prime 14 - webgate.ec.europa.eu
TRANSCRIPT
PRIME 1413 June 2019
Feedback from PRIMEKPI’s and Benchmarking Subgroup
2
AGENDA
• Annual PRIME KPIs Report
• Punctuality – Deep Dive and Thematic Report
• KPI & Benchmarking Business Process for 2019/20
3
The season 2018/19 is almost closed and all activities were grouped in 5 main tasks
15 participants contributed to this report -7 new members have joined PRIME’s KPI
benchmarking subgroup
4
Participants in PRIME KPI Report New subgroup members in transition phase PRIME members
Observers:
The KPIs presented in this report include 12 high level industry and 32 benchmarking KPIs
across six dimensions
6
Compared to previous years there is a remarkable increase in data provision for
high level and benchmarking KPIs
Average Punctuality for Passengers has been stable between 2012 and 2017
7
KPI 28
91,3
90,9
92,6
92,1
91,5
90,0
90,5
91,0
91,5
92,0
92,5
93,0
93,5
94,0
94,5
95,0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
91,4
Passenger trains punctuality
% of trains• Bane NOR
• Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Latvijas dzelzceļš
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• RFI
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
Average Punctuality for Freight has been decreasing since 2012
8
Freight trains punctuality
% of trains
KPI 29
• Bane NOR
• Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Latvijas dzelzceļš
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
76,4
72,5 72,672,2
70,9
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
72,8
After four years of decrease, the number of serious injuries and fatalities increased in
2017
9
Persons seriously injured and killed
Number per million train-km
KPI 8
• Adif
• Bane NOR
• Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Latvijas dzelzceļš
• Network Rail
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• RFI
• SBB
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
0,520,51
0,40
0,43
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0,43
0,38
Average assets failures have been decreasing since 2014
10
Assets failures in relation to network size
number per thousand main track-km
KPI 51
730,7724,6 723,4
709,0
600
650
700
750
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
678,9
658,3
• Bane NOR
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
After 2 years of increasing OPEX, costs have been decreasing since 2015
11
OPEX – operational expenditures in relation to network size
Euro per main track-km
KPI 60
• Adif
• Bane NOR
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Latvijas dzelzceļš
• Network Rail
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• RFI
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
85.418
85.345
89.156
90.04989.371
80.000
81.000
82.000
83.000
84.000
85.000
86.000
87.000
88.000
89.000
90.000
91.000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
87.590
Overall, investment level have been decreasing over last 6 years
12
CAPEX – capital expenditures in relation to network size
Euro per main track-km
KPI 66
• Adif
• Bane NOR
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Latvijas dzelzceļš
• Network Rail
• ProRail
• RFI
• SNCF Réseau
• Trafikverket
142.408140.211
120.092
110.000
115.000
120.000
125.000
130.000
135.000
140.000
145.000
150.000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
139.240136.754
123.455
TAC revenues have a tendency to increase over the last 6 years
13
TAC revenue in relation to network size
Euro per main track-km
KPI 87
• Adif
• Bane NOR
• Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
• Infrabel
• Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A.
• Network Rail
• PKP PLK
• ProRail
• RFI
• Trafikverket
36.831
34.859
39.124
30.000
31.000
32.000
33.000
34.000
35.000
36.000
37.000
38.000
39.000
40.000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
33.83634.566
35.416
Further analysis should account for underlying root causes and identify
opportunities for improvement• In order to improve safety performance it would be valuable to investigate
the root causes and the programmes that IMs initiated to mitigate them
• Further work is required by the IMs to collect data according to the PRIME definition in order to make punctuality and delays more comparable across the peer group, anyway results are already satisfactory.
• Improving Asset Condition KPIs is one of major technical challenges in current benchmarking.
• Still further work is required by IMs to collect data on possessions, speed restrictions and its impact on train operations.
• Different operational conditions need to be taken into account when identifying financial good practices.
• The utilisation of European railway infrastructure varies significantly, even at national level, and a drill-down into utilisation density in different segments would be valuable for benchmarking purposes.
