the changing expectations of rail capacity · amtrak monthly ridership april 2003-march 2013 (in...
TRANSCRIPT
-
© Oliver Wyman
The Changing Expectations of Rail Capacity
November 22, 2013
Rodney Case Head of Global Rail Practice
-
2 2 © Oliver Wyman
How prepared are the Class Is for the changing leadership in Rail Capacity?
-
Demand Trends and Stakeholders 1
-
4 4 © Oliver Wyman
Revenue Ton Kms (billions)
Size of National Rail Freight Networks Revenue ton kms - 2012
2.5
2.6
2.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
United States
China
Russia
India
Canada
Germany
Revenue Ton Kms (billions)
Traffic Growth in a Decade Revenue ton kms 2012 versus 2002
16%
80%
48%
100%
14%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
United States
China
Russia
India
Canada
Germany
Rail freight is a large a growing transportation business US leadership in size and growth is being eclipsed by Russia and China who are accommodating large growth in their freight operations
Sources: UIC Database
-
5 5 © Oliver Wyman
Passenger Kms (millions)
Road Travel Comparison Passenger kms on road
7940
1150
115
1900
493
967
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
United States
China
Russia
India
Canada
Germany
Passengers (millions)
Air Travel Comparison Passenger boardings 2009
702
191
38
50
54
108
- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
United States
China
Russia
India
Canada
Germany
America is a passenger market without peer The scale of the US passenger market is such that any minor modal shift could create tremendous demands on the rail system
A 1% modal shift from road to rail would require 11 more Amtrak sized rail companies
-
6 © Oliver Wyman 6
What structural change binds these events together?
!
Detroit Tests What Foundations Can Do to Rescue Troubled Cities Chronicle of Philanthropy, Oct 23 2013
Vancouver and Toronto office construction boom threatens to drain suburban growth: study
Vancouver Sun, Nov 11 2013
Amtrak Adds 18 Michigan Trains For Thanksgiving
CBS Detroit ,Nov 9
-
7 © Oliver Wyman 7
What structural change binds these events together
!
Detroit Tests What Foundations Can Do to Rescue Troubled Cities Chronicle of Philanthropy, Oct 23 2013
Vancouver and Toronto office construction boom threatens to drain suburban growth: study
Vancouver Sun, Nov 11 2013
Amtrak Adds 18 Michigan Trains For Thanksgiving
CBS Detroit ,Nov 9
Percentage of Young Persons with a Driver’s License Continues to Drop!
University of Michigan, July 20, 2012
-
8 8 © Oliver Wyman
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Mon
thly
pas
seng
ers
(in m
illio
ns)
Amtrak monthly ridership April 2003-March 2013 (in millions)
Rapid transit monthly ridership May 2003-April 2013 (in millions)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mon
thly
Pas
seng
ers
(in m
illio
ns)
Sources: Amtrak-U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis, Operational Data Tables, Table 1.02, available at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/ as of June 2013. Transit-U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, available at http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ as of June 2013. Rapid transit include: heavy rail, light rail and streetcar rail.
Passenger rail demand continues to grow Increasing ridership levels on existing lines and introduction of new passenger corridors place greater demands on rail infrastructure capacity
2.9% Annual Growth
5.2% Annual Growth
-
9 9 © Oliver Wyman
Local support and innovation is driving expansion The renewed interest in passenger rail is being driven largely by local state initiatives and funding
New commuter networks
New and enhanced light rail networks
Existing corridors
soldier on with ridership gains1
New potential corridor routes
• New Mexico • Utah • Minnesota • Beaverton OR
• Charlotte • Newark NJ • Dallas • Houston • Denver
• Denton TX • Austin
• Palmetto (+10.5%) • Illini/Saluki (+9.8%) • San Joaquin (+8.9%) • Piedmont (+8.6%) • Wolverine (+8.2%)
1 April 9, 2013, “Amtrak Ridership Growth Continues In FY 2013” October-March FY 2013
• State of Virginia – DC to Roanoke • All Aboard Florida
-
Perc
ent o
f mar
ket s
hare
15%26%
79% 53%
5%
4%
1%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Medium Long
Air
Bus
Road
Rail
Market fundamentals could change The rail passenger market in Sweden is dominated by leisure travelers and is competitive with road transport
Traveler, Share of Travel % Business 9%
Leisure 68%
Market Share by Trip Type
Commuter 23%
Sweden would rank as the 33rd state by pop density and 11th state by total
population
Sources SJ Annual Report 2011
-
Trends in the Large Rail Networks 2
-
12 © Oliver Wyman 12
The focus of investment and optimization is different
Junctions and Terminals Corridors
-
13 © Oliver Wyman 13
The view of capacity destruction is different
Scheduled Passenger On Demand Bulk
-
14 © Oliver Wyman 14
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Source: UIC:International Railway Statistics 2012; Association of American Railroads; Oliver Wyman analysis.
