Rail Benchmarking

March 2011

Prepared by:

............................................................. Paul Davison Consultant ............................................................. Geoff Clarke Associate Director

Checked by:

........................................................................ Richard Elviss Regional Director

Approved by:

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking Rev No 1 2 Comments Checked by RE Approved by GC Date 29/03/11 30/03/11

Lynnfield House, Church Street , Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 4DZ Telephone: 0161 927 8200 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60150622 Reference M001.030S Date Created March 2011

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the Client) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.
f:\tprojects\transport planning - freight best practice year 3\4 research\freight

best practice rail bencmarking v2.docx

Table of Contents

1 2 3 4 5 6

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Aims ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Analysis of Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Conclusions and Way Forward ...................................................................................................................................... 21

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction This research investigates implementing a fuel use benchmarking study in the UK rail freight sector under the Freight Best Practice (FBP) programme. The study provides narrative on the general issues surrounding the fuel consumption of locomotives and in part gives the actual findings of fuel consumption of locomotives on certain operations, as well as details on the progress of a trial to introduce a telematics device to determine the influence of driver behaviour on the fuel consumption of a Class 66 freight locomotive. The railway sector risks losing its environmental edge if it does not make proactive green interventions similar to the road sector. Activities that are currently being undertaken or have been undertaken by the Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) in the UK. Initiatives have been anonymised and grouped into five specific areas:
-

Technical Innovations; Anti-Idling Actions; Driver Behaviour Change; Fuel Monitoring; and Operational Improvements.

1.2 Aims The aim of this study was to understand the rate of diesel fuel consumption of the most common type of locomotive, the Class 66, which provides the traction for over 80% of rail freight services in the UK. The intention being that an enhanced understanding of fuel use would help the industry to monitor and manage its fuel and amend its operational practice in order to save costs and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The result of this work was intended to have important messages for:
-

FOCs; Rail freight customers; Individuals wishing to report carbon; and Individuals wishing to set carbon conversion factors.

1.3 Methodology The methodology used for this Rail Benchmarking study follows well established programme procedures and practices:
-

Research: Selecting operational KPIs and establishing methods of reliable data collection; Consultation: Setting and reviewing targets and agreeing on a data collection system; Analysis of findings: Measuring fuel and performance, reviewing and evaluation; and Conclusion and way forward: Reporting and feedback in the form of management information, reviewing of targets and KPIs and summarising of business benefits.

In order to install a telematics device into a locomotive, a strong safety case needs to be constructed, as the consequences of delay can be significant. If an electrical system interferes with on-board or trackside electrical equipment or infrastructure such as signals, causing a potential breakdown, then the implications can be serious. Compensation claims from other operators using the National Rail network affected by a delay can be significant as a large number of trains can be affected. Therefore, Type Approval of the device and the requisite safety documentation needs to be produced. Both the operational and engineering departments of rail operators need to be in agreement that the device can be fitted, which represents a significant barrier to the introduction of such a device.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Given that the typical life expectancy of a locomotive is 40 years, then the current fleet of Class 66 locomotives (first introduced in 1998) can expect to form an important part of rail freight movement in the UK for a number of years to come. Given its current prominence and its likely part in future fleet operations this study has focused on the Class 66 locomotive as the trial vehicle. 1.4 Analysis of findings Unfortunately, partly due to serious delays in obtaining the necessary paperwork and then the operator becoming very busy, it has meant this trial could not be undertaken during the Freight Best Practice programme. This is regrettable as much of the preparatory and investigatory work had been completed. Instead we examined some manually collected data and it is clear from the data that the rate of fuel consumption is directly affected by numerous elements, such as driver style, route, number of stops, train weight, signal spacing, length of passing loops, unloading time and facilities and congestion on the rail network and that this data is required to be captured in order to normalise benchmarking results. In order to undertake a benchmarking exercise across a number of FOCs in both Britain and Sweden, data has been collected from freight locomotives across three trial periods. Generally, the Swedish operator was slightly more fuel efficient, with a superior litres per hour fuel consumption in the Throttle position 8, one of the most commonly used throttle positions, however there are a number of factors which make this comparison difficult. 1.5 Conclusions Feedback from discussions provides an understanding of fuel use in the rail freight industry. There is a significant range of understanding and actions across the sector, which by sharing information on fuel saving could benefit all and encourage enhanced competiveness of rail freight. The two core concerns established by this research is a lack of knowledge mainly due to a lack of available tools. Developing a cost effective approach to measuring fuel consumption is essential and some companies are addressing this issue, but this has not been achieved universally. There has traditionally been less motivation to reduce fuel consumption in the rail freight sector compared to road freight, because fuel only accounts for 15% of costs for rail compared to 30% for road, but fuel price rises since 2008 have prompted action.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Introduction

