PreprintPDF Available

Recommendations for a Transition to Railway 4.0 for Europe

Authors:
  • TRT Trasporti e Territorio
  • Institute of Innovation and Trend Research
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
Preprint

Recommendations for a Transition to Railway 4.0 for Europe

Abstract

This research developed proposed recommendations for the European rail sector to transition from current state to a user centric 'Railway 4.0' by the year 2050 based on interdisciplinary research informed by key choice variable modelling, co-created business model generation and semi structured interviews within the context of expert knowledge held by the authors and supported by desktop research. Our research output was focused at the system platform demonstrator scenario level of the Shift2Rail Multi Annual Action Plan. This work was developed in a mixed methods research framework-the use of which allowed developmental complementarity, the quantitative informed the qualitative work and the qualitative work developed plans and hypotheses to test against further quantitative data. We have detailed the impact assessment framework, CANVAS, and governance interviews developed and used. We have reported the individual key results from each approach and then an integration of same and finally policy recommendations.
1
Recommendations for a Transition to Railway 4.0 for
Europe
Author information
Thomas H Zunder, corresponding author, tom.zunder@ncl.ac.uk, Newcastle University, UK,
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1865-6548
Christian Katschnig, IITF, Austria
Ming Chen, TNO, Netherlands
Marco Brambilla, TRT, Italy
Abstract
This research developed proposed recommendations for the European rail sector to transition
from current state to a user centric ‘Railway 4.0’ by the year 2050 based on interdisciplinary
research informed by key choice variable modelling, co-created business model generation
and semi structured interviews within the context of expert knowledge held by the authors
and supported by desktop research. Our research output was focused at the system platform
demonstrator scenario level of the Shift2Rail Multi Annual Action Plan. This work was
developed in a mixed methods research framework the use of which allowed developmental
complementarity, the quantitative informed the qualitative work and the qualitative work
developed plans and hypotheses to test against further quantitative data. We have detailed
the impact assessment framework, CANVAS, and governance interviews developed and
used. We have reported the individual key results from each approach and then an integration
of same and finally policy recommendations.
Keywords
Railways, transport policy, key choice variable modelling, freight, forecasting, mixed-
methods, CANVAS
Declarations
Funding Acknowledgement
This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No. 826189. The information and views set out
in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (JU). The JU does not guarantee the accuracy of the data
included in this article. Neither the JU nor any person acting on the JU’s behalf may be held
responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Availability of data and material All public project deliverables and data are available at
https://flex-rail.org/deliverables/.
Code availability not applicable
Authors' contributions Equal. Thomas H Zunder taking the lead on this paper, Ming Chen
and Marco Brambilla focused on the modelling work, whilst Christian Katschnig co-
ordinated the core Flex-Rail project upon which the article rests.
2
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge our colleagues who worked on the Flex-Rail project with us and
contributed to the work but not this paper: Angelo Martino, Mark Robinson, Manfred Ninaus,
Eleni Charonti, Jaco van Meijeren, Marco Gatto
Introduction
This paper reports the development of proposed recommendations for the European rail
sector to transition from current state to a user centric ‘Railway 4.0’ by the year 2050, based
on interdisciplinary research informed by key choice variable modelling, co-created business
model generation and semi structured interviews within the context of expert knowledge held
by the authors and supported by desktop research.
Research Purpose
The research was funded by the Shift2Rail JU as the project Flex-Rail with the stated aim
that: In order for rail to keep their central role in the EU transport system, paradigm shifts
on fundamental rail sector characteristics are required; both rail industry and
organisation have to target a lean, integrated and flexible railway system, which will
stimulate further innovation within the rail sector and will ensure that rail services can
address the future user needs
1
.
This was therefore a statement that was based upon the development of EU rail research and
innovation agendas, roadmaps, and visioning since the EU Transport White Paper of
2001(Zunder, 2012) and through to Rail 2050 Vision research roadmap(Mazzino et al., 2017)
of the European Railway Advisory Council, and still ongoing as this paper is written.
The authors were ttasked to research, envision and critically address the sector roadmaps,
specifically the Shift2Rail JU Multi Annual Action Plan (MAAP) which formed the
backbone of (almost) all rail research and innovation (R&I) funding in the EU Horizon 2020
Framework Programme (H2020). This was to ensure that ‘the pace of innovation of other
relevant sectors (in particular the competing transport modes) and must be accompanied with
suitable governance structures and business models to ensure that the targeted impacts can be
achieved
2
. We were tasked to not just critique the plans and visions in place, but imagine
radically different futures and paradigm shifts, to inform the next iteration of research
agendas and either a potential follow up JU, or a return to direct EU funding of rail R&I. In
this respect this can be viewed as the sibling project to the TER4RAIL project which was
more tightly focused on critiquing the existing roadmaps (Zunder et al., 2021).
Overview of the MAAP
The MAAP was organised along 5 IP’s which combined provide an operational solution for
different system platform demonstrators (SPDs), each having different requirements. The
interaction and interdependence of collective solutions is not obvious and is addressed by
horizontal topics and defined Technology Demonstrators (TD’s) in which different specific
targeted technologies are merged to a collective innovation. As a result of these
interdependencies, the specification of the work programme involved a multitude of cross-
links (Haltuf, 2016; Shift2Rail, 2019).
1
http://flex-rail.org
2
http://flex-rail.org
3
Figure 1: MAAP Vision and strategy structuring principles, (Shift2Rail, 2019)
Figure 2: Shift2Rail overall structure (Shift2Rail, 2019)
4
Our research output was focused at the system platform demonstrator scenario level
(Shift2Rail, 2019, pp. 6972) defined as main rail market segments. The SPDs were to
simulate and test the interaction and impact of the various JU innovative systemsin each of
the relevant market segments. These covered the following segments: high-speed passenger
rail, regional passenger rail, urban/suburban passenger rail and rail freight. Our work was
complementary and was to form reflection and critique on key transversal issues
(megatrends) that are critical for the sector: safety, security, energy, digitalisation, etc. In this
regard this was parallel work to to that of others who focused more closely on the sector
roadmaps (Zunder et al., 2021)
High-speed passenger rail (HSR)
HSR has been a successful and innovative rail market segment for several decades, and is
often the preferred choice for long-distance national and international travel. HSR technical
and technological challenges include new types of rolling stock, safe and efficient operation,
infrastructure design, traffic control and management systems, efficient power systems, and
shared track and corridor operations. Of note tis that HSR tends to operate on dedicated
infrastructure separate to other mainline rail services, and has been a testbed for the cutty
edge of rail technology.
Regional passenger rail
Regional rail can be seen as the backbone of the European transport system, and also strongly
affected by competition with the private car and bus services. Core challenges for this
segment were seen by the JU as: to offer increased capacity to ever- increasing numbers of
passengers; improved system capacity; enhanced traffic management; automated train
operation, and high-capacity rolling stock. These services are mostly operated under public
service contracts and may or may not share infrastructure with mainline traffic.
Urban & suburban passenger rail
Urban and suburban rail networks play a prominent role in major cities and high-density
areas, serving the daily needs of urban populations. They offer an attractive alternative to the
private car in congested and/or polluted areas. This market exhibits growth, but the JU
viewed it as one for which existing infrastructure is not used fully, nor well intergrated with
sustainable land use and transport policies. The MAAP looks to innovative services based on
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and improvements through technical harmonisation of
interfaces.
Rail freight
The MAAP states that “Rail freight is a key element in the establishment of a sustainable
transport system. An efficient and reliable, high-quality rail freight system in Europe is
indispensable for the competitiveness of the European economy, its industries, businesses and
society(Shift2Rail, 2019, p. 71) Evidence suggests that this the market segment that has
fared the least well since the 1970s in Western Europe and the 1990s in Eastern
Europe(Zunder et al., 2013) The MAAP does state the potential advantages of rail freight, ket
being the low level of external costs generated by rail freight, but also noting that key
challenge for rail freight is to become a core link in intermodal transport is for it to be able to
offer an attractive, reliable, rapid and cost-efficient alternative to road.
