interchange time between main services / modes.

• Punctuality:• Train delays at every stop;• Train delays at destination.

• Resilience:• Resistance to disruption;• Robustness;• Recoverability.

• Passenger Comfort:• Number of jerks;• Duration of accelerations.

• Energy:• Energy Consumption.

• Resource consumption:• Track usage;• Rolling stock usage;• Crew Usage.

Slide No: 65


Definitions of measures for ON-TIME• Transport volume:

• Passengers/section/time:• Maximise the Delivered passenger kilometres in a time

period.• Tonnes or m³/section/time:

• Maximise the delivered cargo tonne or volume kilometres in a time period.

• Objective function: Min (1/transport volume).• Journey Time:

• Journey time without transfer:• Minimise the weighted SUM of journey times in railway

network.• Objective function: Min (journey time).

Slide No: 66


Definition of resilience for ON-TIME• Resistance: Ability to recover without train rescheduling;

• RS1 = w_T*T1 + w_PD*PD1 +w_ID*ID1.

• Robustness: Ability to recover with train rescheduling:• RS2 = w_T*T2 + w_PD*PD2 +w_ID*ID2.

• Recoverability: Ability to recover with operational management measures such as train cancellations, rolling stock re-allocation etc:• RS3 = w_T*T3 + w_PD*PD3 +w_ID*ID3.

• Total RS = w1*RS1 + w2*RS2 +w3*RS3• Objective function: Min (RS):

• T (Time to Recover/no delay trains);• PD (Peak of Total Delays of All Trains);• ID (Integral of Total Delays of All Trains).

Slide No: 67

IRSE Seminar 29 March 2012 - Delivering Business Performance© Charles Watson, 2011

Things are better with a good team!

Slide No: 68


Measure Definitions• Connectivity (CN)

• Interchange Time between Main Services• Minimise the Weighted SUM of Interchange Times

between Selected Main Services • Min (CN)

• Punctuality (PT)• Train delays at every stop (PT1)• Minimise the Weighted SUM of Every Train Delays

at Every Stop• Train delays at destination (PT2)• Minimise the Weighted SUM of Every Train Delays

at Final Destination• PT = SUM (w1*PT1+w2*PT2)• Min (PT)

capacity, business objectives, success factors and ... · pdf file• factors affecting...

Documents