Report of Futro supplier launch event

Report on FuTRO supplier launch event1st May 2013

Table of Contents

Report on FuTRO supplier launch event – 1st May 2013 ...............1

FuTRO supplier launch event ................................................................ 1

Executive summary..................................................................................................1What is FuTRO? ......................................................................................................2What was the FuTRO launch event? .......................................................................2

Plenary presentations ........................................................................4

Strategic context for FuTRO ....................................................................................5Vision of FuTRO.......................................................................................................5FuTRO in the longer term ........................................................................................6Question and answer panel .....................................................................................7

Open innovation breakouts ...............................................................8

Open innovation approach .......................................................................................9

Challenge 1 - Meeting customer needs ..........................................10

Challenge 2 - Optimising system performance .............................13

Challenge 3 - Human and automatic control .................................16

Challenge 4 - Dealing with data ......................................................18

Conclusion - The day in a picture ...................................................22

Appendix 1 - Background reading ..................................................24

Appendix 2 - Verbatim breakout cards ...........................................25

Report on FuTRO supplier launch event – 1st May 2013

FuTRO supplier launch event

Executive summary On the 1st May 2013, the FuTRO vision of the future of traffic

regulation on the railway was launched by the RSSB at the British

Library in London. Over 100 delegates from the supply industry

came to hear about FuTRO and to take part together in a series

of 30-minute workshops. The aim was to begin the process of

engaging a wider population with the often radical innovation that

FuTRO will demand, and to ask where, beyond its traditional

boundaries, the industry might look for such innovation and

technology development.

Delegates heard three keynote addresses (summarised here),

and then considered a series of questions designed to open up

the innovation space. The questions and a selection of the most

significant responses they generated are outlined in the second

half of this report, which captures some strong alignment around

a number of themes.

The event was also amplified live over the web and other social

media, creating a web-based record that can be found at

www.amplified10.com/futrouk. Presentations, videos, tweets, and

other material from the event are all available on the site.

RSSB 1


2
RSSB
What is FuTRO? Understanding and managing the placement and movement of

trains is fundamental to the operation of a safe and efficient

railway. The industry calls this process ‘regulation’. FuTRO:

Future Traffic Regulation Optimisation, is an ambitious

programme of exploration and innovation, that is part of the UK’s

Rail Technical Strategy 2012 (the RTS). FuTRO is concerned

with how the regulation of trains on the railway must change,

adapt and improve, starting today, and up to 30 years into the

future.

At the launch of the RTS in December 2012, Steve Yianni, Chair

of the Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG), described

FuTRO as the ‘single most important initiative’ related to enabling

the future railway. It impacts all of the so-called ‘4Cs’, significantly

reducing Carbon and Cost, whilst simultaneously raising Capacity

and Customer satisfaction.

The scope of FuTRO is therefore very wide, and includes many of

the different aspects and systems involved in creating and

delivering a positive end-to-end experience on the network.

The innovation to deliver this vision is expected to come from an

equally wide range of sources, including the physical and

biological sciences, all types of engineering, system design, and

the human/social sciences. Inspiration from outside the traditional

rail supply industry is seen as key to FuTRO’s success. Insights

and technology from related and unrelated fields are therefore

being actively sought.

What was the FuTRO launch event?

On 1st May 2013, a major industry event was held at the British

Library in London. Delegates were invited mainly from the supply

industry and academia, but there were also representatives from

inside the rail industry. The result was a vibrant mix of attendees

that included representatives from the Train Operating

Companies (TOCs), Network Rail (NR), suppliers of products and

services to the industry, research and development organisations

and academia. The specialisms represented included

optimisation, train control, algorithm development, centralised

network control and intelligent automated traffic management

systems.

With a mixture of presentations from senior rail industry people

and interactive workshops, the day explored the aims of the

FuTRO programme, its challenges, the industry context, issues

surrounding the migration path over thirty years, and future

funding opportunities.

The event began with a plenary overview of FuTRO for those

unfamiliar with its aims and ambitions. Presentations from senior

rail industry managers helped to set the scene, and to raise

expectations. Delegates then had the opportunity to get involved

in the discussions through a series of four workshop sessions –

each exploring a different aspect of the rapidly emerging FuTRO

programme of innovation for the next 30 years. The event

concluded with a networking lunch, with many attendees staying

well into the afternoon to continue the discussions they had

started earlier in the day.

RSSB 3


4

Plenary presentationsThe day began with a set of plenary presentations, a full video

record of which is available on www.amplified10.com/2013/05/

livestream-of-the-plenary-sessions/.

The talks began with an introduction from James Hardy, Head of

Strategy Support at RSSB, who welcomed attendees, outlined

the agenda for the day, and then offered a brief introduction to

‘open innovation’, an important theme for the event.

Whilst there are many ways to interpret what ‘open innovation’

means to different people and groups, James confirmed that for

our purposes, we take the idea to mean simply: ‘Innovating with

partners, sharing both risk and reward’.

As a further subtext, there is an implication and an

encouragement to cast the innovation net wider than might

otherwise be the case, to include partners who might operate in

related fields, or indeed in apparently unrelated fields. Experience

has shown many positive examples of inspiration and innovation

originating from initially unlikely combinations of expertise.

