capacity for rail · capacity for rail paulo teixeira (ist) wp 5.4. leader assessment of scenarios...
TRANSCRIPT
Capacity for Rail
Paulo TEIXEIRA (IST) WP 5.4. Leader
Assessment of ScenariosFFE (Madrid, Spain) – 21 September 2017
C4R Innovation Assessment Methodologies
2
4.
HIGH CAPACITY
RESILIENT
AFFORDABLE
AUTOMATED
ADAPTABLE
INVESTMENT SCENARIOS
Net Present Values (NPV)Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
CO
STA
ND
BEN
EFIT
CAT
EGO
RIE
S
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Socio-economic appraisal
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS
Impacts towards Vision for 2030/2050 +
CBA Tool
3
Tool developed for CBA computationCBA Structure
Breakdown
NPV, IRR, B/C, Probabilistic Analysis
Investment Costs
Maintenance Costs
Producer Surplus
Consumer Surplus
Externalities
Stakeholder Effects Matrix
0,00E+00
5,00E-10
1,00E-09
1,50E-09
2,00E-09
2,50E-09
3,00E-09
3,50E-09
-1 500 000 000 € -1 000 000 000 € -500 000 000 € 0 € 500 000 000 € 1 000 000 000 € 1 500 000 000 € 2 000 000 000 € 2 500 000 000 €
Sc. 1 Sc. 1 w/Delays Sc. 1A Sc. 2 Sc. 3 Sc. 4 Sc. 5 Sc. 6
Example of outputs: Comparison of scenarios (NPV)
Processing
CBA Tool
4
CBA Structure Breakdown
Investment Costs
Maintenance Costs
Producer Surplus
Consumer Surplus
Externalities
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand ForecastNPV, IRR, B/C,
Probabilistic Analysis
Stakeholder Effects Matrix
CBA Tool
5
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
ReferenceTrain Train1 2 3 4 5 6
Consist
NumberofLocomotives 1 # # # # #
NumberofWagons 20 # # # # #
Length 425 # # # # # m
Tare 490 # # # # # T
MaximumLoad 1000 # # # # # T
LoadFactor 50% # # # # #
Load 500 # # # # # T
GrossWeight 990 # # # # # T
Locomotives
PowerSource Electric # # # # #
Weight 90 # # # # # T
Length 25 # # # # # m
OperatingCost 5 # # # # # €/km
Tax 3 # # # # #
Wagons
TareWeight 20 # # # # # T
MaximumLoad 50 # # # # # T
Length 20 # # # # # m
OperatingCost 0,15 # # # # # €/km
Tax 0,03 # # # # #
OperatingCosts
OperatingCosts(excl.Tax) 0,016 # # # # # €/(T·km)
GHGEmissions
GHGEmissions 0,002 # # # # # kg/(T·km)
FreightTrains
CBA Tool
6
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
ReferenceVehicle Truck1 2 3 4 5 6
MaximumLoad 26 ## ## ## ## ## T
LoadFactor 60% ## ## ## ## ##
Load 15,6 ## ## ## ## ## T
OperatingCosts(excl.tax) 0,0712 ## ## ## ## ## €/(T·km)
Tax 0,0160 ## ## ## ## ## €/(T·km)
GHGEmissions 0,0420 ## ## ## ## ## kg/(T·km)
FreightRoadVehicles
CBA Tool
7
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
Section
########
km 131,0
Av.Speed (km/h) 125
Time (h) 1,05
Av.Speed (km/h) 80
Time (h) 1,64
TerrainType Hilly
2
1/km 0,14
m 630
T/axle 22,5
BlockLength km 15
BufferTime 0,05
CrossingBuffer 0
Supplementfor
Maintenaceh/track 5,00
€/train 42,5402
€/(train·km) 0,6442
€/(GT·km) 0,0000
€/train 42,5402
€/(train·km) 0,6442
€/(GT·km) 0,0007
TrackFixed €/(year·km) 15600
TrackVariable €/(MGT·km) 309
S&CFixed€/(year·swit
ch)34528
S&CVariable€/(MGT·swi
tch)3612
Passenger 0,0%
Freight 0,0%
Passenger 0,0%
Freight 0,0%
Passenger 0,0%
Freight 0,0%
Passenger 0,00
Freight 0,00
Maintenance
Costs
Punctuality(%)
P.Delays(%)
P.Cancellations(%)
Delays(h)
Delays
SwitchDensity
MaxTrainLength
MaxAxleLoad
Capacity
Passenger
AccessCharges
Freight
Length
Passenger
Freight
NumberofTracks
CBA Tool
8
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