5
Methodological Framework
This work was developed in a mixed methods research framework explicitly:
methodological pluralism - mixing quantitative and qualitative research methods in an
integrated fashion Saunders et al. (2012) within an epistemological position of objective
critical realism (Bhaskar, 1989). The use of multiple methods allowed a developmental
complementarity, as the quantitative informed the qualitative work and the qualitative work
developed plans and hypotheses to test against further quantitative data. It allowed for a
complementary triangulation and clarification of results from one method to another. For
example, the statement “I have quantitatively assessed the likely impact of a set of solution
packages” led to the qualitative question “can policy makers, operators or sector stakeholders
people tell us if, or why, this is a problem?” We hoped to find paradox and contradiction in
initiating new perspectives from one method to the other, as questions or results were
explored in each Greene et al (1989, p. 259). Our three key methods were predictive
modelling of possible futures based on the IMPACT-2 model, business models and transition
pathways generation using the CANVAS approach (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), and
semi-structured interviews with key European rail stakeholders. These informed each other in
a sequential but also parallel iterative manner, always looking to gain knowledge through
integration thus justifying the rationale for choosing this mixed-method framework (Bryman,
2007). One key effect of this approach is that some methodologies were only partially
defined at the start of the work, and the details refined after previous work had partially
completed, we report all of the work in the usual flow, but the reader should be aware of
chronology.
Impact Assessment Framework Methodology
The components of the impact assessment framework developed and used in Flex-Rail is
specified in Figure 3 below
The IA framework consists of the following models:
(5) Rail (and Road) innovation impact model, including the following sub-models:
o (Un)Reliability sub-model
o Time sub-model
o Costs sub-model
o Comfort & Strain sub-model
o Sustainability sub-model
(6) Modal-split model
(7) Socio-economic impact model
For these models different inputs are used:
o (1) Future railway (innovation) scenarios
o (2) Selection of user choice variables per SPD
o (3) Target KPIs, level of detail and scope
o (4) Reference Scenario and results from existing EU and other models (Capros et
al., 2016)
6
Figure 3: Schematic Overview Impact Assessment Framework
Rationale of the framework and application of the models
New models were developed in Flex-Rail because no suitable models existed to consistently
address a user oriented approach and all the Key Choice Variables (KCVs) identified.
Therefore, a framework about the interrelationships among critical influential factors, from
the user side perspective, and user decision variables, with a focus on passengers, was
developed, in order to identify key determinants for mode choice, as well as drivers of
change.
A literature review was completed, with a focus on the important performance criteria for modal
choice for different user groups of passengers, as well as for freight. This was used to select the
relevant factors and variables (Abenoza, Cats, & Susilo, 2017; Heinen & Chatterjee, 2015;
Limtanakool, Dijst, & Schwanen, 2006; Maarten ’t Hoen, Jacobine Aalberts, Eelco den Boer, Huib van
Essen, & Eric Tol, 2018; McCarthy, Delbosc, Currie, & Molloy, 2017; Oliveira, Bruen, Birrell, & Cain,
2019; Sañudo, Echaniz, Alonso, & Cordera, 2019)
Additional tooling was also required to accompany the quantitative mobility models for
several reasons:
Traditional transport/mobility models are generally based on costs and time data, which
show a significant correlation with choices by users of the mobility system. The main
reason for not including more variables besides cost and time is that no large and
consistent data sources are available for other relevant variables. However, it is likely that
these variables will not fully explain and predict the choices made of some recent and
upcoming mobility services
3
focussing largely on changing the performance of more
qualitative variables related to comfort perception, physical strain and reliability of the
services.
3
A new service with the same price and travel time offering more convenience and comfort, will not show not
show different effects in a model based on cost and time.
7
In case of innovations leading to disruptive and unprecedented changes, (by definition)
systemic changes and/or trend breaks will occur. As such the data on which the models
are calibrated do not reflect the trends and correlations of the future.
Many reasons for ad-hoc or structural mobility choices may lay beyond the performance
of individual modes and the mobility system (for instance household budgeting or supply
chain management)
4
. As such (simultaneous) changes in other sectors by (disruptive)
innovation and/or policy may affect mobility behaviour as well.
The newly developed semi-quantitative modal innovation assessment model allows for a
user-oriented approach and a refined assessment of the potential for improvement of different
innovations for rail and road. This model in the first place aims at grasping the (relative)
order of magnitude and potential of the change of modal performance to be expected by the
different innovations. The model is based on many assumptions on the rail/road transport
system characteristics at a corridor level so different situations can be compared, for different
rail segments. The results of the modal innovation model provide insight in the potential for
improvement of the different Key Choice Variables of the users by adopting the different
innovations (see below in Table 2)
In order to get insight in the quantitative impact of these changes on the modal-split and
socio-economic aspects, these results are used as input for subsequent modal-split and socio-
economic models. The changes in costs, time and reliability are used as input to calculate the
change in market share per mode. It should be noted that the size of improvements of other
variables (i.e., comfort and physical strain) are significantly larger than improvements of
costs and time, the modal-shift effect determined by the modal-split model should be
regarded as a minimum potential for modal-shift.
Specifications of the framework
The IA framework is designed to cover the four market segments defined by Shift2Rail
(SPDs). The SPD’s and specifications applied in the different models are shown below in
Table 1.
4
For instance, high house prices may lead to a lower budget for other purpose, including mobility. In such a
case for some people sharing- and on-demand mobility services may provide a (temporal) solution since no
large investments have to be done for buying a car.
8
The IA framework was implemented for the following years: 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040 and
2050. For the modal innovation model in addition the year 2028 is considered. The user
needs are defined through and are expressed in terms of Key Choice Variables (KCVs),
represented by the impact indicators resulting from the modal innovation impact model.
An overview of indicators and sub-indicators by model is provided in Table 2 below.
Segments
Specifications
Long Distance
Regional
Urban
Freight
SPD1
SPD2
SPD3
SPD4
Corridor length
300 - 600
70
21,5
600
Modal innovation impact model:
Rail innovations
High Speed Rail
Regional Rail
Tram/Metro
Freight Rail
Road innovations
Bus
Bus
Car
Truck
Modal split model:
Segments
Business
Business
Commuting
High value
Other
Other
Business
Low value
Other
Modal split model & socio-economic impact model:
Modes
High Speed Rail
Regional Rail
Tram/Metro/
suburban rail
Freight Rail
Airplane
Car
Car
Road
Car
Bus
Bus
Bus
9
Table 2: Overview of the indicators calculated in the different models
Model
Indicator
Sub-indicator
Modal
innovation
impact
model
(impact on
Key Choice
Variables)
Door-to-door
travel time
Time - on board
Time first-last mile
Time (transfer) combined trips (only passengers)
Time organisation trip (only passengers)
Waiting time - off board (only passengers)
Time for shipment organisation (only freight)
Time at Terminal (only freight)
Door-to-door
costs
Rail/ Road costs
First-last mile costs
Terminal cost (only freight)
Other supply-chain costs (only freight)
Unreliability/
Delays
Small Rail/ Road disturbances
Small Non-rail/ road disturbances
Major delays
Energy
Energy use per km per single capacity unit
Energy efficiency- use per pkm or tkm
Sustainable energy
Material
Material use
Efficient use of materials
Sustainable/circular materials
Physical Strain
First and last mile, station to/from train, waiting, on-board, luggage carrying
(only passengers)
Comfort
First and last mile, station to/from train, waiting, on-board, luggage
carrying, understandability terms and conditions, off-line service, safety
transport & non-transport related (only passengers)
Modal-split
model
Modal-split
Modal performance
Modal-share
Socio-
economic
impact
model
Socio-economic
impact
Total time spent on mobility
Total Mobility Cost
Sustainability
impacts
Air pollutants emissions
GHG emissions
Energy consumption
Other welfare
impacts
(External cost)
Accidents
Noise
Specification of the model runs for the assessment of rail innovations
The runs with the described models, were done with the following inputs (see Figure 4
above).
Initial corridor assumptions describe the situation in the base year which is set at 2020.
The Reference Scenario (only relevant for the modal-split and socio-economic models),
describes the socio-economic and other relevant changes for the mobility context in line
with the EU-Reference Scenario.
10
the Baseline Scenario is a combination of the Reference and the road innovation
scenario.
The Rail Innovation Scenarios include
o The individual packages of rail innovations in combination with the Baseline
Scenario.
o Rail Innovation Scenarios consisting of a combination of rail innovation
packages or sub-sets thereof in combination with the Baseline Scenario.
With the results of these model runs the following assessments of impacts were done:
By comparing the initial corridor assumptions with the Reference Scenario, the expected
changes/trends for mobility demand, modal-split and socio-economic impacts are
determined.
By comparing the Baseline Scenario with the Reference Scenario, the impacts of the road
innovation scenario are determined.
By comparing the Baseline with the rail scenarios, the impacts of the rail scenarios are
determined.
Figure 4: Composition of the Reference Scenario, Baseline Scenario and Rail Innovation
Scenarios (boxes) and possible assessments of impacts by comparing differences of results
(ovals)
Business Model and Transition Pathway Generation Methodology
For the business modelling and transition pathway generation we deployed the Business
Model Canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). This is one of the most widely used
frameworks for generating business models within European Union research work, and
interventions such as the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. We adopted the definition
from Osterwalder & Pigneur which stated: “a business model describes the rationale of how
an organisation creates, delivers, and captures value” (2010). It could be said “that value
proposition, value architecture, value finance, and value network articulate the primary
11
constructs or dimensions of business models” (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010). Note that the
definition of a ‘business’ for a CANVAS can be as micro as a single business, multi-
organisational ventures or, as in this work, an industrial sector: railways.
