RR23 Rail Benchmarking

7/29/2019 RR23 Rail Benchmarking

1/26

Rail Benchmarking

March 2011


2/26

Prepared by: ............................................................. Checked by: .............................................................. ..........Paul Davison Richard ElvissConsultant Regional Director

Approved by: .............................................................Geoff ClarkeAssociate Director

Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking

Rev No Comments Checked by Approvedby

Date

1 RE 29/03/11

2 GC 30/03/11

Lynnfield House, Church Street , Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 4DZTelephone: 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 withgenerally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited andthe 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 expresswritten agreement of AECOM Limited.

f:\tprojects\transport planning - freight best practice year 3\4 research\freight best practice rail bencmarking v2.docx


3/26

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................. .................................................................. ........... 1

2 Introduction ..................................................................................................... .................................................................. 3

3 Aims ................................................................................ .................................................................. ................................. 9

4 Methodology ........................................................ .................................................................. .......................................... 11

5 Analysis of Findings ............................................................................. .................................................................. ........ 17

6 Conclusions and Way Forward ............................................................ .................................................................. ........ 21

Table of Contents


4/26

AECOM Freight Best Practice - Rail Benchmarking 1

Capabilities on project:

Transportation

1.1 Introduction

This research investigates implementing a fuel use benchmarking study in the UK rail freight sector under the Freight BestPractice (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 tosave 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.

1 Executive Summary


5/26



Transportation

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 passingloops, 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.


6/26



Transportation

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 BestPractice (FBP) programme. In order to understand the emissions of CO2 from rail locomotives in use, this research contains thefindings from industry consultation with the operators, manufacturers and customers of the Class 66 locomotive, which is by farthe 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 therailways 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.

This will help to form the standardised approach which the industry requested as part of the way forward in earlier research1

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 freightlocomotive, 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.

.

1Operational Efficiency for Non Road Modes, Freight Best Practice, 2009

2 Introduction


7/26



Transportation

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 smaller5,150 litre tank (larger is 6,400 litres)


8/26



Transportation

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

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

used notches appear to be 8th

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.

Class 66 Electro-motive on board computerdisplay


9/26



Transportation

The top notch (8th

) 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 todetermine 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.

2.5 Freight Best Practice BenchmarkingBenchmarking 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 de-

carbonising road and rail transport. In the executive summary it is stated an aim is to improve energy efficiency in rail

operationwhilst the main theme described in the text is the electrification of the railway lines, there is no reason not to includecheaper 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.

Class 66 V12 Engine


10/26



Transportation

Understanding the levels of emissions from different modes of freight transport is an important area of work. The UK is obligatedto undertake emissions level reduction both through international accords (e.g. Kyoto (1997)) and domestic targets (e.g. ClimateChange Act (2008)).

With the transport sector making up 150Mt CO2-e out of the UK total 628.3Mt CO2-e2

This can be achieved in two primary ways, firstly through alternative fuels that have a reduced CO2 impact, or, through moreefficient technology and/or use of transport.

, and falling outside the remit of dedicatedmandatory carbon reduction schemes (e.g. EU ETS, UK CRC) the sector is increasingly being encouraged to form plans tomitigate its emissions. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) and the subsequent Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Futuredocuments both outline the Department for Transports plan and Carbon Budget for the foreseeable future. The reduction in theconsumption of fossil fuels for transportation is a core part of the Departments plan for emissions reduction.

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 re-

engine 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 FreightOperating 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.

2Http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=statistics/climate_change/1_20100324153039_e_@@_20

08inventorydatatables.xls&filetype=4


11/26



Transportation

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 againstgravity;

- Train managers are encouraged as part of their six monthly Safety Briefing to drive defensively and to undertake fuel saving

behaviour.3

- 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

3Such as not going straight into Notch 8.


12/26



Transportation

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 FOCsto 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.

3.2 Possible benefits of closing the knowledge gap

Potential benefits for increasing fuel awareness include:

- 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.

3 Aims

Class 66 Intermodal Train


13/26



Transportation

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.


14/26



Transportation

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.

From earlier research4

, 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

TOPS5

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.

and manual driver recordings.

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.

4Emissions Benchmarking: Considering the Viability of a Rail Freight Study (FBP, 2011)

5Total Operations Processing System a prime source of train movement information. TOPS provides a comprehensive system for

monitoring a trains complete movement cycle.

