California High-Speed Rail Authority
California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
German Peer Review
Report
Phase I
submitted by
DE-Consult Deutsche Eisenbahn-Consulting GmbH Frankfurt am Main, Germany
December 2000
C010333 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ
Table of Contents
Chapter No. Chapter Title Pa.qe
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Objective 1-1
1.2 Reports and Data Used for the Review 1-1
1.3 Structure of the Peer Review Process 1-1
1.4 Structure of the Report 1-3
1.5 Comments Received from Parsons Brinckerhoff 1-3
2. ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT WAY DESIGN CRITERIA 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Alignment Design Parameters 2-1 2.2.1 Design Speed 2-1 2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment 2-2 2.2.3 Vertical Alignment 2-4 2.2.4 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters 2-5
2.3 Gauges and Clearances 2-7 2.3.1 Kinematic Envelope 2-7 2.3.2 Structure Clearances 2-7 2.3.3 Overhead Catenary System 2-7 2.3.4 Track Centerline Spacing 2-7 2.3.5 Cross Sections 2-8 2.3.6 Permanent Way 2-9 2.3.7 Ballast versus Slab Track 2-9
2.4 Summary 2-10
3. ROLLING STOCK ISSUES 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Current ICE Train Types in Operation 3-1 3.2.1 ICE 1 3-1 3.2.2 ICE 2 3-1 3.2.3 ICE 3 3-3
Phase 1 Report C010334Page German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
3.2.4 ICE-T 3-5
3.3 Future ICE Developments 3-5 3.3.1 Future Maximum Speeds in Germany 3-5 3.3.2 ICE 4 3-6 3.3.3 HTE 3-6 3.3.4 DPT 400 3-6
3.4 Comparison of CPT-type ICE 2 with DPT-type ICE 3 3-7 3.4.1 Technical Comparison 3-7 3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison 3-9 3.4.3 Summary of Relevant Technical Characteristics of ICE Trainsets 3-9
3.5 Acceleration Rates 3-10
3.6 High-Speed Freight Rolling Stock 3-10 3.6.1 Locomotives 3-10 3.6.2 Wagons 3-11
3.7 Summary 3-11
4. OPERATIONS ISSUES 4-1
4.1 General 4-1
4.2 Track Layout 4-2
4.3 Train Running Times 4-3
4.4 Operations Aspects 4-6 4.4.1 Timetable 4-6 4.4.2 Rolling Stock Requirements 4-7 4.4.3 Comparison with German High Speed Operations 4-8
4.5 Commuter Traffic 4-10
4.6 Freight Services 4-10 4.6.1 Freight Services in Europe 4-10 4.6.2 Freight Services on the California HSR System 4-11 4.6.3 Freight Compatibility Issues 4-12
4.7 O & M Cost Estimates 4-13 4.7.1 Energy Costs 4-13 4.7.2 Other O & M Costs 4-14
4.8 Summary 4-15
[ Phase 1 Report C010335Page ii German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
5. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS AND SCHEDULES 5-1
5.1 Unit Costs 5-1 5,1.1 Track and Guideway Items 5-1 5,1.2 Earthwork and Related Items 5-2 5.1.3 Structures, Tunnels and Walls 5-3 5,1.4 Grade Separations 5-4 5.1.5 Building Items 5-5 5.1.6 Rail and Utility Relocation 5-6 5,1.7 Right-of-Way 5-7 5.1,8 Environmental Impact Mitigation 5-7 5.1.9 Signaling and Communications 5-8 5.1.10 Electrification 5-8
5.2 Completeness of Cost Items 5-8
5,3 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Costs 5-10
5.4 Comparison of Typical Cross-Sections 5-10
5,5 Schedules 5-11
5,6 Summary 5-13
6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1
Phase 1 Report C010336Page iii } German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ
List of Tables
Table No. Table Title Pa.qe
1-1 List of Basic Questions to be Answered by the Peer Review 1-4
2-1 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters 2-6
3-1 Summary of Technical Performance Characteristics of ICE Trainsets 3-10 3-2 Acceleration Rates of High-Speed Trainsets 3-10
4-1 Comparison of Running Times Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-6 4-2 Train Numbers by Type of Train on the German High Speed Line Hanover - WQrzburg 1996 / 1997 4-9 4-3 Approximate Running Time of Non-Stop Freight Trains, San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (6% Schedule Recovery Time Included) 4-12
5-1 Alignment Unit Costs 5-13* 5-2 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Construction Costs 5-13* 5-3 Comparison of Line Profiles 5-13* 5-4 Percentage Cost Distribution of Authority Option A by Line Section 5-13"
* Follows th~s page
[ Phase 1 Report C010337Page iv German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ
List of Figures
Fi,qure No. Fi.qure Title Pa.qe
2-1 Structure Clearance GC for r greater 250 m 2-11 2-2 Cross Section at Grade Ballasted Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-12 2-3 Cross Section at Grade Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-13 2-4 Trench Section Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-14 2-5 Provisions for Right of Way (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-15 2-6 Typical Cross-Section of Slab Track System Rheda 2-16
3-1 Configuration of an ICE 2 385-m Version 3-2 3-2 ICE 2 Trainset on the New High Speed Line Berlin - Hanover 3-2 3-3 ICE 3 Trainset 3-4 3-4 Tractive Effort Curve and Resistances in Gradients 3-4 3-5 Configuration of ICE 3 400-m Trainset 3-5 3-6 Distributed Power Concept of the iCE 3 3-7 3-7 Train Speed Decreases on 3.5% Sustained Gradient 3-8 3-8 Train Speed Decreases on 5.0% Sustained Gradient 3-9 3-9 Class 101 Locomotive 3-11
4-1 Standard Track Layouts for Intermediate Stations 4-3 4.2 Schematic Diagram of the Cologne - Frankfurt / Main High-Speed Line 4-3 4-3 Typical Acceleration-Versus-Speed Diagram 4-4 4-4 Maximum Speed Profile Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-5
C010338 Phase 1 Report Page v j German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
List of Annexes
Annex No. Annex Title Pa_qe
4-1 ICE - Services (1998 / 1999) 4-16
4-2 Speed-Versus-Distance Diagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-17
4-3 Comparison of Speed-versus-Distance Diagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-18
4-4 Speed Profile San Diego- San Francisco, Option B 4-19
4-5 Approximate Longitudinal Profile San Diego - San Francisco, Option B 4-19
4-6 Page 1 Simulation Results for the Direction San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (12 Hours) 4-20 4-6 Page 2 4-21
4-7 Page 1 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. 4-22 4-7 Page 2 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 8 a.m. to 12 noon 4-23 4-7 Page 3 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 12 noon to 4 p.m. 4-24
4-8 Page 1 Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C (Option B) 4-25 4-8 Page 2 4-26
4-9 Running Performance of the Trains, Option B 4-27
4-10 Maximum Speed of Freight Trains in Gradients, Initial Speed 200 km/h 4-28
4-11 Approximate Calculation of Energy Consumption 4-29
I Phase 1 Report C010339Page vi J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
The objective of this Phase I peer review is focused on a critical assessment of the current assumptions and parameters for planning, design and operation of a statewide high-speed rail system in California. As one of three peer review groups, the German experts have furthermore been requested to contribute to this review the special ICE experience with "mixed-use" operations.
More specifically, the Authority has provided the Consultant with a list of 14 basic questions (as presented in Table 1-1 ) the answers to which constitute the bulk of this assessment.
1.2 Reports and Data Used for the Review
The basis of this evaluation are the following documents and data compilations:
¯ Final Report, California High-Speed Corridor Evaluation, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 30,1999 ¯ Draft Business Plan "Building a High-Speed Train System for California", prepared by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, January 2000 ¯ Maps of the alignment alternatives, and cost, travel time and alignment data supplied by Parsons Brinckerhoff
In addition, specific data and information as requested by the Consultant during this assignment were utilized.