James explained to delegates that the open innovation parts of

the events’ agenda were to be facilitated by innovation

consultants, 100%Open (www.100open.com), that the day’s

proceedings (including slides) would be captured and broadcast

to the web by social media experts, Amplified

(www.amplified10.com/futrouk and Twitter #futroUK), and that a

resident artist would capture the spirit of the day in a mural. He

then introduced the first of the three plenary speakers who would

set the scene for the event.

RSSB

Strategic context for FuTRO

Steve Yianni, Chair of Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG)

Steve positioned FuTRO in its strategic context as part of the Rail

Technical Strategy 2012 (RTS). He reminded delegates of what

he had said at the launch of the RTS, that he considered FuTRO

to be the most important part of RTS, and confirmed that he still

believes that to be true.

Steve then showed delegates two short videos: Introducing the

Rail Technical Strategy 2012 (www.futurerailway.org/RTS/Vision/

Pages/On-Video.aspx) and Bringing the Rail Industry Vision to

Life (www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWCRny4ufYM). He made the

point that it is important to understand FuTRO and the RTS as

being about the big picture; the whole system.

Steve finished by introducing the Rail Technical Strategy

Leadership Group (TSLG), and outlining its aims and programme.

He reminded delegates that it’s about the next 30 years, longer

than the current franchise lengths. He emphasised the huge

financial opportunities in both cost savings and potential revenue

increases, that could be unlocked by the doubling in capacity that

FuTRO offers.

He then handed over to Ed Rollings.

Vision of FuTRO Ed Rollings, Head of Signals and Telecoms, Network Rail

Ed began by emphasising very clearly to delegates what FuTRO

is not. ‘It’s not today’s railway, and it’s not today’s technology’.

Instead, it’s an ambitious vision of an integrated system to fit more

trains onto the network by managing traffic optimally – meaning

both efficiently and safely. It’s also about sustainability

(‘environmentally positive’) and about delivering a flexible,

scalable capability.

Today’s technology is, in Ed’s words, a ‘jumping off point’ for the

future. Tomorrow’s technology will be about end-to-end journey

management, including integration with other modes of transport,

and will take in not only normal operations, but condition

monitoring and perturbation management. It’s about a

‘personalised journey experience’.

RSSB 5


6

In Ed’s view, FuTRO’s challenges will include gathering data on

trains and infrastructure, the creation of real-time optimisation

algorithms, decision dissemination, designing for resilience, and

achieving the right balance between human influence and

automation.

Ed made a strong point that we are in a position to influence

European work on traffic management, by acting quickly. He then

introduced the final key note speaker of the morning, Clive

Burrows.

FuTRO in the longer term

Clive Burrows, FirstGroup

Clive dug deeper into what FuTRO represents by working through

a detailed use-case, beginning with today’s Standalone Driver

Advisory System (DAS) that provides optimum speed

recommendations to optimise energy and efficiency, but not

capacity, and showing how it could migrate towards a fully

automatic system. He explained how Standalone DAS could be

developed to provide a Connected DAS capable of updating train

speeds in real time, and considering what he called an algorithmic

approach to train control and management. A critical issue, he

suggested, is to exchange waypoint data and target times – this

is the core part of any Rail Traffic Management System (RTMS)

he argued.

Clive gave a further example of optimisation, explaining that the

number of trains that can run on a line is limited by the

electrification capacity. However, by simply co-ordinating train

movement to avoid the unlikely and unnecessary scenario of all

trains accelerating maximally at the same time, more trains can

be run on the same line without increasing electrical capacity.

Safety critical migration will also be needed according to Clive.

Trains will need to determine where they are and this will need to

be reflected in the fixed infrastructure. ERTMS Level 3 is all about

trains determining their own positions. He sees a time in the future

when an automated system will give movement permissions, and

traffic management will be used to optimise gaps between trains.

Then, he made the point that we currently have ‘huge gaps’

between trains because they don’t get information from the train

in front. However, if trains shared information, the distance

RSSB

between trains could be dramatically reduced, to the point where

they are almost running together.

Finally, Clive also suggested that there are things we can learn by

transferring technologies from other areas. He mentioned

learning from metro-type railways as an example. He summarised

by explaining that he is looking for ‘stepping stones into the

future’.

Question and answer panel

Steve Yianni, Ed Rollings, Clive Burrows

The plenary phase of the programme concluded with a short

panel session in which members of the audience were invited to

ask questions of the earlier speakers.

The first question was about whether rail customers (passengers

and freight) are represented on the TSLG. Steve Yianni confirmed

that there is representation from Passenger Focus, the

independent body who protect the interest of rail passengers.

A further question asked where the financial benefits of FuTRO

will be found. Steve confirmed that there is a clear business case

involving the financial benefits for the changes he talked about in

his presentation. He also said that FuTRO can help to implement

these efficiency changes and maintain high levels of safety. Ed

Rollings reminded the audience that a capacity increase can

deliver financial benefits, and that while there will be cost savings

there will also certainly be revenue generating opportunities.

Subsequent questions focussed on the relationship between the

optimisation of the rail system and the commercial arrangements,

both between rail companies and with other modes of transport.

The panel agreed that a lot more ‘joined-up thinking’ was needed

– a perfect lead into the next part of the agenda.

RSSB 7


8

Open innovation breakoutsHaving completed the plenary sessions, delegates were invited to

attend any two of four parallel breakout sessions. Each 30-minute

session was tasked with addressing a different challenge, each

challenge having three related sub-questions.