2.1 Introduction The Freight Best Practice (FBP) programmes key aim is the reduction of CO2 whilst improving the efficiency of the freight industry as a whole. This task aims to understand and to create a platform on which to benchmark rail freight operations leading to likely CO2 and operator cost savings. This research investigates implementing a fuel use benchmarking study in the UK rail freight sector under the Freight Best Practice (FBP) programme. In order to understand the emissions of CO2 from rail locomotives in use, this research contains the findings from industry consultation with the operators, manufacturers and customers of the Class 66 locomotive, which is by far the most common type of freight locomotive in the UK. The Class 66 is a six axle diesel electric freight locomotive developed in part from the British Rail Class 59, for use on the railways of the UK. Since its introduction the class has been successful and has been sold to British and other European railway companies. The Class 66 provides 8 gears (or throttle positions) in addition to an idle setting. A Class 66 costs approximately 2.5m to purchase new. The study provides narrative on the general issues surrounding the fuel consumption of locomotives and in part gives the actual findings of fuel consumption of locomotives on certain operations, as well as details on the progress of a trial to introduce a telematics device to determine the influence of driver behaviour on the fuel consumption of a Class 66 freight locomotive. This report also highlights some of the issues that may explain why the industry has not developed an accurate fuel monitoring system, and, to pave the way for a more co-ordinated trial to more accurately generate CO2 conversion factors for the industry. 1 This will help to form the standardised approach which the industry requested as part of the way forward in earlier research . This current research was a potentially ground breaking study that had not been attempted before in the UK rail freight industry. The intention of the study was to investigate the fuel consumption of the UKs most common class of diesel rail freight locomotive, the Class 66 locomotive (>400 in the UK) that moves over 80% of all the rail freight in the UK and is used in over ten countries in Europe. The expected results from this study were to give an enhanced understanding of fuel use in different applications and assist the rail freight industry in measuring their performance and managing their fuel costs, and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Previous research in America had shown that there are significant differences in levels of fuel consumption using the same locomotive depending on various factors including styles of driving, tonnage, route, effect of signalling etc.

Operational Efficiency for Non Road Modes, Freight Best Practice, 2009

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

2.2

Specification of a Class 66 Diesel Electric Locomotive A typical Electro-motive Class 66 diesel has a General Motors two stroke engine of 2,385kW (3,200 horsepower hp) at 900 rpm. It weighs 127 tonnes and can deliver a maximum tractive effort of 409KN. The standard locos have fuel tanks underneath the body able to carry 6,400 litres (or about 6 tonnes) of fuel and have a design speed of 87 mph but operate to a maximum speed of 75 mph in the UK and this applies when they are pulling a Class 4 type of freight train which typically is an intermodal/container train. Several locomotives have been designed with modified gear ratios for use in heavy haulage with a lower design speed for use on Class 66 bulk trains which have a maximum speed of 60mph. These locomotives can deliver a higher maximum tractive effort of 467KN. A low emission variant of the diesel electric engine has been developed on more recently manufactured members of the class to comply with the UIC Emissions legislation 2006. This has required a change to the cooling system and to make room for this the fuel tanks have been reduced in size to a capacity of 5,150 litres. The approach across the industry is essentially that if there is a fuel pump, you fill up. This ensures that any likelihood of running out of fuel is minimised as doing so can result in heavy fines depending on how or where the locomotive is stranded. If any locomotive delays another locomotive by more than 10 minutes then heavy fines are applied that incorporate the number and types of trains you are responsible for delaying. Given that the typical life expectancy of a locomotive is 40 years, then the current fleet of Class 66 locomotives (first introduced in 1998) can expect to form an important part of rail freight movement in the UK for a number of years to come. Given its current prominence and its likely part in future fleet operations this study has focused on the Class 66 locomotive as the trial vehicle.

Interior of Class 66 showing the 6 gauges

Class 66 fuel gauge and filling point for smaller 5,150 litre tank (larger is 6,400 litres)

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

2.3

Technology on the Locomotives There are three key technology systems on a Class 66 locomotive:-

EM2000 Applies relative power & feed traction metres; EMDEC Engine management system / electric governor to set engine speed; Wabtec units (Q-tron) data capture devices (effectively the locomotives black box a safety device.)

The Wabtec unit that captures a number of pieces of information for delivery into some detailed reports. These reports are typically downloaded via cable as opposed to automatically captured and relayed centrally for benchmarking / reporting. It is our understanding that this information can be gathered over an RS232 link but this would need further discussion with Class 66 Electro-motive on board computer display Wabtech. Typical information captured is the headcode, error messages, throttle usage and driver identification and is generally used as a safety system.

The locomotive onboard computer records the amount of time spent in each of the drive notches and the two most frequently th used notches appear to be 8 and idle. This is not surprising and is similar to HGVs in having a lot of time in top gear. A computer records how fast the train is going from a speed pulse based on radar signals and a calculation of the current wheel size. The mono-block steel wheels wear down and the computer re-calculates on the basis of actual wheel size. The wheels are re-profiled about every 4 years or 400,000 miles. There are a number of other technology solutions on board including cut offs in the event of a wagon disengaging and speed restrictors. 2.4 Driver and locomotive performance In analysing performance it is important to first understand the criteria that can be measured to distinguish good from bad performance levels. A locomotive utilised on intermodal type services typically runs about 100,000 miles a year whereas those employed on heavier bulk trains such as the movement of coal tend to do shorter services and hence do nearer 60,000 miles a year. Curiously, it is believed that locomotives used on the slower, heavier trains although doing fewer miles may use a similar amount of fuel over a year to those on intermodal trains. One of the functions of a benchmarking study is to get a better grasp of this distance/weight/speed relationship. Many diesel locomotives including Class 66s actually drive through six electric traction motors, one on each axle. Hence in practice the diesel loco is a generator of power. Measurement of fuel usage is therefore viewed as MegaWatts produced by volume of diesel as opposed to MPG. Locomotives and their effectiveness can then be classified by MegaWatt Hours. Average speed can be 30mph and made up of lots of 60mph and lots of stationary time sitting in passing loops, or running consistently at more even speeds. Class 66 locos have 8 throttle positions as well as idle that governs the way in which fuel is utilised in order to feed the generator. Each of these settings instructs the diesel engine to generate power at a pre-set number of revolutions. How these are used will determine the amount of fuel used / electricity generated, i.e. typically position 8 = 125 ltrs/hr, position 0 (idling) = 10 ltrs/hr etc.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