Of great value to this work, business models serve as an “integrative term for reducing
complexity” simplifying “networks of sophisticated interdependencies into coherent stories”
and were “a cognitive tool for making the components real and explicit, allowing better
business decisions to be made” (Arend, 2013).
The great strength of the Business Model Canvas (BMC) tool lies in offering the possibility
to analyse every key component of a business, to review strengths and weaknesses, and to
improve. Once completed the CANVAS should be viewed as a whole; this is key to
understanding how everything ties together into a working business plan and how changes
made anywhere in an organisation impact the rest of the business model. With BMC the
process enables the identification of that which is most important. Using the BMC developed
above each future solution package was refined in a workshop, and at each session a series of
questions were raised as how to transition over time to the desired end state by 2050. This
required a view on transition pathways for products and services, beginning with setting the
boundaries and scope of the work and system.
Since the original face-to-face World Café (Brown, Isaacs and World Café Community of
Practice, 2005) style workshops were not possible in the pandemic, these were approximated
to using online meetings, breakout rooms and so on. The CANVAS workshops, which often
are actioned with ‘post-it notes’ and a blank wall, were easily replicated with the shared white
board and note platform, MIRO
5
, as illustrated in Figure 5 below. As with many new ways of
working under lockdowns, there were both benefits and disbenefits of this way of working
which we discuss later.
Figure 5: Use of the Miro platform for CANVAS work online: shown is the final Railways
4.0 business model canvas impact optimization of rail in a collaborative mobility sector
5
http://www.miro.com
12
The scenario packages were assessed using 3 main areas of interest. The ‘impact
optimization’ implementation was addressed, the MAAP and the Rail 2050 Vision documents
were both clearly aimed at a collaborative mobility sector by 2050. These clustering of
scenario packages were informed by the modelling results showing which had the most
impact on the future of European railways.
Railway 4.0 service platform - impact optimization of rail in a collaborative mobility sector
comprising of final scenario packages:
o D-User oriented Door-to-door services and
o F-User oriented physical adaptions of rail services;
Railways 4.0 system platform - impact optimization of rail in a collaborative mobility
sector comprising of final scenario packages:
o A-Real time network management
o B-CCAR - Cooperative Connected and Automated Railways (CCAM/ATO)
o C-Reshaping rolling stock
Railways 4.0 freight - impact optimization of the rail freight sector comprising of final
scenario packages:
o A-E and H, in that freight is an SPD in its own right and has to select from all.
Once the main BMC was populated, a vote was taken to rank the importance of the key
partners, activities, and resources on the supply side (see Appendix B for raw data). These
were then clustered where individual components were duplicates or logically nested within a
broader heading. Not all partners are necessarily related to key activities or resources, and
vice versa, so we mapped them using expert knowledge and the weighting of our workshop
panels. This is shown in Table 4 in Appendix B. As a final cross check, we note if the key
activities form part of the Shift2Rail MAAP(Shift2Rail, 2019), and also the ERRAC Rail
2050 Vision document (Mazzino et al., 2017), a key roadmap for the future of rail in Europe.
Semi structured interviews
During and following the modelling and workshops work, the semi-structured interview
process on governance was reviewed in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst a semi-
structured interview is usually informal, addressing and looking for insight into the issues
raised, this was clearly not possible face to face. After some discussion internally and
externally and given the usual requirement from stakeholders to have advance sight of
questions and topics, the process proceeded as a written process, backed up by phone and
online calls to explain and elicit responses. These questions were developed directly from the
modelling work and the workshops and represent the first integration and triangulation. The
key European rail sector stakeholders representing rail operators, passengers, infrastructure
managers, public transport operators, rail freight companies and the rail supply industry were
identified as the key contributors to rail policy past and present.
Modelling Findings
In the modelling work two implementation scenarios: ‘cost effective innovation of railway’
and ‘impact optimization – rail in a collaborative mobility sector’ had been developed as
potential pathways to the future. Within both implementation scenarios the same scenario
packages of solutions had been modelled:
The scenario packages to be considered were as listed following
Table 1: Specific solutions per innovation package
13
Innovation package
Specific
solution
Solution name
A Real time network
management
A1
Flexible routing and scheduling of the rail system
A2
Demand prediction for stations - duration stops, crowd
management
A3
Avoid unnecessary stops at stations/terminals (off-peak and rural)
A4
Terminals as part of the Rail system
A5
Flexible routing and scheduling in multi-modal environment - rail
separate infra
B CCAR (CCAM/ATO)
B1
ATO (human independent) - including remote control
B1.1
Reduce need for waysides assets/on-board technology
B2
Align tram with CCAM in urban areas
C Reshaping rolling
stock
C1
Smaller trains with higher frequency and direct connections - old
train technology but more smaller trains
C1.1
Small pods/services (personal pod during off peak hours)-new
small train units
C1.2
Self-propulsion wagons (battery)
C2
Increase safety: Avoidance of collisions by higher rolling
resistance (breaking)
D User oriented Door-to-
door service
D1.2
Personalised seat reservation
D1.3
Personal preferences during trip
D1.7
Tracing back and informing people that have been close to or in
the same space with an infected person
D2
On-demand personal mobility service (multi-modal) - uni-modal
performance trip
D3.1
Automated registration of service providers and individuals
involved in the rail service
D3.2.2
Automatic payment upon actual use of services
D4.1
Ensure cyber security
D4.2
Ensure no alternative use of personal data (GDPR)
E - Smart sensing solutions
E1
Remote maintenance sensing
E2
Automated ‘inspection’ drones
E3
Monitor risk factors along track; automatic identification
E4
Crowd management and surveillance (at stations and in trains)
E5
Nano particle weapon detection (at stations)
E6
Automated cargo surveillance (weight sensors, cameras, movement
sensors)
F User oriented physical
adaptations of rail service
F1
User oriented interior design - non-adaptable
F2
Provide non-mobility service/ facilities at waiting area
F3
Provide non-mobility service/facilities on board (shopping,
package delivery, fitness facility etc.)
F4
(Self-)adaptable train interior based on personal preferences
G Production alternatives
G1
Increase energy efficiency - all except G1.1 solutions
G1.1
Composite and lightweight materials (less weight less energy use)
G2
Full electrification by battery/hydrogen locos on non-electrified
tracks
G3
Optimisation of railway components to cause less infrastructure
wear and tear
G4
Modular design
G5
Circular production processes and corresponding material use
The general conclusions of this assessment from a door-to-door user (competitiveness)
perspective as also reported in FLEX-RAIL D5.2 (Chen et al., 2021) is summarised in this
section.
14
The highest potential to improve competitiveness of rail for one or more SPD’s can be
expected from.
A - Real time network management (SPD 1, 2 and 4)
C - Reshaping rolling stock (SPD 2 and 4)
D - User oriented Door-to-door services (SPD 1, 2 & 4)
E - Smart sensing solutions (SPD 1)
It should be noted that for package C the development and uptake of multi-modal pods lead
to the most impact but is also the most complicated to achieve. The remaining parts of
package C lead to a significantly lower contribution to the competitiveness of rail.
A moderate contribution to improvement of competitiveness of rail can be expected from
package:
B - CCAR: Cooperative Connected and Automated Railways (CCAM/ATO) (SPD 1,
2 and 3)
It should be noted that Packages A and B are closely related with overlapping technological
requirements and corresponding impacts. In order to avoid double count of effects in the
implementation of the specific impacts of package B only the impacts not yet covered by
package A are considered, which are mostly related to the replacement of the train driver
by an automated system. Package A - Real time traffic management can however function
very well also when trains do not operate driverless and creates significant improvements of
important KCV’s.
A relatively low contribution to the improvement of competitiveness of rail in the different
SPDs can be expected from packages:
F - User oriented physical adaptions of rail services
G - Production alternatives
Of course, package G, which is focusing on the sustainability aspects, is very relevant from
the societal perspective and in that way has a high contribution.
Table 2: Relative Potential of Rail Solution Package for KCV improvements, 2050 by SPD
Legend: Darker green = higher relevance
The main outcomes stemming from the analysis of the potential of rail solution packages
for KCV improvement in 2050 are summarised in Figure 3. The subsequent sections also
provide a detailed analysis of the potential distinguishing by SPD.
