) + 6,010 (Text) + 5 × 250 (Figures) = 7,506 Words 20 21 22 ABSTRACT 23 This paper offers a review of ideas and pract ices making Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) 24 unique and distinctively different to North American commuter rail roads, based on two weeks’ field 25 observation, published sources, author s’ cultural knowledge, and discussi ons with locals. Unlike most 26 transit systems, TRA accommodates different tr ip purposes and train types on shared railway 27 infrastructure, covering areas with varying traffic densities, travel needs, and geographic features. As an 28 importer of railway technology, to meet diverse requirements, and b ecause of incremental and stop-gap 29 measures devised in response to capital budget rest rictions, TRA has needed to embrace, operate, and 30 maintain a wide assortment of different standards and procedures. This willingness to accept outside 31 designs and consider functionality/cost/simplicity trad e-offs when addressing specific needs resulted in 32 constantly varying daily routines for management, staff, and customers. In turn, it may have cultivated 33 expectations of learning curves w ith new technologies and continuous training requirements, apparently 34 resulting in higher skill levels and a more nimble workforce that cont ributes to overall higher reliability, 35 tolerance of changes, and nuanced operations tail ored to maximize railway effectiveness. These 36 observations suggest further research needs for commuter rail authorities: Can infrastructure and 37 schedules be designed with better co st-flexibility tradeoffs? Should trai n priorities be explicit in public 38 schedules? What is an appropriate level of standardization? Is technology better thought of as 39 workplace assistance and not functional replaceme nt for employees? Embracing diversity in 40 engineering and operating solutions could reduce investment cost s yet improve effectiveness by 41 requiring humans to think on their feet. 42 43 44 Notes: (1) English transliterations of station names refl ect (where available) those in TRA’s passenger rail 45 timetables, which shows a mixture of Wade-Giles (histo rical and popular usage, particularly outside Taipei), 46 Tongyong Pinyin (former standard), and Hanyu Pinyin (curr ent official standard); (2) Throughout this paper, 47 “Taiwan” refers to the Pacific island, and “Formosa” refers to the culture of Taiwan’s inhabitants. 48 49 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 2 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Taiwan’s railways are like the City of New York – both great melting pots of culture, philosophy, and 3 technologies from all over the world. Quite unlik e home-grown railways in Eu rope and North America 4 – incrementally re-designed and improved upon since the Industrial Revolution – Taiwan’s railways 5 reflects accumulated results of changing procurement policies, whimsy of international diplomacy, and 6 continuing worldwide search for best-value technology and practices. The Taiwan Railways 7 Administration (TRA) operates and maintains Swedish and Japanese signal systems, a Franco-English 8 electrification system, a Taiwanes e-designed tunnel originally envi sioned by Japanese and German 9 planners through Taipei, American and South Afri can locomotives, Indian and Taiwanese coaches, 10 Japanese, English, Italian, and South Korean trainsets ( 1). Because of Taiwan (Formosa)’s history as a 11 Spanish, Dutch, Japanese, and Chinese colony, and recipient of significant American and British 12 assistance after the Second World War (WWII), Fo rmosa’s islanders have shown an exceptional 13 tolerance and openness to different ideas, and dem onstrated great flexibility and resilience under a 14 smorgasbord of outside influe nces. This willingness to entertain alte rnatives is reflected in their railway 15 system. A brief survey of TRA’s designs and ope rating practices is offered, demonstrating how TRA 16 has melded diverse technologies and utilized a mixture of manual operations and automation. 17 18 Profile of Taiwan’s Railways 19 Railway services (Keelung-Hsinchu) be gan in 1891 under China’s Qing dynasty ( 2). Completely rebuilt 20 and substantially expanded under Formosa’s Japane se colonial government (1895-1945), the network’s 21 Japanese influence and heritage persists ( 3). Similarities between TR A and the Japan Railways (JR) 22 companies can be noted in signal aspects, signage, tr ack layout, fare controls, station architecture, and 23 operating procedures. As Japan’s southern base during WWII, Taiwan ’s railways suffered significant 24 damage by Allied air raids. Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA, 臺灣鐵路管理局 ) was founded in 25 1945 to reconstruct and operate railway infrastructure ( 4). 26 27 With ~13,500 employees (4,700 in transportation and 7,700 in maintenance titles), TRA is a government 28 organization under Taiwan’s Ministry of Transpor tation and Communication (M OTC) that directly 29 operates 682 route miles of 3’ 6” (1,067mm) gauge railways ( 5). Three mainlines form a complete circle 30 around the island (Figure 1(a)). TRA’s West Coas t Mainline (WCML) and East Coast Mainline 31 (ECML) Badu-Hualien section features mostly double-tr ack, electrification, modern colour light and cab 32 signalling, overrun protection, and centralized traffic control ( 6) (CTC). Southern Link Mainline, 33 ECML Hualien-Taitung (converted from 762mm gauge), and three “touris t” branches are non-electrified 34 single-track with pa ssing sidings. 35 36 Since the early 1980s, conventional railway capital improvements are nationally funded and managed by 37 MOTC’s Railway Reconstruction Bureau, th en turned over to TRA for operations ( 7). Taiwan’s 38 challenging terrain meant all lines feature extensive tunneling a nd long bridges. Double-tracking 39 frequently requires construction of parallel single-track railroads or bypass tunnels on new alignments. 40 The US$14.5 billion standard gauge high-speed rail (HSR) line was built and operated by a separate 41 public-private partnership under a 35-year concession ( 8), but TRA provides feed er services to HSR 42 terminals. Although TRA operates all commuter rail, other quasi-private organi zations operate subways 43 in Taipei and Kaohsiung. 44 45 Local and intercity passenge r services (5am – 1am, very few overn ight trains) operate at 95.3% on-time 46 performance. 2008 annual passenger ridership was 179 million (incurring 5.45 billion passenger-miles), 47 generating US$434 million in revenue ( 9). Commuter trains carry 76% of riders (43% of passenger- 48 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 3 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 miles). WCML carries >90% of ridership. TRA’s loose-car and unit-train bul k freight services haul 1 mainly aggregates (58% of tonnage), cement (26%), and coal (9%). In 2008, 9.5 million tons of freight 2 (481 million ton-miles) generated US$28.6 million in re venue. Limited container services operate 3 between Port of Hualien and suburban Taipei, bu t loading gauge restric tions preclude piggyback 4 operations. During typhoon season, sm all trucks are carried on flat cars when highways are closed by 5 flooding or mudslides ( 10). 6 7 In years past, an extensive shipper-owned light railway network (762mm gauge, never operated by 8 TRA) handled freight services throughout Taiwan and once boasted 1,800 route miles. Largely 9 abandoned today, it served important industries includi ng sugar, logging, coal , salt, and minerals ( 11). 