Train Intensity Comparison for Increasing Number of Parallel Tracks
Com
plex
ity
Sha
re o
f m
ainl
ine
that
is d
oubl
e tra
ck o
r mor
e
Intensity Average Trains per day
US Class Is have differences in capacity utilization Railroad B is a clear leader in getting more train capacity out of the network
C
D
B
A
-
15 © Oliver Wyman 15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Source: UIC:International Railway Statistics 2012; Association of American Railroads; Oliver Wyman analysis.
Train Inensity Comparison for Increasing Number of Parallel Tracks
Com
plex
ity
Sha
re o
f m
ainl
ine
that
is d
oubl
e tra
ck o
r mor
e
Intensity Average Trains per day
Russia
Germany
Kazakhstan C
China
France
D Ukraine
Poland
B
Italy
Global leaders in capacity utilization are not North American Railways in Europe and Asia operate more trains per similar sized corridor than the US due to several factors
A
-
16 © Oliver Wyman 16
Additional mains and sidings
25,000
25,250
25,500
25,750
26,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Trac
k m
iles
Net additional mainlines and passing sidings
400,000
425,000
450,000
475,000
500,000
525,000
550,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total train miles
Growth and utilization of mainline infrastructure Indexed to 2006 (2006 = 1.000)
Source: STB Form R-1: Class 1 Railroad Annual Report
• Net additional mainline and passing siding mileage increased 2.1%, or 522 miles, between 2006 and 2012
• Total train miles decreased 12.2% between 2006 and 2012
• Added mainlines and passing sidings will relieve pressure on the freight railroad network
Corridor infrastructure expansion continues US rail carriers continue to expand their mainline infrastructure through the addition of second and third main tracks, as well as more passing sidings
Trai
n m
iles
(000
s)
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Inde
x
Train miles per mainline track mile
-
17 © Oliver Wyman 17
Changes since the recession have increased train starts The classic formula of increasing train sizes was relaxed after the recession and the railway operating ratios have still improved
0.950
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Inde
x
Gross tons per train Indexed to 2006 (2006 = 1.000)
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Inde
x
Annual train starts Indexed to 2006 (2006 = 1.000)
Source: STB Form R-1: Class 1 Railroad Annual Report
• Gross tons per train increased 6.5% between 2006 and 2012
• Annual train starts decreased 12.8% between 2006 and 2012
• Service Design Teams at the Class Is are very aware of the need to watch average train size.
• The consolidation in train starts by 20% in the recession created many trains with more complex blocking and switching that impacted terminals and yards
• There is an increasing level of balance between the needs of the market, corridors and terminals that has increased train counts faster than the returning traffic
-
18 18 © Oliver Wyman
2012 was a break with typical performance Train speed on the US network rebounded even with train volumes returning to the network but one railroad’s performance stands out
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Miles per hour
Trai
n m
iles
per m
ainl
ine
trac
k m
ile
Network velocity
Train miles per Mainline track mile
Network velocity and train density US Class 1 performance 2006 to 2012
Source: STB Form R-1: Class 1 Railroad Annual Report
RR
Train Size
Train Miles
Train Speed
A 9% -‐15% 13%
B 8% -‐4% 16%
C 3% -‐14% 9%
D 1% -‐6% 4%
Network metrics 2012 vs 2006 US Class 1 performance 2006 to 2012
-
19 © Oliver Wyman 19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Source: UIC:International Railway Statistics 2012; Association of American Railroads; Oliver Wyman analysis.