1.3 Structure of the Peer Review Process
In order to facilitate a structured review process, the wide range of issues and specific questions were assigned to four task groups as shown below:
"Alignment and Permanent Way Design Criteria
¯ Design speed/horizontal curve radii ¯ Superelevation (equilibrium and unbalanced) ¯ Vertical curves ¯ Transition curves ¯ Minimum tangent length ¯ Maximum gradients (3.5% and 5.0%) ¯ Dynamic clearance envelope ¯ Minimum clearances to fixed objects (horizontal and vertical) ¯ Track centerline spacing
Phase 1 Report C010340Page 1 - 1 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
¯ Minimum right-of-way requirements ¯ Special requirements for sub-standard curve radii ¯ Permanent way dimensions (ballasted and direct fixation trackways) ¯ German experience with ballasted versus direct fixation trackways ¯ Overhead catenary system
Rolling Stock Issues
¯ Future ICE generations and operational speeds ¯ Maximum sustained gradients for ICE ¯ ICE acceleration and deceleration rates ¯ ICE clearance and right-of-way requirements ¯ Weight of ICE trainsets, axle loads ¯ Comparison of ICE 1/2 (locomotive-hauled type) with ICE 3 (EMU type) trainsets ¯ High-speed freight rolling stock (locomotives and wagons) ¯ Rolling stock unit costs
Operations Issues
¯ Review of train running times and running time calculations for the section LA (Union Station) - Fresno (including energy consumption per train run) ¯ Review of operations and comparison with similar operations in Germany (including dwell times and schedule recovery times) ¯ Use of ICE trains by commuters; need for specialized commuter trains ¯ Description and critical assessment of freight services on ICE lines ¯ Assessment of freight compatibility of the California HSR system ¯ Assessment of O&M cost estimates
Construction Unit Costs and Schedules
¯ Review of capital cost assumptions and comparison with ICE lines ¯ Review of unit cost assumptions for appropriateness and completeness in view of ICE experience ¯ Planning and construction times for ICE lines in different terrain ¯ Critical assessment of planning and construction times assumed for the California HSR system
C010341 Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 2 J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
1.4 Structure of the Report
Following this introduction, the findings of our peer review are presented in four chapters covering the above subjects.
The last chapter summarizes our key findings and conclusions.
1.5 Comments Received from Parsons Brinckerhoff
A draft of this report was reviewed by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), the firm responsible for the preparation of the Corridor Evaluation Report. Their comments and our responses are included in this final version at the appropriate sections; they are printed in italics.
C010342 [ Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 3 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
Table 1-1: List of Basic Questions to be Answered by the Peer Review
Each of these questions relates to the Parsons Brinckerhoff "Corridor Evaluation Final Report", December 1999. The most critical portion of your initial review would be Chapter I1: Assumptions and Parameters.
1. It is anticipated that trains will travel at maximum operating speeds near 220 mph (350 km/h). Is this a reasonable assumption for future versions of the ICE? Our construction schedule assumes that the entire system would be operational by 2016, however segments may be operating by 2010. When is it expected that the operational speeds of the ICE will exceed 200 mph (322 km/h)? When are ICE trains expected to operate at speeds of 220 mph (350 km/h)? 2. Are the acceleration and deceleration design speeds shown for "VHS" on Exhibit 2-6 consistent with those used for the ICE? 3. Are the horizontal and vertical alignment criteria shown (Exhibits 2-7 and 2-8) for "VHS" consistent with those used for the ICE? 4. What are the maximum gradients currently used for ICE trains? Is it appropriate to design for maximum sustained gradients of 3.5% for ICE trains? Can ICE trains sustain gradients up to 5.0% or higher? 5. Are the clearances and right-of-way requirements assumed (exhibit 2-9 and 2-10) consistent with those used for the ICE? 6. Do the capital cost assumptions include all the appropriate elements used to construct ICE lines? 7. Is the basic operating plan similar to the types of different services run on ICE lines? What sort of track configuration is needed to provide the ICE’s high-level of service (frequent service, express, skip-stop, and local services)? How many tracks are needed at stations (intermediate and terminus stations)? 8. What are the dwell times at ICE stations? Does the ICE include "schedule recovery time" when estimating trip times (see page 11-17)? 9. What is the weight of the ICE trainsets? Is it possible to run ICE trainsets over the same tracks as conventional U.S. trains at reduced speeds? (see "Compatibility Issues" on pages 11-19 - 11-21. This issue will be important over the next few years and should be discussed at our meeting on June 19th) 10. Are any freight services run over the ICE lines? If yes, then what types of freight and how much? If no, why isn’t freight run on ICE lines? Are the assumptions made for potential freight services consistent with the design and maintenance of the ICE (see "Potential Freight Service" pages 11-22 and 11-23)? 11. Is the Example Operating Scenario (page V-5) consistent with ICE experience? What is the Japanese experience with commuters using the ICE service? Do commuters use regular ICE trains or do separate specialized commuter trains run for short distances on the ICE lines? 12. How long does it typically take to plan and construct an ICE line? 13. Are the typical sections in Appendix "A" consistent with ICE design? 14. Based on ICE experience, do the unit costs listed in Appendix "B" seem appropriate?
Source: Cafifornia High-Speed Rail Authority
C010343 [ Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 4 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
2. ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT WAY DESIGN CRITERIA
2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses and reviews the design parameters for the horizontal and vertical alignment as well as the clearances and standard cross sections used for the design of the California "VHS" system as presented in Chapter 2.2 - Design Parameters, and in Appendix A - Typical Cross Sections. The evaluation also took into account the following rules/regulations and recommendations of:
¯ German Railway standard DS 800.0110 - Alignment ¯ German Railway standard DS 800.0130 - Standard Cross Sections ¯ UIC Leaflet 703 - Layout characteristics for lines used by fast passenger trains ¯ UIC Leaflet 505 series - Definition and application of the kinematic gauges. (UIC = International Union of Railways)
The values recommended in these documents are related to modern track design and the recent experience on European railways. Furthermore, the California design parameters were compared with those of HSR lines presently under construction and where DE-Consult staff is involved in various functions; these lines include:
¯ Cologne- Frankfurt/Main (Germany) ¯ Taipei - Kaohsiung (Taiwan) ¯ Seoul- Pusan (Korea).
Since conventional, heavy freight traffic is not planned for the California HSR system, the compliance of the design parameters with the relevant FRA standards has not been considered. Many parameters in the Corridor Evaluation Report were indicated in Imperial units and had to be converted to metric units which in some instances resulted in slight differences due to rounding.
2.2 Alignment Design Parameters
2.2.1 Design Speed
The design speed is the determining parameter for the alignment and affects the costs for the construction as well as for the operation of the system. The chosen 200 mph (350 km/h) corresponds with the design speed for most HSR lines presently under construction or planned for the near future in Europe and Asia.
Due to the restricted conditions and due to environmental considerations in urban areas, the design speed in these route sections has been limited to 125 mph (200 km/h) which also corresponds to prevailing practices in most HSR countries.
C010344 Phase 1 Report Page 2- 1 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment
Actual Superelevation
Basically, the horizontal alignment consist of tangents and curves. A vehicle running in a curve undergoes a lateral acceleration which results in:
¯ passenger discomfort ¯ wear of rails and wheel flanges ¯ lateral forces on track and substructure.
Superelevation of the outside rail in curves limits these effects and compensates entirely or partly the lateral acceleration by the force of gravity. The maximum, actual superelevation proposed for this California project is 7" (178 mm). If applied to ballasted tracks, this value is rather high when compared with other systems. For example, the German regulation DS 800.0110 allows only 180 mm under exceptional conditions and only for slab tracks. For ballasted tracks, the actual superelevation should be limited to 160 mm.
Unbalanced Superelevation
The remaining (uncompensated) lateral acceleration experienced by passengers should not exceed 1.0 - 1.5 m/s2. Under consideration of the inclination of the car body, the lateral acceleration at track level should be 20 - 25 % lower. The resulting 0.8 - 1.2 m/s2 are equivalent to an unbalanced superelevation of 120 - 180 mm. The value indicated under the California design parameters for maximum unbalanced superelevation is 5" (127 mm) and is close to the lower limit of this recommendation as well as to the German regulation DS 800.0110 (130 mm).