4 Methodology


15/26



Transportation

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

Data SourceCMS

Unit via GPS

FOC(Central)via TOPS

FOC (OnTrain/Driver

Notes)

EMD DataDownload from

LocosComputer

Units

D

ataRequired

ForTrial

Time (Planned vsActual)

00:00

Fuel Use Gallons

Speed Km/h

No. Stops No.

Throttle No./Duration

1-8, 00:00

No. Wagons No.

Payload Tonnes

Tare Tonnes

Distance Km

Commodity Type

Driver details Name

Route issues Weather/ Delay

TOPS code e.g. 6N67

Frequency Real Time Daily Per Route End of Trial

Primary Source

Cross Check


16/26



Transportation

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 havealso 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

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

was made to the Class 66 User Group in Derby on 10th

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.

Partner Organsiation Summary of contact

DB Schenker Held meetings, Shared information

Freightliner Held meetings, shared information

GBRf Held meetings, shared information

DRS Held meetings, shared information

Fastline Held meetings, shared information

Locomotive Leasing Firms Interest shown in trial

Electromotive Services

International Ltd (EMD)

Held meetings, detailed information on locomotive operation and data. Obtain their

cooperation in the development of the study.

Triscan Provide fuel management system, assisted in attempting to secure support from

FOCs

CMS Provider of telematics system


17/26



Transportation

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;

3. Install two devices; and

4. Review sample with group.

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 theproject:

- 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

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?

Example of telematics device

GBRf Class 66 locomotive


18/26



Transportation

- 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 activatedremotely or by the driver. Data would be collected by the device and collected at the end of the journey as opposed to beingtransmitted 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 asuitable metric unless the fuel returned was subtracted. This would require flow meters on either side of the engine. GBRf havebeen unable to find a suitable flow rate meter for their use. It was also noted that intrusive technology fitted onto the locomotivewould 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;


19/26



Transportation

- 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.


20/26



Transportation

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 impactof 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

5 Analysis of Findings


21/26



Transportation

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 themass 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 consistentbetween the different fuel bands.


22/26



Transportation

Table 5.1: Swedish Operator fuel consumption rates

Throttleposition

Speed dieselengine

HpFuel

consumptionStatoil l/h

Fuelconsumption

Shell l/h

Fuelconsumption

Preem l/h

8 904 4040 533.17 533.83 530.55

7 820 3525 461.21 461.77 458.94

6 729 2800 366.41 366.86 364.61

5 729 1944 264.62 264.95 263.32

4 625 1474 204.65 204.90 203.64

3 490 950 128.35 128.51 127.72

2 343 420 59.90 59.98 59.61

1 269 204 33.74 33.79 33.58

Idle 200 0 7.77 7.78 7.73

Dynamic break 269 0 11.51 11.52 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.


23/26



Transportation

Table 5.2 British Operator Trial 2 Fuel Consumption

Throttle Position Time (Hours) Lead in each setting Fuel (Litres per hour)

Idle 2.14 6.8

Throttle 1 0.19 42.6

Throttle 2 0.14 93.1

Throttle 3 0.18 112.6Throttle 4 0.14 204.5

Throttle 5 0.12 269.2

Throttle 6 0.15 313.6

Throttle 7 0.44 455.1

Throttle 8 0.89 565.8

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 factorswhich make this comparison difficult.

Table 5.3 Benchmarking fuel consumption rates

Throttle positionBritish Operator 2

(l/h)

Swedish Operator

(l/h)

Average

(l/h)

Idle 6.8 7.8 7.3

Throttle 1 42.6 33.8 38.2

Throttle 2 93.1 60.0 76.6

Throttle 3 112.6 128.5 120.6

Throttle 4 204.5 204.9 204.7

Throttle 5 269.2 264.9 267.1

Throttle 6 313.6 366.9 340.3

Throttle 7 455.1 461.8 458.5

Throttle 8 565.8 533.8 549.8


24/26



Transportation

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 ToolsUnlike 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 KnowledgeSome 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

6 Conclusions and Way Forward


25/26



Transportation

- 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 ofcosts 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 bettermeasure 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 hasnot been an existing ability to accurately measure fuel consumption in the rail sector, so rather than providing best practice orlinking to existing tools respectively a new approach to engagement is required. This will need to include developing technology


26/26



Transportation

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

RR23 Rail Benchmarking

Documents

Transcript of RR23 Rail Benchmarking