15
Figure 6: Potential of rail solution packages for KCV improvement 2050
SPD1 - Long Distance:
Improvements stemming from the implementation of packages A, D and should be necessary
for SPD1 to keep the current modal share and possibly attract new users in the context of
competition, in particular with aviation.
Reliability is for many large mobility user segments, especially for business trips, of high
importance and as such should be considered an important reason to travel by plane instead
of by SPD 1. Especially Package A, but also package E, contribute significantly to less
unreliability for rail.
On-board time is a weakness of rail compared to aviation also leading to a higher door-to-
door travel time. Packages A and E can contribute to improvement of the on-board travel
time, but when looking at the overall effect on the door-to-door travel time, including the
time elements on which rail is performing better, packages C and D result in the highest
improvement for rail.
Door-to-door travel costs is not considered to be a significant relative advantage, or
disadvantage, for rail in competition with aviation, therefore an improvement of the relative
performance will lead to originating a benefit for rail. In particular packages D, E and G
contribute to a reduction of the user costs.
Also, several softer performance aspects are relevant in completion of rail and aviation.
Physical strain improves mostly with package F. Comfort aspects are mostly improved when
packages D and F are implemented, while for packages B, a small deterioration is noticed for
safety perception non-transport related and in package E, small deterioration is expected for
comfort while waiting and privacy. Sustainability aspects are also improved mainly with the
implementation of packages A, B and G.
Overlooking the overall improvement potential, it can be concluded that in particular package
A, D and E lead to the most significant improvement of performance of high-speed rail in
competition with aviation for SPD 1
16
SPD2 Regional/Inter regional
Improvements related to the implementation of rail solution packages should be envisaged in
order for rail to keep the current modal share and attract new users in the context of
competition in particular with road transport.
Improvement of the door-to-door travel time has the highest priority, in particular the time
spent for the first and last mile sections, the combined trips and the waiting at stops and
stations are the weakness for rail compared to road transport. Packages A and C result in the
highest improvement for rail, while a smaller time reduction can be expected from package D
and E.
Door-to-door travel costs also have a high priority in the competition with road transport,
(where car-owners even tend to compare only the marginal costs of car use against the costs
perceived to travel by rail). Packages C, D and B result in the largest decrease of door-to-door
travel costs, where packages A, B, E and G Show a smaller contribution to a cost decrease.
Package F even leads to a slight increase of costs.
Also, physical strain and several comfort components (I.e., on-board, first and last mile,
transport and non-transport related safety and luggage carrying issues) have a relatively high
priority for improvement to be competitive with road transport. Physical strain improves most
by implementation of package C, but also package A, B and F lead to less physical strain.
Eventually, comfort aspects are mostly improved when packages A, C, D and F are
implemented.
Reliability is already a strength of rail and therefore it does not have a high priority for
improvement. However, further improvement will of course lead to increased attractiveness
of the rail mode. Package A and E lead to the largest improvement of reliability and smaller
contributions can be expected from package B, C, D and G.
Energy efficiency is improved by package G, which is dedicated to sustainability, but also
packages A, B and especially C results in significant improvements. In package C, efficiency
is improved by moving less redundant capacity on the network (especially during off-peak
period).
Overlooking the overall improvement potential, it can be concluded that in particular package
A, C and D (indicated with dark green header) lead to the most significant improvement of
performance of (inter-)regional rail in competition with car for SPD 2. Package F and G
(indicated with light green header) only lead to a relatively small improvement of the
competitiveness of rail.
SPD3 - Urban
The challenges of rail (I.e., tram and metro) to be dressed by the innovations for SPD 3 are
required for rail to keep the current modal share and attract new users in the context of
competition in particular with road transport.
As noted for SPD2, also for SPD3 improvements of door-to-door travel time should be
regarded as having the highest priority, in particular the time for first and last mile sections,
combined trips and waiting time at stops and stations, which are the main weakness for rail
compared to road transport. The packages do not offer large improvements for the most
critical travel time components. Overall, only package D leads to an improvement of the total
travel time.
Door-to-door costs also have a high priority in the competition with road transport, (where
car-owners even tend to compare only the marginal costs of car use with the costs perceived
to travel by rail). Package B shows the highest potential for improvement, but also package
D, E and G contribute to lower door-to-door costs.
17
Also, physical strain and several comfort components (I.e., comfort on-board, first and last
miles, transport and non-transport related safety and luggage carrying issues) have a
relatively high priority for improvement to be competitive with road transport. Physical strain
improves mostly with package B and comfort aspects are mostly improved when package D
is implemented.
Reliability is already a strength of rail transport and therefore it does not have a high priority
for improvement. However, further improvement will of course lead to increased
attractiveness of rail. Package E contributes most to increased reliability, but also packages B,
D and G have a positive effect on reliability. Energy efficiency is of course improved by
package G, which is dedicated to sustainability, but also an improvement can be expected by
package B.
Overlooking the overall improvement potential, it can be concluded that package B and D
can lead to the most significant improvement of performance of rail in competition with car.
Packages E and G could only lead to a relatively small improvement of competitiveness of
rail.
SPD4 Rail Freight
The challenges of rail to be addressed by the innovations for SPD4 should be required to keep
the current market share and attract new users in the context of competition with trucks.
In general, the need for transhipment at terminals, and related costs, time and risks involved
for this activity, is an important weakness for rail when compared against road transport. For
dedicated rail markets this is less of an issue since a dedicated infrastructure is in many cases
available at the premises and no connecting trips are needed. Currently, the final users prefer
rail transport for its main (and only) strength compared to road, which is the lower costs.
Market segments not preferring rail transport are mostly shipments related to activities further
in the supply chain, which implies that shipments are more dispersed and closer to the end
users. Creating buffers at the destination to reduce the risks of an unreliable rail service is less
or not possible. As such, more stress is placed on integration of the transport into the rest of
the supply chain activities involving high demand for all KCV’s.
For rail freight reliability is the most important aspect to improve in order to compete with
road and attract new demand. Package A leads to the highest improvement, but also packages
C, D and E, result in less unreliability for rail.
For door-to-door travel time, high improvements are expected, mostly with the
implementation of packages A, C and D. The time for shipment organisation is highly
reduced with packages C (for pods and individual wagons) and A. Packages D, B and E result
in a larger decrease of door-to-door costs.
Energy efficiency is of course improved by package G, which is dedicated to sustainability
aspects, but also improvements can be expected by implementing packages A, B and
especially D (in relation to pods and individual wagons).
Overlooking the overall improvement potential, it can be concluded that packages A, C and D
can lead to the most significant improvement of performance of rail freight transport in
competition with truck. Finally, packages E and G only lead to relatively small improvements
of the competitiveness of rail freight.
CANVAS Findings on Railway 4.0 service platform
From analysis of the CANVAS (see Appendix A: Workshop records) and the relationships
between activities, partners and resources (see Table 4 below), we saw that the activities with
most weight and needing most attention are the provision of user-oriented services, smart
ticketing, and payment, organising the multi-modal trip, tailoring offer to user and provision
18
of secure consented data using common ontologies, they have the highest weighting. Their
relationships to the actors: service (ICT) platform, public transport operators and railway
operators, are weighted strongly but there was a gap with how this relates to society, is
society a passive actor in this ‘user-oriented’ process, or is this a role that could be fulfilled
with the personas approach adopted in WP4? The resources most relied on by these key
activities are a MAAS platform, multi-modal real-time planning and scheduling of transport,
and data exchange infrastructures and protocols. In that all these key activities are in the two
key roadmaps for innovation in the sector it appears that to achieve a viable Railway 4.0 the
transition pathways are in place.
CANVAS Findings on Railway 4.0 system platform
From analysis of the CANVAS (see Appendix A: Workshop records) and the relationships
between activities, partners and resources (see Table 5 below), that the most heavily
weighted activities for focus in any business model and hence transition were the
development of governance and regulations; adaptation of legislation, establishment of data
management, prediction, and management of schedule and stops dynamically, the research
and create of new transport concepts, development, and installation of IOT infrastructure,
apps, and systems. These are all extant the in the MAAP and the Rail 2050 Vision, and the
only noticeable activity that lacked a link to either partners or resources was the
establishment of a master platform for vehicles. The key partners for the achievement of
Railway 4.0 were seen to be ICT partner(s), infrastructure managers (including terminals and
energy supplies, public transport operators and railway operators. Government was seen to be
a key partner for the development of governance and regulations with associated adaption of
legislation.
The key resources given most weight were real time network information, incl. station/train
utilisation using real-time data and predictive models, a uniform EU rail system of standards,
regulation and governance, sensors (V2X, V2V, X2X), indicative scheduling/modelling of
trains and passengers using innovative algorithms, moving block trains with virtual coupling
and novel braking and personalised information. This final point about personalised
information links to concerns expressed about future data economies expressed in
TER4RAIL (Zunder et al., 2021).