Curve Radius
On the basis of the values for the actual and unbalanced superelevations and the design speed, the minimum radius can be determined as follows:
Rmin = 11.8 * V~/(Ea + Eu) where: Rmin [m] - minimum radius V [km/h] - design speed Ea [mm] - actual superelevation Eu [mm] - unbalanced superelevation
This results in: Rmin --- 4,740 m @ 350 km/h Rmin = 1,550 m @ 200 km/h
The absolute minimum radius as indicated in the Corridor Evaluation Report is given with 200 m. That value is determined by the rolling stock used. At the German Railway, all vehicle must be able to run at a radius of 150 m in revenue operations and 120 m in yards and shops (non- revenue operations). The manufacturers of the German ICE have stated that a further, slight reduction of these radii may be possible through special modifications of the rolling stock. The minimum radius will determine the type of turnouts and the track layout in depots and yards. It is
~phase 1 Report C010345Page 2 - 2 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
recommended to cross check these values with the requirements of the rolling stock under consideration.
Transition Curves
Transition curves are used between curves and tangents or between two adjacent curves to allow gradual changes in:
¯ curvature, ¯ superelevation, and ¯ uncompensated lateral acceleration.
Although not specified in the California study, it is assumed that transition curves with a linear change of curvature (clothoide) will be applied. The length of the transition curve is determined by the superelevation, the uncompensated lateral acceleration or by the absolute minimum length due to the characteristics of the rolling stock. The value which indicates the greatest length has be used.
The rate of change for lateral acceleration experienced by passengers should not exceed 0.5 - 0.8 m/s3. As mentioned above, the rate of change at track level should be 20 - 25 % lower due to the inclination of the car body. The resulting 0.4 - 0.6 m/s3 are equivalent to a rate of change for unbalanced superelevation of 60 - 90 mm/s. With regard to the rate of change for unbalanced superelevation, the required minimum length of the transition curve as presented in the Corridor Evaluation Report is determined by the following design parameters
Lmin = 0.98 * V * Eu where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transition V [mph] - design speed Eu [inch] - unbalanced superelevation
This corresponds to a rate of change is 38 mm/s. This value is quiet below the permitted limits and thus should not have any negative effects on passenger comfort.
The in- or decrease of superelevation in transition curves causes a rotation of the vehicle and should be limited to 35 - 50 mm/s. The required minimum length of the transition curve due to the superelevation (as indicated in the California study) was calculated under consideration of the following design parameters:
Lmin = 1.38 * V * Ea where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transition V [mph] - design speed Ea [inch] - actual superelevation
The equivalent change of superelevation is 27 mm/s, which is below the permitted limits.
The absolute minimum length is dictated by the rate of change for the superelevation as restricted by the maximum, acceptable value for vehicle suspension:
Phase 1 Report C010346Page 2 - 3 [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]
Lmin : 62 * Ea where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transition Ea [inch] - superelevation
This is equivalent to a rate of change of 1 mm at 744 mm. This value will be relevant only at speeds below 100 km/h. The corresponding value for the German Railway is 1/600.
Length of Tangents and Curves
Passengers experience different lateral accelerations while the vehicle is running through curves and tangents. In order to minimize passenger discomfort, the lateral acceleration should not change for a certain time. Recommended is a running time of at least 1.5 s per element. The minimum lengths for curves and tangents indicated in the Corridor Evaluation Report are identical with this value.
It should be noticed that this criterion is not relevant for the safety of operations (except for tilting trains, which - to our knowledge - have not been considered for the California system) and may be increased due to economic or topographic reasons, if justified.
2.2.3 Vertical Alignment
Maximum Gradients
The California design parameters indicate an absolute maximum gradient of 5 % and 3.5 % as desirable maximum. In the Corridor Evaluation Report, alternative alignments with 3.5 % have been developed for all 5 % sections. Most operational HSR systems in Europe and Asia have maximum gradients between 3.5 and 4.0 %; nevertheless, a gradient of 5 % is technically feasible. In the subsequent chapters "Rolling Stock Issues" and "Operations Issues", this matter is being discussed in more detail. The maximum gradient of 0.25 % for stations is in conformance with international practice. For safety reasons, yards, depots and workshops should be designed on flat terrain, i.e., 0 %.
Vertical Curves
The change in gradients is accommodated by vertical curves. While running through the vertical curve the vehicle undergoes a vertical acceleration which influences passenger comfort. In addition, in crests the vertical acceleration reduces the vertical load on the wheels, which may have influence on the wheel-rail contact. The recommended limit for vertical acceleration is between 0.2 m/s2 and 0.4 m/s2. The values used in the Corridor Evaluation Report are equivalent to 0.2 m/s~ for crests and 0.3 m/s~ for sags. The absolute minimum radius for vertical curves irrespective of the design speed should not be less than 2000 m.
As mentioned under the section on the horizontal alignment, the vehicle should run for a certain time between different alignment elements. The indicated minimum and desirable lengths are equivalent to 1.5 and 3.0 seconds. At a change of gradient less than 0.3 %, the required minimum length would result in large radii. Under consideration of the difficulty to build and
Phase 1 Report C010347Page 2 - 4 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
maintain vertical curves with large radii, the requirement to provide the above minimum length between different alignment elements can be waived.
2.2.4 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters
Table 2 - 1 presents a summary of the key alignment design parameters included in the California Corridor Evaluation Report as well as a direct comparison with the corresponding values (where available) of the German standards, the recommendations of the UIC, and new HSR lines presently under construction or in the final design stage in Germany, Korea and Taiwan.
Phase 1 Report C010348Page 2 - 5 C010349 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]
2.3 Gauges and Clearances
2.3.1 Kinematic Envelope
The kinematic envelope is related to the track alignment and covers the most outside position of the various parts of a train running at design speed under normal operating conditions. The kinematic envelope has to take into account the maximum admissible tolerances for construction, maintenance and wear of the rolling stock as well as of the track.
New HSR lines should consider the kinematic envelope "GC" as defined by the UIC. This envelope covers mixed traffic operation up to 300 km/h and dedicated passenger train operation of 350 km/h. It is also suitable for double deck coaches.
In the Corridor Evaluation Report it is not explicitly indicated which envelope was used. but from the typical cross sections of the Report, it can be derived that these comply with the requirements of the envelope "GC".
2.3.2 Structure Clearances
Whereas the kinematic envelope defines the most outside position of parts of the train, the structure clearance defines the limit into which no part of any structures or fixed equipment may penetrate. In addition to the requirements of the kinematic envelope, the effects from unbalanced superelevation (positive or negative) greater than 50 mm as well as a safety tolerance must be considered. This safety tolerance is not defined by the UIC and must be fixed under consideration of the specific operating conditions as well as the construction and maintenance standards of the project. Special provisions must be allowed for platform edges, screen doors at platform edges (if any) and any guard rails.
At the end of this chapter, the structure clearances related to the kinematic envelope "GC" as used by the German Railway for new lines, are shown graphically (see Figure 2-1). It is obvious that these clearances were also considered in the California HSR study.
2.3.3 Overhead Catenary System
The needs of the pantograph and electrical danger zone need to be added to the kinematic envelope. The dimension of the required space depends on the type of catenary used. For German HSR lines, the height of contact wire is stipulated with 5.30 m above top of rail. The clearance height required for the catenary system is between 7.40 - 7.90 m above track level. It may be reduced for tunnels and underpasses to 6.70 - 7.40 m. In the cross sections of the Corridor Evaluation Report, these requirements are adhered to.
2.3.4 Track Centerline Spacing
Basically, the distance between two adjacent tracks is determined by the addition of the relevant envelopes. Following UIC, the distance may be reduced assuming that any rolling stock and track failures may not happen at the same time in both tracks. On the other hand, provisions must be made for the aerodynamic effects caused by high speed traffic.