The top notch (8 ) instructs the main control unit EM2000, to apply a load of 3,000 horsepower and this clearly uses the most fuel. The loco in idle is just ticking over and only uses around 10 litres an hour (five times more than on a typical truck engine). One of the fascinating things is that engines may be in idle (neutral) but the train is actually moving, commonly called coasting. This means that there needs to be a clever way of separating idle time (stationary) from idle time (coasting). Otherwise when you look at the loco on-board computers you can deduce that there is a very high amount of idling and hence make incorrect assumptions for example on the potential for an anti-idling campaign. To gain an insight into some of the fundamental differences between trucks and locomotives, a locomotive doing 75 mph will have a stopping distance of 1,194 metres. There are many elements / measurements needed to determine good from bad driving styles for example route knowledge is a critical factor in being able to determine where or when to apply more power / speed as appropriate. Trains use a disproportionately high amount of fuel in starting up so if they can be kept running even at very slow speeds in passing loops then that is more fuel efficient and better on the equipment, couplings and track wear. The benefits of train control on advising drivers or indeed automatic train control are features that once you know fuel use you can reflect the benefits better.

th

Class 66 V12 Engine

2.5 Freight Best Practice Benchmarking Benchmarking exercises generally set out with the aim of collecting data, comparing the information and then sharing best practice. Our main research aim is to establish the extent of investigation into the productive use of benchmarking data in the different modes of transport. On Line Benchmarking has done this for the road haulage industry for over 2 years. Freight Best Practice has begun investigating the potential to benchmark the water and rail industries and an investigative report was completed in 2009. Unfortunately, partly due to serious delays in obtaining the necessary paperwork and then the operator becoming very busy, it has meant this trial could not be undertaken during the Freight Best Practice programme. This is regrettable as much of the preparatory and investigatory work had been completed. As discussed we have included some data collected manually from three operators one of which was Swedish, but this was time consuming for the operators and is not as comprehensive as we had hoped to gather from the trial. Nevertheless it is hoped that the rail freight industry does address fuel consumption issues on these locomotives that are likely to be running on the UK and European rail network for at least the next 20 years. 2.6 Impact of new Legislation In July 2009 the DfT published Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. This document outlines the policy aim of decarbonising road and rail transport. In the executive summary it is stated an aim is to improve energy efficiency in rail operation whilst the main theme described in the text is the electrification of the railway lines, there is no reason not to include cheaper behavioural change measures. A significant proportion of the rail network is not electrified and although there are some routes scheduled for electrification over the next decade, diesel traction is likely to remain the dominant source of power for the foreseeable future. The DfT have stated As the Coalition Government made absolutely clear in its Agreement Document, rail and rail freight must be at the heart of our future transport programme, providing the British economy with the key links it needs to grow sustainably in the years ahead. The railway sector risks losing its environmental edge if it does not make proactive green interventions similar to the road sector. The water freight sector, through the leadership of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is developing some visionary methods of carbon measurement and reduction.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Understanding the levels of emissions from different modes of freight transport is an important area of work. The UK is obligated to undertake emissions level reduction both through international accords (e.g. Kyoto (1997)) and domestic targets (e.g. Climate Change Act (2008)). With the transport sector making up 150Mt CO2-e out of the UK total 628.3Mt CO2-e , and falling outside the remit of dedicated mandatory carbon reduction schemes (e.g. EU ETS, UK CRC) the sector is increasingly being encouraged to form plans to mitigate its emissions. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) and the subsequent Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future documents both outline the Department for Transports plan and Carbon Budget for the foreseeable future. The reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels for transportation is a core part of the Departments plan for emissions reduction. This can be achieved in two primary ways, firstly through alternative fuels that have a reduced CO2 impact, or, through more efficient technology and/or use of transport. An EU directive on air quality could be a major threat to rail freight, the Freight Transport Association has warned. The concerns of the FTA are due to the coming into force, during 2011, of stricter emissions standards for new locomotive engines which were introduced by an amendment to the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive in 2004. The new emissions standards will involve reductions in oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions from the power units of non-road vehicles and machines, including railway vehicles, chainsaws and cranes. Chris MacRae, the FTAs rail freight policy manager, said: Not only does it require new build or re-engined locomotives to be fitted with a power unit that doesnt currently exist, and is unlikely to in the immediate future, it is also questionable if the larger cooler system required by the NRMM for new build or re-engined locos would actually fit into existing locomotive designs due to the UKs restrictive loading gauge. The situation is especially parlous for those operators of Class 66 locos if they want to reengine them at future life-extension overhauls. MacRae believes that new entrants to the rail freight market may see the supply of Class 66 locomotives evaporate if manufacturers do not build them to the new standards. This anxiety has been heightened by the reported concerns of major European locomotive builders about building to these exacting new standards. With the reported lack of interest in building such a power unit, and no flexibility built into the NRMM directive to allow for power units being retrofitted, many freight operators will be getting very hot under the collar, he said. Preliminary investigations suggested that for a variety of reasons minimal work has been undertaken to improve and develop the rail industrys fuel economy and FBP should assist in helping to change this. 2.7 Current fuel saving initiatives The following section gives an overview of the activity that is currently being undertaken or has been undertaken by the Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) in the UK. Initiatives have been anonymised and grouped into five specific areas: 2.7.1 Technical Innovations Encouraging efficient operations through the use of new diesel locomotives that are capable of pulling 30 wagons as opposed to the current capacity of 24 wagons under the Class 66; Notch 8 modification implemented successfully in Classes 66, 67, and 60, resulting in Reduced Fuel Consumption and Noise with no adverse impact on journey time (traditionally, train drivers could accelerate locomotives from stationary in top gear (Notch 8). This tended to cause wheel spin and used a maximum amount of fuel. A gate now prevents drivers from engaging top gear straight away) ; and Creation of Quads / Qutron Searches to identify various driver behaviour including inefficient driving and excess speed in Notch 8.
2