Attendees at each breakout were split at random into three

groups of about eight people; each group was tasked with

answering a single sub-question from that breakout’s particular

challenge. Delegates had to work together, producing their output

on cards that were later displayed on large posters for all

attendees to see over lunch, and whose main messages are

summarised here.

To try to address any of these challenges properly in just 30

minutes is clearly an impossibility. Instead, the intent was to allow

delegates to begin the process of engaging with FuTRO, to

explore the kinds of questions it will ask and answer, and to

experience for themselves how working together with others,

even for a short period, lends a new and different dimension to the

process.

RSSB

Open innovation approach

Breakouts were facilitated by members of the consultancy

100%Open, and were designed to offer delegates a brief taste of

the open innovation approach that is viewed by RSSB and others

as vital to the on-going success of FuTRO.

In this context, ‘open innovation’ means ‘working with partners to

share risk and reward’. It often involves interactions between

parties who might not have previously worked together or even

considered themselves as likely partners, and it consciously

introduces new and occasionally even naive thinking as a

complement to received wisdom and experience.

The thoughts, insights and questions that were generated by this

process have been synthesised and summarised at a high-level

in the final sections of this report. The intent is to give readers a

flavour of the nature of the informal discussions that delegates

held in response to the challenges we issued. Readers interested

in the full output of the breakout sessions can find a verbatim

transcript of all of the cards produced by delegates in Appendix 2

of this report.

For each challenge, we describe the sub-questions, summarise

what the delegates discussed and wrote down, and show an

example card. Although everything that was said is valued, not

every comment is included in these summaries. Instead, a

maximum of three or four observations and comments from the

breakout sessions have been selected. Comments have been

chosen based on a number of criteria, including:

Whether they were expressed more than once by different

respondents (areas of agreement)

Whether they stand in contrast to the general consensus

(areas of disagreement)

Whether groups included them in their verbal summaries at

the end of each breakout session

The extent to which we can be confident about what was

being said by delegates (we do not want to put words into

their mouths based on sometimes unclear written notes on

the cards)

The extent to which (in our opinion) individual comments are

likely to generate future insight and interest in engaging with

the Open Innovation aspects of FuTRO.

RSSB 9


10

Finally in each section, we share any additional comments on the

challenge based on wider thinking (reading and interviews) from

100%Open. In this way, we hope that the conversations which

began in these breakout sessions will represent not the canonical

final opinion of the group, but rather a fertile beginning of the

Open innovation programme on which the success of FuTRO

depends.

Challenge 1 - Meeting customer needsThis challenge was created to allow participants to explore the

dynamic two-way communication that will need to happen

between the railway industry and its customers (including

passengers and freight) over the coming decades. It was

composed of three inter-related questions, seeking answers from

different and overlapping angles.

The questions How will we understand the needs of passengers and freight

customers over the next 15-40 years?

In other words, if we’re attempting to understand how to design

new railway systems over that extended period, what tools and

approaches can we use today, to understand the set of

potentially nebulous and significantly changeable human

behaviours and desires over that extended period?

How will customers know what the railway is offering them, both in advance and in real time?

While the previous question relates to how the railway might go

about understanding its customers’ needs, this question relates to

the reverse: how customers might understand what the railway is

offering. Importantly, this means not just in real time, for example,

‘When’s the next train to London?’, but also over time, for

example, ‘How good, these days, is the service from where I plan

to live to where I need to work?’.

How will the system design contribute to reducing passenger stress and improving satisfaction?

This question recognises that customer satisfaction is not just

about performance metrics: what the railway actually does, but

also about emotional issues: how the railway does it. It asks how

customers could be made happiest, or least stressed, at any

given level of absolute performance?

RSSB

Delegates’ answers A common observation across all three questions in this

challenge was that any solution should be multi-modal. By this,

delegates meant that it should incorporate all transport modes

(bus, taxi, car, bike, walking, and so on), rather than treating rail

as an island. In a similar vein, it was also observed that any

attempt to understand customers’ needs should also take non-

passengers (what one delegate called ‘not yet passengers’) into

account.

The idea of a ‘Human SatNav’ or ‘Rail Angel’ was mentioned

several times across the sessions as a way to capture this multi-

modal aspect of future interaction with passengers. Several

delegates envisioned what it might be like to interact with this ‘all

knowing brain’ through multiple different channels. This notion

also embodies another recurring theme, that of interactions

between the industry and customers being personal and

personalised to each customer. At its most extreme, delegates

imagined a ‘pitch for the customer now’ model, in which

competing suppliers (of coffee as well as trains), might be able to

bid for customers’ immediate needs.

At least one group recognised the inherently linked and circular

nature of interactions between railway and customer, pointing out

that as the railway becomes more consumer-centric, so customer

expectations will themselves change. Another group recognised

RSSB 11


12

that people are changing independently of the railway, including

in ways related to their mobility and the space requirements they

may have whilst on board.

Another group observed that passenger communications could

also be used as a form of traffic management, by making sure that

passengers were directed in ways that responded to real-time

capacity.

Finally, a neat idea captured a way of re-inventing the relationship

between railway and passenger: ‘Buy the journey, not the ticket’,

recognises that for a passenger, it is the journey that matters.

Passengers should be guaranteed an arrival at their intended

destination. The ticket, a railway-centric view of the world, is

merely a means to an end.

Comment In only 30 minutes, delegates captured some of the most

important notions that this topic contains, and communicated

them compellingly. There are existing examples in other

industries of some of the characteristics identified by the groups

as desirable for rail: ‘personalisation’ being familiar from the best

e-commerce sites and ‘multimodal transport planning’ already

being offered at least by Google.