[ Phase 1 Draft Report C010350Page 2 - 7 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
The first HSR lines built in the 80s by the German Railway had a track centerline distance of 4.70 m. The experience with these lines, actually operated with a maximum speed of 280 km/h and mixed traffic, have led to a reduction to 4.50 m for the new HSR lines. For new HSR lines dedicated for passenger traffic with 350 km/h, the French Railway uses a track spacing of 4.50 m. The HSR line in Korea has a track centerline distance of 5.0 m. The track spacing of 4.70 m for the California HSR system may thus be assumed to be on the conservative (safe) side. It should be investigated if a reduction of the track distance in urban areas where the design speed does not exceed 200 km/h has a significant influence on the construction costs. In stations, yards and generally in turnout areas, the track spacing should not be less than 4.50 m.
2.3.5 Cross Sections
The width of the track way is determined by the track spacing, the danger zone and the width of the lateral walkway. Furthermore, space needs to be provided for signals, power supply, cable ducts and drainage. Typical cross sections of the German Railway Standard DS 600.0130 are attached (see Figures 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4). Compared with the previous German standard cross sections, the total width was reduced slightly due to the placement of the catenary poles outside the track way on the slopes of cuts and fills.
Bridges
As for the at-grade sections, the minimum width for bridges is determined by the track spacing, the danger zone and the width of the lateral walkway. Additional provisions must be made for catenary poles, cable ducts, any noise barriers and for bridge inspection installations. The cross section shown in the Corridor Evaluation Report is very similar to the cross section used for German HSR lines.
Tunnels
The tunnel cross section depends, as far as the width is concerned, on the requirements of structure gauge, track spacing, safety space, and lateral walkways. In addition, space allowances must be made for cable ducts, catenary, and drainage. The tunnel net cross sections must be checked for the aerodynamic requirements related to the maximum operating speed. For new double-track tunnels for 300 km/h traffic, the German Railway provides a net cross section above rail level of 92 - 100 m2. For 350 km/h traffic, the French Railway provides 110 m2 and the HSR line in Korea 100 m2. The cross sections indicated in the California report have a net cross section of 90 - 100 m2. With regard to the more favorable construction costs, usually double-track tunnels will be preferred instead of two single-track tunnels. However, geological problems as well as safety considerations may favor single-track tunnels.
Right-of-Way
In addition to the track way, the right-of-way width has to include space required for drainage, any slopes for cuts and fills, any noise barrier, facilities for signaling and power supply, service roads and fences (see Figure 2-5). In sections where the HSR line is located adjacent to existing roads or railway lines, protective installations must be considered. Where required, provisions
[ Phase 1 Draft Report C010351Page 2 - 8 } [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]
should be made for space for maintenance work and machines, and utility lines. At the entrance of tunnels and at abutments of longer bridges or viaducts, additional space for maintenance and evacuation requirements has to be considered.
2.3.6 Permanent Way
The minimum height of the ballasted track at the rail should be 0.76 m resulting from:
¯ Rail UIC 60 (17cm), ¯ Concrete sleeper with resilient pad (24 cm), and ¯ 35 cm ballast.
The thickness of the sub-ballast layer depends on the specific subsoil conditions. For good drainage of rain water, the sub-ballast should have an inclination of at least 5 %. Where the ballast is placed directly on structures, e.g., bridges and tunnels, the total height should be 0.39 m resulting in a total height of 0.80 m. The width of the ballast shoulder should be 0.50 m with 2.60-m sleepers and 0.45 m with 2.80-m sleepers. The height of the slab track depends on the type used and varies between 0.50 - 0.70 m.
2.3.7 Ballast versus Slab Track
On the first HSR lines built in the 80s by the German Railway, ballasted track was used almost entirely. Only some tunnel sections and bridges were provided with slab track. After several years of high-speed operation on these lines, the ballast in sections with rigid underground (especially tunnels and bridges) is partly crushed and has caused significant maintenance work to reestablish the original track geometry. Based on this experience, longer sleepers with reduced pressure on the ballast and softer resilient pads were developed and are now being used. The HSR line Cologne - Frankfurt/Main, which passes through a mountainous region with a high percentage of tunnels and bridges, will be provided with slab track except on sections where settlements have to be expected. The higher noise level, caused by the more rigid wheel/rail system and the concrete track bed, will be reduced by lateral noise barriers and cover plates.
The main problem of the slab track is the construction of a precise track geometry. Different types of slab track designs with sleepers or with direct fastenings were developed. At present, the most favorabte design with regard to the construction process and the track geometry is a modified version of the type "Rheda". However, recent advances of the direct-fixation construction type are very promising.
Figure 2 - 6 shows a typical slab track cross-section. This type is used for the HSR line Hanover - Berlin which is designed for 300 km/h, but presently operated at 280 km/h only. It is also the basic type of slab track design for the 300-km/h HSR line Cologne - Frankfurt/Main, scheduled to commence operations in 2002.
Phase 1 Draft Report C010352Page 2 - 9 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ
2.4 Summary
The key purpose of the California HSR Corridor Evaluation study is the evaluation of different line alternatives based on technically feasible solution and on a realistic cost calculation. With regard to this aim, the design parameters used are suitable and comply with the requirements for an HSR system for a design speed of 350 km/h.
Not specified are the relevant dimensions for station platforms and platform access, special requirements and protective measures for line sections parallel to existing roads or railways, and rescue/evacuation provisions in tunnels and on long bridges. Since these requirements are very similar to the various alternatives under investigation, they may not influence the relative merits of these options, but could very well affect the overall costs of the alignment alternatives.
In selecting the final design parameters during the up-coming project phase, the pro’s and con’s of opting for minimum versus more generous alignment and permanent way design parameters should be carefully weighed, particularly with regard to their impacts on:
¯ Wear of permanent way and rolling stock ¯ Maintenance requirements and costs ¯ Passenger discomfort ¯ Options for future improvements.
At the outset of the project phase, the alignment design parameters and cross sections should be reviewed under consideration of the operationions, safety and rescue concept.
C010353 [ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 10 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
Figure 2 - 1 : Structure Clearance GC for r ¯ 250 m (German Railway DS 800.0130)
Continuous Main Line Tracks I All other Tracks 4 900
3 050
= ; 2 500 I 1
~ 1 200
760 I
1 275 1 275 so
May be used between main tracks for installations for signaling, powersupply and lighting
(~) May be used for platforms, ramps, shunting - and signaling installatIons
C010354 Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 11 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 2-2: Cross Section at Grade Ballasted Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)
I
Clearance Cable Duct Lateral Walkway Danger Space) ---Zone 3.0 m Top of
~"
3°25------,.~ 2.80 ~ 1) ~" 0,50
C010355 Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 12 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation1
Figure 2 - 3: Cross Section at Grade Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)
IStructuie ~ Lateral Walkway Noise I Clearance ~(Safety Space) Absorber "--~
~_.} ~ Cable Duct ~oanneg~i0 m l~y~ i Cover
"~-~" ,,’ E~--.. -~--- ~,s~, .~ t- . , ,_,- .y~,s,S~ -. -.~ L
0,05 \ Fleece (Geo Textile) ------3,65 ---
3,80 ~ 4.50 _~t~ 3,00 ~-~ 12,10 HGT - Hydraulicly stabilized Layer FSS - Sub-Ballast
1) - In Cut Sect=ons, it may be suitable to raise the Walkway 2) - Construction He=ght (h,) 0.50 - 0.70 m, depends on selected Type
C010356 [ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 13 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
Figure 2 - 4 Trench Section Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)
Lateral Walkway (Safety Space)
Cable Duct
3,00 4,50 ,-,’, 3,00 - - , i ~ f,55 = ! 9,00 ---,~- t,55--,-
-- 12,10 ,-
1 ) - Construction Height (hk) 0.50 - 0.70 m, depends on selected Type
C010357 [ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 14 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
Figure 2 - 5: Provisions for Right of Way (German Railway DS 800.0130)
In Cut Sections: In Cut-and-Fill Sections:
aK, 3.0 m for non cohesive material ho2.0m: t=1.5 *ho 0.2m aK * 5.0 m for cohesive material h >2.0 m: t = 3.0 m
C010358 Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 15 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 2 - 6 Typical Cross-Section of Slab Track (System Rheda)
3200
2800
Drainage .... Sleeper W301-60 ¯ Longitudinal Reinforcement Bitumen ;~-~ Transverse Reinforcement f- Asphalt Concrete \ Filling (Gravel) Ballast --~’k Filling (Concrete)t:,;;~7.~. J ......