10 Unlike JR East and Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Ra ilway, revenues from anci llary businesses accounts 11 for only 17.8% of TRA’s revenues ( 12). TRA’s estimated farebox reco very ratio (including freight 12 operations) is ~40%. 13 14 Staffing costs, pension benefits, capital debt, changing demographics, highway competition, and low- 15 fare policies resulted in accumulate d deficits nearing US$3.3 billion ( 14). Locally considered large and 16 problematic, TRA’s deficits pale in comparison to those incurred by Euro pean and U.S. transit agencies, 17 and Japan National Railways (JNR) prior to its 1987 pr ivatization. Like JNR and U.S. transit authorities 18 (15), interest payments on long-term debt represents a significant burden for TRA. Planning for TRA’s 19 restructuring had been underway since 2000. 20 21 Observational Method of Comparative Research 22 This research was conducted through field observati ons and original language document review. The 23 authors spent two weeks as TRA re venue passengers, routinely inter acting with management and staff 24 (without specific inte rviews), holding informal discussions, an d visiting publicly-a ccessible locations 25 (stations and wayside). Substantia l time was devoted to observing TRA’ s infrastructure, equipment, and 26 operations, giving particular attention to interactions between fe llow employees and between passengers 27 and staff. 28 29 The intent is to describe and identify interesti ng areas worthy of further ex ploration or potentially 30 applicable to other commuter ra ilroads, like comparative studies ro utinely conducted by transit peer 31 organizations ( 16) under experience and t echnology exchange ( 17) programs. Obse rvational studies 32 emphasize qualitative questions of design and philos ophy, rather than potentially misleading interagency 33 quantitative comparisons ( 15) using self-reported and sometimes-questionable ( 18,19) statistics that 34 essentially reduces to a ‘pick-your-indicator’ ( 20) ranking game. “Bottom- up” methods highlight 35 features that make engin eering and operating sense ( 21) and determine their relevance elsewhere, 36 instead of identifying high performance areas then seeking explanations ( 22). 37 38 Each feature and practice discussed reveals subtle differences in assu mptions and expectations between 39 TRA and other railroads about what railroads do, a nd how railroads work. Interpretations of design 40 decisions, procedures, and philosophy were base d on observable phenomena and authors’ background 41 knowledge of Formosa, its culture, and its railway system. Usi ng sources in Asian vernaculars is 42 important: 43 44 “[T]rue comprehension requires a k nowledge of the country and its pe ople as well as the language. 45 Translations rarely, if ever, can fully do justice to the ‘reality’ as it was presented in its original form.” ( 23) 46 47 Observational science necessarily involves inferences and assumptions, limiting its usefulness to 48 exploratory research and descripti on. Formal exchange programs could be initiated as a next step. 49 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 4 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 Key Observations 2 TRA’s operations are rooted in classic railroads of yesteryear, and are likely familiar to commuter rail 3 audiences. Many railroads utilize similar designs and practices, espe cially in isolated cases where 4 capacity or geographic constraints require non-standard solutions, or historical workarounds at specific 5 locations (“hacks”) continue – e .g., Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) towe rpersons hoops handwritten train 6 orders to passing engineers at Ba bylon, even though train radios are available; Chicago’s South Shore 7 Line uses simple yet effective slid ing notches to issue onboard tickets ( 21). 8 9 In a rush to automate and standardize, some railroads have inadverten tly lost much of once- 10 commonplace multi-disciplinary operating skills ( 24,25). Ingenious low-tech solutions slowly 11 disappear, whether or not automated replacements add much value ( 21). Managers resort to following 12 rigid standards. Labour crafts of ten have narrowly defined functions , while “broadbanding” efforts are 13 fraught with difficulties ( 25a). Both sometimes hesitate to think outside the box, are fearful of 14 exceptions and concerned with repercussions. Syst emwide compromises attempting to accommodate all 15 situations sometimes result in complex machines that still don’t quite meet all requirements. 16 Fragmented and inflexible job functions could eas ily reduce organizational cap abilities to respond to 17 operational problems in an integrated, commonsense fashion. 18 19 Conversely, TRA’s management embraced these “hack s” and updated them with modern technology. 20 Designs make more cost-feature tradeoffs for one sp ecific application (value-e ngineering) rather than 21 follow systemwide standards. Staff is tolerant of diverse working methods and equipment, requiring 22 human skills and initiatives while keeping machines simple. Over time, a nimble and multi-skilled 23 workforce prepared to react to day-to-day operationa l snafus (incidents) with efficiency and speed has 24 developed, perhaps attributed to daily interaction with a diverse range of problems. TRA is like a diner 25 short-order cook, producing a big menu from a large co llection of simpler (but varied) equipment – and 26 quite unlike a fast food worker, who relies on co mplicated (but regimented) machines to produce 27 standard offerings. 28 29 30 NETWORK DESIGN & REAL ESTATE 31 TRA’s network and services refl ect strong centralized plannin g. Although TRA is one of many 32 passenger transport operators, its infrastructure al lows multiple and convenient connections between 33 modes. Joint transportation and land-use planning make railway projects effective land-development 34 tools. 35 36 Mainline Tunnelling 37 The Japanese planned Taipei’s railway tunnel prior to WWII. Their main impetus was the major 38 Chung-Hwa Road (Route 1) trunk highway crossing. Taipei’s Railway “Undergroundization” Project 39 (Phase I) was approved in 1979, including Taipei Main Station (TMS), 2. 8-miles of two-track 40 underground railway, and Banqiao and Nankang yards. Completed in 1989 and costing US$600 million 41 (26), it replaced the historic Japanese-era Taipei- eki (台北駅 ) and Hwashan yard, eliminated grade 42 crossings in Taipei’s congested Wanhua/Manga ( 萬華 /艋舺 ) neighbourhood, providing operating 43 efficiencies. Like New York ’s Penn Station project ( 27), which buried 5.5 route-miles between North 44 Bergen, N.J. and Hunterspoint, Queens by 1908, TMS catalyzed urban redevelopment. Development 45 was extensive but not without cultural costs ( 28). Modern office towers and underground malls replaced 46 Japanese-era wooden shantie s and wholesale outlets ( 29), but historic temp les were preserved. 47 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 5 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 Later phases completed the four track mainline tunne ls, relocated yards to permit transit-oriented 2 development (TOD), and provided a corridor for a much-needed crosstown expressway (Civic 3 Boulevard). By 2008, US$5.8 billion were invested : Banqiao-Xike (16.0 miles) was tunneled, including 4 all trackage within Taipei City, and Xike-Wudu (3.1 miles) was elevated ( 30). Nankang’s Software 5 Park, Exhibition Centre, and Xike’s Science Park were developed around this time. 6 7 Run-Through Services 8 Taipei is Taiwan’s capital and ultimate destinatio n for TRA’s mainlines. Explosive growth since 1980 9 made Taipei a 10-million population metropolis spra wled over four counties. To accommodate 10 suburban commuters, and to serve passengers travel ling to/from suburban busin ess districts (Figure 11 2(c)), Taipei was envisioned as a through station, allowing West coast trains to operate to Taipei’s 12 eastern suburbs, and vice-versa. 