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)

pft@tecnico.ulisboa.pt