Http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=statistics/climate_change/1_20100324153039_e_@@_20 08inventorydatatables.xls&filetype=4

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

2.7.2 Anti-Idling Actions Anti idling campaign (introduction of a 15 minute maximum within good operational practice); Use of Antifreeze has reduced fuel consumption by 13% (rolling average) by encouraging drivers to turn off their locomotives engine during cold weather (formerly Antifreeze was not used and locomotives would experience difficulty starting); and Anti Idling campaign was instigated and has shown benefits. 2.7.3 Driver Behaviour Change Specific fuel consumption reduction campaigns were run during summer 2008, to coincide with very high global fuel costs; Driver League Tables have been demonstrated at one depot; Provision of additional information to the driver and an average speed calculator giving the driver information enough to reduce SPADs (Signals Passed at Danger), reduce fuel consumption and speed as well as deceleration/acceleration The company gives driver training over an 18 month period at the beginning of a drivers career. Following this, all train managers have 3 trips with a traction inspector over a two year period with those deemed at risk having more frequent observations. Fuel efficiency is part of this training, with the focus on working with rather than against gravity; Train managers are encouraged as part of their six monthly Safety Briefing to drive defensively and to undertake fuel saving 3 behaviour. ; One FOC is stringent in their choice of new drivers and the training which newly employed drivers are given. New drivers are given fuel efficiency training; A Swedish FOC have introduced a driver simulator for staff; One FOC undertakes day-to-day dynamic monitoring of their drivers behaviour, which encompasses fuel efficiency amongst other factors; and Development of an impressive driver handbook that covers fuel consumption. 2.7.4 Fuel Monitoring A study was undertaken in 2009 monitoring fuel usage on 21 separate journeys to determine fuel consumption rates across a number of FOCs. Despite the difficulties associated with introducing telemetric modifications to the locomotives (as a result of time-consuming processes), one of the FOCs was building on their experience by introducing complete fuel monitoring at all of their sites.; and A Swedish FOC has undertaken fuel trials which has reduced fuel bills by 20%.
-

2.7.5 Operational Improvements Consecutive container loading; Ensuring that gaps in the electrified network are plugged; and Strategy to disseminate the benefits of increased fuel efficiency

Such as not going straight into Notch 8.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Aims

3.1 Aims The aim of this study was to understand the rate of diesel fuel consumption of the UKs rail freight industry. The intention being that an enhanced understanding of fuel use would help the industry to monitor and manage its fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The overarching aim of this study was to identify what interventions can be made and are already being made to improve fuel consumption in the rail freight sector. It was envisaged that each company that wanted to be involved would be provided with a report on their fuel consumption highlighting good practice and areas where by modifying systems and behaviour they had the potential for improving fuel efficiency. It was originally anticipated at the Vision Stage that we would be able to bring data on fuel consumption together from the FOCs to work towards developing a benchmarking exercise with the aim of sharing best practice; it became rapidly apparent that the lack of data collected meant this approach was not going to be possible. Earlier research undertaken by FBP recognised the significant gap in the knowledge of the FOCs and their locomotives fuel consumption and therefore the key output of this piece of work would be to report the findings back to the industry by delivering KPIs based on benchmarked data. It was hoped that this data will be proactively used to encourage emissions and fuel awareness among the FOCs and enhance the ability of their customers to report rail freight carbon emissions more accurately. The result of this work was intended to have important messages for:
-

FOCs; Rail freight customers; Individuals wishing to report carbon; and Individuals wishing to set carbon conversion factors. Possible benefits of closing the knowledge gap Potential benefits for increasing fuel awareness include:
-

3.2

Better understanding of true benefits of modal switch; Facilitating a reduction in emissions for UK plc (if you dont measure it you cant manage it); Correct job pricing to allow better competition with other modes and the potential for more profit; and By ensuring that the present rolling stock is as operationally efficient as possible it will ensure that the locomotives remain as viable as possible for longer into the future, making rail freight as attractive as possible.

3.3 Likely barriers to closing the knowledge gap Potential barriers for increasing awareness of rail freight operators fuel awareness includes: Complacency rail intuitively does have less environmental impacts than road, but this does not mean it cant reduce them further; FOCs are less directly affected by fluctuations in the cost of fuel because of lower unit cost due to reduced tax levels; At present there is not an easy way to systematically measure fuel consumption per trip and have this information reported back to the operations control room on a daily basis; and Engaging with staff to undertake an extra task of assisting with this seems complex and in some cases a struggle for a single company to implement. Class 66 Intermodal Train
-

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

10

The project was important as earlier research revealed that Freight Operating Companies did not have the systems or capacity to measure the fuel consumption of their locomotives. Given that past studies had relied on the relatively complex matter of being able to draw data out of the locomotives on-board computer it was initially hoped that this scheme would have been different in that specialist recording equipment would be fitted to several locomotives taking part in the trial. The information would have allowed benchmarking between locomotives, drivers and types of application. There were a number of significant hurdles to climb with this study in terms of: Engaging with the industry (which was done successfully); Obtaining agreement from one operator to conduct the trial and then share the data with their competitors; Establishing the Key Performance Indicators that would be useful to the operators and study team; Examine the type of black box that would be suitable for download; Establish the best way of getting power from the locomotive batteries and we found five locomotives suitable for direct feed; Addressing issues of potential driver resistance to having the recording equipment; Obtaining fitting instructions; Receiving confirmation of type approval from the standards authority for the black boxes; Safety concerns from operators; and Finding a suitable time to take the locomotives out of service to fit the devices.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