13 14 Like Philadelphia’s Center City Tunnel ( 31), through-running reduces platform occupancy times, 15 maximizes one-seat rides, and distributes passengers over multiple stations ( 32), reducing crowding 16 (Figure 2(b)). Trains can be m oved through Taipei’s terminal distri ct in arrival sequence, providing 17 some delay absorption capability. Only ~20% of passenger trips originated/terminated at TMS 18 (compared to ~50% at New York’s Grand Central); 98% of scheduled trains run through (~4% at Penn 19 Station). Trains are turned at out lying yards (where turnback tracks are expressly provided), minimizing 20 conflicting movements ( 33). Observation at Banqiao revealed s ubstantial transfer activity between TRA 21 and metro. 22 23 In the 1990s, ECML trains terminated at Banqiao; WCML trains terminated at Nankang/Keelung. All 24 trains thus operate over the busy Banqiao-Nankang (Bannan) section, effectively providing urban 25 transportation by utilizing surplus capacity on longer-distance through trai ns. Commuter trains made all 26 suburban stops, while Amtrak-like e xpresses stopped only at major hubs. 27 28 Railway Facility Relocation 29 To support metropolitan growth, Banqiao yard moved west to Shulin, and Nankang yard east to Qidu 30 (Figure 2(a)) during the mid-2000s, extending through operations to appr oximately 10 miles either side 31 (Figure 1(b)). Banqiao, Taipei, and Nankang became major interchanges. Like Boston’s NorthPoint 32 project ( 35) planned for a Boston & Maine yard, the former Banqiao yard is now Banqiao station and a 33 successful TOD site ( 26). Like the CREATE (Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation 34 Efficiency) plan ( 36), through-running allows yards and freigh t facilities to move from center city 35 (Hwashan, Songshan) to suburbs (Shulin, Qidu) , with cheaper land and better highway access. 36 37 Rapid Transit as TRA’s Feeder 38 Taipei’s metro shows substantial integration with TRA’s network, re flecting Taipei’s close municipal- 39 central government relationship. Taipei Rapid Tran sit Corporation’s (TRTC) Red Line was converted 40 from TRA’s Damshui branch ( 29), while Blue (Bannan) and Gr een Lines roughly follows TRA’s 41 mainline ( 37) and the former Hsindian branch. TRA accepts metro farecards within metropolitan 42 Taipei. Four metro lines converge at TMS, maki ng subways TRA’s local distribution system. New 43 intercity bus terminals were constructed near TMS in 2009 ( 34). Like NJTransit’s Newark and LIRR’s 44 Jamaica stations, Banqiao and Nankang interchanges afford TRA penetration into western and eastern 45 neighbourhoods without long hac kney rides or backtracking. 46 47 48 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 6 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 Taiwan Railway Administration Historical Map (Unofficial) West Coast Main Line Northern Section (Keelung-Chunan) 79 miles Coast Line (Chunan-Changhua) 57 milesMountain Line (Tsaochiao-Chenggong) 53 miles Southern Section (Changhua-Kaohsuing) 118 miles Pingtung Line (Kaohsiung-Fangliao) 39 milesChengdrai Branch (Chenggong-Draifen) 1½ milesJiji Branch (Ershui-Checheng)Neiwan Branch (Chutung-Neiwan)Linkou Branch (Taoyuan-Linkou)TaipeiKeelung Yilan Suao Hualien Taitung FangliaoKaohsiungTainanChiayiTaichungHsinchu 20 miles19781978 19781893 1908 190019781905197819201924 1975Pingsi Branch 1920 Neiwan Branch 1951 Jiji Branch 1922WCML (Mountain)WCML (Coast)WCML (N) WCML (S)Yilan Line North Circular Link Line 1914 19221917Huatung Line 19821989 WCML (S) Pingtung Line 1941South Circular Link Line 1992 Scale and dates are approximate Not all lines shown2000 Double-tracked2003 Constructed Regauged (762 to 1,067 mm) “Undergroundized”ElectrifiedCTC InstalledLegend1984Damshui Branch 1901 Hsindian Branch $19511891Keelung Line 1912 East Coast Main Line Yilan Line (Badu-Yilan) 59 miles North Circular Line (Yilan-Hualien) 49 milesHuatung Line (Hualien-Taitung) 97 milesPingsi Branch (Sandiaoling-Jingtong) South Circular Link Line (Fangliao-Taitung) 61 miles1935 1998 1960CS1979 1970 19781902WCML (S) 19601942 1935$1922 20132004 ~1990Dongshi Branch 1958 CSCab signalled$ Purchased1980 Single track (with passing sidings) Two or more tracks (mainly double) Abandoned Converted to subway19201987 19911921 1965 2011 Yuli1960Taipei Main Station Nankang QiduShulinBanqiao West Coast Main Line (to Taichung, Kaohsiung)East Coast Main Line (to Suao, Hualien)Damshui High Speed Rail Line (to Taichung, Kaohsiung)HsinchuHsinchu (HSR) NeiwanYilanHsindianYardYard Rapid Transit Railway (West Coast) Railway (East Coast) High Speed Rail Planned or Under ConstructionMetroKeelung East Coast Tilting TrainChutungCountyCity Under Construction FIGURE 1 TRA’s network reflects a combination of legacy infrastructure and “big picture” transportation system planning: (a ) Taiwan’s railways had been continuously modernized and improved since the completi on of the West Coast Mainline in 1908; (b) through-running services in the Taipei metropolitan area. Note: The base map in Figure 1(a) is loosely based on Taiwan MO TC’s official “TRA tourism express travel guide map,” edited by Sungho Culture Company Limited (2009), supplemented with historical and technical information from other publicly available sources, including “Taiwan Railway Maps” by Matthew Kirby and Paul Holmes (2006), Taiwan Railways Administration’s Trackway History Table: Construction Year (“ 軌道歷史表 – 光緒13年 ~民國62年 ”), and track diagrams compiled by the National Chiao-Tung University Railway Resear ch Association. English translations of station names reflect (where available) those in TRA’s passenger rail timetables, which shows a mixture of Wade-Giles (historical and popular usage, particularly outside Taipei), Tongyong Pinyin (f ormer standard and still visible on many official signage), and Hanyu Pinyin (current official Taipei City standard). A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 7 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 Commuter Rail and HSR 2 TRA’s maximum commercial speed is 130 km/h (81 mph) whereas HSR operates up to 300 km/h (187 3 mph). Although TRA’s long-distance services potent ially competes with HSR, Taiwan’s HSR is 4 focused on origin-destination markets over 100 miles ( 38) like Taipei-Taic hung (HSR – 50 minutes; 5 TRA – 110 minutes), whereas TRA serves shorter-haul trips like Taipei-Hsinchu (35 versus 60 minuets). 6 HSR serves Taipei and Banqiao TRA interchanges via shared corridors; a Nankang extension is under 7 construction. Except for Taipei, HSR stations are located out-of-town, minimizing environmental 8 impacts and property acquisition, maximizing econo mic development potential, and allowing low- 9 curvature alignments ( 39). Commuter rail connects HSR with established provincial downtowns, 10 solving “last mile” problems. 11 12 In Hsinchu, HSR and TRA stations are three miles ap art. Parts of TRA’s Neiwan branch is being 13 electrified and rebui lt as a modern commuter railroad, cos ting US$280 million to connect Hsinchu’s 14 historic downtown with HSR ( 26). Connections generate benefits for both modes and catalyze 15 development near HSR stations, much as Interstate interchanges attracted econom ic activity. This is a 16 transit-oriented version of Beltway succe ss stories played out across 1980s America. 