|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
A considerable part of the reduction potential offered by energy efficient
driving may be exploited by non-technological or low-tech measures. Whereas a
fleet-wide installation of sophisticated electronic advise systems meets
considerable and time-consuming barriers, the measures discussed here may help
to obtain a saving effect in short term.
Maximum speed reduction
Tests or calculations may reveal that timetable allows for cutting maximum
speed on individual parts of a service. Especially in local networks where
stopping frequency is high and punctuality in next station is easy to predict,
drivers can be instructed to cut maximum speed by a certain amount provided they
are on time.
Coasting
Time buffers may also be used to instruct drivers where to cut off traction
provided they are running on time. This can be realised either by an extra
timetable or by signs along the track etc. |
|
|
General criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status of development: in use |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time horizon for broad application: now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected technological development: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits (other than environmental): none |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barriers: low |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicability for railway segments: high |
|
|
|
|
Type of traction: electric - DC, electric - AC, diesel
|
|
|
|
|
Type of transportation: passenger - main lines, passenger - high speed, passenger - regional lines, passenger - suburban lines, freight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade of diffusion into railway markets:
|
|
|
|
|
Diffusion into relevant segment of fleet: > 20% |
|
|
|
|
Share of newly purchased stock: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market potential (railways): not applicable |
|
|
Environmental criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impacts on energy efficiency:
|
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential for single vehicle: 5 - 10% |
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential throughout fleet: 2 - 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
The energy efficiency potential to be expected from "low-tech" measures is difficult to assess. Several studies (e.g. Linder 2000, Sanftleben et al. 2001) indicate that over half of the theoretical potential of energy efficient driving may be exploited by well-trained drivers. However, obviously many drivers already have the corresponding skills. So the potential to be exploited by additional efforts such as training programmes will not always be this big.
Tests performed in Moscow suburban network showed that the most qualified drivers achieved energy savings of about 5-6 % compared to the average. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other environmental impacts: neutral |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
Economic criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - fix costs: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
Costs for training seminars depend on their duration and synergy effects with other training measures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - running costs: significant reduction |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - fix costs: low |
|
|
|
|
|
Costs for setting up special schedules and signs along the track indicating the optimum point for coasting as a help for drivers are low to medium. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - running costs: unchanged |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scale effects: none |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortisation: < 1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
Experiences at DB AG show that very good cost-benefit ratios can be achieved with short-term measures to promote energy efficient driving strategies. |
|
|
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
|
|
Overall rating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall potential: very promising |
|
|
|
|
Time horizon: short-term |
|
|
|
|
|
In view of the barriers impeding a fast diffusion of advanced driving advice systems, non-technological short term efforts to promote energy efficient driving are especially promising. Many measures including training programmes for drivers can be realized at good cost-benefit ratio and meet virtually no barriers. |