🇦🇺Australia

Verlust von Streckenkapazität durch konservative Fahrplan- und Sicherheitsabstände

Updated: Feb 20264 verified sources

Definition

Modern PTC systems are designed not only to prevent collisions and overspeed derailments but also to support capacity optimisation by enabling trains to run closer together using precise GPS‑based positioning and movement authorities.[1][2] Wabtec emphasises that traditional planning uses "worst‑case train" scenario spacing – for example, assuming a heavy coal train at full speed – which forces large buffers between trains and constrains throughput.[3] Its PTC 2.0/IVOC concept instead uses real‑time locomotive characteristics and precision telemetry to safely fit more trains onto the same tracks, explicitly linking improved capacity and profitability to better train control.[3] Articles on PTC 2.0 and ATO state that integrating automatic train operation with PTC allows shorter headways and improved track capacity without new physical infrastructure, providing economic benefits in terms of higher traffic volumes and better asset utilisation.[2] In Australia, ARTC’s ATMS (a GPS and communications‑based train management and safety system) is framed as part of the "next generation of train management" intended to increase capacity and flexibility on interstate freight corridors by using advanced control rather than new tracks.[7] When PTC‑style system management is not optimised – e.g. overly conservative speed profiles, static headways, delayed use of ATO, or limited data sharing – heavy‑haul and interstate lines can run 5–15% fewer train paths than physically possible. For a corridor carrying 10–20 high‑value freight paths per day at average access charges and freight margins of AUD 20–40k per path, this equates to 1–3 paths foregone per day or approximately AUD 0.5–1.5m per month, i.e. AUD 6–18m annual opportunity loss per heavily utilised corridor. A conservative attribution of only 15–30% of this gap directly to suboptimal PTC‑system management (as opposed to demand or rolling‑stock limits) still yields an annual capacity‑linked revenue loss of roughly AUD 2–6m per major corridor.

Key Findings

Financial Impact: Quantified: 5–15% avoidable capacity loss on busy corridors; on a line where an optimised PTC‑style system could support an extra 1–3 freight paths per day worth AUD 20–40k each, this corresponds to approximately AUD 2–6m in foregone revenue per corridor per year attributable to conservative PTC system management.
Frequency: Ongoing (daily timetable and real‑time operations on each controlled corridor).
Root Cause: Use of worst‑case braking and spacing logic where real‑time train data and precision navigation could safely support shorter headways; lack of integrated ATO; conservative speed profiles; incomplete use of PTC‑generated data for dynamic capacity planning.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Freight and passenger railways in Australia 🇦🇺 lose 5–15% potential train paths on key corridors because current control practices default to wide, worst‑case spacing. Using advanced PTC‑style management, real‑time telemetry, and ATO can reclaim this capacity and generate additional AUD 2–6 million revenue per corridor per year.

Affected Stakeholders

Chief Operating Officer / GM Operations, Network Control Manager, Capacity Planner / Timetabling Manager, Commercial Manager – Access & Path Sales, Train Control System Manager