17 18 Tilting Trains 19 TRA purchased six sets of Hitachi 8-car 130 km/h ( 40) tilting trains (Figure 2(d)), based on JR Kyushu’s 20 885-series design, for US$85 million ( 41), to provide accelerated East coast services, where no HSR 21 exists. Locally called “Taroko trains,” they operate on ECML northbound, then WCML southbound, 22 offering one-seat rides in cross- island flows like Yilan-Hsinchu, providing cross-metropolis links 23 between edge cities. Operationally, through-runni ng maximizes Taroko utilization, eliminating terminal 24 recovery time in both segments. This relativel y modest investment improved ECML services 25 substantially, although timings are still not quite competitive with express buses using the shorter 26 highway tunnel. 27 28 29 [Figure 2 shown next page] 30 31 FIGURE 2 (top) TRA’s underground urban trackage and run-through services make efficient use of assets and 32 available track capacity: (a) An Italian Società Costruzi oni Industriali Milano (SOCIMI) EMU300 trainset being 33 prepared at Qidu carbarn; (b) TMS’s less-crowded underground platform with a British Rail Engineering Limited 34 (BREL) EMU100, delivered in 1978 for the origi nal West Coast Electrification programme ( 41a); (c) Taoyuan 35 commuters wait for a through-running South African Unio n Carriage & Wagon EMU400 to Qidu; (d) TRA’s tilting 36 Japanese Hitachi TEMU1000 trainsets, locally the “Taroko Train”. 37 (bottom) TRA’s infrastructure designs are targeted towards specific scheduled movements, including provisions 38 for service recovery: (e) an empty unit coal train with an American Electro-Motive Division (EMD) G12 (TRA R20- 39 class) locomotive is stored on Taoyuan’s bypass track, likel y recently returned from the Linkou coal-fired power 40 plant; (f) South Korean Daewoo’s EMU500 commuter unit being prepared on Hsinchu’s middle track while an 41 intercity train departs; (g) terminating Japanese Toky u DR3000 DMU departing from Shulin station, using 42 crossovers for yard access; (h) express train (orange, st reamlined E1000) passing local train (blue) using outside 43 bypass tracks at Kueishan (Turtle Mountai n) station on the Yilan Line. 44 45 46 47 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 8 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 9 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHEDULING 2 TRA’s infrastructure might be described as making up for lower track miles with sidings. TRA operated 3 single-track sections on busy mainlin es until 1998. Double-track sections can accommodate trains at 4 different speeds; passing moveme nts don’t interference with opposi ng traffic, allowing scheduled 5 throughputs of ~15 trains per hour per direction. Scheduling practi ces assume staff can respond to 6 unforeseen delays and out-of-sequence trains by dynamically utilizing available infrastructure. 7 8 Passing Tracks at Local Stations 9 Double-ended sidings (loops) good for typical passenger trains (10~12 cars) are provided at 3~8 mile 10 intervals, at local stations. Some stations have an island platform serving middle siding tracks (Figures 11 2(h), 3(a)), and straight-through outsi de bypass tracks. Schedules provid e extra dwell time for trains to 12 hold until an express passes, also serving as en-route recovery time, improving reliability. Some stations 13 in single-track territory feature thr ee passing tracks (Figure 2(f)), allowi ng freight or other equipment to 14 be stowed while opposing passenger trains pass one anot her. Close proximity of sidings allow TRA to 15 squeeze 5~6 tph (both directions, mixe d traffic) out of single-tracks ( 42). 16 17 Double Island Platforms at Transfer Stations 18 Train terminations and transfers (e xpress/local, branch/mainline) occu r at strategic interchanges where 19 double island platforms and full crossovers are provided. Platforms between siding and mainline 20 provide cross-platform transfers, a nd allow staff to clear terminating tr ains without obstructing mainline. 21 Where many trains originate/terminate, additional platforms are provided. Cr ossovers allow convenient 22 layover access and easy multiple-unit (MU) reversals (Figures 2(g), 3(c)). 23 24 Side Platforms and Through Tracks 25 Island platforms are not ideal for vertical passenger flow. Side platforms allow direct access from 26 stationhouse through fare control. Through track serves the stationhouse at major stations (Figure 3(d)), 27 where most expresses stop. Mi ddle bypass tracks are available fo r switching, temporary equipment 28 storage, train preparation (Figure 2(f)), and allows passenger trains to pass freights (Figure 2(e)). 29 Stationhouses are usually on the nort hbound side (up direction, to Taipei ), where originating passengers 30 are voluminous (Figure 2(c)). At minor stations, mainline serves th e island platform; locals serve the 31 stationhouse while waiting for overt aking expresses (Figure 3(e)). 32 33 Explicit Scheduling and Dispatching Priorities 34 Like classic American railroads, TRA’s published timetable specifies train class (thus dispatching 35 priority). Premium-fare expresses, like Tze-Chiang, have highest prior ity and almost never take sidings 36 (33). Customers understand the system, and aren’t su rprised when lower priority trains are held, 37 allowing others to pass. Dispatchi ng decisions are fairly straightforwar d; even when trains are out of 38 sequence, stationmasters wouldn’t hes itate to hold trains if releasing them could delay a subsequent Tze- 39 Chiang. Close proximity of sidings mean unscheduled holds are like ly short, usually <5 minutes. 40 41 Schedule, Ridership Patt ern, and Demographics 42 TRA’s schedules are not tightly constrained by clock f ace patterns or policy headways. Extra trains and 43 cars are added on peak travel days to accommodate holiday traffic. 6~8% more departures are 44 scheduled on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. TRA riders span the full gamut including lower-income 45 (students, military) and minorities (Hakka, aboriginal Polynesians) but also choice riders (vacationing 46 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 10 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 families, foreign tourists, monthly commuters). Elderly passengers ar e common, but wheelchair 1 passengers are rare; not all stations are handicap accessible and not al l rolling stock are level-boarding. 2 Fare differentials between expresses and locals provide market differentia tion. HSR ridership is 3 observably more affluent, capturing many former airline passengers ( 43). 4 5 6 Up Main Up Loop Down Loop Down MainSingle Loop Single BypassSingle Main Up Main Down MainUp Loop/Down Departure Down Loop/Up Departure Stationhouse Up Main Down Main(Major Station) Down Loop/Up DepartureUp ThroughStationhouse Down Main(Minor Station) Up MainPassing Tracks at Local Stations Double Island Platforms at Transfer Stations Side Platforms and Through Tracks(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Note: Typical arrangements shown. 7 8 FIGURE 3 TRA’s typical track layouts: (a) Island platform s serving middle siding tracks with straight-through 9 outside bypass tracks allows locals unexpectedly operati ng ahead of expresses take the siding at next local stop, 10 limiting express delays to 2~5 minutes (typical running ti me differential between sidings); sidings are further apart 11 in geographically challenging areas (e.g. where right-of- way construction requires mountain rock blasting). (b) 12 Some stations in single-track territory feature three passing tracks. (c) Double island platforms with full 13 crossovers facilitate ea sy train terminations and tran sfers. (d) At major statio ns, through track serves the 14 stationhouse; failed equipment is sometimes stored on the middle by-pass tracks, improving network reliability. 