Baseline TEN-T C4R
SE36Angelholm-Maria:Upgradetodoubletrackinexistingalignment
andgrade-seperatedcrossings.ReconstructionofMariastationNo Yes Yes
SE37Flackarp-Arlov:Theactioninvolvestwonewtracksontheroute
Flackarp-Arlovwhichconstituteabout75percentoftherouteNo Yes Yes
SE38Flackarp-Lund(Hogevall):Expansionfromtwotofourtracks
betweenFlackarpandHogevallNo Yes Yes
SE39
PagatagNordost(Regionalrailwaynetworkimprovement):
Sixteennewstationsarebeingbuiltintheyears2011-2014to
improvecommutingwithregionaltrainsinnortheasternSkane
No Yes Yes
SE40Ästorp-Teckomatorp:Expansionofsidings,introductionof
modernsignallingsystemsandnewstationsforpassengerNo Yes Yes
SE41CapacityenhancmentsinSkane:Efficiencymeasureslike
platformextensions,signallingmeasuresandreplacementofNo Yes Yes
SE42MalmoFosieby-Trelleborg:Improvementsforincreasing
capacityandsafety(constructionofdoubletrackline)andnewNo Yes Yes
SE46Teckomatorp-Arlov:Capacityenhancementsandnewstations
forpassengerserviceNo Yes Yes
C4R'1 Slabtrackconstruction,Stockholm-Katrineholm No No Yes
C4R'2 Slabtrackconstruction,Katrineholm-Hallsberg No No Yes
C4R'3 Slabtrackconstruction,Katrineholm-Norrköping No No Yes
C4R'4 Slabtrackconstruction,Norrköping-Mjölby No No Yes
C4R'5 Slabtrackconstruction,Hallsberg-Degerön No No Yes
C4R'6 Slabtrackconstruction,Degerön-Mjölby No No Yes
C4R'7 Slabtrackconstruction,Mjölby-Nässjö No No Yes
C4R'8 Slabtrackconstruction,Nässjö-Alvesta No No Yes
C4R'9 Slabtrackconstruction,Alvesta-Lund No No Yes
C4R'10 Slabtrackconstruction,Lund-Malmö No No Yes
InvestmentProjectsIncludedin
0 1 2
BaselineBaseline&
TEN-T
C4R
S22015 2016 2017
BL1 TrackrenewalinStockholm-Katrineholm Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL2 TrackrenewalinKatrineholm-Hallsberg Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL3 TrackrenewalinKatrineholm-Norrköping Yes Yes No 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL4 TrackrenewalinNorrköping-Mjölby Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL34 S&CrenewalinÖxnered-Göteborg Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL35 S&CrenewalinGöteborg-Kungsbacka Yes Yes No 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL36 S&CrenewalinKungsbacka-Ängelholm Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL37 S&CrenewalinÄngelholm-KävlingeviaHelsingborg Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL38 S&CrenewalinÄngelholm-KävlingeviaÅstorp Yes Yes No 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL39 S&CrenewalinKävlinge-Lund Yes Yes No 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL40 S&CrenewalinKävlinge-Malmö Yes Yes No 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL41 S&CrenewalinMalmö-Trelleborg Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
BL42 S&CrenewalinMalmö-København Yes Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
SE24 ImplementationofERTMS No Yes Yes 30 ##### ##### ###### ####
SE46Teckomatorp-Arlov:Capacityenhancementsandnewstationsfor
passengerserviceNo Yes Yes 30 ##### 0€ 0€ ####