15
AGENDA
• Annual PRIME KPIs Report
• Punctuality – Deep Dive and Thematic Report
• KPI & Benchmarking Business Process for 2019/20
The analysis on punctuality is divided into five sections
16
Overview
Targets and punctuality achieved
Influencing factors and
measurement complexity
Infrastructure related root causes
Infrastructure managers’ initiatives
Punctuality in rail freight
88 %
90 %
92 %
94 %
96 %
98 %
100 %
20172012 2013 20152014 2016
IPFTIA
SBBInfrabel
LG
LDZ ProRail
RFIPKP PLK SNCF R.
TRVNR
Average
Adif
40 %
45 %
50 %
55 %
60 %
65 %
70 %
75 %
80 %
85 %
90 %
85 % 90 % 95 % 100 %
PKP PLK
ProRail
Infrabel
Adif
Passenger train punctuality 2017
Cu
sto
mer
satisfa
ction
EU
su
rvey
LDZ
FTIA
IP
RFI
SNCF R.
TRV
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
Ad
if
LD
Z
FT
IA
Infr
ab
el
IP
SN
CF
R.
LG
PK
P P
LK
NR
Pro
Rail
RF
I1)
SB
B
TR
V
Signalling Telecommunication StructuresPower supply Track Other infrastructure Unassigned asset failures
IM Initia
tiv
e
An
aly
sis
Co
nd
itio
n
mo
nito
rin
g
Failu
re
man
ag
em
en
t
Incen
tiv
es
Inv
estm
en
t
Netw
ork
co
mp
lexit
y
Op
era
tio
ns
Pla
nn
ing
/ t
ime
tab
ling
Ro
les a
nd
resp
on
sib
ilit
ies
Syste
m a
pp
roach
Oth
ers
LDZ Regulations about the performance scheme
basic principles (the value of delays).
LG Getting access to our statistical database so
we can make queries and reports, to do more
accurate reporting
NR NR commenced a process of devolving
accountability to the geographic routes
Introduced concepts such as Intelligent
Infrastructure and Remote Condition
Monitoring that alert infrastructure maintainers
to problems before they cause delay impact
Senior Incident Managers and Route
Operating Centres (ROCs) provide enhanced
spans of control across the network
88 %
90 %
92 %
94 %
96 %
98 %
100 %
20172012 2013 20152014 2016
IPFTIA
SBBInfrabel
LG
LDZ ProRail
RFIPKP PLK SNCF R.
TRVNR
Average
Adif
This section provides developments of targets and
actual levels of punctuality achieved over time and
explores the practices of target setting.
Selected factors forming the concept of measurement
are explained. The level of punctuality achieved is
seen as a result of a complex environment.
Various time series demonstrate the infrastructure
managers trends in technical failures, the delay
minutes associated and the time to repair.
An overview is provided on infrastructure managers’
initiatives to improve performance. They are described
in detail and complemented by three presentations.
The section includes actual and target values for rail
freight. Additional information has been provided by
Rail Net Europe.
Two out of six infrastructure managers usually reach their overall target level or
perform betterPassenger trains punctuality – actuals compared to targets for all services
% of trains
• The graph illustrates the difference between
the actual and the targeted levels of
punctuality
• A negative value indicates that the
infrastructure manager has not reached the
target value
• The range by which infrastructure managers
miss target values is approximately +/- 5% -
with one outlier and some fluctuation over the
years
-6 %
-5 %
-4 %
-3 %
-2 %
-1 %
0 %
1 %
2 %
3 %
4 %
201620132012 2014 2015 2017
LG
Adif1)
RFI1)FTIA
Infrabel
IP PKP PLK
ProRailNR1)LDZ SBB
SNCF R.
TRV
Source: PRIME punctuality questionnaires from IMs to civity & PRIME KPI data as per 19/02/2019
1) Aggregated as weighted average of Passenger trains punctuality compared to targets for long-distance, regional and commuter
Over the years average punctuality in rail freight has declined
Freight trains punctuality – actual values
% of trains
• Punctuality in rail freight has been calculated
on the basis of trains operated and the number
of trains on time in this category
• Values are based on the thresholds defined by
each infrastructure manager
• Hence, the analysis is useful to show individual
trends but not to compare data between IMs
• Several infrastructure managers faced a
decrease of punctuality
40 %
45 %
50 %
55 %
60 %
65 %
70 %
75 %
80 %
85 %
90 %
95 %
20142012 2013 2015 2016 2017
TRV
PKP PLK
Infrabel
FTIA IP
ProRailLDZ
RFI
NR
LG
Adif
SNCF R.