15 (e) At minor stations, locals serve the stati onhouse while waiting for overtaking expresses. 16 17 18 OPERATING PRACTICES 19 Operations on different railroads ar e variations of same general prin ciples. TRA’s practices are like 20 JR’s – somewhat labour intensive, but immediate on- site accountability and close supervision contribute 21 to high service quality, good delay- recovery capabilities, skills to execute complex maneuvers, and 22 throughputs closer to theoretical line capacity than otherwise achievable. 23 24 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 11 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 Stationmasters, Train Regu lation, and Dwell Process 1 Many TRA stations have “stationmaster duty offices.” Stationmasters (the ir deputies, or platform staff) 2 perform train regulation and signalling functions right from the platform (Figure 4(f)), and provide train 3 crew oversight. Two station crewmembers work busy locations, one per direction. They sound a 4 whistle to warn waiting passengers of imminent arrivals. Passenge rs standing in yellow danger zones 5 are asked to step back. As trains approach, they hand-signal drivers (Figure 4( b)). Unreserved trains 6 (without assigned cars) berth close to fare control, while expresses berth according to platform car 7 markers, minimizing onboard baggage-carrying by passengers looking for assigned seats. 8 Stationmasters may indirectly reduce ove rruns by providing immediate accountability. 9 10 TRA’s stationmasters and conductors jointly manage dwell time, like their counterparts at LIRR’s 11 Jamaica. Stationmasters regulate trains by enfo rcing correct train sequen ces and departure times; 12 holding to time is actually a legal requirement ( 43a). At transfer locations, they manage connections. 13 About ½-minute prior to departure, stationmasters sound platform bells to signal impending departure. 14 When trains are late, bell is given sooner, shorte ning dwell times. Once conductors close train doors, 15 stationmasters give the “right aw ay” using platform-mounted equipment (Figure 4(a)). After departure, 16 stationmasters remain on platforms, vi sually inspecting departing trains. 17 18 Conductors as Captains 19 Onboard, conductors’ primary responsibil ities aren’t ticket examinations – station fare controls provide 20 coverage. Instead, conductors operate doors and announcement systems, ensure onboard safety, sell 21 onboard tickets (Figure 4(g)), provide customer in formation and assistance, supervise onboard crews, 22 perform emergency procedures, and troubleshoot e quipment where possible. The position’s multi- 23 disciplinary nature is reflected in Asian terms for “conductor” – 列車長 (Mandarin lieh che jhang ), 車長 24 (Cantonese che jeung ), or 車掌 (Japanese sha-shou , still informally used on TRA) – which transliterates 25 as “consist manager” or “train handler.” They have overall responsibility for smooth onboard operations 26 and customer experience, actively directing cleaners, attendants, even bento-box vendors. 27 28 Onboard Services 29 On TRA expresses, cleaner s periodically move through the train to remove trash, even proactively 30 asking passengers if visible food ite ms are finished (Figure 4(e)). Train attendants offer bento boxes, 31 drinks, souvenirs, and Sun Cakes (t raditional gifts for visiting friends ) from small carts. The onboard 32 atmosphere is much like Amtrak’s Downeaster. 33 34 35 [Figure 4 shown next page] 36 37 FIGURE 4 (top) Although TRA’s operating practices may be labour in tensive, the resulting service quality is high: 38 (a) a stationmaster’s controls: departure bell switch es, schedule simplifiers, and “good to go” plungers; (b) 39 Hsinchu’s stationmaster at the 11-car marker; (c) Jingtong station is the te rminus of the Pingsi branch; (d) EMU 40 operator and relief operator on Yilan’s departure track; (e ) TRA’s cleaners move through the train while in-service 41 to collect trash from passengers; (f) Sandiaoling’s stationmaster exchanging tokens (movement authorities) with 42 Pingsi branch’s diesel railcar operator. 43 (bottom) TRA’s fare control occurs at origin, destination, and en-route. Turnstiles, mobile terminals, and slam 44 gates are used: (g) TRA’s conductor using a portable t hermal ticket printer to sell an onboard fare; (h) delay 45 machines print receipts showing recent train delays; (j) delay receipt shows Train 1015 was delayed only 27 46 minutes despite substitute equipment having to be found; (k) Hsinchu’s exit-only cont rol area (unpaid side) with 47 modern faregates and volunteer customer assistance staff; (m) S uao still has a traditional fa re control area reliant 48 on manual ticket examination. 49 50 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 12 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 13 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 Incident Management 2 TRA operations staff seem well-practiced in inci dent management. The authors observed three 3 incidents with major delay potential, but TRA responded effectively to avert possible delays: 4 5 1. Remote control of a mainline power switch was lost at an important juncti on. A staff member at 6 the station walked to the switch to operate it manually. The quick response limited delays to all 7 four affected trains to <15 minutes, despite th e token dispatching system (Figure 4(f)) requiring 8 specific branch line train sequencing. 9 2. An older trainset developed problems in service but already passed major yards. It was dumped 10 at the next island platform si ding. Another trainset picked up stranded passengers 27 minutes 11 later. Figure 4(j) shows incide nt Train 1015 and delays to other services, limited to <8 minutes 12 despite the blocked siding. 13 3. A “retired” EMU100 trainset (in regular service covering car shor tage from general overhauls) 14 suffered a power failure. A rescue engine was coupled behind the trains et, getting the train 15 moving within 15 minutes. The consist continued in regular service to its final destination, 16 arriving only 7 minutes late. 17 18 19 FARE COLLECTION & CONTROL 20 TRA’s tickets were printed on traditional Ed mondson presses until Japan’s NEC supplied a 21 computerized ticketing and reservation system in the late 1980s. Almost all st ations are divided into 22 paid (platform) and unpaid (waiti ng room) areas. Normally, ticket examiners (Figure 4(m)) govern 23 platform access, checking and punching tickets as passe ngers enter. Conducto rs perform onboard ticket 24 checks near peak load points or every ~100 miles, verifying that passengers hol d train-class appropriate 25 tickets, and dispense step-up and zone extension fare s from portable ticket pr inters (Figure 4(g)). 26 Examiners also control access to unpaid areas at des tinations, ensuring all passengers paid full distance- 27 based fares. Used tickets are collected and not returned to pa ssengers unless cancelled by stamps 28 (similar to postmarks). Those arriving without appropr iate tickets (i.e. requiri ng “fare adjustments”) are 29 assessed 50% penalties, giving pass engers incentives to find conducto rs onboard to purchase step-up 30 fares. Tickets are validated at origin, destination, and sometimes en -route; evasion thus would require 31 elaborate two-ticket schemes or ex iting from paid area without going thr ough fare control. Fare evasion 32 rates are thought to be low. Pr oof-of-payment methods are not used. 33 34 Fare Structure 35 TRA’s passenger fares are highly regu lated and strictly distance/train-cl ass based (short trips <6.3 miles 36 require 34~73 cents minimum fare.) Express fares are 11.7 cents (per passenger-mile); locals are 5.5 37 cents ( 44). Within Taipei municipal zone, single trips are 58 cents regardless of distance/class. Unlike 38 HSR, no time- or demand-based off-peak discounts are offered. Periodic (limited-ride) commutation 39 tickets and multi-ride carnets are available. Fares are generally competitive with private commuter and 40 intercity buses. Express trains operate with higher load factors and are more profitable. 