C4R'1 Slabtrackconstruction,Stockholm-Katrineholm No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'2 Slabtrackconstruction,Katrineholm-Hallsberg No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'3 Slabtrackconstruction,Katrineholm-Norrköping No No Yes 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'14 Slabtrackconstruction,Göteborg-Kungsbacka No No Yes 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'15 Slabtrackconstruction,Kungsbacka-Ängelholm No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'16 Slabtrackconstruction,Ängelholm-KävlingeviaHelsingborg No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'17 Slabtrackconstruction,Ängelholm-KävlingeviaÅstorp No No Yes 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'18 Slabtrackconstruction,Kävlinge-Lund No No Yes 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'19 Slabtrackconstruction,Kävlinge-Malmö No No Yes 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'20 Slabtrackconstruction,Malmö-Trelleborg No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'21 Slabtrackconstruction,Malmö-København No No No 60 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'22 Newswitches,Stockholm-Katrineholm No No No 40 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'23 Newswitches,Katrineholm-Hallsberg No No No 40 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
C4R'24 Newswitches,Katrineholm-Norrköping No No Yes 40 ##### 0€ 0€ 0€
Estimated
Lifespan
(years)
InvestmentProjectsIncludedin
NPV
CBA Tool
9
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
DemandelasticitywithGDP ######
DemandelasticitywithPrice ######
PriceelasticitywithOperatingCosts ######
DemandelasticitywithOperatingCosts ######
DemandelasticitywithGDP ######
DemandelasticitywithPrice ######
PriceelasticitywithOperatingCosts ######
DemandelasticitywithOperatingCosts ######
RailPassengerDemandElasticities
RailFreightDemandElasticities
CBA Tool
10
Inputs(for each Scenario)
Reference Trains
Reference Road Vehicles
Investment Scenario
Rail Infrastructure Data
Other CBA Parameters & Boundary Conditions
Demand Forecast
Timehorizon 40 years
Year1 2016
Discountrate 4,00%
Shadowpriceconversionfactor 0,95
BusinesspassengersVOT 30 €/h
Businesspassengers 50%
LeisureVOT 10 €/h
Leisurepassengers 10%
CommuterVOT 15 €/h
Commuterpassengers 40%
Average 22 €/h
Rail 1,66 €/h
Road 4,05 €/h
DivertedfromRoadtoRail 1,66 €/h
GHGEmissionsCost-InitialValue 0,031 €/kg
GHGEmissionsCost-AnnualGrowth 0,001 €/kg
Freight
TimeValuation
Externalities
Passengers
CBABoundaries
EconomicBoundaryConditions
EnergyCosts
CASE STUDY 1: SWEDISH SECTIONS OF THE SCANDINAVIAN-MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR
11
C4R Scenarios
12
C4R Scenarios
C4R Scenario 1
C4R Scenario 2
C4R Scenario 3
C4R Scenario 4
‘Baseline & TEN-T’ Scenario
Maintenance or replacement of End Of Life items and Investment already planned in TEN-T corridors (timeline and costs defined in TEN-T reports)
C4R Scenario 1 with Delays
C4R Scenario 5
C4R Scenario 6
C4R Scenarios
13
C4R Scenarios
• Innovative Slab Track• Advanced Monitoring• Innovative Switches• Innovative Freight Concepts
Introduced in the whole corridor
C4R Scenario 1
Key Assumptions
14
• Case study focused on freight transportation
• Time horizon: 40 years (2016-2056); Discount Rate: 4%
• Combined C4R Infrastructure Innovations reduce Infrastructure
Downtime for Maintenance by 60%
• Also reduce Maintenance Costs (German benchmark)
• Innovative Slab Track Target Cost limited to 1000 €/m of single
track
• No Increase in Track Access Charges
Key Assumptions
15
max. 630 m
max. 1000 m
max. 750 m
curr
ent
fro
m 2
02
0fr
om
20
25
‘Baseline & TEN-T’ Scenario
C4R Scenario 1