SBB
Average
Source: PRIME punctuality questionnaires from IMs to civity & PRIME KPI data as per 19/02/2019
A significant share of freight trains already leaves its origin with a delay
Punctuality on rail freight corridors
% of trains on time
• Rail Net Europe is collecting and publishing
performance KPIs for European rail freight
corridors
• Values represent averages of up to three years
(2016 – 2018)
• The operational KPIs describing the
performance on each corridor include the
punctuality measured at origin as well as the
punctuality measured at destination (both
applying a threshold of <= 30 minutes
Source: RNE, Commonly applicable RFC KPIs, Figures 2016-2018
68
78
70 71
49
61
48
5858
73
59
71
37
52
35
50
Nort
h S
ea -
Meditera
nean
Rhin
e -
Alp
ine
ScanM
ed R
FC
Atlantic
Nort
h S
ea -
Baltic
Meditera
nean
Baltic
-A
driatic
Orient/E
ast-
Med
punctuality at origin punctuality at destination
A wide array of factors influences punctuality – only a selected number can be
considered in this analysisOverview on factors
External factors Internal factors
Time Tabling
concept
Cancellation
policy
Utilisation of the
network
Measuring
concepts
Performance
Complexity of
the network
Fa
cto
rs c
on
sid
ere
d
in th
is r
ep
ort
Oth
er
rele
va
nt
facto
rs
Asset conditionResponse to
failures
Track
access/closureThird parties
Rolling stockTraffic
managementWeather …
An infrastructure manager with a high density of measuring points will probably
count more delaysImpact of different measuring point densities
• Delay minutes per train are captured at
every point as illustrated in the graph,
depending on the density of measuring
points
• In principal, the highest delay is
considered in the infrastructure
managers’ statistics
• Trains can build up delays on the way
but make good for it at their destination
• The likelihood that a delay is counted
decreases with a reduction of
measuring points
Density of measuringDelay minutes at
measuring points
High
Punctuality is
measured at every
departure / arrival
and at additional
measurement points
Medium
Punctuality is
measured at every
departure / arrival
LowPunctuality is
measured at arrival
8 9
3
3
8 9 312 6
Consequences
Thresholds set by infrastructure managers mostly range between 2:59 and 5:59
Delay measurement thresholds
Minutes:seconds
Passenger train categories 2:29 2:59 … 4:59 5:29 5:59 --->>>
Long distance1)
Regional
Commuter
1) Long distance thresholds: Network Rail: 9:59, RFI 15:29
Punctuality is influenced by a large number of factors – some of them are in control of the
infrastructure manager
• Punctuality is complex and driven by a large number of factors, such as:• utilisation and complexity of the network,
• weather and rolling stock in use,
• investment levels,
• Infrastructure Condition,
• Management of assets,
• and many more – inside and outside IM’s scope.
• Furthermore, infrastructure managers achieve punctuality in very different environments: the utilisation and complexity of networks range from smaller networks with lower degrees of utilisation to networks with very high densities of assets and train frequencies
24
AGENDA
• Annual PRIME KPIs Report
• Punctuality – Deep Dive and Thematic Report
• KPI & Benchmarking Business Process for 2019/20
25
The PRIME KPI subgroup will start season 2019/20 in a couple of months with an ambitious agenda
What’s next in PRIME KPI’s Subgroup agenda?
Proceed improving the annual PRIME KPIs Report
Upgrade and Review existing KPIs
Improve IT Tool usability and utility to members
Deliver a Thematic Report on “IM’s Financing Mechanisms” in cooperation with
PRIME Finance and PRIME Charges Subgroups
26
Annual Business Process
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Modification of scope
Evaluations and reporting
Collection of feedback
(definitions, IT)
Requirement specifications
Preparation of IT decisions
Update IT-tool
Activity
Update catalogue/IT manual
Data collection
Data extract and validation
Benchmarking
Thematic Report
Milestones IT new version
and definitions
Annual Report
Delivery
Deadline
extract data
IMs / EC EC IT team Consultant
PRIME KPI Meetings
The PRIME KPI subgroup will start season 2019/20 in a couple of months with an ambitious agenda