41 42 Magnetic Ticket Stock and Mechanical Faregates 43 Fare validation requires substantia l infrastructure (paid/unpaid areas ), labour-intensive manual ticket 44 examinations, and consequent speed-accuracy tr ade-offs. During the 2000s, TRA incrementally 45 replaced older thermal ticket printers with auto mated fare collection (AFC) devices using magnetic- 46 backed stock (Figure 4(k)). Busy stations have fare gates to speed up validation. Tickets can be inserted 47 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 14 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 in any orientation. Gates align, check, and mechanical ly punch tickets prior to opening. Validations are 1 fast and can be “pipelined” or “stacked” (i.e. fo llowing passenger can insert ticket while previous 2 passenger is proceeding through the gate). Passenge r counting sensors quickly close gates when as 3 many passengers entered as valid tickets processed. When exiting, faregates collect and cancel single 4 trip tickets. 5 6 AFC-Induced Ticket Examiner Changes 7 Many locations still use h eat-sensitive tickets (and TRA’s tour ist branches stil l use Edmondsons), 8 requiring one ticket examiner per fare control. Examiners punch and collect non-magnetic tickets, 9 provide customer information and assistance, troubleshoot AFC malf unctions (e.g. mutilated tickets), 10 and return cancelled (stamped) ticke ts to passengers requiring proof-of- travel for expense claims. TRA 11 volunteers (Figure 4(k), ye llow vest) staff some gates. Volunteer s, like America’s auxiliary police and 12 volunteer firefighters, include care fully selected and specifically-tra ined members of the public, and 13 retired industry personnel ( 45). They assist passengers, sometimes exercising Japanese or English 14 language skills ( 46), and report turnstile jumpers and AF C malfunctions to employees. Station 15 management has considerable latitude in determining work scope of volunteers ( 47). 16 17 18 TICKETING PROCESSES 19 Most TRA stations feature staffe d ticket offices, supplemented by ticket vending machines (TVMs) at 20 busy locations. Unreserved single or day-return tickets must be pur chased on the day of travel (to 21 prevent ticket reuse), leading to ticket queues at peak commuter periods. Passengers purchasing 22 advance tickets can delay entire que ues, causing imminent train departures to be missed. To maximize 23 passenger throughput, separate ticket windows provide train information, today’s tickets, and advance or 24 commutation tickets (Figure 5(d)). Some daily ticket windows only accept cash, further decreasing 25 transaction times. Ticket windows at busy stations can be dynamically switched between different 26 functions, minimizing daily ticket queues. 27 28 Fare Vending Machines 29 Early machines designed primarily for commuters (Figure 5(b)) are essentially receipt printers, 30 accepting only coins (no bills) and prepaid magnetic TransitChek-like cards – not credit cards. 31 Passengers must first insert coins (amount deposited is displayed), th en press numerous lighted buttons 32 sequentially to specify traveller c ount, train class, single/return/con cessionary, and destination. Buttons 33 light up only when adequate coins are inserted. TVMs sell only unreserved si ngle/round-trips to local 34 destinations (<50 miles) from the current station. Earlier button pre sses constrain subsequent choices: 35 destinations for which insufficient fares were paid (in selected train class) do not activate and have no 36 effect. 37 38 This machine’s target audience is regular travellers who alrea dy know required fares. Passenger 39 experiences for first-time customers can be confus ing, but once customers lear n this TVM, unreserved 40 day ticket transactions are processe d much faster than on typical full -feature machines. Machines need 41 only electricity (not network connections) and staff to replace ticket stock, remove coins, and clear jams. 42 Like soda machines, they’re robu st, self-contained, and have been deployed to remote locations. 43 44 Long distance TVMs selling advance-purchase, rese rved-seating, and prepaid internet/phone tickets 45 were developed later (Figure 5(a)). These more complex machines, functionally similar to Amtrak’s 46 Quik-Trak, are available at pr incipal West coast stations. 47 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 15 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 Contactless Smartcard Fare Payment 2 TRTC pioneered transitcards in 2000 via affiliate Taipei Smart Card Corporation, which performs 3 backoffice functions for TRTC, Taipei’s Lian-Y ing (market-sharing conference) group of bus 4 companies, and other EasyCard merchants. In 2008, TRTC assisted TRA in implementing entry-exit 5 smartcard fare collection ( 48) for local travel within Taipei’s metropolitan zone (Keelung-Chungli), 6 offering 10% discounts from regular lo cal train fares. Smartcard holders can travel on regular local and 7 express trains, but not Tarokos, sightseeing specia ls, nor in business class. When travelling on 8 expresses, smartcard seats are unreserved. As expr esses are often sold out, EasyCard offers de-facto 9 standee discounts. 10 11 Origin/destination validation and ex isting fare control areas made sm artcard implementation easier. 12 Instead of punching tickets to enter and relinquishing tickets to exit , users tap-in and tap-out. Faregates 13 are replaced with newer integrated designs as funding allows. In the interim, ticket collectors visually 14 verify each transaction on low-cost stand- alone terminals, allowing rapid deployment. 15 16 Smartcard development in Taiwan is currently fluid. With 13 million cards issued, readers for Mifare 17 Classic-based EasyCard are already installed at convenience stores lik e Family Mart (Figure 5(c)). 18 Legislation authorizing “Third Ge neration e-Purse” (stored value limit ~US$300) was passed in March 19 2010, allowing smartcard payments for low-value non- transportation items, like Hong Kong’s Octopus 20 Card. Three major competitors hold regional su bway/bus fare collection franchises (Taipei’s 21 “Youyoka” EasyCard, Mid-Island’s Taiwan Easy Go “TaiwanTong”, and Kaohsiung’s “I Pass”), and 22 TRA has active pilots with both EasyCard and Taiw anTong. Taiwan’s MOTC expects to eventually 23 integrate all electronic far ecard systems nationwide ( 49). 24 25 26 [Figure 5 shown next page] 27 28 FIGURE 5 (top) TRA’s ticketing process is advanced and efficient, but uses many dedicated special-purpose 29 terminals and vending machines: (a) advance-purchase ti cket machines, with touch screens, reservations, and 30 credit card capabilities similar to Amtrak’s Quik-Trak; (b) commuter ticket machines are simple prepaid card and 31 cash-only receipt printers; (c) Family Mart (a convenien ce store) now accepts Taipei metro’s EasyCard; (d) the 32 Buddhist monk is purchasing daily tickets at Hsinc hu station, skipping long queues at “advance purchase” 33 windows; (e) Suao’s ticket office has an older acrylic sc hedule board (like those at old-fashioned movie theatres) 34 giving departure times. 