Transverse Reinforcement --- Longitudin’al Reinforce~m{nt 3800
HGT - Hydrauhcly stabihzed Layer
C010359 Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 16 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
3. ROLLING STOCK ISSUES
3.1 Introduction
As part of this peer review, the Authority has requested to respond to a series of questions related to the performance characteristics of the German "lnterCityExpress" (ICE) trains, such as dimensions, weight/axle loads, maximum speed, acceleration/deceleration rates, maximum gradients and unit costs. Furthermore, a comparison of the different power distribution concepts (distributed versus concentrated) has been called for. Since the first test runs of the ICE/V (ICE Experimental) in 1985, the ICE train system has undergone continuous improvement and further development of new models. As of today, the third generation of the ICE technology is in operation and the next generation is already in the design phase. Because the various trainset models are distinguished by different design and performance characteristics, a brief description of the relevant features of these train types is presented first, followed by a comparison of the two power distribution concepts. This chapter also includes an overview of available high-speed freight rolling stock.
3.2 Current ICE Train Types in Operation
3.2.1 ICE 1
The ICE 1 which entered revenue service in 1991 is a trainset with two powered end cars and up to 14 trailer cars. 60 units of this "locomotive"-hauled train type (also referred to as CPT - Concentrated Power Train) with a maximum operational speed of 280 km/h (maximum design speed = 310 km/h) were ordered by the German Railway. The unit investment costs per trainset were about 57 (13 coaches) to 60 (14 coaches) million DM in the year 1991.
3.2.2 ICE 2
Studies of the traffic density in the expanded high-speed railway network in Germany had revealed that shorter trainsets can improve load factors on certain routes as well as reduce the required number of vehicles. This has led to the development of a half-train with coupling capabilities, consisting of 1 power car + 6 trailer cars + 1 driving trailer, capable of forming an extended train configuration with two coupled half trains or with 1 power car + maximum 13 trailer cars + 1 power car as shown in concept in Figure 3 - 1.
C010360 I Phase 1 Report Page 3-1 J I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 3 - 1: Configuration of an ICE 2 385-m Version
+11+
The styling of the ICE 2 (see Figure 3 - 2) is virtually identical with the ICE 1.
Figure 3 - 2: ICE 2 Trainset on the New High Speed Line Berlin - Hanover
The total length of an ICE 2 in the 13-car version is 385 meters, of which the two power cars, each with a length of 20.3 m, make up 11 percent of the total train length. The ICE 2 long version can accommodate a maximum of 927 seats, 255 of which, or 28%, are located in five first class coaches.
The design speed of this CPT-type train is 310 km/h and the maximum operational speed is set at 280 km/h. The train is operating on high-speed lines with a maximum gradient of 1.25 % and on existing lines with gradients up to 2.8 % at lower speeds.
One pair of power cars of the fleet has been equipped with modified gearboxes for use in a test train with a maximum speed of 400 km/h.
Forty-four ICE 2 200-m half trains are in operation since 1997. The unit investment cost per 7- coach trainset amounted to about 35 million DM in that year.
I Phase 1 Report C010361Page 3-2 ] I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
3.2.3 ICE 3
The further development of the ICE trains was based on design requirements which stemmed from the expansion of the German high-speed system and the European HSR network. The demands which had the greatest influence on the ICE design were:
¯ More traction power for a maximum running speed of 330 km/h and a maximum grade of 4.0 %, and ¯ Maximum static axle load of 17 t.
Despite the ~imitation of axle loads to 17 t, a simuffaneous increase in traction power for a top speed of 330 km/h and continued successes in the field of lightweight vehicle construction, the concept of a power car-hauled train which concentrates its tractive effort among a few driving axles soon came under technical scrutiny.
A comparison of power car-hauled and multiple-unit (distributed power) train formations drew attention to the following advantages, which tipped the scales in favor of the multiple-unit concept:
¯ Greater seating capacity at the same length of train, ¯ More uniform distribution of weight in the train, ¯ Lower weight per seat, ¯ Better traction response with lower adhesion stress, ¯ Higher proportion of dynamically braked axles and ¯ Lower static axle load.
All of these design factors culminated in a further model - the ICE 3 multiple-unit train (also referred to as DPT - Distributed Power Train) as shown in Figure 3 - 3.
The design speed of the ~CE 3 train is 365 km/h at level track and 330 km/h is the maximum operational speed. The train is specially designed for use on the new high-speed line Cologne - Frankfurt/Main with gradients of up to 4%. Figure 3 - 4 shows the ability of the train to start and run even on a 5-% gradient.
Thirty-seven such trainsets were taken into revenue service on the German Railway network in 2000 with the start of the EXPO World Exhibition.
The seat capacity per 8-coach unit is 418 seats including the dining car seats and the investment costs per trainset were about 37 million DM in 1999.
I Phase 1 Report C010362Page 3-3 I I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 3 - 3: ICE 3 Trainset
Figure 3 - 4: Tractive Effort Curve and Resistances in Gradients
ICE 3 - 400 m Trainset
700
5O0
300 ~ in 3.5 % Grade ~ [ Resistance 200
100
o I 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 300 350 S~d [km~]
Phase 1 Report C010363Page 3-4 J I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
A 400-m long ICE 3 trainset can be formed from two half train sets or by assembling 14 coaches plus the end cars. The main advantages of a long trainset compared with two coupled half-train sets are:
¯ Increased seat capacity - only two driver cabins instead four ~n case of the half trains, ¯ Reduced noise emission - current collection with only one pantograph, ¯ Reduced aerodynamic resistance - no gap in the middle of the train and only one pantograph active.
The long train consists of 16 cars with a total length of 398 meters (see also Figure 3 - 5). The length of both driver cabs amounts to only about 9 meters or 2% of the total train length. Maximum seating capacity would be 1,124, of which 300 (27%) would be located in 6 first-class cars.
Figure 3 - 5: Configuration of ICE 3 400-m Trainset
+12+ ......
3.2.4 ICE-T
The current fleet of conventional InterCity (IC) trains will be due for replacement in the next few years and the German Railway intends to take the opportunity to enhance the appeal of this market segment. Market surveys revealed that only vehicles with tilting technology and higher tractive effort could stimulate the desired increase in ridership. Thus, the technical choice has fallen on an electric multiple unit (EMU) with an active body tilting mechanism - the ICE-T with distributed power. That train operates predominantly on existing routes in hilly terrain with a maximum operational speed of 230 km/h. 32 7-car and 11 5-car tilting EMUs were put into revenue service starting in 1999.
3.3 Future ICE Developments 3.3.1 Future Maximum Speeds in Germany Due to mainly economic reasons, an increase of maximum operational speeds beyond 300 - 320 km/h is not planned in Germany. The average distance between stations is around 90 km due to the typical polycentric urbanization pattern of the country. Under this condition, an increase in top speeds beyond the above maximum is not considered to be economically warranted nor effective to increase ridership measurably. Higher operational speeds would: ¯ require longer acceleration distances to reach top speed and longer deceleration distances respectively. For example, an ICE 3 needs 18.1 km to reach 300 km/h; a DPT400 (presented in Chapter 3.3.4) has been calculated to require 17.3 km to reach 300 km/h and
Phase 1 Report C010364Page 3-5 [German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
35.8 km to attain 350 km/h on level track; the corresponding braking distances of these trains are 7.1 km from 300 km/h and 8.2 km from 350 km/h
¯ result in higher energy consumption due to increased aerodynamic resistance at higher speeds
¯ result in higher rolling stock investment costs due to higher installed traction power
¯ necessitate higher infrastructure costs due to a more generous alignment design (larger curve radii) and power supply
¯ lead to higher noise emissions and related higher costs for mitigating measures.