Delegates did tend to focus on trying to answer the questions

themselves, rather than thinking more broadly about who (outside

the room) might have a better answer. The question ‘How will we

understand customer needs?’, had delegates focussing on what

those needs might actually be, as opposed to the question of

where the tools and insights to gain such insights might come

from in a true open innovation context. Understanding human

needs, even long into the future, is a developed process in other

fields (such as marketing, retail and town-planning among many)

into which we could tap.

One way to analyse customer needs and communications could

be to divide them into three epochs:

minutes and seconds - key questions related to real-time

needs, for example where a passenger needs to get to

today, and where the train which should have arrived on

platform 3 has got to

days and weeks, - questions relate to longer-term but none-

the-less concrete needs

RSSB

months and years - interactions relate more to perceptions

about performance and overall customer expectations. This

sort of analysis is also familiar from many industries.

The question of passenger stress is a key one. It relates strongly

to the notion of ‘experience design’, a practice that is very well

understood in other industries including retail, hospitality (hotels

and restaurants), and entertainment (shows, museums and

theme parks). Even in healthcare, the best hospitals are coming

to regard themselves as offering a human experience in addition

to medical healthcare. There are many opportunities to learn from

these fields, if we are able to gain access to them.

Challenge 2 - Optimising system performanceThis challenge lies at the heart of FuTRO, and asks how, even if

everything else is in place, will we optimise the performance of the

network? In this context, ‘how’ means both ‘in what ways’ and ‘by

what mechanism’.

The questions What are the criteria of system performance that will be

important?

This question acknowledges the implicit assumption that we all

know what we’re talking about, and asks ‘are we sure?’

How will we develop tools, algorithms, cost functions,

timetables, and so on?

This is another ‘how’ question, asking not just what the

algorithms, cost functions, and other things might actually be, but

also how they will come to be.

What are the technical and commercial constraints on

performance? What are the alternatives?

This question suggests that there might be things in the existing

system, possibly hard to change, that will restrict our ambition,

and asks: ‘what are they?’.

Delegates’ answers Again, there was a strong sense of wanting to deal with a multi-

modal system, not just rail. There was recognition that for

practical purposes, the performance of the rail system in isolation

is not as important as customers’ experience of the performance

of the system, which necessarily includes the surrounding modes

RSSB 13


14

of transport. This came out strongly in a couple of places, with

delegates asking the rhetorical question ‘where are the

boundaries of the system?’

Everyone recognised and acknowledged that in this context,

optimisation is inherently about trade-offs. However, the expected

trade-offs, for example between carbon and convenience, are

hard. More importantly, delegates repeatedly asked the

questions, ‘who will make these trade-off decisions?’, and to a

lesser extent, ‘over what timeframe will they be made?’ In the

context of trade-offs, one group or individual asserted very

strongly (whether rightly or wrongly) that ‘if you maximise

capacity, you compromise safety.’

In the context of what is important, there was general

acknowledgement that the metrics of speed and punctuality, or

predictability, are distinct and different. The possibility was raised

that punctuality might be a more important metric for customers

than speed, and that it might be preferred in a trade-off between

the two.

When thinking about developing tools, algorithms, and other

intellectual machinery for optimising the performance of the

network, there was a recognition that collaborative approaches

and business models, for example with other transport modes,

would be important. There was also acknowledgement that

involvement and input from outside the industry would be helpful.

RSSB

Regarding the ultimate constraints on performance, most groups

focussed on the business structures, models and culture that are

in place today, and identified factors such as the lack of incentive

to share information, and the short tenure of some contracts, as

limits on optimisation. One group characterised the current

business structures as adversarial, and suggested that a

collaborative approach was needed instead. Another group

suggested that fragmentation should be turned into customer

choice with technology, although it is not clear what was meant in

more detail.

The only clear technical restriction that was raised related to

gauge: the restriction on the size of trains that is inherent in the

fixed infrastructure of tracks, bridges and platforms. Mention was

also made of the challenge and tension between a radical vision,

versus the step-by-step process that is needed to roll it out.

Comment Of the three questions in this challenge, it was the one on

constraints and limits to performance that attracted the strongest

response. Given the political, organisational and business issues

that were identified, it would be useful to think both about how

these issues could be worked around, or even taken advantage

of, as well as how and in what ways they might be changed over

time.

There was relatively little weight given by delegates to the

possible involvement of customers in determining the key

performance criteria, and some further wider engagement with

passenger and freight customers could potentially yield some

useful input in this area.

In general, optimisation is a widely-practiced process, with

expertise being available in related industries, for example

logistics and shipping, as well as in apparently unrelated

industries such as manufacturing. It is even possible that

inspiration might be drawn from much more widely distinct

domains, including biology and economics where, in both cases,

highly efficient and optimised systems sometimes emerge without

either central control or design. There is a lot of scope for open

innovation in sharing practises in this area.

RSSB 15


16

Challenge 3 - Human and automatic controlThe exponential growth in the power of digital technology is a

familiar facet of today’s world. This ever-advancing technology

invites the possibility of ever-increasing automation. But is it a

given that everything that could be automated should be

automated? This challenge asked delegates to consider that

issue, by responding to three related and overlapping questions.

The questions Which things should be controlled automatically, which by

humans, and which in combination?