CANVAS Findings on Railway 4.0 Freight
From analysis of the CANVAS and the relationships between activities, partners and
resources (see Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 in Appendix A: Workshop records) The key
activities identified were flexible capacity management of infra/ rollingstock/ paths/
terminals, real-time traffic management, shorter trains/modules with higher frequency and
direct connections and data sharing and communication between IM-RU- terminals -client.
Key partners were seen to be ICT and service platform providers, road, postal, IWW,
maritime, logistics providers, terminals and ports, infrastructure managers, and the rail supply
industry. Note that government was weighted very low and does not relate to any of the key
activities, confirming the tendency for logistics to act away from government intervention in
the early 21st century. Note also that the workshop did not identify railway operators as
distinct to all forms of logistics operators, again suggesting that rail freight companies are
seen as and need to be fully multi-modal providers.
The key resources seen as having most weight in supporting new business models and
transition were autonomous [small] rail vehicles ( with AI Software for automated driving),
asset management systems, freight exchange platforms, appropriate data interoperability
standards, Internet of Things OT (network, train, sensors..), mathematical model for routing
and satellite systems (GNSS). The activities of demand prediction and automated registration
19
of service providers were not linked to identified key resources and this suggests gaps for
further research.
There are three key activities which we feel may not be adequately reflected in the MAAP
and Rail 2050 Vision and these are flexible capacity management of infra/ rollingstock/
paths/ terminals, on-demand capacity allocation, demand prediction (volume, date,
specifications), and automated registration of service providers. The most stated comment in
the post workshop discussion was that a single point of contact for customers and single
responsible agent is (still) rare and the transport corridors are not functional, which coincides
with the recent Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 which stated that “the overall
objective of giving sufficient priority to rail freight does not seem to have been achieved so
far.” (Enrico Pastori et al., 2020)
Governance Findings
Having the final results and conclusions of the modelling and CANVAS a focussed written
interview process was initiated. The following stakeholders were contacted and asked in mid-
April 2021 to answer 8 questions based on key issues that had been uncovered and which had
relationships with governance, and that these stakeholders had an expertise and a vested
interest in. Not all stakeholders responded but by 1st June we had responses from most, or
from people of expertise able to comment as individuals. One respondent wished to remain
anonymous, another that their views were personal to them and not their organisation in that
there was no current institutional viewpoint.
20
Figure 9: Railways 4.0 - system platform - BMC - impact optimization of rail in a
collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
21
Figure 10: Railways 4.0 - system platform Transition BMC - impact optimization of rail in
a collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-
45)
22
Table 5: Railway 4.0 System Platform: activities, partners, and resources
25 22 14 17 10 11 7 7 2
22% 19% 12% 15% 9% 10% 6% 6% 2%
2KP1 2KP2 2KP3 2KP4 2KP5 2KP6 2KP7 2KP8 2KP12
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
ICT partner
Infrastructure managers
(including terminals and energy
supplies)
Public Transport operators
Railw ay operators
Railw ay supply industry
(including automotive vehicle
experts)
Government (local, regional,
national or EU) as appropriate
IOT provider
Research partners
Labour market
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
2KA1
Develop governance and regulations;
adapt legisla tion
22 18% x x x x Yes
2KA2
Establish data m anagement 16 13% x x x x Yes
2KA3
Predict and manage schedule & stops
dynamically
14 12% x x x Yes
2KA4
Research and create new transport
concepts
12 10% x x Yes
2KA5
Develop and install IOT infrastructure,
apps and systems
12 10% x x x x x x x Yes
2KA6
Harmonise all countries data
ontologies
11 9% x x x
2KA7
Virtual coupling 11 9% x Yes
2KA8
Develop software and library of traffic
situations
8 7% x x
2KA9
Establish ma ster platform (vehicles
focused)
7 6%
2KA10
Develop bi-modal vehicles 4 3% x x
2KA11
Use personalised informati on 4 3% x x x Yes
23 18 11 11 10 7 7 7 4 4 3 3
21% 17% 10% 10% 9% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 3%
2KR1 2KR2 2KR3 2KR4 2KR5 2KR6 2KR7 2KR8 2KR9 2KR10 2KR11 2KR12
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
Real tim e network information, incl.
station/train utilisa tion using real-time data
and predictive models
Uniform EU rai l system of standards,
regulation and governance
Sensors (V2X, V2V, X2X)
Indicative scheduling/modelling of trains
and passengers using i nnovative algorithms
Moving block trains with virtual coupling &
novel braking
Personalised information
Communication between road and rail
systems
Small train sets, down to individual pods
Self propelled freight w agons
New underground terminals
Bi-modal vehicles
Communication between logistics s ystems
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
2KA1
Develop governance and regulations;
adapt legisla tion
22 18% xYes
2KA2
Establish data m anagement 16 13% x x Yes
2KA3
Predict and manage schedule & stops
dynamically
14 12% x x Yes
2KA4
Research and create new transport
concepts
12 10% x x x x x x x x x x x x Yes
2KA5
Develop and install IOT infrastructure,
apps and systems
12 10% xYes
2KA6
Harmonise all countries data
ontologies
11 9% x x
2KA7
Virtual coupling 11 9% x x Yes
2KA8
Develop software and library of traffic
situations
8 7% x x
2KA9
Establish ma ster platform (vehicles
focused)
7 6%
2KA10
Develop bi-modal vehicles 4 3% x
2KA11
Use personalised informati on 4 3% x Yes
23
Figure 11: Future Freight business model canvas - impact optimization of rail freight (also
available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
24
Figure 12: Future Freight transition canvas - impact optimization of rail freight Transition
BMC (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
25
Table 6: Railway 4.0 freight: activities, partners, and resources
Votes 28 13 12 9 8 8 6 2 1
Weight % 32% 15% 14% 10% 9% 9% 7% 2% 1%
ID 3KP1 3KP2 3KP3 3KP4 3KP5 3KP6 3KP7 3KP8 3KP9
Key Partners
ICT and service platform
providers
Road, postal, IWW, maritime,
logistics providers
Terminals and ports
Infrastructure managers
Rail supply industry
Shippers
Vertically integrated businesses
(that manage end to end supply
chains)
Government (local, regional,
national or EU) as appropriate
Finance organisations
In MAAP or RAIL 2050 Vision
Key Activities Votes Weight %
Flexible capacity management of
infra/rollingstock/paths/terminals
16 15%
x x x x
Real time traffic m anagement 14 13% x x x Yes
Shorter trains/modules with higher
frequency and direct connections
12 11%
x
Yes
Data sharing and communication
between IM-RU- terminals -client
11 10%
x x x x
Yes
On-demand capacity allocation 9 8% x x
ensure cyber security and GDPR 4 4% xYes
Automated cargo & infrastructure
surveillance
5 5%
x x x
Yes
Demand prediction (volume, date,
specifications)
8 7%
x x x
Automated terminal activities 7 6% xYes
Deliver resilience 7 6% xYes
Cargo arrives at the agreed time at
destination
6 6%
x x x
Yes
Automated registration of service
providers
5 5%
x
Communicate about delays with client 4 4% x x x x x Yes
ID 3KR6 3KR1 3KR2 3KR15 3KR3 3KR4 3KR5 3KR12 3KR13 3KR14 3KR16 3KR7 3KR8 3KR9 3KR10 3KR11
Votes 16 13 9 9 8 8 7 7 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2
Weight % 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2%
Key Resources
Autonomous [small] rail vehicles
(AI Software for automated
driving)
Asset management systems
Freight exchange platforms
appropriate data interoperability
standards
IOT (network, train, sensors..)
mathematical model for routing
Satellite systems (G NSS)
multi-purpose, specialised and
novel wagons
cyber secure systems
Freight Terminals as part of the
rail system
smaller freight trains
adaptive infrastructure and
equipment
Physical Internet
Logistical information system
Integration into administrative
systems of users (freight)
independent / neutral
governance (trusted system)
bi-modal vehicles
Key Activities Votes Weight %
Flexible capacity management of
infra/rollingstick/paths/terminals
16 15% x x x x x
Real time traffic m anagement 14 13% x x x x Yes
Shorter trains/modules with higher
frequency and direct connections
12 11% x x
Yes
Data sharing and communication
between IM-RU- terminals -client
11 10% x x x
Yes
On-demand capacity allocation 9 8% x x x x x
ensure cyber security and GDPR 4 4% x x Yes
Automated cargo & infrastructure
surveillance
5 5% x x x
Yes
Demand prediction (volume, date,
specifications)
8 7%
Automated terminal activities 7 6% x x x Yes
Deliver resilience 7 6% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Yes
Cargo arrives at the agreed time at
destination
6 6% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Yes
Automated registration of service
providers
5 5%
Communicate about delays with client 4 4% x Yes
26
Table 3: Governance Stakeholder Responses
Organisation
Status
Domain
URL
UNIFE
Declined to respond
Railway supply
industry
unife.org
UITP
Responded:
personally, as
Sylvain Haon,
Director of Strategy
Public transport
operators
uitp.org
UIC
No official response
Internation Union of
Railways
uic.org
CER
Responded
Confederarion of
European Railways
cer.be
ERFA
Responded
European Rail
Freight Association
erfarail.eu
EIM
No response
European
Infrastructure
Managers (rail)
eimrail.org
Independent
Responded:
well informed source
in the railway
operating
community
The stakeholders were sent a five-page summary of the project, our results so far and asked to
answer 8 questions:
1. It is noticeable that the modelling suggests that for SPD3-urban, by 2050, the balance
between bus/tram/metro is such that using (smaller) buses or on-demand cars for
passengers at off peak times and using the rail infrastructure for rail freight may be
considered a sustainable approach. How might the governance of multiple urban
modes be developed to enable such a multi-modal, demand differentiated, and
multiple actor approaches to be considered and/or actioned?