3.3.2 ICE 4
German Railways tries to increase the passenger capacity in several relations and has investigated the technical feasibility of introducing DPT-type units with wider coaches for operation on selected lines (with an additional seat in each row: 2 by 2 in the first class and 3 by 2 in the second one, resulting in a 20-% capacity increase compared to the ICE 3) or CPT-type double-deck trainsets. In both cases, the maximum speed would not be increased compared with those of the ICE 2 or ICE 3 trainsets. As of today, no decision has been reached on whether this train will be ordered or not.
3.3.3 HTE
In 2000, the French and German Railways entered into an agreement to build an innovative, future-oriented trainset, the "High-speed Train of Europe" (HTE), incorporating the different lines of development of the ICE and TGV technologies. Other railways will be invited to join the project at a later time. At present, it is envisioned that the top operational speed of that train will be around 320 km/h, with a total installed power of about 13 MW. The train is intended to operate on gradients of up to 4%. A production date has not been set yet.
3.3.4 DPT 400
Although the ICE fleet in Germany is not intended to operate commercially at speeds above 300 km/h in the foreseeable future, the German ICE manufacturers are offering modified versions with top operational speeds of 350 km/h in other countries. Tests of speeds up to 400 km/h are already being performed in Germany. To achieve a design speed of 385 km/h (which corresponds to a maximum operational speed of 350 km/h), only minor modifications of the ICE 3 are required. This increase of speed necessitates an increase of the tractive power by about 10% and a change of the gear ratio. In order to stay within the same weight and dimensions of the traction motors, the maximum tractive effort is reduced by about 10%.
C010365 Phase 1 Report Page 3-6 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
The performance characteristics of this DPT-type trainset have been used for running time calculations of the California HSR system as presented in Chapter 4.
3.4 Comparison of CPT-type ICE 2 with DPT-type ICE 3
3.4.1 Technical Comparison
To allow a direct comparison of these train types, the 400-m long versions have been used for this analysis.
The locomotive-type ICE 2 consists of two power heads (concentrated power system train - CPT) and 13 passenger coaches as described before. Each power head has a length of around 20 m. Therefore, about 40 m or 11% of the length of the train cannot be used for passenger accommodation. In case of the EMU-type ICE 3 (distributed power system train - DPT), the power system is distributed throughout the trainset underneath the passenger compartments. Here, only 9 m of the total length (2% of train length) are used for the two driver cabs of the train. This equals an increase in capacity of 60 to 70 seats or approx. 8%.
A second advantage of the EMU-type train is the higher number of driven axles. This results in a lower necessary friction coefficient between wheel and rail which in turn maintains train acceleration performance and climbing capability at very high speed and under adverse weather conditions.
The distribution of driven axles of the DPT-type ICE 3 is shown in Figure 3 - 6.
Figure 3 - 6: Distributed Power Concept of the ICE 3
End car Transformer car CorNerter car Traik~" car
O0 ~00©© ~ ©©00 ~-~ 00©© ©©
2 wheel-mounted brake discs pe~ axle
2 brake discs per axle, 2 linear eddy-current brake magnets per bogie Traction ~3~v~rtef Tra,’~formar
An other important factor to be considered is the ratio of 8 to 32 driven axles (CPT- versus DPT- type). In case of failure of one drive unit, the loss of tractive power is four times less on the ICE 3 in comparison with the ICE 2.
Phase 1 Report C010366Page 3-7 [German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
The maximum gradient a train can operate on depends on the transmittable, tractive effort installed in the train. The maximum achievable speed in steep and long gradients depends mostly on the total power output. Figure 3 - 7 shows the maximum speed in a 3.5-% gradient. The initial speed is the individual maximum speed of each train.
Especially in the very steep gradient of 5.0% (see Figure 3 - 8), the high tractive effort of the ICE 3 results in the highest constant speed, not the higher power output of the DPT 400 trainset.
These two charts clearly demonstrate the superior climbing capability of the DPT-technology.
Concerning maintenance of the power units, the locomotive-type trainset is easier to work on because of fewer drive units and their more accessible, concentrated location.
In view of the spatial limitations, it is not feasible to design a double-deck train of the EMU type.
Figure 3 - 7: Train Speed Decreases on 3.5-% Sustained Gradient
Maximum Speed of High Speed Trains in a 3.5 % Grade Initial Speed equal to Maximum Train Speeds
35O
300
25O
72oo DPT 400
ICE 1
100
5O
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Chainage [km]
C010367 I Phase 1 Report Page 3-8 J I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 3 - 8: Train Speed Decreases on 5.0-% Sustained Gradient
Maximum Speed of High Speed Trains in a 5 % Grade Initial Speed equal to Maximum Train Speeds
350
300
250
~ 200
~150
ICE 3 100 -~ DPT 400,
0 , 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Chainage [km]
3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison
The absolute investment share of life cycle costs (LCC) is about the same for the 400-m long versions of the ICE 2 and ICE 3 trainsets. The investments for both types of trains under consideration only make up slightly more than 20% of the total life cycle costs. The absolute peak for the ICE 3 lies at 1.18 times of the comparable ICE 2 trainset. However, the specific life cycle costs per seat are about 8% ~ower for the EMU-type train. The prevailing conditions in the German long-distance rail network with its high percentage of existing lines was the basis for the annual operating performance of the trains.
For the planned high-speed rail network in California, one must assume a higher mean speed and consequently a greater annual operating performance with a comparable number of operating hours. Higher absolute life cycle costs would result for both trains, but they definitely would be lower when related to running kilometers.
3.4.3 Summary of Relevant Technical Characteristics of ICE Trainsets
The following Table 3 - 1 presents a summary of the most relevant design and performance characteristics of the various German ICE types in operation.
C010368 I Phase 1 Report Page 3-9 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Table 3 - 1: Summary of Technical Performance Characteristics of ICE Trainsets
Un=t Price Max.- I Weight Length W~dth Height Axle Load Power Seats Cars per Speed (tons) Tra=nset Name Type Year M=II km/h loaded m max m max. m max t avg t kW 1st 2nd Total IDM ICE 1 Loco 1991 60 280 952 411 3.07 3.84 19.5 14.8 9600 192 567 759 16 ICE 2 Loco 1997 35 280 445 231 3.07 3.84 19.0 13.9 4800 108 362 470 8 ICE 3 EMU 1998 31 330 455 200 2.95 3.84 15.0 14.2 8000 146 255 401 8 ICE T(7) EMU 1998 25 230 390 185 2.85 3.84 16.0 16.0 4000 63 309 372 7 ICE T(5) EMU 1998 18 230 300 132 2.85 3.84 16.0 16.0 3000 41 212 253 5
3.5 Acceleration Rates
In Table 3 - 2, the acceleration rates stipulated for VHS trains in Exhibit 2-6 of the Corridor Evaluation Report have been compared with the accelerations of the ICE 1, ICE 3 and DPT 400. For reference, the acceleration rates of the TGV trains for the Korean high-speed line are included in the comparison, too. The comparison shows very clearly that the values of Exhibit 2- 6 are in a reasonable order in the lower speed range, but are considerably too high in the speed range from 200 km/h to 350 km/h. It is also physically impossible to have the same acceleration rates in the speed ranges 200-300 km/h and 300-350 km/h.
Table 3 - 2: Acceleration Rates of High-Speed Trainsets
Speed range Acceleration rates Values VHS [km/h] [mph] ICE 1 (ICE 2) ICE 3 DPT 400 TGV Korea in Exhibit 2-6 max. 280 km/h max 330 km/h max 350 km/h max 300 km/h from to from to [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s] 0 100 0 62 2,1 1,3 2,1 1,6 1,5 100 200 62 124 1,6 0,7 1,3 1,3 1,2 200 300 124 186 1,0 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,4 300 350 186 218 1,0 0,1 0,2 0,1
3.6 High-SpeedFreight Rolling Stock
At present, German Railway provides a special, high-speed freight service in collaboration with the Parcel Services of German Mail. The trains are operating during night time between Hamburg and Munich via Nuremberg covering a one-way distance of about 800 km at a top speed of 160 km/h. Locomotives and wagons which are in use for high-speed freight operations in Germany are presented below.
