Technology Innovation Centres

Written evidence submitted by Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG) (TIC 79)

Technology Innovation Centres

As Chair of the rail industry’s Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG), I am responding to your consultation on Technology Innovation Centres. TSAG is a senior, cross-industry group representing all stakeholders in the rail industry (train operators, rolling stock owners, infrastructure, freight, government and regulator) and develops the whole-system, 30 year technical vision for the railway. This group has been remitted by DfT to develop the 2012 edition of the Rail Technical Strategy.

A TSAG subgroup representing all railway stakeholders has prepared this response and, as Chair of TSAG, I endorse the content. You can find more information about TSAG at www.futurerailway.org

TSAG’s mission is to identify and support the introduction of future technologies that are likely to have a major impact on the railway over the next 30 years. To frame innovative technical thinking at the right level, TSAG has identified the 4C challenge, namely to halve costs and carbon, and double capacity and improve customer satisfaction. To do this, we need to introduce new technologies to the railway and work better with the existing technologies. We see technology innovation centres as a key enabler in doing this safely, economically and to the required timeframe. The railway costs £12bn pa so halving this is a prize worth pursuing.

Impacts of this nature require step change; we have shown that incremental change will not get us there. Examples of the technology innovations that will contribute to the 4C challenge are at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. It can be seen that there is high technical ambition but the need to prove the technology solutions before they are released on the live railway is self-evident.

Turning specifically to the questions in your inquiry, we have responded only in those areas where, as an industry, we can add most value.

Question: What is the Fraunhofer model and would it be applicable to the UK?

Answer: The following link describes the Fraunhofer model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society

The practical application of the Fraunhofer model for the rail industry includes:

· Product Development: There is a need for research and development of new products and solutions based on new and existing technology from other industries. The technologies need to be developed as integrated solutions if they are to become applicable to rail’s needs. Examples to progress in this area include energy storage/saving devices, low adhesion detection equipment, lightweight vehicle design, obstacle detector development, etc.

· Process Improvement: Developing innovative approaches to some of the current processes used in the rail industry so as to make these more efficient and safe but also reduce costs. Examples include automated maintenance (based on robotic technologies), customer end-to-end journey (customer information systems, logistics, and real time options), etc.

· Solution Testing & Trialling: Innovation in the rail sector is hindered by lack of efficient and up-to-date test facilities. New technology introduction needs efficient proving of concepts through simulation, relevant type testing, commissioning and reliability development at the both sub-system and system level. Examples include in-train cab-based signalling solutions, remote condition monitoring for both infrastructure and trains.

Question: Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research centres within the UK, and if so, are they effective?

Answer: Appendix 3 is an overview of the subject and describes a number of specific UK examples that could provide insights for the development of a transport/rail technology innovation centre. More narrowly, from a rail sector point of view, there are examples of some in-house research by major suppliers to the industry like Siemens, Invensys, and others.

Question: What other models are there for research centres oriented toward applications and results?

Answer: We are not yet well placed to respond to this question but have established a team representing all technical aspects of the railway; this group is charged by TSAG with investigating the development of a bid for a technology innovation centre for transport. Success in this area is thought likely to have significant impact on introducing new technology into the railway and work is underway to provide the evidence for this and build the case for such a centre.

Question: Whose role should it be to coordinate research in a UK-wide network of innovation centres?

Answer: We have established relationships with the Technology Strategy Board and see the coordination of technology innovation centres as a natural extension of their work in establishing and running Knowledge Transfer Networks, the Transport KTN being of particular interest to our industry.

Question: What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type institutes have on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments and other existing research centres that undertake Government sponsored research?

Answer: Research establishments that have in the past been established with Government support, for example TRL, MIRA, TWI, would benefit from being linked more strongly to the rail industry potentially through the creation of a transport innovation centre adopting Fraunhofer principles, where best practice in one sector can be transferred to another eg via a spoke and hub model.

