|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
After passenger boarding, trains sometimes have to wait an additional
period of time in the station until the timetable permits departure. This is a
waste of precious time given the importance of time buffers for energy efficient
driving. The strategy of systematic train delays is intended to exploit the time
periods usually wasted in stations. The train is driven according to a “shadow”
schedule which is identical to the “public” schedule at the main stations but
slightly delayed at the intermediate stations. The driver can immediately leave
the station after passenger boarding and has more buffer time for energy
efficient driving strategies. The delays (< 2 min) can be chosen small enough
in order not to bother passengers. This strategy is presented in detail in Euro
Transport Consult 1997. In order to raise customer acceptance, the following
modification is proposed: Instead of consciously delaying train arrival as
foreseen by the above concept, the delay could be shifted to train departure.
This is achieved by reducing standing times in stations: If passenger boarding
is quick, train leaves in time, otherwise departure is slightly delayed. This
modification of the concept could raise acceptance since punctual train arrival
is more relevant for service quality than punctual train
departure. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impacts on energy efficiency:
|
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential for single vehicle: (no data) |
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential throughout fleet: (no data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other environmental impacts: neutral |
|
|
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. |