3.6.1 Locomotives
For high-speed freight trains, the German Railway uses the Class 101 locomotive which can achieve a maximum speed of 220 km/h, with 6.6 MW power output, 21 metric tons axle load and 300 kN starting tractive effort.
C010369 I Phase 1 Report Page 3-10 [German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
The locomotives are used during day time for hauling conventional, long-distance passenger trains of German Railway’s InterCity service.
The unit cost of one engine is about 6.5 million DM.
The Class 101 locomotive is shown in Figure 3 - 9. Figure 3 - 9: Class 101 Locomotive
3.6.2 Wagons
The cars used are the standard container cars of the type Sgss-y 703. They are equipped with a modified and improved disc brake system and yaw dampers to increase the speed from 120 km/h of regular freight trains to 160 km/h.
One unit costs about 170,000 DM.
3.7 Summary
The Corridor Evaluation Report does not include a general technical description of candidate technologies. Some of the train data are in part inconsistent; for example, the acceleration rates shown for higher speeds are far too high.
Alignments with sustained gradients of 3.5% and even 5.0% are possible, but require the deployment of EMU-type trainsets (with distributed power) with high power output and tractive effort.
C010370 Phase 1 Report Page 3-11 [German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
It may be prudent to re-assess the requirement to design the California HSR system for a top speed of 350 km/h under consideration of the economics of operations and maintenance, travel time savings, environmental impacts, and investment costs for infrastructure and rolling stock.
C010371 Phase 1 Report Page 3-12 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
4. OPERATIONS ISSUES
4.1 General This chapter reviews and discusses the operational issues, such as track plans, running times, timetables, commuter service, freight services, and operations and maintenance cost estimates addressed in the Corridor Evaluation report in Chapter 2 "Assumptions and Parameters", Chapter 5 "Operating Strategy Development" and the relevant Appendices C, F, I and J1. At first glance, the operational issues addressed in the report seem complete and there are no major issues missing except the operational infrastructure layout, i.e., number and location of tracks and turnouts in the stations. The lack of this information, however, is compensated for by a 15 % surcharge on the track costs, which can be considered to be an adequate value. However, some of the information contained in the report is somewhat inconsistent or not plausible: ¯ The high-speed train is not completely described; neither traction performance nor passenger capacity nor train length are clearly defined. On page 11-8, a 400-m train with 10 cars is mentioned which implies 40-m cars, which is simply impossible.2 ¯ The spare ratio for the trainsets is given with 10 % on Page 11-12 and 20% on page V-12. Parsons Brinckerhoff pointed out that the first va/ue refers to the HSR system, the second one to the commuter services. However, there is no reason to provide this higher spare ratio for the commuter trains. Commuter trains are less sophisticated in design and construction than high-speed trains and their wear during service is lower. Therefore, no higher spare ratio is required. The speed-versus-distance graph in Exhibit 2-12 shows apparently not the present corridor. The station distances shown differ substantially from the actual ones in some cases3 and the typical speed drop on the steep grades of the Tehachapi Mountains between Santa Clarita and Bakersfield are missing. (However, it is understood that this exhibit was not prepared by the authors of the Corridor Evaluation Report and was not used in subsequent analyses.) ¯ There is a general inconsistency of chainage in the available information (report, plans and alignment data files). According to Exhibit 4-19 and Appendix I, the distance between San Diego and San Francisco is 949 km for Option A and 850 km for option B; the corresponding distances are 955 and 878 km in Appendix F and 958 and 894 km according to the plans and alignment data files supplied to us. ¯ The Revised Conceptual Service Plans in Appendix C represent different scenarios for the northbound and southbound directions. For example, there are 48 northbound departures in San Diego and 18 arrivals in Sacramento, whereas there are 36 departures in Sacramento and 53 arrivals in San Diego. The service patterns shown in these plans are somewhat different to those of the Example Weekday Train Schedule in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C.
1 In this peer review chapter, the words "Appendix" and "Exhibit" always refer to the Corridor Evaluation report. 2 Width restrictions in curves would lead to a car width near zero. Usual car lengths are around 20 rn for the TGV type and around 25 rn for the Shinkansen, ICE and Acela type resulting in 16 to 20 cars for a 400-m train. 3 For instance 134 krn, 172 km and 70 km for Burbank - Sta. Clarita - Bakersfield - Fresno instead of 26 km, 202 km and 173 km for Option A or 26 km, 125 km and 173 km in Option B (Appendix F).
[ Phase 1 Report C010372Page 4 - 1 J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation ]
¯ The running times used in the Example Weekday Train Schedule in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C do not correspond to the running times calculated in Appendix F. These differences, however, are not more than 6 minutes and can be neglected. ¯ Complete alignment data are not available. The horizontal alignment is nearly complete (except the curve from Merced to Los Banos), but the vertical alignment is available for the most critical sections only representing about 1/3 of the total length. ¯ Exhibit 5-1 assumes a 3 minutes average headway and a load factor of 100 %. Three minutes is a usual minimum headway for high-speed systems, but can be achieved as avera.qe headway only if all trains have the same operational characteristics. In the case of the California HSR system with a large number of different types of express, semi express, regional and local trains, an average headway of three minutes is simply impossible and a value of about 4 to 5 minutes would be a more realistic average headway. A 100% load factor is desirable, but under real conditions even 80 % would be a very good value. Thus, the values indicated in Exhibit 5-1 are about 50 % too high and are not suitable for comparison with the realistic highway capacity estimates of Exhibit 5-2. Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that the load factor of 100 % and the headways listed in Exhibit 5-1 were assumed at the maximum levels to illustrate a point regarding maximum capacity of the HSR system and does not reflect the load factor of 65 % assumed in the operational and ridership analysis. Train separation of 3 minutes is assumed as a minimum criterion for the system, but Parsons Brinckerhoff recognizes that operations could not practically average that headway over any period of time.
4.2 Track Layout At the time of the peer review, no track plans or sketches were available. The chosen platform length of 400 m corresponds to UIC4 regulations and is also used for high-speed projects in other parts of the world. The track layout for terminal stations and important intermediate stations is determined by the specific local conditions and the operations program to be coped with. For that reason, a standardized station layout cannot be given. Stations of this type in Europe in general are existing ones as the high-speed systems are fully integrated into the existing railway network. The German Intercity Express (ICE) network is a good example for this integration of high-speed lines in the existing infrastructure as shown in Annex 4- 1; even the stations indicated in the high-speed sections are existing ones and part of the conventional railway network. For the standard intermediate stations, there are two basic designs as shown in Figure 4- 1. More commonly used is Layout 1, which permits a through train to pass a train stopping at the station. This layout also separates the platform area from the through tracks, thus protecting passengers on the platform against air turbulences caused by trains passing through with high speed. Layout 2 features a very simple design, which however requires special protection of passengers on the platform against air turbulences. This can be accomplished either by platform screen doors or by a stringent platform access control permitting passengers on the platform only if no through train is expected. For the timetable assessment in Chapter 4.4, Layout 1 has been assumed.
4 UIC = Umon Internationale de Chemins de Fer = International Railway Union
Phase 1 Report C010373Page 4 - 2 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 4 - 1: Standard Track Layouts for Intermediate Stations
Layout 1 Layout 2
2 2
The schematic layout of the future German Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line5 shown in Figure 4 - 2 can serve as an example for a typical high-speed line layout representing present German infrastructure standards. The three new intermediate stations located in the high-speed line section are designed according to Layout 1. Only the Frankfurt Airport station, located in a low- speed section and without through trains, has platforms at the through tracks. Double crossovers are installed at each station and at intervals of about 30 km between stations.
Figure 4 - 2: Schematic Diagram of the Cologne - Frankfurt/Main High-Speed Line
S~egburg Montabaur L~m burg Frankfurt A~rport Statton Station Station Station km 171 km 25 kin92 km 113 (160 km/h section)
Double crossovers are ~nstalled ~n each station and at about 30 km intervals between stations
As the station spacing strongly depends on local traffic demand at the various locations, there are no standard station distances. For example, in the German ICE network, the average station distance is 99 km with a minimum of 23 km and a maximum of 194 km.