Train Density Comparison for Increasing Number of Parallel Tracks
Com
plex
ity
Sha
re o
f m
ainl
ine
that
is d
oubl
e tra
ck o
r mor
e
Intensity Average Trains per day
Russia
Germany
Kazakhstan C
China
France
D Ukraine
Poland
B
Italy
The best in NA still is far behind the rest of the world The addition of more corridor track is not allowing the best in the US to match the other larger networks suggesting a needed change in focus
A
-
20 20 © Oliver Wyman
654.0
1039.0
1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1993 2012
Trai
n km
(m
illio
ns)
X-axis title Subtitle
DB NETZ capacity Train kms operated
Infrastructure managers motivations are different Many of the world railway networks have infrastructure managers who are motivated by revenue opportunities as much as expense reductions
• Infrastructure Managers are increasingly sophisticated about train path definitions and use by operating companies
• Train Path allocation is defined to understand the exact routing from yard through junctions to terminal/yard
– In some cases yard tracks are part of the path planning process
• Scheduled trains are priority planned for train path allocation
• Train paths are reserved within the capacity for ad hoc train operations – typically bulk trains
• Unused train paths are increasingly charged a penalty
Unused train paths
-
21 © Oliver Wyman 21
Investment is more balanced to increase network throughput The balanced focus on all elements of the network allows the yards and the corridors to operate together to increase throughput of trains
-
22 © Oliver Wyman 22
Investment is more balanced to increase network throughput The balanced focus on all elements of the network allows the yards and the corridors to operate together to increase throughput of trains
-
23 © Oliver Wyman 23
Train Operators have a different cost optimization En route failures have a strong penalty system that is a typically a magnitude larger that the fee of the single train path
• Rail cars operate with far fewer online failures due to frequent comprehensive inspections
• Trains operate with higher horsepower per ton
• Locomotives have more frequent inspections
• Train crews rarely fail to complete their trip
-
Examples of Innovation 3
-
25 © Oliver Wyman 25
The Service Design MultiRail user community is global Our MultiRail system has been deployed globally for some of the world’s largest passenger and freight railways
SEPTA
• The Service Design community comes together every two years to share insights
• Common tools across railways is driving similar process
• Integration with production systems is more common for faster operating plan updates
• Resource and capacity optimizations are more common in parallel
-
Rail Carrier Systems and Databases
MultiRail Blocking
Plan Designer
MultiRail
Advanced Traffic Router
MultiRail Train Plan Designer &
Bulk Train Planner
MultiRail Trip Planner &
Advanced Network Simulator
Operational Planning and
Analysis
Output Management
MultiRail Integrated Collaborative Rail Planning Data Repository
Traffic & Blocking
Shipment Routes Trip Plans Network
Outputs/KPIs & Workloads Trains Resources
MultiRail Locomotive
Planner & Optimizer
MultiRail Assigned Crew Schedule
Optimizer
MultiRail Train Schedule Optimizer
(in beta) MultiRail
Block Optimizer Optimization
tools
Raw Data Management and
Analysis
MultiRail
Operating Plan Explorer
MultiRail
Operating Plan Report Manager
MultiRail
Traffic Flow Analyzer
MultiRail Corridor Viewer-
Timetables & Stringlines
MultiRail
Data Exchange
MultiRail Traffic Mgt. Suite –
Forecast Manager MultiRail Network
Designer MultiRail Traffic
Mgt. Suite – Rule- based Traffic Editor
Export to external systems
The MultiRail Planning Suite integrates many network elements 16 rail planning modules that provide a wide array of functionality, each focusing on a specific aspect of rail planning and operations
1
-
27 © Oliver Wyman 27
MultiRail Blocking
Plan Designer
MultiRail
Advanced Traffic Router
MultiRail Train Plan Designer &
Bulk Train Planner
MultiRail Trip Planner &
Advanced Network Simulator
MultiRail Integrated Collaborative Rail Planning Data Repository Traffic & Blocking
Shipment Routes Trip Plans Network
Outputs/KPIs & Workloads Trains Resources
MultiRail Locomotive
Planner & Optimizer
MultiRail Assigned Crew Schedule
Optimizer
MultiRail Train Schedule Optimizer
(in beta)
MultiRail Block Optimizer
MultiRail
Operating Plan Explorer
MultiRail
Operating Plan Report Manager
MultiRail
Traffic Flow Analyzer
MultiRail Corridor Viewer-
Timetables & Stringlines
MultiRail
Data Exchange
MultiRail Traffic Mgt. Suite –
Forecast Manager MultiRail Network
Designer MultiRail Traffic
Mgt. Suite – Rule- based Traffic Editor
The planning integration is advancing again Recent innovations by our railway clients has driven the integration of corridor simulation tools into the operating plan development process
MultiRail Suite Corridor Simulators - like RTC
Growth in the use of network planning tools is increasingly outside of the Class I Service and Network Design teams
-
28 28 © Oliver Wyman
The Montreal– Toronto corridor upgrade is a model The recent investment in the corridor focused on a balance of network design issues to increase performance and volume
Key Characteristics
• 30+ passenger trains per day with incremental 2 daily trains
• 60+ MGT freight operation with 12,000 ft trains
• 100 mph passenger with 60 mph freight trains
• Island platforms at stations
• High speed turnouts in terminal entrance and exits
• 12% triple track divided between 2 locations
-
29 29 © Oliver Wyman
How prepared are the Class Is for the changing leadership in Rail Capacity?
-
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND
LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report is for the exclusive use of the client named herein. This report is not intended for general circulation or publication, nor is it to be reproduced, quoted or distributed for any purpose without the prior written permission of . There are no third party beneficiaries with respect to this report, and does not accept any liability to any third party.
Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Public information and industry and statistical data are from sources we deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. The findings contained in this report may contain predictions based on current data and historical trends. Any such predictions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. accepts no responsibility for actual results or future events.
The opinions expressed in this report are valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date of this report. No obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date hereof.
All decisions in connection with the implementation or use of advice or recommendations contained in this report are the sole responsibility of the client. This report does not represent investment advice nor does it provide an opinion regarding the fairness of any transaction to any and all parties.