11

Methodology

4.1 Methodology The methodology used for this Rail Benchmarking study follows well established programme procedures and practices:
-

Research: Selecting operational KPIs and establishing methods of reliable data collection; Consultation: Setting and reviewing targets and agreeing on a data collection system; Analysis of findings: Measuring fuel and performance, reviewing and evaluation; and Conclusion and way forward: Reporting and feedback in the form of management information, reviewing of targets and KPIs and summarising of business benefits.
4

From earlier research , it is clear that the majority of FOCs do not monitor the fuel consumption of their locomotives to the same degree of detail as many road freight companies. Where historic trials have been undertaken by two of the FOCs (details of which are reported in the research) they have been relatively intensive and small scale owing to the complexity of drawing out fuel data from the trains on-board computer with a manual download to a laptop and the reliance on normalising data such as 5 TOPS and manual driver recordings. This methodology has sought to overcome these barriers by automating the data feed from the locomotive to a remote computer. There would still need to be normalising data, particularly from TOPS, but it is intended that the use of technology would be a more realistic long-term option for FOCs. To provide the data-transfer technology and to consult on the suitability of the equipment for use on the locomotive and on the UK rail network, we assembled a multi stakeholder partnership. Their roles are outlined below: The partnership was established with each stakeholder aware of their roles in the project and the type of role they might provide into the future. There has been a learning curve in being able to gain access to the rail freight market in terms of making the right contacts, understanding technical and engineering issues of locomotive design and in determining the suitability and application of road-freight technologies application to the rail freight sector. The Class 66 diesel engine makes up a significant proportion of the total rail freight locomotives in UK. It is for this reason that these vehicles had been targeted for participation in the study. It was hoped that a number of fuel driven KPIs would be derived from real operations and that all of the Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) would participate in the trial.

4 5

Emissions Benchmarking: Considering the Viability of a Rail Freight Study (FBP, 2011)

Total Operations Processing System a prime source of train movement information. TOPS provides a comprehensive system for monitoring a trains complete movement cycle.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

12

The following table details the information that was proposed to be captured by the trial and the source of the information.

Data Source Time (Planned vs Actual) Fuel Use Speed Data Required For Trial No. Stops Throttle No. /Duration No. Wagons Payload Tare Distance Commodity Driver details Route issues TOPS code
Frequency

CMS Unit via GPS

FOC (Central) via TOPS

FOC (On Train/Driver Notes)

EMD Data Download from Locos Computer

Units

00:00 Real Time Daily Per Route End of Trial Gallons Km/h No. 1-8, 00:00 No. Tonnes Tonnes Km Type Name Weather/ Delay e.g. 6N67

Primary Source Cross Check

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

13

4.2 Engaging with partners Freight Best Practice has worked hard to make good contacts with the right individuals at all the FOCs (see Table 4.1). We have also interest from other sources, including:
-

Locomotive Leasing Firms - who lease locomotives to the rail freight companies; it is in their interest to ensure that the vehicles they own are cost effective and thus are chosen to remain in service when their leasing period expires; Electromotive Services International Ltd (EMD) - who manufacture and maintain locomotives (Class 66) for various companies in the UK and Europe; and Triscan manufacture of fuel measuring equipment as they feel they have a potential solution.

Table 4.1 Engaging with partners Partner Organsiation DB Schenker Freightliner GBRf DRS Fastline Locomotive Leasing Firms Summary of contact Held meetings, Shared information Held meetings, shared information Held meetings, shared information Held meetings, shared information Held meetings, shared information Interest shown in trial Held meetings, detailed information on locomotive operation and data. Obtain their cooperation in the development of the study. Provide fuel management system, assisted in attempting to secure support from FOCs Provider of telematics system

Electromotive Services International Ltd (EMD)

Triscan CMS

A presentation was made by Geoff Clarke (AECOM) and Stuart Jardine (Triscan) on the work they had in hand to benchmark fuel consumption for the rail freight sector. The objective was to generate accurate data on the fuel consumption to benchmark current performance and compare to other modes and they were seeking collaborators to gather this data. The group discussed this and it was felt the area of greatest difficulty was to gather the information on the actual state of train load versus the train headcode. A presentation had previously been made in autumn 2009 to introduce the concept of rail benchmarking. A further presentation th was made to the Class 66 User Group in Derby on 10 November 2010. This prompted some detailed discussion and it was agreed that the most appropriate course of action was to approach GBRF and propose to take some measurements on their coal trains. GBRf explained that a Class 66 would be able to give readouts of the fuel remaining in the tank. This could be done at any time, although the reading is likely to be highly variable when in motion. A trial had already been undertaken between the Port of Tyne and Drax Power Station. 4.3 Technical Aim of the trial It was thought that the train length from the train list could be used together with knowledge of the wagon length to estimate the number of wagons in the train, which would be of known tare and could reasonably be assumed to be close to100t laden for 50% of the mileage. The reason for this is that a typical coal train may run from a coal mine or port to an electricity generating station and usually runs straight back unladen. Typical bogie weights have a gross weight of 102 tonnes based on 4 axles at 25.5 tonnes. Light engine movements were proposed to be filtered out of the trial.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