This question starts with the presumption that perhaps not

everything should be automatic, and then asks ‘if that is the case,

who should do what?’ Delegates were invited to consider

objectively which things computers are good at, and in what areas

humans still hold the edge. They also considered subjectively

which things might feel right for computers to handle and which

are more comfortable left to humans.

How can technology be used to support human decision-

making?

This question starts with the presumption that one possible

division of labour is to leave humans to make the decisions, with

technology providing the support. It asks, ‘what support could

technology offer?’.

What tools and interfaces will be needed between humans

and technology?

Once again, if humans and technology are to collaborate, how will

they communicate?

Delegates’ answers There was widespread consensus that a clear distinction between

automatic and manual control relates to the frequency and

repetitiveness of the task at hand. Computers, it was suggested,

are good at repetitive, predictable, planned things. Humans, on

the other hand, are best when events are rare, unpredictable or

completely unplanned. One delegate suggested that keeping

humans in the loop would be a vital way to deal with the ‘once

every ten years’ occurrences that, counter-intuitively perhaps,

seem all too common. In a related observation, one group found

that humans are better at making trade-offs and other soft

decisions.

RSSB

Another dimension contrasted customer experience, felt to be

better left to humans, against operations, felt to be more suitable

for automation. People, it was suggested, like to have human

contact, and like to believe that humans are in control, especially

in a crisis.

When it comes to technology supporting human decision making,

there was a sense that computers should provide a range of

options from amongst which a human might make a choice. More

than one group identified the challenge associated with

integrating (over time) different decision support systems.

In considering the ways humans and technology might interact,

delegates made use of analogies including the growth in remotely

piloted drone aircraft. They identified that remote control of trains

for example, offers a third-way between fully manual and fully

automatic operation. They also recognised that humans have at

least five senses, all of which can be used to communicate

information of appropriate sorts between technology and humans.

Finally, it was observed that the change to ever-more automated

systems should itself be managed as a journey, allowing all

involved to become familiar and comfortable at each stage of

progress, before the next is attempted.

RSSB 17


18

Comment A significant proportion of the entire history of computing relates

to how humans can make use of computers to amplify their

brains, from the very earliest code-breaking computers during

WWII to the artificial intelligence systems of the present day.

Questions about where the relative strengths of humans and

technology lie have been considered for many years. Although

technology advances continually and rapidly, humans change

only slowly, allowing relatively long-lived principles to emerge.

There is therefore a rich and diverse set of disciplines outside the

rail industry, including decision-support systems, computer-

supported co-operative working, the social sciences and others,

that could inform this area as part of an open innovation

approach. Users of such technology are equally as diverse,

including everyone who has ever used a spreadsheet, every

commercial or military aircraft pilot, military planners, economists,

and many others. Indeed, it has been observed in the aviation

industry for example, that for many years, things that are

inherently dangerous such as landing in fog, have been routinely

left to technology.

The existence of this expertise makes the area of automation a

key domain that the rail industry could avoid duplicating. Instead

the industry could seek ways to benefit from and ultimately to

contribute to the significant investment in expertise made in these

other sectors.

Challenge 4 - Dealing with dataThis final challenge deals with perhaps the most fundamental

starting place for FuTRO’s ambition, that of knowing what’s going

on. It is frequently observed that ‘you can’t manage what you can’t

measure’; the questions in this challenge sought to explore and

inform some details of what it might take to measure the many

things, knowledge of which will be valuable or essential to

FuTRO’s vision.

The questions How is data to be sensed, collected, communicated,

processed, stored and displayed?

This question seeks to inform the basic challenges as described.

It presumes the future vision of a widespread, pervasive sensing

network, together with means to communicate and make sense of

all the data so collected, and asks simply, ‘How?’

RSSB

How are the vulnerabilities and threats to integrity and

security to be addressed?

This question raises two of the most common concerns relating to

any sort of distributed system. It invites comment both on what the

vulnerabilities and threats might be, and how the designers and

operators of the future railway might respond to such concerns.

What standards are relevant and how are they to be

managed?

If we are imagining a future state in which the open exchange of

information plays a key part, and the presumption is that we are,

then we must consider the role of standardisation in how data is

exchanged, stored, and so on.

Delegates’ answers In considering how data might be collected and processed,

delegates recognised a number of important issues. These

included that the overall picture is likely to be composed of data

coming from disparate sources, meaning that a premium should

be placed on cross-industry collaboration. Equally, such data

sources may overlap, requiring integration. Another group

identified that overlapping (duplicate) data represents a valuable

way to measure and ensure the integrity and security of the

information.

RSSB 19


20

Not all data needs to be directly and primarily sensed by the

railway. One group highlighted the use of information from mobile

phone networks as an implicit source of information about what is

happening on the railway, as well as commenting that mobile

phones themselves are full of sensors.

It was also observed that the ownership of data is a key issue, and

that there is an additional question about which data should be

made open, and which restricted.

Echoing a common theme across challenges, it was recognised

that what it means for data to have integrity and security is not

clearly defined. Importantly, in this context, it was suggested that

this means that such definitions may change over time, implying

that any technology infrastructure should be designed with such

possible change in mind.

In further considering how threats to integrity and security might

be addressed, one group asked the question, ‘how would the

industry respond if such a compromise occurred?’. This carried

the implication that planning in advance for such an undesirable

but perhaps inevitable eventually would be a ‘good idea’.