2. The cost effective scenario for rail freight in traditional markets almost keeps abreast
with road freight, and it is in innovative and new market niches that rail freight can
gain market share compared to the baseline scenario. How can governance be
developed to accommodate divergent business model and technological transition
pathways for European rail freight?
3. We observe that for SPD1 and SPD2, the cost effective scenario leads to 5% more rail
share compared to the baseline results in 2050. This is lower than the impact
optimization scenario by 2% for SPD1 and 3% for SPD2. How can governance
manage the choices between cost and impact of innovations moving forward from
now to 2050 at a long-distance and regional level within Europe?
4. It was suggested that the rail sector may lack the focus and skills to address the user
centric needs in a holistic systems approach. How can the governance of the sector
support the provision of such capacity, which may be quite different in each of the
SPDs?
5. It has been key to EU transport policy that national borders inhibit innovation.
However, does always perceiving of the rail sector at a pan-European level also limit
innovation at the regional level or in freight. Would 4-6 regulated regional
27
monopolies suit European rail better? Is a single European rail system really an
agenda of political cohesion rather than operations?
6. If the future is user centric, data rich, and part of Mobility as a Service / Physical
Internet, then what role should rail have in future? Should rail just be a component
within the mobility sector or should rail try to be the host of the complete mobility
system given its extensive data ownership, and service platforms? What governance
would be required for such a future and given that the scope of that service for SPD2
and SPD3 lies as much outside of the sector than inside, would this actually be rail
governance anymore?
7. It has been stated that despite the introduction of corridors for rail freight a single
point of contact for customers and single responsible agent is (still) rare & that the
transport corridors are not functional. How well do the governance structures for rail
freight address this?
8. In order to manage the provision of integrated autonomous vehicle solutions in the
urban environment, and to a lesser extent regionally and for freight, the research
suggests that integration between the modes in terms of C-ITS and ECTS as well as
air travel control, autonomous drones etc. How will governance of control and self-
control of autonomous be governed as our cities and suburbs become self-organised?
No-one directly referenced the existing governance structures, although they implicitly
supported them or challenged them. ERFARAIL, for example, adopted a position supporting
the vertical and horizontal separation and liberalisation inherent in the EU Transport Policy
since 2011 (Zunder, 2012; Islam et al., 2015). CER, however, tend to emphasize the
traditional strengths of the traditional integrated incumbent railways, a position adopted
strongly by Deutsche Bahn in their relatively successful push back against much of the
original Fourth Railway package (Maczkovics, 2017) UITP/Haon talked more of the role of
overall urban governance, which is their stated area of concern and has already some of the
institutions in place, but rarely integrated between all modes, MaaS/data providers and/or
freight. The Independent observer was strongest in addressing the need to critique current and
speculate about future governance.
Multiple responses spoke of innovation, or the allocation of contested resources being based
on viable business models, and yet at the same time the role of society as a customer that
sometimes supersedes the individual user. On the whole there was an acceptance of
liberalisation and market mechanisms in the rail sector to deliver services and innovation, but
within governance structures. There was a pushback on this from CER who seemed warm to
the idea that a smaller number of supra-national regional monopolies may make sense. CER
also spoke strongly of land use planning as a way of shaping freight demand.
CER spoke primarily as a representative of the freight rail sector, which may have
understated their very significant membership amongst the European rail passenger sector.
They tended to adopt a ‘rail-oriented’ approach and not a ‘user-oriented’ one.
The opportunity for data and it’s integration and sharing was stated multiple times, both as an
enabler of further efficiency and delivery of MaaS/PI, but also as an enabler/driver of
innovation and new businesses in the future. Rail sector actors were noted as being well
placed to take a strong role. There was a view that pre-definition of roles was to be avoided
and that governance needed to be at the level of data access, data sharing, integration and
exploitation conceptually separate to modal operations.
The emergence of autonomous cross modal issues was viewed sceptically by some
respondents, with some caution by others, and not recognised as a pressing and emergent
issue by any, which was notably different to the BMC/transition workshops.
The issue with regard to focus and skills saw the sector strongly defended and also strongly
criticised, but perhaps the respondents failed to flag up the noted problems the rail and
28
separately the logistics sectors have with skills and competencies. It may be that the proven
technical skills of the rail sector outshine the other competencies needed to deliver user
centric approaches. No clear suggestion for governance was suggested here beyond the new
proposed JU.
The current top level corridor and train capacity scheduling governance at an international
level were strongly criticized or weakly nuanced. The current TTR initiatives and the CEF
programme appear to need to deliver improvements in governance.
Integration
To achieve the impact optimisation scenarios identified, and in the specific areas of service
platform, system platform and freight, key activities were identified and there are some
commonalities. In all three cases, the need for platforms that are data driven, real-time, and
dynamic was given the highest weight. Whether planning for passengers, scheduling trains or
organising logistics deliveries; an integrated and multi-modal data system was called for as
the key enabler to deliver viable business models, transition, and impact.
This raises a variety of questions and issues.
The data economy that is called for may or may not lie in the hands or, or even the
governance of the rail sector, or even the transport sector. Whilst it is clearly in the sector
plans (MAAP and Rail 2050 Vision), this question of who identifies, who owns, who delivers
and who benefits from such a new data economy is unlikely to lie clearly within one domain.
Note that such a data economy will not just consider passenger details, it will hold and
transfer data on trains, rolling stock, locomotives, infrastructure, capacity, terminals, paths,
cargos, shippers, receivers, operators of all kinds. It will contain mixtures of personal,
commercial, safety critical and security sensitive data. It is unlikely to be stored or messaged
in single data ontologies, for all that some called for that in workshops, some infrastructure
data may be detailed in one of competing Building Information Management standards (ISO
19650:2019), rail freight operations may be managed using the Telematics Application for
Freight TSI (TAF-TSI), but just as easily may be shared between legacy systems using
Universal Business Language 2.x (ISO/IEC 19845:2015). The Smart-Rail ontology should be
considered as a common unifying language and as input for standard development. This
ontology facilitates the information systems within the rail sector and also ensures
connectivity of other information systems relevant for rail users (for instance logistical
information systems). It is as likely that in a liberal economy, based on the dominant mode of
development for the Internet, that multiple standards will compete and that parsable messages
between systems using semantic languages will be key .
Government was mentioned as a key partner in all workshops and given a relatively high
weight for service and system, but low for freight. However, save for the development of
governance for the system platform, it was not linked strongly to strongly weighted activities
or resources. Perhaps this was because the term was too broad, covering EU, national,
regional, and local administrations, but it raise the question as to whether the transition can
proceed with a light touch, save in ensuring governance is sound.
Autonomy for trains or wagons was not given a high weighting in the service or system
platform workshops but was considered key in the freight workshop. Virtual coupling, or the
moving block train, was considered highly in both the system and freight platforms. Given
that in mainline rail operations there is little need for interaction between rail and other
modes, this suggests that the development of autonomy, be it automated train operation
(ATO) or self-organising trains of freight / passenger coaches / wagons, could be a rail mode
development developed from ECTS/ERTMS and the Grade of Automation (GAO)
classifications defined in IEC 62290‐1. However, autonomy is developing fast in urban road
vehicles, cars, and delivery robots. Urban rail systems have the highest level of GAO
29
automation so far. With congested space in cities, it is likely that soon there will be a need for
an autonomous road vehicle to negotiate autonomously with an autonomous rail vehicle. This
is a gap that has not been addressed yet by the rail sector and/or the road sector, which has
different protocols and standards.