14

For this reason, it was originally envisaged that at least one locomotive from each of the main operators would be fitted with a telematics device. Initially it was hoped that multiple devices could be deployed over a number of locomotives across several FOC. Data was to be collected for these KPIs and reported back to the DfT and the FOCs. As part of the research, dialogue was opened with Triscan, a fuel management system provider. They in turn introduced us to a telematics system provider called CMS, based in Swindon. This dialogue developed an understanding of the capability of the telematics unit and how it would interact with the computer systems on a Class 66 locomotive. It was envisaged that data would be collected for a reasonable length of time. This would ideally have been for a period of 6 months. As bulk coal and intermodal freight are key rail markets it was envisaged that these services would be targeted. Rail services are predictable so operational change could (in theory) be ruled out as an influence on the KPIs, hence the opportunity to draw strong conclusions from changes noted. The programme was projected to run as follows: 1. Agree KPIs with DfT and FOCs; 2. Confirm installation techniques; Example of telematics device 4.4 Risks of the trial Initially it was envisaged that a telematics device could be introduced to a number of Class 66 locomotives across several FOCs. This would have helped create a standard benchmark upon which you could monitor interventions such as determining the impact of driver behaviour on fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. However, following concerns that the telematics device could compromise the locomotives rail safety systems, a single FOC was selected to participate in the trial (GBRf). The following issues were identified as potential issues affecting the project: Was there a risk of not finding a suitable place to install the black box? Was there a risk that the systems will not communicate properly together? Was there a risk that the downloads by GPRS will not work 3. Install two devices; and 4. Review sample with group.

GBRf Class 66 locomotive

successfully? Was there any risk of interference on the running of the loco by the fitting of the box? Was there a risk of the box affecting the outputs from the on train computer systems? Was there a risk of the box being damaged, tampered with or stolen? Was there a risk that the downloaded data cannot be adequately processed to make meaningful results? Did we need any manual recording of data to supplement the data collected automatically?

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

15

It was best if the presence of the black box in the loco is unknown by the train drivers so as to avoid potentially affecting results. Is this possible? What was the chance of having unrepresentative results due to external factors such as bad weather, the actual locomotive fitted is significantly better or worse than the average?

It was envisaged that the locomotives on-board computers would transmit data to the telematics device and would be activated remotely or by the driver. Data would be collected by the device and collected at the end of the journey as opposed to being transmitted live. The on-board computer can store approximately two days of data before it overwrites. Following discussion on the Benchmarking aims and issues the difficulty of monitoring fuel from a Class 66 was raised as an issue. Fuel is drawn, consumed and then any excess fuel is re-circulated to the tank. This means that fuel drawn would not be a suitable metric unless the fuel returned was subtracted. This would require flow meters on either side of the engine. GBRf have been unable to find a suitable flow rate meter for their use. It was also noted that intrusive technology fitted onto the locomotive would need to be certificated and authenticated. 4.5 Safety Case In order to install a telematics device into a locomotive, a strong safety case needs to be constructed, as the consequences of delay can be significant. If an electrical system interferes with on-board or trackside electrical equipment or infrastructure such as signals, causing a potential breakdown, then the implications can be serious. Compensation claims from other operators using the National Rail network affected by a delay can be significant as a large number of trains can be affected. Therefore, Type Approval of the device and the requisite safety documentation needs to be produced. Both the operational and engineering departments of rail operators need to be in agreement that the device can be fitted, which represents a significant barrier to the introduction of such a device. It was acknowledged by AECOM and Triscan that the system would have to be non-intrusive and in line with safety protocols. GBRf stated that full approval may take up to 6 months, and upon receipt of safety information a minor medication note could be produced to enable to trial to proceed. AECOM with this course of action and representatives met with EMD to confirm safety aspects of the system. Due to the required timescales to undertake this action it has not been yet been possible to install a telematics device into a locomotive given the risks and barriers associated with such an initiative. 4.6 Key Performance Indicators A number of KPIs had been determined to assist FOCs in understanding their vehicles performances. This was envisaged to complement those already used by the rail industry. AECOM has used its experience of On Line Benchmarking to propose sensible KPIs for the project. Kilometres per Gallon (KmPG) is a sensible KPI, although for rail locomotives this is particularly low in comparison to HGVs. Another useful KPI to benchmark against is that of energy efficiency. Although KmPG can increase and decrease, there may be additional reasons for this occurring and this reason may not be down to driver behaviour. KmPG will often vary due to the mass of the load being carried. Energy intensity is a KPI that combines the fuel consumption with the mass being transported. All trains are required to record the mass and type of goods that they are transporting so this KPI is recordable. Other KPIs that are recordable via a Triscan system are throttle usage (broken down as 8 power levels akin to gears), harsh braking, engine idling, coasting and over revving. Triscan may reveal there to be more KPIs that could be recordable. The Key Performance Indicators that were suggested as being useful were:
-

Fuel consumption per gross tonne-km; Fuel consumption per gross train weight tonne-km; Fuel consumption per empty km; Fuel consumption per km / driver;

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

16

Productive tonnes per driver; Productive tonnes per day; Consumption per MwH; Utilisation per MwH; Intervention undertaken; and Loading factors split by Bulk and Multimodal Material.

There is a significant range of understanding and actions across the sector, which by sharing information on fuel saving may benefit all and encourage overall competiveness between modes. The two core concerns are a lack of available tools and a lack of knowledge.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