It was suggested that standards for data should be derived from

outside the rail industry, perhaps from the financial or military

domains, allowing data interchange and the sharing of

technology. Echoing an earlier point, it was further suggested that

standards should be designed to change as customer

expectations and technology changes. Finally, one group

suggested that standards should include moral standards relating

to data sharing.

Comment This is an area that is full of possibilities, and where there is very

significant work in other sectors. Technology for distributed

sensor networks is being developed in many industries including

logistics, farming, manufacturing, automotive, aviation, energy,

housing and anywhere, in fact, where valuable assets are

distributed around the environment. This technology, and the

techniques that accompany it, are often included under the

increasingly common cross-industry banner of the Internet of

Things.

Delegates identified the possibility of data coming from

unexpected sources, and this thought could be pursued further.

RSSB

Mobile phone data from the network and from the phone itself is

a potentially very rich source. Nearly every passenger on every

train is carrying a device that contains six or more sensors

(location, acceleration, sound, light, and so on), and the means to

communicate sensor measurements. More generally, in our

connected world, measurements of many things can be used to

indirectly infer information about many others, creating yet more

opportunities for open innovation.

The collection of a rich picture of what is going on is itself also a

great opportunity for openness. By aggressively pursuing a

presumption of data sharing, the industry could catalyse

innovation from the many enthusiastic third parties (app writers,

for example) who fill gaps and provide services wherever data is

made available. This has already happened with aviation data,

and on the London Underground, and represents a further

potentially valuable resource for FuTRO and the future railway in

general.

RSSB 21


22

Conclusion - The day in a pictureDelegates came to the FuTRO launch day to hear about FuTRO,

to meet each other, and to experience a little of the open

innovation approach that will be part of delivering the whole story.

Once the breakout sessions were complete, delegates gathered

again briefly for a feedback session, followed by a networking

lunch. Many delegates stayed on to talk and to debate further.

Throughout the day, 100%Open’s lead designer had been on

hand to act to act as resident artist. He captured the spirit of the

day in a large mural drawn on the window of the main conference

room at the British Library. The full image can be seen at

www.amplified10.com/futrouk.

With the day behind us, we can begin the process of

understanding what delegates said and asked. We can also

summarise the four key open innovation themes that emerged,

and give them names:

RSSB

Monitor How will we know what’s happening on the rail system, both in

real time and over time? What can we either measure directly, or

infer from other sources?

Involve How will we engage and interact with customers, understanding

what they need, telling them what’s available, and including them

as one of our sources of innovation?

Optimise How will we introduce new ways to decide what should happen on

the rail system, again in real time and over time? Who will control

what: man or machine?

Guide How will the railway industry, its customs, procedures, regulations

and culture need to evolve to both support and allow the full

FuTRO vision to emerge?

We propose these four open innovation themes (Monitor, Involve,

Optimise and Guide) as the core of FuTRO's engagement

strategy. We are developing each one into a detailed innovation

pathway, leading to a concrete vision for the year 2042. We hope

that many different innovators will now join this journey; their

contributions being both coordinated and connected by our open

innovation themes.

RSSB 23


24

Appendix 1 - Background reading Readers who are less familiar with the rail industry may be

interested in the following documents that contain more

detailed information on many of the topics covered in this

report. All are available by searching the web for report title,

or directly accessing the website concerned.

THE FUTURE RAILWAY – The industry’s Rail Technical

Strategy 2012, TSLG

Enabling innovation in the rail industry, RSSB

Enabling technical innovation in the GB rail industry –

barriers and solutions, prepared for RSSB by Arthur D Little

Ltd

Our Railway’s Future, Network Rail

National Passenger Survey (bi-annual report), Passenger

Focus

www.rssb.co.uk

www.futurerailway.org

www.networkrail.co.uk

www.atoc.org

www.riagb.org.uk

www.dft.gov.uk

www.rail-reg.gov.uk/

RSSB

http://www.rssb.co.uk/

http://www.futurerailway.org/

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/

http://www.atoc.org/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/

Appendix 2 - Verbatim breakout cardsWhat follows is a verbatim transcription of the cards generated in

the various breakout sessions of the FuTRO launch event. Each

bullet point records the content of a single card. A very few

changes have been made for clarity, when this would be lost

through the transcription process. An equally small number of

hard-to-read words have been marked as [sic], or in severe cases

omitted from the transcript as unreadable.

Challenge 1: Meeting customer needs

Q1. How will we understand the needs of passengers and freight customers over the next 15-40 years?

Research into future travel patterns and all the factors that

will influence them. Psychology. Working Practices.

Multimodal

Information architect. Looking broadly, political, economic,

social, technological & organisational factors. Chunk up

future projections 15 years, then 30 years, 40 years.

Different levels of certainty. Need to talk to those groups as

much as possible, identifying themes. Market research.

Research all existing available relevant data

(demographics, wider economy…) and make it available to

rail. Remember: think about ‘not yet’ customers, not those

who use rail today; system needs to be flexible to respond

to future unforeseen needs; the act of making the railway

more consumer-centric will itself generate new needs.

MyNeeds. Political, society, demographic, economic,

technological, geographical, landscape. Crowd-sourced

information.

(1) Create a multi-modal learning system and use intelligent

information for train planning (flexible, meet demand). Total

learning system.

Q2. How will customers know what the railway is offering them, both in advance and in real time?

Personal info/learning from usage – direct to passenger and

intermodal. The ‘system’ will know you!

