 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
General information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
Description
|
|
|
General criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Status of development: concept |
| |
|
|
|
|
The concept is described in Euro Transport Consult 1997. No realisation known. |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
Time horizon for broad application: 2 - 5 years |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Expected technological development: not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Motivation:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Energy savings |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Benefits (other than environmental): none |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barriers: high |
| |
|
|
|
|
Customer acceptance
Punctuality is seen as one of the most important indicators for service
quality in passenger service. Any measure that compromises punctuality will meet
strong resistance on the part of the management. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Success factors:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Study on acceptance of minor delays could give reliable information on the customer acceptance of such a measure.
A detailed assessment of saving potential for individual lines should be made in order to identify the most promising lines for such a measure. In general, the saving potential through additional time buffers created by systematic delays is the bigger, the smaller the time buffer foreseen by the “public” timetable, or in other words the closer the foreseen running time to the minimum running time (given by speed limits or traction performance). |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Applicability for railway segments: high |
| |
|
|
|
Type of traction: electric - DC, electric - AC, diesel
|
| |
|
|
|
Type of transportation: passenger - main lines, passenger - regional lines, passenger - suburban lines
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grade of diffusion into railway markets:
|
| |
|
|
|
Diffusion into relevant segment of fleet: not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
Share of newly purchased stock: not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
|
No realisation known. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Market potential (railways): not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Example:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
No realisation known. |
|
|
Environmental criteria
|
|
|
Economic criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vehicle - fix costs: none |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vehicle - running costs: significant reduction |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Infrastructure - fix costs: none |
| |
|
|
|
|
Measure could be implemented with the annual renewal of timetables without any additional costs. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Infrastructure - running costs: unchanged |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scale effects: not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Amortisation: not applicable |
| |
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
 |
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
|
|
Overall rating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Overall potential: interesting |
| |
|
|
|
Time horizon: short-term |
| |
|
|
|
|
Especially in timetables with little buffer times, the concept of systematic train delays could facilitate energy efficient driving without increasing overall running time between main stations. However, the saving effect strongly depends on traffic situation, passenger numbers etc. The main barrier is the significance of punctuality for customer satisfaction. However, if planned delays are small enough (< 2 min) this problem can be minimised. |
Technologies
go back to technology list
previous technology 
date created: 2002-10-09
add technology
show overview
show evaluation
show details
print data sheet
print screen
Evaluation briefing
Technology list