17

Analysis of Findings

5.1 CO2 emissions associated with Class 66 locomotives Whilst there are no outputs associated with the telematics device, consultation with operators and associated research has found, based on payload, 0.011 kg CO2 per tonne-kilometre average for Class 66 locomotives on coal services and 0.026 kg CO2 per tonne-kilometre average for intermodal service compared with a 0.0285 CO2 per tonne-kilometre conversion factor. While the sample is relatively small, it does give a strong indication that a sector specific conversion factor would be a beneficial addition to the corporate carbon reporting conversion factors. In addition, as the tare weight of some services can be a significant proportion of the gross train weight, it is also recommended that consideration is given to uncoupling conversion factors for different carbon reporting groups. It is clear from the research, that rail freight customers will only have access to the tonnes shipped by rail, the type of goods and the distance (albeit road distance or derivative of), whereas the FOCs are likely to understand tare weight, total payload and capacity. When considered on a gross train weight basis, coal trains in the sample emitted 0.0071 kg CO2 per tonne-kilometre whereas intermodal services emitted 0.0126 kg CO2 per tonne-kilometre. When we examined some manually collected data and it is clear from the data that the rate of fuel consumption is directly affected by numerous elements, such as driver style, route, number of stops, train weight, signal spacing, length of passing loops, unloading time and facilities and congestion on the rail network and that this data is required to be captured in order to normalise benchmarking results. 5.2 Manual Data Collection In order to undertake a benchmarking exercise across a number of FOCs in both Britain and Sweden, data has been collected from freight locomotives across three trial periods. It was hoped that the introduction of a telematics device would assist in improving the rail industrys understanding of the impact of driver behaviour on fuel consumption in the Class 66 locomotive. In the absence of this data, information collected manually from a number of FOCs has been provided and analysed. 5.2.1 British Operator Trial 1 In September and October 2008 data was collected from Class 66 Freight locomotives serving a route (A-B) approximately 330 miles in length. Data was collected from over 20 journeys in both directions for intermodal trains. Exact journey and operator vehicles have not been reported to ensure anonymity of the trial, as requested by the operator. Information on KmPG, fuel used and load mass has been collected as part of the trial, and used to determine the impact of load journey time and energy intensity on those outputs.

In this trial, with a relatively limited sample size, the mass of load did not vary significantly for each journey. Therefore, a comparison of fuel used in this trial against mass of load indicates that the mass of the load transported by the locomotive did not

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

18

impact significantly on the amount of fuel used, once anomalous results are discounted. Container trains can carry a mix of full and empty boxes and a proportion of the wagons may be completely unladen. It can be difficult to draw conclusions without the full data.

Journey times did not vary significantly for those journeys included in this exercise. Therefore, in this trial, journey time did not significantly impact on the MPG of the locomotive, with an approximate fuel efficiency of between 0.7-1.2 KmPG for most journeys.

In this trial, Energy Intensity (MPG/Mass of Load) is also shown to decrease when mass of load increases, however where the mass of load exceeds 500 tonnes the rate of decline reduced significantly. 5.2.2 Swedish Operator Trial Data was also derived from a Swedish operator in order to provide a comparison between locomotive performance in the UK and that of a foreign operator. Table 5.1 demonstrates that in higher throttle positions fuel consumption increases significantly, and is largely consistent between the different fuel bands.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

19

Table 5.1: Swedish Operator fuel consumption rates

Throttle position

Speed diesel engine

Hp

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Idle Dynamic break

904 820 729 729 625 490 343 269 200 269

4040 3525 2800 1944 1474 950 420 204 0 0

Fuel consumption Statoil l/h

533.17 461.21 366.41 264.62 204.65 128.35 59.90 33.74 7.77 11.51

Fuel consumption Shell l/h

533.83 461.77 366.86 264.95 204.90 128.51 59.98 33.79 7.78 11.52

Fuel consumption Preem l/h

530.55 458.94 364.61 263.32 203.64 127.72 59.61 33.58 7.73 11.45

5.2.3 British Operator Trial 2 In July and August 2009 data was drawn from a number of freight operations undertaken on behalf a British FOC. Approximately 20 journeys were assessed over the two month period, with outputs including average time in each throttle setting, average journey cost, average current hedge cost per litre and litres per tonne shifted reported. Table 5.2 demonstrates that a higher throttle position equates to higher average fuel consumption and also that locomotives spend the majority of their journey either idle or in throttle 7 or 8. On average it took 0.513 litres of fuel to shift each tonne of freight.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

20

Table 5.2 British Operator Trial 2 Fuel Consumption

Throttle Position Idle Throttle 1 Throttle 2 Throttle 3 Throttle 4 Throttle 5 Throttle 6 Throttle 7 Throttle 8

Time (Hours) Lead in each setting 2.14 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.44 0.89

Fuel (Litres per hour) 6.8 42.6 93.1 112.6 204.5 269.2 313.6 455.1 565.8

5.3 Benchmarking fuel consumption rates Table 5.3 demonstrates that fuel consumption is largely similar for the British and Swedish operators, with minimal deviation from the average. Generally, the Swedish operator was slightly more fuel efficient, with a superior litres per hour fuel consumption in the Throttle position 8, one of the most commonly used throttle positions (see Table 5.2), however there are a number of factors which make this comparison difficult. Table 5.3 Benchmarking fuel consumption rates Throttle position British Operator 2 (l/h) Swedish Operator (l/h) Average (l/h)

Idle Throttle 1 Throttle 2 Throttle 3 Throttle 4 Throttle 5 Throttle 6 Throttle 7 Throttle 8