MyJourney. Real time. Single trustworthy source of info. To

the right person in the right format. Mobile. For my journey.

Massively interactive human satnav. Google intermodal

transport apps. One universal system, baseline – add on

RSSB 25


26

service menu/needs. Interactive, real-time, human, sat-nav.

Rail, road, foot, tube, stations, offers, TM system, informs of

new route.

Central brain (which manages scheduling on trains)

directing passengers depending on capacity / disruptions

etc. This would include data push (PIDD), apps for journey

planning (personalised schedule), delivery of schedules in

advance.

How information is offered is not the issue – any available

channel. Research to develop and keep up-to-date what

customers WANT to know. [Nature and quality of

information]

Q3. How will the system design contribute to reducing passenger stress and improving satisfaction?

Buy the journey, not the ticket. Consistency of journey

service. Confidence/trust.

Deliver pertinent, consistent, personalised journey

information in a timely manner – live. And tell me what to do

next. U-Rail.

Sat Nav Rail Angel: (1) Real-time intelligence of space/

capacity. (2) Have satnav that allows you to set the criteria

and advises you on the costs. (3) Tells you where you are.

Human needs focus. Time, punctuality, energy, Quality of

service. Customer-centred algorithms for success / perfect

system, not just simple assumptions of e.g. punctuality.

Advanced info system to customers. Transparency / making

data available. Standardised info at stations, individualised

elsewhere.

Customer-centric studies to understand stress-drivers.

Customer needs and information provision taken on board

in designing system to offer simple, reliable, consistent,

predictable and regular services. Inter-modal. Loosely

federated systems.

Real-time system behaviour at a point in time. Pitch for the

customer now! Live availability, live privileges. Sci-fi

thinking – future possibilities. Passengers needs haven’t

changed over 50 years. Fatter, heavier, less mobile people.

Listen to social media. Visibility of problems, infrastructure.

Poll them, ask them. End-to-end journeys. Carborail [sic?]

Premium price / journey time / comfort.

RSSB

Challenge 2: Optimising system performance

Q1. What are the criteria of system performance that will be important?

Reliability and consistency. Measures of certainty. Flow.

Multi-modal models. Resilience of whole network. De-

centralised. Real-time information. Reacts to customer

demand short-term and long-term and socio-economic.

Trains on time. Safety & Capacity & Sustainability & Costs.

Cost, Carbon, Capacity, Customer Experience! + Reliability

+ Integration performance with the rest of transport +

Flexibility for different needs.

System is whole transport system, not the railway.

Outcome-based criteria – demand led by customers and

business models. Flexibility to deliver all needs.

How do we define the boundaries of the system?

Trade-off between performance and environment and

capacity. These three criteria are potentially mutually

exclusive.

Encourage modal transfer to rail. No timetable – real time

adaptive service levels. Learning systems. Criteria: open

information availability; Capacity where and when it is

needed (turn up and go); Safety; Optimising customer

expectations, certainly of knowing what is happening. Who

is the customer?

A measure of performance = could the customer use the

information provided to them to complete their planned

journey?

We need a portfolio of measures that represent the interests

of stakeholders. Eg reliability of trains and infrastructure.

Timely and accurate information.

How to evaluate extremes (is 2x5 = 1x10?). How to trade

among the 4 c’s. How to customer experience vs CO2.

Economic or political business case. Relative safe

following. Track plates for safety. Hierarchy. Plan to deliver

bottom up.

Criteria of system performance: time (of journey); cost

(value for money); quality/reliability; safety; sustainability.

All of these from a customer’s perspective.

RSSB 27


28

Q2. How will we develop tools, algorithms, cost functions, timetables, and so on?

Develop all tools etc based on a demand-led framework –

transport and mobility needs.

Collaboratively – business models; data-sharing; with eg.

taxi operators.

University research. Better industry and academia

engagement. Look at other sectors / different industries.

(Catapult, RRUKA)

Q3. What are the technical and commercial constraints on performance? What are the alternatives?

If you maximise capacity you compromise safety. An

algorithm based on traffic (freight / high-speed), type,

speed, braking coefficients – all data is not created equally.

The COST of real-time. Technology, model, sensing,

computer capacity, model availability, trade-off to vohe [sic].

What are the incentives for sharing data with stakeholders

(eg TOCs with NR)? Mobile operators. Contract

DURATION, revenue model. How to scale and generate

revenue. Barriers to entry – IP. Rail network infrastructure is

a constraint. Mobile phones are optimised for road not rail.

Turn fragmentation into customer choice with technology.

Eg data sharing.

Risk & reward re-thinking. No whole system approach yet.

Money flow? Change of culture / industry structure.

Cyber security.

Gauge/track constraints. Is a different traffic-management

approach sufficient to meet capacity needs? There is a

duplication of investment in different parts of industry

seeking the same prize? Conflict with objective to cut costs.

Reduced risk and hassle of comechans [sic]. Optimised for

WHO? Link from social media to optimisation?

Structure of industry. Need collaborative structure. Current

structure is adversarial.

Optimum criteria. Short vs long-term. Local vs system.

Benchmarks.

Tension between radical vision and step-by-step art of the

currently possible.

RSSB

Start from benchmark problems. Open access simulations.

Apply existing algorithms to benchmark problems to

understand which algorithms good/bad for which problems.

4C’s (Customer / Carbon / Cost / Capacity). Vision/strategy/

tactics. Trade-off between simplicity/support in real-time.