Automatic CouplersEP Brakes
Key Assumptions
16
• 5 Market Segments:
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Example Traffic Mix Evolution
630 m
735 m
998 m
Wagon Load
Train Load
Intermodal Container
Intermodal Trailer
Wagon Load Feeder
Results
17
C4R Scenario 1
Lower rail operating costs and additional Capacity, allow traffic
diversion from Road to Rail
Rail freight slower than road freight
Savings in track and S&C maintenance costs
Comparatively small benefit from
GHG reduction
High investment in infrastructure
upgrades
Assumptions
18
C4R Scenario 2
• C4R infrastructure innovations implemented only in most
congested sections
Results
19
Much smaller investment compared with Scenario 1
Smaller benefit from modal transfer in absolute terms, but sufficient to offset investment
C4R Scenario 2
IRR: 4,4%
C4R Scenario Ranking
20
Scn. 5 (Road Positive)
Sc. 6 (Scn. 5 w/Road tax)
Scn. 1 (All)
Scn. 2 (Partial C4R)Scn. 3 (No slab track)
Scn. 1 w/Delays
Scn. 4 (Rail Positive)
-1 000
-500
0
500
1 000
1 500
NP
V (
M€
)
0,00E+00
5,00E-10
1,00E-09
1,50E-09
2,00E-09
2,50E-09
3,00E-09
3,50E-09
-1 500 000 000 € -1 000 000 000 € -500 000 000 € 0 € 500 000 000 € 1 000 000 000 € 1 500 000 000 € 2 000 000 000 € 2 500 000 000 €
Sc. 1 Sc. 1 w/Delays Sc. 2 Sc. 3 Sc. 4 Sc. 5 Sc. 6
• Longer/heavier trucks by 2030
• Truck operating Costs reduction
• Automatic couplers/EP breaks in all wagons
• Max speed increase up to 120km/h
• Only innovative freight concepts and minor infrastructure invest.
CASE STUDY 2: MONTPELLIER – PERPIGNAN SECTION OF THE
MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR
21
C4R Scenarios
22
Baseline
• No investment besides maintenance or replacement of End Of Life items
C4R Investment Level 1
• Operational improvements and investments to allow trains up to 1000 m
C4R Investment Level 2
• Upgrade to slab track and new S&C
• Innovative freight concepts with trains up to 1500 m
Results
23
By far most significant effect from added capacity, allowing
modal transfer
No change; fixed costs model used
Rail freight slower than road freight
Modest investment in infrastructure, only siding extensions
C4R Investment Level 1
Results
24
Additional capacity allows further traffic to be diverted from road,
offsetting investment
Reduction in maintenance costs
Investment in slab track and S&C
C4R Investment Level 2
IRR: 23,0%
Market Share Evolution
25
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
20
41
20
42
20
43
20
44
20
45
20
46
20
47
20
48
20
49
20
50
20
51
20
52
20
53
20
54
20
55
20
56
Rail Freight Market Share
Baseline Inv. Level 1 Inv. Level 2
Gains in capacity from longer trains and reduction in unavailability allow rail to maintain its current market share in the 40 year horizon of the analysis, against a
baseline of expected loss
Conclusions
26
• Deep Infrastructure Innovations in existing lines may be
profitable in capacity constrained sections
• Investments in Operational concepts (longer trains, EP breaks,
automatic couplers, etc.) combined with minor infrastructure
improvements (sidings, improved track for higher axle loads) in
most cases can have very positive effects (with no increase in
access charges)
• Market share targets unattainable solely through C4R
innovations
Thank you for your kind attention
Paulo TEIXEIRAWP 5.4. Leader
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO (IST)