6.8 42.6 93.1 112.6 204.5 269.2 313.6 455.1 565.8

7.8 33.8 60.0 128.5 204.9 264.9 366.9 461.8 533.8

7.3 38.2 76.6 120.6 204.7 267.1 340.3 458.5 549.8

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

21

Conclusions and Way Forward

6.1 Conclusion Finding a route to a more sustainable transport system is a great challenge and it is a challenge unlike one which we have faced before. The development of a more sustainable transport system relies on satisfying a much broader range of criteria than would otherwise have been expected under the continued development of the current system. While these criteria remain focussed upon the economic, social and environmental benefits, it is more heavily conscious of the wider economic, social and environmental detriments that any changes to the current transport system poses. To this end, as transports CO2 emissions are 20-25% of all domestic CO2 emissions, the sector is increasingly taking on the challenge of emissions reduction to avert dangerous levels of climate change. Recognising that road freight is proportionally more polluting, improving the uptake and use of more sustainable modes of transport such as rail is one method for reducing the emissions from transport. The concept relies on modal-shift where an operator selects a mode of transport with less overall CO2 emissions than another mode of transport. It is important for the rail freight sector to continue to make efficiency improvements such as running longer and/or heavier trains conducting driver training and much more to ensure the sector is much greener than road freight. 6.2 Summary of Consultation Undertaken as part of this Research Feedback from discussions provides an understanding of fuel use in the rail freight industry. There is a significant range of understanding and actions across the sector, which by sharing information on fuel saving could benefit all and encourage enhanced competiveness of rail freight. The two core concerns established by this research is a lack of knowledge mainly due to a lack of available tools. 6.3 Lack of Tools Unlike in road haulage there is, at present, no easy way of calculating fuel consumption per locomotive except on the latest class of diesel locomotives being introduced, the Powerhaul Class 70s. The lack of accuracy of measuring inputs, and inconsistent uses precludes this. The variety of tools that are provided by EMD have focused on dealing with engineering factors e.g. reliability and safety issues which are obviously critical to the rail sector. Developing a cost effective approach to measuring fuel consumption is essential and some companies are addressing this issue, but this has not been achieved universally. There has traditionally been less motivation to reduce fuel consumption in the rail freight sector compared to road freight, because fuel only accounts for 15% of costs for rail compared to 30% for road, but fuel price rises since 2008 have prompted action. It was suggested that FBP could undertake a cross company study utilising technology for measuring fuel consumption that has been proven in road haulage would provide dividends. 6.4 Lack of Knowledge Some of the companies have knowledge of the fuel consumption of their train managers (drivers), but this is not universal across the sector. In addition, there is a tendency to feel disempowered from working with their train managers to improve their fuel performance. Much of the information that is collected by the Class 66 on-board computers is only used by the engineering and maintenance divisions within the FOCs. Some data could be very useful to the operations and train planning teams. This means that one of the primary influences on fuel consumption is not properly tackled. A study from Union Pacific Railways in America identified a significant variation in fuel consumption between the worst and the average train managers in their fleet. Excluding the impact that driver style has on fuel consumption, there are other external factors that have an influence on fuel consumption which might be open to modification. By providing sector-wide public data many of the FOCs feel they might be in a better position to negotiate with the other groups. These measures include:
-

Pathing to minimise total stops at red signals. DB Schenker, for example, estimates that 10% additional fuel per journey can be consumed as a result of an additional red signal on their Mendip to London aggregate flows. Whilst this is an extreme case, there are anecdotal examples of locomotives getting stuck behind stopping commuter trains and wasting fuel; and

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

22

Loading practices at Intermodal terminals can introduce inefficiencies. These processes include irregular loading of containers that may create additional drag without a realisation of the potential implications of grouping containers to improve air flow. However the actual affect this has on fuel consumption (and the additional work that is required at rail freight terminals) has not been quantified.

6.5 Emerging Issues Lack of data; Fuel costs have not been such a significant motivator in the rail freight sector, as fuel represents around 15% of the operational cost, rather than third which is typical in the road haulage sector. Therefore in the past a reduction of operational costs was not such a significant factor as in other modes and any saving would be useful especially where certain rail freight traffic is marginal. The rising costs of fuel on the world market, which started in 2008 is changing the relative proportion of costs and fuel saving is now even more important to the rail freight sector; Rail Freight could be at risk of losing its perception as producing a smaller environmental impact, as the road and shipping sectors take bolder steps to improve their environmental credentials, and it has been admitted that rail freight has given less attention to reducing its environmental impacts than other modes; A route to engage with the rail freight sector better could be through a reduction of emissions as this helps reduce their environmental impact; and The emphasis in the DfTs Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future further suggests that this area is a key priority.
-

6.6 Barriers The lack of data; The relative lack of impetus in saving fuel; There is a technology gap as the fuel use information captured on some of the trains is not easily being downloaded and analysed on a regular basis for operational improvements; There does not appear to be a network of connected fuel monitoring pumps and management systems in most of the freight companies; and There could be a sensitive relationship between management and the train drivers if black boxes are fitted to locomotives, unless the unions buy in to the carbon reduction programme 6.7 Way Forward In order to move rail benchmarking forward , this research recommends that the following measures are investigated: A telematics trial with a UK Freight Operating Company (this could be taken up by the Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)); A framework for industry to take forward and share its ideas and concepts; An assessment of the lifecycle comparison of emissions derived from alternative traction methods (i.e. the use of electricity) across the full range of sectors with which rail have a significant share; A study to determine the applicability of uncoupled (i.e. based on tare weight and payload) conversion factors in relation to recognised conversion reporting guidelines. There is a need to develop a strategy to engage with operators whilst they are still interested in achieving a system to better measure their fuel consumption. This will enable operators to calculate the benefits of other fuel saving interventions: Driver Training it is understood from a case study on Union Pacific (in America) that there is a significant variance between the average and the least efficient driver in their fleet; Aerodynamics potentially able to offer 5-10% saving; and Anti -Idling from a case study from Alberta Railway, Canada, that a 25% increase in efficiency was experienced by introducing anti-idling technology. More likely to offer a 5% saving in the UK. Some operators have already embarked on this type of initiative. The rail freight sector has not fully met this fuel challenge so far on its own. Unlike the road sector or the water sector, there has not been an existing ability to accurately measure fuel consumption in the rail sector, so rather than providing best practice or linking to existing tools respectively a new approach to engagement is required. This will need to include developing technology

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

23

to assist in fuel measurement. GE Technology are developing a tool to assist the industry to do this. It is unknown as to whether this will be cost effective and introduced by the FOCs.