Reflections on the Research
We used our methodological approach to gain knowledge through integration, and as each
piece of work delivered findings we used developmental complementarity to build both in
parallel and iteratively. Since the work had an overall chronological flow, we report it as
such, but in practice there was a strong iterative loop between the modelling and the
CANVAS work that then informed the investigation of governance.
The effect of COVID19 pushed us online, as it did to so many, and this had the following
effects. The webinars preceding the workshops informed the participants well, the workshops
migrated to an online platform well, and replicated the ‘tactile’ nature of a whiteboard and
post-it notes well. Whilst the ability to attend such a workshop with no travel was very
productive for many, we also noticed that during COVID peoples’ diaries filled with more
and more online events, and availability was an issue, despite the smaller time footprint. With
regard to semi structured interviews where normally one might arrange a face-to-face
meeting in a diary and literally ‘doorstep’ the interviewee, the online process led to very low
response.
Recommendations
On the basis of this research work, we recommend to the Shift2Rail JU, it’s successor,
ERRAC, all stakeholders and the European Union that the rail sector should address these
recommendations, in addition to the core plans already in the MAAP to achieve the Rail 2050
Vision and more.
Focus on the solutions that deliver change, either as ‘cost effective’ and ‘impact
optimisation’
o A - Real time network management (SPD 1, 2 and 4)
o C - Reshaping rolling stock (SPD 2 and 4)
o D - User oriented Door-to-door services (SPD 1, 2 & 4)
o E - Smart sensing solutions (SPD 1)
Deliver the activities that support viable business models for Railway 4.0
Address the need for a new governance and fix the broken
o Fix the Governance of Capacity
o Plan the Governance and Transition for Urban Mobility in Smart Cities
o Plan the Governance and Transition to an Integrated Data Economy for
Mobility
o Plan the Governance and Transition On Autonomy
Finally..
Moving to user-oriented will inevitably mean becomes less rail-oriented, but this will apply
to all actors and domains.
Summary and Conclusion
This research developed proposed recommendations for the European rail sector to transition
from current state to a user centric ‘Railway 4.0’ by the year 2050 based on interdisciplinary
research informed by key choice variable modelling, co-created business model generation
and semi structured interviews within the context of expert knowledge held by the authors
and supported by desktop research. Our research output was focused at the system platform
30
demonstrator scenario level of the JU MAAP. This work was developed in a mixed methods
research framework the use of which allowed developmental complementarity, the
quantitative informed the qualitative work and the qualitative work developed plans and
hypotheses to test against further quantitative data. We have detailed the impact assessment
framework, CANVAS, and governance interviews developed and used. We have reported the
individual key results from each approach and then an integration of same abd finally policy
recommendations.
References
Bhaskar, R. (1989) Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy.
Verso London.
Brown, J., Isaacs, D. and World Café Community of Practice (2005) The World Cafe Book:
Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations that Matter. Berrett-Koehler Publisher.
Available at: http://www.theworldcafe.com/world-cafe-book/ (Accessed: June 14, 2019).
Bryman, A. (2007) “Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research,” Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), pp. 822. doi: 10.1177/2345678906290531.
Capros, P. et al. (2016) EU Reference Scenario 2016 Energy, transport and GHG emissions
Trends to 2050. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713
draft_publication_REF2016_v13.pdf (Accessed: June 19, 2020).
Enrico Pastori et al. (2020) Support study: Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail
network for competitive freight. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/893afb51-a63a-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1 (Accessed: June 16, 2021).
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. (1989) “Toward a Conceptual Framework
for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),
pp. 255274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255.
Haltuf, M. (2016) “Shift2Rail JU from Member State’s Point of View,” Transportation
Research Procedia, 14, pp. 18191828. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.148.
Mazzino, N. et al. (2017) Rail 2050 Vision - Rail - the Backbone of Europe’s Mobility.
Brussels. Available at: http://errac.org/publications/rail-2050-vision-document/.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010) Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons. Available at:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Business-Model-Generation-Visionaries-
Challengers/dp/0470876417 (Accessed: September 27, 2013).
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, Adrian. (2012) Research methods for business
students. Pearson.
Shift2Rail (2019) Multi-Annual Action Plan Part A and Part B. Brussels. Available at:
https://shift2rail.org/publications/multi-annual-action-plan/.
Zunder, T. H. (2012) Europe’s freight transport policy White Paper 2001 to White Paper
2011, Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-0613-6_21178.
Zunder, T. H. et al. (2013) “How far has open access enabled the growth of cross border pan
European rail freight? A case study,” Research in Transportation Business & Management,
6, pp. 7180. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.12.005.
Zunder, T. H. et al. (2021) Consensus and Dissent for Rail Visions of 2050: Delphi Study and
Paper: Ter4Rail D2.1 Final. Brussels. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10884.86407.
31
Appendix A: Workshop records
Figure 7: Railways 4.0 - service platform - BMC - impact optimization of rail in a
collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
32
Figure 8: Railways 4.0 - service platform Transition BMC - impact optimization of rail in a
collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
33
Table 4: Railway 4.0 Service Platform: activities, partners, and resources
21 13 12 11 4 3 2 2
31% 19% 18% 16% 6% 4% 3% 3%
1KP1 1KP2 1KP3 1KP4 1KP5 1KP6 1KP7 1KP8
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
Service (ICT) platform
Public Transport Operator
Government (local,
regional, national or EU)
as appropriate
Railw ay operators
Railw ays supply industry
Cyber security partner
Payment provider
Society
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
1KA1
Provide user oriented services 20 24% x x x Yes
1KA2
Provide smart ticketing and payment 17 20% x x x x Yes
1KA3
Organise the multi-modal trip 15 18% x x x Yes
1KA4
Tailor offer to user 15 18% x x x Yes
1KA5
Provide secure consented data using
common ontologies
10 12%
x x x x
Yes
1KA6
Collect real time information 6 7% x x x Yes
22 12 8 7 5 3 3
37% 20% 13% 12% 8% 5% 5%
1KR1 1KR2 1KR3 1KR4 1KR5 1KR6 1KR7
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
MAAS online service platform
Multi-modal real- time
planning and scheduling of
transport
Data exchange infrastructures
and protocols
GNSS supported IOT systems
and devices
User recognition and seat
reservation systems
User requirements
Adaptive infrastructure,
rolling stock and equipment
using modular design
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
1KA1
Provide user oriented services 20 24% x x x x Yes
1KA2
Provide smart ticketing and payment 17 20% x x x x Yes
1KA3
Organise the multi-modal trip 15 18% xYes
1KA4
Tailor offer to user 15 18% x x x Yes
1KA5
Provide secure consented data using
common ontologies
10 12%
x x x
Yes
1KA6
Collect real time information 6 7% xYes
34
Figure 9: Railways 4.0 - system platform - BMC - impact optimization of rail in a
collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
35
Figure 10: Railways 4.0 - system platform Transition BMC - impact optimization of rail in
a collaborative mobility sector (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-
45)
36
Table 5: Railway 4.0 System Platform: activities, partners, and resources
25 22 14 17 10 11 7 7 2
22% 19% 12% 15% 9% 10% 6% 6% 2%
2KP1 2KP2 2KP3 2KP4 2KP5 2KP6 2KP7 2KP8 2KP12
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
ICT partner
Infrastructure managers
(including terminals and energy
supplies)
Public Transport operators
Railw ay operators
Railw ay supply industry
(including automotive vehicle
experts)
Government (local, regional,
national or EU) as appropriate
IOT provider
Research partners
Labour market
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
2KA1
Develop governance and regulations;
adapt legisla tion
22 18% x x x x Yes
2KA2
Establish data m anagement 16 13% x x x x Yes
2KA3
Predict and manage schedule & stops
dynamically
14 12% x x x Yes
2KA4
Research and create new transport
concepts
12 10% x x Yes
2KA5
Develop and install IOT infrastructure,
apps and systems
12 10% x x x x x x x Yes
2KA6
Harmonise all countries data
ontologies
11 9% x x x
2KA7
Virtual coupling 11 9% x Yes
2KA8
Develop software and library of traffic
situations
8 7% x x
2KA9
Establish ma ster platform (vehicles
focused)
7 6%
2KA10
Develop bi-modal vehicles 4 3% x x
2KA11
Use personalised informati on 4 3% x x x Yes
23 18 11 11 10 7 7 7 4 4 3 3
21% 17% 10% 10% 9% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 3%
2KR1 2KR2 2KR3 2KR4 2KR5 2KR6 2KR7 2KR8 2KR9 2KR10 2KR11 2KR12
ID Key Activities Votes Weight %
Real tim e network information, incl.
station/train utilisa tion using real-time data
and predictive models
Uniform EU rai l system of standards,
regulation and governance
Sensors (V2X, V2V, X2X)
Indicative scheduling/modelling of trains
and passengers using i nnovative algorithms
Moving block trains with virtual coupling &
novel braking
Personalised information
Communication between road and rail
systems
Small train sets, down to individual pods
Self propelled freight w agons
New underground terminals
Bi-modal vehicles
Communication between logistics s ystems
In MAAP or 2050 Vision?