The focus could change during the day even. Optimising by

what criteria? In what timeframe? Long-term or minute-by-

minute?

Challenge 3: Human and automatic control

Q1. Which things should be controlled automatically, which by humans, and which in combination?

Trade-offs good for humans. All things can be run by

computer. No procedure – human good. People good at

interactivity. Subjectivity vs objectivity. Human touch – say,

illness. Computers are dumb. Random events better for

<unreadable>. Tsunami Japanese nuclear.

From customer experience perspective more human

control/responsive -> demand responsive railway.

Operations -> less human, more automation.

Automate back-office systems. Automate what is

predictable/reliable. Maintain human for unplanned, major

events.

Under normal conditions computers can do nearly

everything they are programmed [to do]. Under extreme

conditions (humans). Humans can look at trade-offs and

compromises. Under full automation procedure can be used

to mitigate risk. Computers not good at interacting with

people (human touch).

People like to have human contact even tough can be

automated must have both for consumer facing services. If

automate everything what is the impact to the economy –

leisure time for all…

Automatic control – repeatable and predictable. Decision

support to humans. Things that only happen every ten years

plus and need a level of intelligence that only humans can

provide.

RSSB 29


30

Q2. How can technology be used to support human decision-making?

Two main focus areas: drivers; signalling; (maintenance).

Distinguish between managing errors versus violations.

Technology/automated systems for normal and predictable.

Human interaction when needed. Culture – manage change

[to automated systems] gradually.

Technology should offer a range of options to the human.

Need to provide training for normal operation and failure

situations.

Which humans? Train operators, customers/passengers,

maintainers, infrastructure operators. Reducing the human

reliance? –only in emergencies. –automate to reduce

errors.

Its about integrating the different decision support systems

– engineering, commercial and operational. Also there is a

risk of automating everything! Hudson River air incident.

Q3. What tools and interfaces will be needed between humans and technology?

User interface technology – voice? Touch? Head up

display? Passenger demand? Can this be more direct, eg.

ultra prt at Heathrow T5 or voting mechanism. Unenclosed

railway = no driver? Or do detection systems mean no driver

required? Remote supervision eg. drones, control centre.

How to provide passengers directly with an interface with

the traffic management system – Passengers can make/

influence decisions.

Simple and intuitive ways of communicating to passengers

to actively manage capacity.

Transparency or operating decisions such as connections.

How can passengers have confidence about decisions

made to help them that don’t know have been made?

Centralised control strategy from the start. Adaptive,

resilient, automation. ‘ENE’ following control.

Rationalisation of ‘pertinent timely data’. Ref Dutch

healthcare R&D: tactile sensory input. Move away from

response to alarms as poor decisions!

Remote supervision -> Air Drone.

Inform operator of outcomes.

How do we integrate different decision-making [support?]

systems?

RSSB

Challenge 4: Dealing with data

Q1. How is data to be sensed, collected, communicated, processed, stored and displayed?

Integrate data to create information. Harmonise disparate

systems.

Instrumentation and sensing. Instrument as much as you

can. Survey inc passenger and goods instrumentation.

Social networks. Mobile signals. Etc.

Communicate: right frequency – real time; near real time;

signal vs noise. Multichannel to GSM-R. GSM using

commercial services. Enterprise service = treat as a stream

of data. Pushed out or personalised.

Underpinning the question is the need for effective data

management / ownership. Who should be responsible for

what data? Setting of policies, understanding of costs &

benefits, ensuring collaboration.

Security and safety. Only ensure the right people can

access the right data from source.

Open IT architecture. Standard interfaces. Open-source

software. Formal methods.

Q2. How are the vulnerabilities and threats to integrity and security to be addressed?

Quality of data – cross correlation; sensor health; critical;

embedded intelligence.

Integrity and security are NOT defined. Indeed the definition

will change according to the mechanism (sensor) being

addressed.

Categories: Train separation; train position; timetable;

passenger origin / destination; infrastructures.

Dataflows. Bandwidth. Continuity. Data fidelity. Delay/

interruptions.

How would the railway system respond when data security

is compromised? Shut down? Back up system? Plan B?

Is the data correct and timely? Measure the right thing.

What data to make open / keep within industry.

Process for FuTRO to follow: (1) Categorise data in/used by

the system; (2) Understand the threats/vulnerabilities

associated with the different types of data; (3) What are the

consequences of data being compromised? (4) What are

the safeguards/mitigations (look outside the rail industry);

(5) Need for on-going learning / keep abreast of emerging

thoughts.

RSSB 31


32

Q3. What standards are relevant and how are they to be managed?

Organisational and governance structures to enable

standards to adapt to changing technologies and customer

needs.

Leveraging standard from financial and military for

timeliness and integrity of data. (as well as other transport

modes).

Moral standards on acceptable use of private and customer

data.

Balance with accessibility for valuable purposes.

Start with whole system view of whole lifecycle. Manage it

just as a physical, valuable asset.

Intrusion detection and cyber security becoming essential.

Defend against malicious DISTRUPTION attempt. Defence

against UNSAFE is a given.

Common standard and protocols with other industries so as

to share toolsets and data/information.

RSSB

RSSB Block 2 Angel Square1 Torrens StreetLondonEC1V 1NY

[email protected]

www.rssb.co.uk

Report of Futro supplier launch event

Documents

Transcript of Report of Futro supplier launch event