High Speed Rail Assessment Phase 3 – Corridor North
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HIGH SPEED RAIL ASSESSMENT PHASE 3 – CORRIDOR NORTH Rambøll sub-supplier sub-supplier IGV Stuttgart ILF Innsbruck (Germany) (Austria) TODAY’S HEADLINES • Corridors and alignments Oslo-Trondheim • Trondheim station issues • Environmental impact • Tunnels • Construction work • Conclusions 2 EXISTING LINES • Dovrebanen has many curves, low Dovrebanen speed and steep gradients • Length: 553 km • Rørosbanen is not electrified • Travel time: 6h 40m • Both have low capacity and low • Highest point: 1016 m speed design Rørosbanen • Length: 563 km • Travel time: 7h 35m • Highest point: 670 m SCENARIO B: GUDBRANDSDALEN Journey-time reduction: 20% (from 6:40 to 5:20 Oslo-Trondheim) Requirements: • New IC-line (doubletrack) Gardermoen-Lillehammer: 103 km • 5 doubletrack sections north of Lillehammer: 65 km • 7 upgraded passing loops This would NOT be a step towards High Speed Rail in Norway 4 METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS 1 Corridor survey 2 Route design 3 Route evaluation 5 HIGH SPEED RAIL OSLO – TRONDHEIM Three main corridors • Gudbrandsdalen (447 km) • Rondane (412 km) • Østerdalen (406 km) Some alignments (routes and variants) were discarded Prioritized routes and variants studied in detail 6 7 Comparison: Alignment new main road (8 % gradient) Acceleration diagram with 1.25% gradient 8 0 km 10 km 20 km 30 km 40 km GUDBRANDSDALEN (447 KM) (Design speed 330 km/h with freight) • Longest route • Highest point: 952m at Hjerkinn • Highest tunnel share 257 km in tunnel 64 tunnels (11 > 8 km) Tunnel share 57 % • Most negative environmental impact Close to Dovrefjell National Park • Construction period 9 years • Future alternative via Gjøvik When IC-line Gardermoen – Hamar – Lillehammer is saturated 9 Gudbrandsdalen RONDANE (412 KM) • Slightly longer than Østerdalen • Highest point: 877 m, 16 km south of Kvikne • High tunnel share 213 km in tunnel (52 %) 54 tunnels (9 > 8 km) Longest tunnel (approx. 28 km) through Venabygdsfjellet • High environmental impact Close to Rondane National Park • Construction period 14 years • Lillehammer – Soknedal design speed 330 km/h without freight Alignment with freight causes longer tunnels • Future alternative via Gjøvik When IC-line Gardermoen – Hamar – Lillehammer is saturated 11 Rondane ØSTERDALEN (406 KM) • Shortest route • Highest point: 718 m at Kvikne • Lowest tunnel share 146 km total length (36 %) 40 tunnels (3 > 8 km) • Lowest environmental impact • Construction period 9 years • Tynset – Lundamo two alignments: Passenger traffic via Kvikne Freight traffic via Røros (upgrading existing line) • Future alternative Gardermoen – Tangen When IC-line Gardermoen – Tangen (- Lillehammer) is saturated 13 Østerdalen TRONDHEIM STATION - ACTUAL SITUATION Brattøra Trondheim S (Freight terminal) (main station) Lerkendal (stop) 15 TRONDHEIM STATION – MARKET POTENTIAL 16 TRONDHEIM STATION – POSSIBLE SOLUTION Lerkendal All in all the best solution! 17 Trondheim ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • Five topics: o Landscape o Cultural heritage o Natural environment o Natural resources o Community life and recreation • First assessments of the corridors, then of the alignments • Tunnel share affects results Alignments Gudbrandsdalen Rondane Østerdalen Total impact High / Medium High / Medium Medium 19 20 TUNNELS Number of tunnels 70 60 11 50 9 40 Long tunnels 3 (> 8 km) 30 • Feasibility study (geological 53 Short tunnels 45 20 37 (< 8 km) characteristics, tunnelling methods, 10 tubes, etc.) 0 GU RO ØS • Gudbrandsdalen most tunnels Total tunnel length in km 300 • Østerdalen fewest tunnels 257 250 213 200 146 Longest tunnel per corridor 150 100 GU RO ØS 57% 52% 36% 50 19 km 28 km 19 km 0 GU RO ØS 21 CONSTRUCTION WORK • Analysis of the construction process • Tunnelling will be the most time-consuming part • Assumption: Ideal conditions i.e. continuous construction Construction period (in years) Mass surplus (mill. m3) 16 14 80 72 14 70 12 60 10 9 9 50 44 8 40 30 6 30 4 20 2 10 0 0 GU RO ØS GU RO ØS 22 CONCLUSION: IT CAN BE DONE • HSR-line (Oslo –) Gardermoen – Trondheim is technically feasible • No particular exceptional risk for construction • Only well-known technology is used Gudbrandsdalen Rondane Østerdalen 447 km 412 km 406 km Longest route Longest construction Shortest route period Highest tunnel share Longest tunnel Lowest tunnel share Highest negative High negative Least negative environmental environmental environmental impact impact impact 23 24 THANK YOU! QUESTIONS? [email protected] [email protected] 25 .