2KA1
Develop governance and regulations;
adapt legisla tion
22 18% xYes
2KA2
Establish data m anagement 16 13% x x Yes
2KA3
Predict and manage schedule & stops
dynamically
14 12% x x Yes
2KA4
Research and create new transport
concepts
12 10% x x x x x x x x x x x x Yes
2KA5
Develop and install IOT infrastructure,
apps and systems
12 10% xYes
2KA6
Harmonise all countries data
ontologies
11 9% x x
2KA7
Virtual coupling 11 9% x x Yes
2KA8
Develop software and library of traffic
situations
8 7% x x
2KA9
Establish ma ster platform (vehicles
focused)
7 6%
2KA10
Develop bi-modal vehicles 4 3% x
2KA11
Use personalised informati on 4 3% x Yes
37
Figure 11: Future Freight business model canvas - impact optimization of rail freight (also
available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
38
Figure 12: Future Freight transition canvas - impact optimization of rail freight Transition
BMC (also available as a separate file here https://wp.me/PaHutQ-45)
39
Table 6: Railway 4.0 freight: activities, partners, and resources
Votes 28 13 12 9 8 8 6 2 1
Weight % 32% 15% 14% 10% 9% 9% 7% 2% 1%
ID 3KP1 3KP2 3KP3 3KP4 3KP5 3KP6 3KP7 3KP8 3KP9
Key Partners
ICT and service platform
providers
Road, postal, IWW, maritime,
logistics providers
Terminals and ports
Infrastructure managers
Rail supply industry
Shippers
Vertically integrated businesses
(that manage end to end supply
chains)
Government (local, regional,
national or EU) as appropriate
Finance organisations
In MAAP or RAIL 2050 Vision
Key Activities Votes Weight %
Flexible capacity management of
infra/rollingstock/paths/terminals
16 15%
x x x x
Real time traffic m anagement 14 13% x x x Yes
Shorter trains/modules with higher
frequency and direct connections
12 11%
x
Yes
Data sharing and communication
between IM-RU- terminals -client
11 10%
x x x x
Yes
On-demand capacity allocation 9 8% x x
ensure cyber security and GDPR 4 4% xYes
Automated cargo & infrastructure
surveillance
5 5%
x x x
Yes
Demand prediction (volume, date,
specifications)
8 7%
x x x
Automated terminal activities 7 6% xYes
Deliver resilience 7 6% xYes
Cargo arrives at the agreed time at
destination
6 6%
x x x
Yes
Automated registration of service
providers
5 5%
x
Communicate about delays with client 4 4% x x x x x Yes
ID 3KR6 3KR1 3KR2 3KR15 3KR3 3KR4 3KR5 3KR12 3KR13 3KR14 3KR16 3KR7 3KR8 3KR9 3KR10 3KR11
Votes 16 13 9 9 8 8 7 7 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2
Weight % 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2%
Key Resources
Autonomous [small] rail vehicles
(AI Software for automated
driving)
Asset management systems
Freight exchange platforms
appropriate data interoperability
standards
IOT (network, train, sensors..)
mathematical model for routing
Satellite systems (G NSS)
multi-purpose, specialised and
novel wagons
cyber secure systems
Freight Terminals as part of the
rail system
smaller freight trains
adaptive infrastructure and
equipment
Physical Internet
Logistical information system
Integration into administrative
systems of users (freight)
independent / neutral
governance (trusted system)
bi-modal vehicles
Key Activities Votes Weight %
Flexible capacity management of
infra/rollingstick/paths/terminals
16 15% x x x x x
Real time traffic m anagement 14 13% x x x x Yes
Shorter trains/modules with higher
frequency and direct connections
12 11% x x
Yes
Data sharing and communication
between IM-RU- terminals -client
11 10% x x x
Yes
On-demand capacity allocation 9 8% x x x x x
ensure cyber security and GDPR 4 4% x x Yes
Automated cargo & infrastructure
surveillance
5 5% x x x
Yes
Demand prediction (volume, date,
specifications)
8 7%
Automated terminal activities 7 6% x x x Yes
Deliver resilience 7 6% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Yes
Cargo arrives at the agreed time at
destination
6 6% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Yes
Automated registration of service
providers
5 5%
Communicate about delays with client 4 4% x Yes
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The paper describes the processes of establishing Shift2Rail JU, and its preliminary and current operation. The focus is on functions in legal, financial, innovative, and best practice areas related to making railway sector competitive, efficient, and aimed to ensure the regional and global sustainable development in Europe. The important role of member states within Shift2Rail JU in coordination of the national and European policies, ensuring transparent and balanced access to research and innovation projects for Central and Eastern European countries. The reason for motivation for SMEs and academia in the mentioned countries also is a significant part of the presentation.
Article
Originally published in 1989, Reclaiming Reality still provides the most accessible introduction to the increasingly influential multi-disciplinary and international body of thought, known as critical realism. It is designed to "underlabour" both for the sciences, especially the human sciences, and for the projects of human emancipation which such sciences may come to inform; and provides an enlightening intervention in current debates about realism and relativism, positivism and poststucturalism, modernism and postmodernism, etc. Elaborating his critical realist perspective on society, nature, science and philosophy itself, Roy Bhaskar shows how this perspective can be used to undermine currently fashionable ideologies of the Right, and at the same time, to clear the ground for a reinvigorated Left. Reclaiming Reality contains powerful critiques of some of the most important schools of thought and thinkers of recent years-from Bachelard and Feyerabend to Rorty and Habermas; and it advances novel and convincing resolutions of many traditional philosophical problems. Now with a new introduction from Mervyn Hartwig, this book continues to provide a straightforward and stimulating introduction to current debates in philosophy and social theory for the interested lay reader and student alike. Reclaiming Reality will be of particular value not only for critical realists but for all those concerned with the revitalization of the socialist emancipatory project and the renaissance of the Marxist theoretical tradition. Roy Bhaskar is the originator of the philosophy of critical realism, and the author of many acclaimed and influential works including A Realist Theory of Science, The Possibility of Naturalism, Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation and Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. He is an editor of the recently published Critical Realism: Essential Readings and is currently chair of the Centre for Critical Realism.
Article
This article is concerned with the possibility that the development of mixed methods research is being hindered by the tendency that has been observed by some researchers for quantita- tive and qualitative findings either not to be integrated or to be integrated to only a limited extent. It examines findings from 20 interviews with U.K. social researchers, all of whom are practitioners of mixed methods research. From these interviews, a wide variety of possible barriers to integrating mixed methods findings are presented. The article goes on to suggest that more attention needs to be given to the writing of mixed methods articles.
Article
Hello everyone. This is a text book and so I am unable to share it with you for copyright reasons. Apologies for this. Mark
Article
This paper analyses the extent to which an open access rail freight market has enabled new pan European rail freight services, using a case study within the context of policy. Methodology was: desk top analysis of European Union freight policy, from the Railway Directives, through successive White Papers, to the recent 2011 White Paper; review of rail freight market performance; semi-structured interviews with rail regulators; operational records from a novel, cross-border rail freight service from Western Europe to the Black Sea. Evidence to date is mixed. The research finds that new entrants can operate within imperfect open access environment, facing many barriers from incumbents, infrastructure managers, rail regulators, and terminal operators. Examples of issues are: infrastructure discrimination; non-transparent or liberalised energy supply; monopolistic shunting services; safety certification; terminal access restricting trade; weak or discriminatory regulatory authorities. The research identified key barriers: trust between partners, wagon availability, lack of single European driver certification and access to non-path infrastructure and services. The pilot was successful and is commercially viable, and succeeded in a hybrid block and single wagon-load train service, integrating new private entrants and Eastern state railways. The research identified a research agenda and implications for practitioners and policy makers.
The World Cafe Book: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations that Matter
  • J Brown
  • D Isaacs
  • World Café Community Of Practice
Brown, J., Isaacs, D. and World Café Community of Practice (2005) The World Cafe Book: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations that Matter. Berrett-Koehler Publisher. Available at: http://www.theworldcafe.com/world-cafe-book/ (Accessed: June 14, 2019).
Support study: Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
  • Enrico Pastori
Enrico Pastori et al. (2020) Support study: Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/893afb51-a63a-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1 (Accessed: June 16, 2021).