35 (bottom) Taiwan Railways Administration’s array of onboard and wayside passenger information systems: (f) 36 Suaosin (functionally “Suao Junction”) st ation’s dot-matrix platform LED disp lay provides next train’s destination 37 (Hsinying), route (Mountain line), train class (Chu-Kuang express), sc heduled departure time, and uses the 38 scrolling textbox for en-route station stops, delay information, delayed tr ain’s current location (e.g. “Train now 39 between Nan-ao and Dong-ao”), special event messages (e .g. discounted student tickets available during Winter 40 break), public service announcements (e.g. Operation Lifesa ver or H1N1 flu prevention messages), and identity of 41 train-after-next (e.g. “16:52 Shulin local follows”); (g) R ueifang station’s platform showcase a variety of customer 42 information devices; (h) onboard stop announcement system from a newer EM U700 identifying prior stop (Wudu), 43 next stop (Baifu), and following stop (Qidu); (j) flexible scrolling LED display from an older push-pull E1000 set 44 identifies the train (e.g. “Keelung-bound, Train 1006, Tze-Chiang express”), route (“via Coast Line”), stops 45 (“stopping at Taoyuan, Banqiao, Taipei, Songshan, and Qidu”), and special event and public service 46 announcements similar to platform displays; (k) Tai pei Main Station’s airpor t-style departure monitor. 47 48 49 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 16 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 17 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 PASSENGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SIGNAGE 2 TRA takes a holistic and comprehensive approach towards passenger information. Devices used (in 3 both English and Chinese) range from schedule posters , fixed signage to depart ure monitors and next- 4 train displays. 5 6 Solari-like “flippy-flippies” boards, monitors (Figure 5(k)), or sma ller LED displays are provided at 7 major terminals and principal stations. One disp lay per control area shows boarding times and track 8 assignments. Delays as short as one minute are pos ted. Large acrylic signboa rds show departure times 9 and fares at smaller stations (Figur e 5(e)). Ubiquitous clocks thr oughout stations and facilities make it 10 difficult to find spots where fewer than two clocks are immediately visible. 11 12 Platform Signage, Next Train Identifiers 13 Backlit acrylic signs (airport-style with iconic repr esentations) identify platform and carriage numbers, 14 and provide directions to facilities like restrooms and elevators (F igure 5(g)). Boxes display schedules, 15 tourist information, and service change notices. Large signs (legible fr om passing trains) indicate station 16 names, and distances to previous/n ext stations, for use by passengers an d crew. Platform LED displays 17 (Figure 5(f)) provide next train identity, departure time, delay in formation, and context-sensitive 18 messages, including public service announcements. 19 20 Onboard Displays and Announcements 21 TRA’s mixed fleet ranges from 1960 s hauled stock to new Tarokos a nd commuter MUs. Newer trains 22 feature automated display/announcemen t systems (Figure 5(h)) with hi gh-density dot-matrix LEDs like 23 Taipei’s metro. On long-distance coaches with l onger time between station stops, scrolling displays 24 (Figure 5(j)) are used. Like in Continental Euro pe, automated onboard announcements are multilingual. 25 Announcements are in four major languages (Mandarin, Formosan, Hakka, and English). In rural areas, 26 announcements are also made in local aboriginal languages; Huatung Line has the Pangcah/Amis tribal 27 dialect. In unusual situations, conductors can usua lly make announcements in at least two languages. 28 29 Trains lacking automatic train location features are not simple to retrofit. TRA devised low-cost multi- 30 lingual “announcement boxes” conn ected to the public address system, manually triggered by 31 conductors on approach to stations. 32 33 Exterior Train Identification 34 Identifying arriving trains quickly and accurately is equally important to employees and passengers. 35 Classically, lighted acrylic destination signboard s are manually changed at terminals. Recent 36 modernization efforts provided exterior LED displa ys showing destination, route, train number, and 37 class. Newest cars have bilingual flexible displays built-in. Train numbers are especially important on 38 expresses, helping customers identify seat reservations. 39 40 41 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 18 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 FURTHER RESEARCH FOR COMMUTER RAILROADS 2 The U.S. commuter rail industry has undergone record growth within last thirty years. Ridership 3 reached new heights on revitalized ol der systems. Entirely new systems were created in smaller cities. 4 Some railroads introduced innovative business models and operating practices fr om Europe and airlines, 5 while established systems maintained traditional but nonetheless effective operati ons. Specifically, how 6 could TRA’s philosophy contribute to North American practice? 7 8 Designing to Expect Disciplined Operations 9 TRA’s infrastructure is not foolpr oof. Track layouts are designed fo r a limited set of normal operations, 10 simplifing service recovery decisionmaking by reducing ambiguity and constraining available choices. 11 Accurate train planning and operatio nal precision is expected. Desi gns neither accommodate simple 12 working methods nor tolerate sloppiness, allowing less wiggle-room for errors. The unforgiving plant 13 and appropriate training seem to create a “getting it right the fi rst time” culture amongst staff. 14 15 Scheduling for Priority and Reliability 16 TRA designed plant and schedules to require en-route “checkpoint s” and absorb uncontrollable 17 disruptions. Where capacity constrains express operat ions in America, third tracks are often proposed, 18 but TRA’s two tracks with local station sidings might be considered instead. Scheduled holds improve 19 local service reliability, serving as “recovery time,” allowing trains to regain scheduled paths. Similar 20 scheduling and train regulation concepts are found in Japan and Europe ( 50). 21 22 Empowering Local Supervision wi th System Responsibility 23 Effective use is made of constrained infrastructu re through significant on-s ite supervision, teamwork, 24 peer camaraderie, interpersonal co mmunications, and hands-on operation s. Although CTC covers most 25 TRA lines, increasingly remote cont rol did not lead to local personne l’s functional obsolescence or 26 centralized micro-management. Op erations are precisely choreograp hed, but their execution requires 27 greater range of responses and br oader knowledge base. The greater sense of personal responsibility 28 amongst field employees is evident from observing their attitude and approach towards operational 29 problem-solving. 30 31 Appropriate Standardization 32 TRA’s standardization efforts are tempered by specific local adaptations and procurement policy. 33 Rather than rigidly define historic business practices and requir e vendor compliance, TRA seem flexible 34 in adopting foreign industry standa rds while ensuring its functional needs are met, as evidenced by 35 ‘oddball’ solutions and varying designs found system wide. Tolerating some diversity and purchasing 36 off-the-shelf products may reduce overall costs and improve effectiveness. TRA’s smaller orders 37 produced designs tailored for sp ecific applications and incremental improvements between each 38 equipment generation. Station designs and scheduli ng seem sensitive to passenger volumes and adapted 39 to individual communities. Trade-offs betw een design, construction, and ongoing operating and 40 maintenance costs should be explicitly considered, in cluding costs of maintaini ng consistent designs and 41 policy service. 