In summary, the rail industry has recognised the need for a rail or transport technology innovation centre and there is a great deal of energy going into building the case for this.

Steve Yianni

Chair, Technical Strategy Advisory Group

02 December 2010

Appendix 1: An overview of examples of whole system, technical innovations

TSAG has identified four technical ‘game changers’ which need to be researched and developed now so that decision makers in organisations can collectively identify and draw on the appropriate benefits and take technology decisions in a 30-year time frame.

1) Establish the Next Generation Traffic Management:
Centralisation of rail traffic control into a single system or ‘guiding mind’ to optimise the network’s capacity and increase customer satisfaction, reliability and safety. This will require the bringing together of commercially available systems and integrating them. Increases in rail’s delivery potential will be reflected in revenue increases, income which might currently be out of reach through capacity constraints, while reducing operations costs through better management of the network, better utilisation and lower energy consumption.

2) Optimise energy strategy:
We must make savings on the railway’s annual £500m traction energy bill through better exploitation of new and existing technology. This will include ideas like ‘discontinuous electrification’ where difficult sections of route (eg tunnels and complex junctions) don’t have to be wired because the trains use a combination of on-board and overhead power systems, thus reducing scheme costs.

3) Build in whole system reliability:
A business case for a whole system strategic approach to reliability is needed. This would help reduce the £600m annual cost of delays and a host of other related business performance costs in agreeing delay claims. Technology can help deliver better asset management through things like remote condition monitoring and systems for sharing performance data.

4) Provide smarter data and communications:
We promote a strategy for rail mobile communications which relies on commercially available, off-the-shelf systems to provide enhanced information in line with the needs of both front-line railway operations and customers.

Appendix 2: An Overview of Technology Opportunities (Reference the Rail Technology Strategy Consultation Document – October 2010 http://www.futurerailway.org/Pages/Consultation.aspx)

Appendix 3: TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTRES

It has been recognised for some time that there is a need to have effective structures in place to ensure that the value of academically based research is developed to the point where it can be brought to the market. These have been referred to as ‘translational infrastructure’, designed to bridge the gap between universities and industry. The government’s view is that since the demise of many large company-based central research laboratories (example given are IBM, Phillips and GEC – but the BR research centre in Derby could be included in this list), the overall effort has been fragmented and of variable quality. The Fraunhofer Centres in Germany have been identified as best international practice and it was with this in mind that the previous government asked Dr Hermann Hauser, a Cambridge-based physicist and entrepreneur, to report on the current and future role of technology and innovation centres (TICs) in the UK.

In his report published earlier this year, Hauser identified 50 innovation centres already in existence, which have collectively received £150 million in public funding since 2008. Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that a great deal of excellent work takes place in these institutions, there are a number of structural problems that reduce their effectiveness in maximizing the UK’s competitive position. Hauser noted that there was inadequate integration into the national innovation system, that a great deal of work was duplicated and that the funding model was not geared to the long-term. Public funding has been chanelled through the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England and the devolved administrations elsewhere in the UK; the funding model varies but typically the TICs have been expected to become commercially viable within three to five years – an arrangement that Hauser criticises as unsuited to emerging areas of technology or where the research is still a long way from commercialisation.

Hauser’s starting point in making his recommendations is that he champions the cause of public investment in key sectors that have great commercial potential in the very long run, and where the UK already has an advantage in science and technology research. His proposed funding model is one-third government infrastructure, one-third industry and one-third government and EU project funding. He suggests a number of candidate sectors, including regenerative medicine, renewable energy, future internet technologies, plastic electronics and advanced manufacturing; this list is not intended to be exhaustive and there would appear no reason why the railway industry should not be included.

One difficulty inherent in the current arrangements is that there is no readily available way of identifying the institutions that are undertaking relevant work. Many organisations include ‘technology’ and ‘innovation’ in their name but this does not necessarily mean that they are involved in leading edge research. Hauser therefore recommends branding the new institutions as ‘Clark Maxwell Centres’ after a 19th century physicist whose work on electromagnetism laid the foundations of the modern IT industry. The intention is that this group of centres, whilst autonomous, would be part of an overall national strategy.