42 43 Technology as Workplace Assistan ce, not Functional Replacement 44 TRA’s automation seem to be accomplished without compromising employees’ skills or flexibility. 45 Rather than seeking to replace field personnel, mach ines enable employees to perform duties better, 46 faster, to multi-task, or backstop inevitable human errors without allowing complacency. Employees 47 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 19 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 with more automated job functions focused on ac tively troubleshooting, maintaining, monitoring new 1 technology, and assisting customers. TRA also seem willing to accept incrementa l or partial (probably 2 cheaper) automation solutions, where machines provide “computer assi st” not full functional 3 replacement. Similarly, LIRR’ s train-tracking system assist , not automate, dispatching ( 51); 4 decisionmaking authority remains firmly with dispat chers while information and intelligence gathering 5 is automated, giving staff more time to manage the railroad while spending less time on recordkeeping 6 and executing operational processes. 7 8 Prioritizing Investment Based on Technology Characteristics 9 TRA’s capital projects are ranked by each technology’ s specific impacts on operations. Double-tracking 10 and electrification began in busy suburban ar eas, followed by farmland, completing difficult and 11 expensive mountainous sections last ( 52). CTC was first installed in farming regions where freight 12 switching moves were once frequent. Alternating single- and double-track mainline sections where 13 overruns could cause dangerous head- on collisions got cab signals first. Branch lines with low train 14 densities retain simple-yet-effectiv e token signalling, which take longer to issue movement authorities 15 but are almost as successful at collision prevention. In Ameri ca, LIRR’s busy suburban Babylon Line 16 has CTC with cab signals, electrific ation, and full grade-separation, wh ile its (less populated) connecting 17 Montauk Line retains train-orde r operations east of Speonk. 18 19 Fare Control Automation 20 U.S. commuter railroads have deadlocked over fare control automation for 30 years ( 53) because of 21 technology and staffing issues ( 54), even though Illinois Central Railroad (now Metra Electric) 22 implemented fare barriers in 1966 with some success ( 55). Taiwan and Japan implemented faregates to 23 improve passenger throughputs rather than to remove human presence. Conductors and ticket examiners 24 continue to manage fare collection, while low-volume stations remain barrier free. TRA’s willingness to 25 tolerate fare system complexities by mixing sm artcard, magnetic, paper, onboard tickets, and 26 turnstile/manual validation contributed to a su ccessful and incremental AFC implementation on a 27 limited capital budget. Railroads should examine how th eir skilled workforce can be utilized to improve 28 customer experience and actively operate new AFC technology, instead of s eeking rationalization. 29 Recently, Baltimore-Washington’s MARC kept agents at Odenton station even af ter installing automatic 30 ticket machines ( 56) because regular riders peti tioned for their retention. 31 32 Metropolitan Terminals 33 Although pioneered by the Pennsylvania Railroad, run-through railroad se rvices remain rare in U.S. 34 cities. Taipei’s downtown tunnel offers insight in to how such projects can be environmentally and 35 politically justified – no t for reduced journey times or improve d equipment utilization, but for grade- 36 crossing elimination, property development, and civic pride. New York’s Access to the Region’s Core 37 project might have created through service betw een New Jersey, Long Is land, and Westchester ( 57), but 38 ultimately may never bridge the last mile between West Midtown’s Penn Stati on and Eastside’s Grand 39 Central. 40 41 Integrated Transportation Planning 42 TRA’s seamless passenger experience across jurisdic tions demonstrate an is land-wide, strategic, 43 “joined-up” thinking that provided benefits to many stakeholders, wh ile project delivery was phased to 44 make scope, funding, and environmental impacts mo re manageable, enabling sustained expansion, 45 reconstruction, and modernization during the last forty ye ars. It’s as if Robert Moses’ powerful visions 46 as “master builder” of New York’s parkwa ys were applied to Taiwan’s railways! 47 48 49 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 20 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1 THE FAR EASTERN PHILOSOPHY 2 The goal of this research was to pique interest in Taiwan’s railways and identify areas for further 3 exploration. More research is requ ired to determine if these ideas are adaptable to North America. 4 5 TRA tends to favour simple, robust, single-purpose m achines – like separate power generation cars for 6 air-conditioning in diesel territory, and power changes instead of dual-mode locomotives. Complex 7 functions are modularized, like having separate fa regates for magnetic tickets and smartcards. 8 Operating and maintaining these machines require s a multi-skilled, multi-tasking workforce – not multi- 9 functional gadgets with narrow crafts of employees . Expectations of system knowledge extend to 10 customers; users must find the right machine for th eir needs. This philoso phy results in a generally 11 more quirky railway, with steeper learning curves for the public and employees alike. Customers and 12 staff have clearly “learned the plant,” as evid enced by precise and speedy regular operations. 13 14 TRA’s approach makes railway hardware fairly basic, while implementing much of service delivery and 15 recovery “in software” with operating practices. The idea that different procedures can permit higher 16 and more flexible utilization of infrastr ucture is evident throughout TRA’s designs. 17 18 The Oriental philosophy isn’t always right, and may not be applicab le in the New World, but it’s 19 interesting and different. While multiple sta ndards, vendors, designs, workarounds, and complex 20 operating processes might seem complicated and c onfusing, over-automation can result in barely 21 maintainable machines operated by human drones. Without compromising safety, is there room in 22 North America for a little with in-system technological diversity? 23 24 25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 26 Authors gratefully acknowledge fi eld assistance provided by Prof. H. Y. Lu and Prof. Angela Chen 27 (NSYSU), Jennifer Hou (ITRI), Atto rney Joanne Hsiao (K&L Gates) during a fact-f inding visit to 28 Taiwan. Additionally research support from C.C. Young (BOTHSR), Prof. T.C. Kao, Prof. Y.C. Lai, 29 Powen Huang, and K.C. Liu (NTU), Dr. S.T. Chan, Sally Kao, and Kevin Yeh (TRTC) were immensely 30 helpful and much appreciated. Responsibility for erro rs or omissions remains with the authors. The 31 views are the authors’ and do not reflect official policies of afor ementioned Taiwan organizations, 32 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or New York C ity Transit. No public funds were expended for 33 the research leading to this paper. 34 35 36 37 A. Lu and A. Marsh Page 21 of 25 11-1301_trb_tra_paper_072.doc (11/16/2010; 296k) NOVEMBER DRAFT – November 16, 2010 1