The change of government in May caused some uncertainty as to how or if this initiative would be progressed, but in October Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, announced government acceptance of the broad proposals to be established and overseen by the Technology strategy Board (TSB). The requirement for a high degree of autonomy was emphasised, so that the centres will be responsive to industry, and each centre will focus on a specific technology. The TSB will decide which existing centres to invest in by April 2011 and will then consider the requirement for new centres. It is considered important that this will not be a mere rebranding exercise.

The current proposals therefore place a high degree of emphasis on developing bespoke centres responsive to specific needs, albeit within an overall strategic framework, so it should not be assumed that one of the existing centres would act as a template for others. Nevertheless, the details of the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC) currently being developed at Ansty, on the outskirts of Coventry, may be worth considering. This initiative represents an investment of £130 million jointly from the private and public sectors; it is intended that it will employ 100 to 150 ‘highly qualified’ technical specialists, and will benefit the aerospace, automotive, energy, electronics, and heavy duty construction equipment sectors. Economic impact assessments show that the project will return £46 for every £1 invested. The MTC, which will be fully operational from the summer of 2011, will be operated by a partnership consisting of the University of Birmingham, University of Nottingham, Loughborough University and the operating division of The Welding Institute. Founder industrial members of the MTC are Rolls-Royce, Aero Engine Controls and Airbus UK, although of course it is intended that the list of industrial members will expand. £40 million of funding for buildings and equipment was provided by Advantage West Midlands and the East Midlands Development Agency who see manufacturing as vital to the economy of the Midlands.

Another example of existing provision is the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) in Sheffield which seeks to build on the city’s metalworking heritage. It was initially set up as a partnership between the University of Sheffield’s faculty of engineering and Boeing, with the purpose of ‘identifying, researching and solving advanced manufacturing problems’. It currently employs about 120 researchers and engineers who work with companies of all sizes on a consortium basis; members pay an annual fee to have access to the facilities and expertise. ‘Tier one’ members help to determine the R&D agenda include the likes of Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Siemens and BAE Systems; a lower tier of members pays lower fees and has access to AMRC’s generic research projects.

A slightly different example is the Stevenage Bioscience Campus in Hertfordshire, which was first announced in late 2009; the cost will be £37 million. It will be funded by a partnership of the government, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the Wellcome Trust and the TSB. The intention is to create a ‘world-leading hub’ for biotech companies and, it has been claimed, up to 1,500 jobs could be created. The campus will be on the existing GSK site.

Further examples of TICs include:

· The Centre for Process Innovation (CPI): The CPI is a technology innovation centre for the process industries, established in 2004. Its approach is to undertake market analysis to define a technology or market need and then to assemble a team of experts to develop technologies to meet this need. It uses both private and public investment to build and operate the development assets which are then used by private companies, together with CPI expertise, to develop their own technology. These companies then invest their own funds to take the technology to market, but the development assets remain with the CPI for future use.

· The Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation and Science (ACC): This centre which brings together the University of Bristol and industry undertakes composites research. The concept is to set up strategic partnerships with industry companies and government funding agencies to develop and exploit this research. Research sponsors include Airbus, Rolls Royce and the Systems Division of GE Aviation. Much of the research activity includes input from other universities, in some cases on an international basis.

· The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI): This centre, based in Loughborough, undertakes research on low-carbon technologies, ‘bridging the gulf between laboratory proven technologies and full scale commercially tested systems’. It operates as a limited liability partnership between industry companies and the government; industry members include BP, Shell, Rolls Royce and EDF Energy. The ETI has a target of securing up to 10 private sector investors, each contributing up to £5 million per year for 10 years, with the UK Government matching these investments to create a potential £1 billion investment fund for new energy technologies.