4.3 Train Running Times Train running times are presented in Appendix F of the Corridor Evaluation Report. In contrast to the staggered acceleration rates listed in Exhibit 2-6, a flat acceleration rate of 1.56 km/h/s has been used for the calculation for the entire speed range from 0 to 350 km/h. Independent of the grades encountered, a constant maximum speed has been set for each line section between stations. This is methodically incorrect and may lead to wrong results. In general, acceleration rates are quite high at low speed levels and diminish considerably with increasing speed as shown in Figure 4 - 3. In addition, the train speed is not always constant and drops considerably in long steep grades.
Commissioning of this line is scheduled for 2002.
Phase 1 Report PageC010374 4 - 3 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 4- 3: Typical Acceleration-Versus-Speed Diagram
2,0
1,2 1,0
13,8 o 0,6 -0,4 0,2 0,0 ..... 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Speed km/h
In order to check if the running times of Appendix F reflect real train running, we have made exact running time calculations with the DECrun program for the Los Angeles-Bakersfield section, the only line section for which a complete set of alignment data - horizontal and vertical - was available. The trainset DPT 400 as described in Chapter 3 has been taken as the basis for the calculation. Parsons Brinckerhoff pointed out that different assumptions may have been used; e.g., PB assumed speed restrictions in some cases, particularly in heavily urbanized sections of the routes. This information had not been made available to DE-Consult. Since we did not receive any specific information on speed restrictions at individual points on the line, but only average "maximum" speeds between pairs of stations, we derived the maximum speeds for the different line sections from the horizontal curve radii by means of the formula given in Exhibit 2-7 and by cutting off peaks, which cannot reasonably be used in real operation. The resulting speed profile is presented in Figure 4 - 4.
[ Phase 1 Report C010375Page 4 - 4 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Figure 4 - 4: Speed Profile Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
400
350
250
200
150 ¯
100 --
50. --
/ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 Chainage [kin]
~maximum possible speed ~selected maximum speed I
The results of the running time calculations are shown in Table 4- 1 which also includes a comparison with the values given in Appendix F of the Corridor Evaluation Report. The speed- versus-distance diagrams of the train runs calculated by the DECrun program are displayed in Annex 4 - 2. The diagrams show clearly the fading of train speeds in the steep gradients of the Tehachapi Mountain crossing. The times in Appendix F differ from the calculated values by about 2 to 4 minutes for the express trains and by about 1 to 4 minutes for the local trains. The comparison shows that the travel times of Appendix F are almost identical in both directions and do not consider any influence of the grades on running times. The maximum speeds listed in Appendix F are not real maximum speeds, but approximate more closely an average maximum speed in the respective sections. In any case, the travel time calculations of Appendix F do not reflect the real running behavior of the trains. This becomes evident when comparing the real speed-versus-distance diagrams with the diagram resulting from the calculations in Appendix F (Annex 4 - 3).
Phase 1 Report C010376Page 4 - 5 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Table 4 - 1: Comparison of Running Times Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
Travel Time Calculation Append=x F* DE-Consult Calculahon* Type of Train L=ne Section Sechon Max V Ta Tv Td Tt* Length I Calculated Len~lth [km] (km/h) (MinI /Mini IMin/ (Min/ [kmI** I Time Im~nl Express Union Stat=on Burbank 17,91 150 1,6 6,4 0,0 8,4 Burbank Santa Clanta 25,74 200 0,0 7,7 0,0 8,2 Santa Clarita Palmdale 59,14 300 0,0 11,8 0,0 12,5 Palmdale Bakersfield 142,11 325 0,0 26,2 0,0 27,8 Total: 244,9 1,6 52,1 0,0 57,0 241,8 53,2 Express Bakersfield Palmdale 142,11 325 0,0 26,2 0,0 27,8 Palmdale Santa Clar=ta 59,14 300 0,0 11,8 0,0 12,5 Santa Clanta Burbank 25,74 200 0,0 7,7 0,0 8,2 Burbank Un~on Stahon 17,91 150 0,0 6,5 1,3 8,3 Total: 244,9 0,0 52,3 1,3 56,8 241,8 55,0
Local Un~on Stahon Burbank 17,91 150 1,6 5,7 1,3 9,1 21,0 8,2 Local Burbank Santa Clanta 25,74 200 2,1 5,8 1,8 10,2 26,2 9,8 Loca~ Santa Clar~ta Pa mda e 59,14 300 3,2 8,9 2,6 15,6 51,0 15,6 Local Palmdale Bakersfield 142,11 325 3,5 23,1 2,9 31,2 143,5 32,2 Total: 244,9 10,4 43,5 8,6 66,2 241,8 65,8 Local Bakersfield Palmdale 142,11 325 3,5 23,1 2,9 31,2 143,5 35,2 Local Palmdale Santa Clarita 59,14 300 3,2 8,9 2,6 15,6 51,0 14,9 Local Santa Clanta Burbank 25,74 200 2,1 5,8 1,8 10,2 26,2 9,3 Local Burbank Un=on Station 17,91 150 1,6 5,7 1,3 9,1 21,0 8,1 Total: 244,9 10,4 43,5 8,6 66,2 241,8 67,6 ~ Ta = acceleration t~me * Dwell t~mes not ~ncluded Tv = travel time w~th max V "* According to key maps and honzontal ahgnment data file Td = deceleration t=me Tt = total travel t=me
4.4 Operations Aspects 4.4.1 Timetable As already mentioned, the timetable presented in Appendix C of the Corridor Evaluation Report is based on the travel times calculated in Appendix F with some small differences. The timetable comprises a great variety of trains6 with different stopping patterns and is a mixture of very fast non-stop trains with various medium fast trains and slow local trains. Due to the travel time differences between the different train categories, the density of the timetable and the length of the line, overtaking of slower trains by faster trains cannot be avoided. Apparently, such overtaking of trains is not considered in the timetable of Appendix C as all trains of a certain train category have identical running times. In order to assess the influence of overtaking of trains on travel times, we have performed a simulation of train operations in the northbound direction from the early morning to 4 p.m. for the San Diego - San Francisco line. The software applied for the simulation is the STRESI program of the German Railway (DB AG) which utilized the following input data: ¯ Departure times as indicated in the tabular timetable of Appendix C; ¯ The DPT 400 trainset as mentioned above; ¯ The horizontal alignment according to the data file received;
In the northbound direction alone, there are 63 trains with 24 different stopping patterns in the 12- hour period until p.m.
Phase 1 Report C010377Page 4 - 6 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
¯ The maximum speeds derived from the horizontal alignment by means of the formula given in Exhibit 2-7 and by cutting off peaks, which cannot reasonably be used in real operation (Annex 4 - 4); ¯ An approximate longitudinal profile consisting of the incomplete vertical alignment according to the data file received and completed by more or less reasonable assumptions (Annex 4 - 4). All together, 63 train runs have been simulated. The results are shown in tabular form in Annex 4 - 5 and in form of train graphs in Annex 4 - 6. Almost half of the trains are overtaken by faster trains, some of them 2 or 3 times, and the passed trains encounter delays between 1 and 31 minutes, the average being 8.4 minutes. This means that the travel times of Appendix C do not reflect the real timetable conditions. In some cases, the timetable of Appendix C is arranged in a confusing manner. Slow trains leaving San Diego are immediately followed by a faster Express train, with the result that the slow train is overtaken at one of the next stations, Mira Mesa or Escondido. This is the case for train no. 8 leaving at 5:00, train no. 30 at 10:00, train no. 32 at 10:50 and others (cf. Annex 4 - 6). Such a timetable arrangement creates unnecessary delays and should be avoided. In the tabular timetable of Appendix C, there are also some timetable situations where 2 trains of the same direction leave a station at the same time, which is simply impossible. This is the case for trains from San Francisco to San Diego and Sacramento at 6:50, 7:35 and 16:00, trains from Sacramento to San Diego and San Francisco at 15:00 and others. Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that the example train schedule in the Corridor Evaluation Report was intended as en example only to illustrate a possible scenario of how the system could operate once implemented. There was no operations analysis or simulation modeling performed in creating that schedule. PB considers the service plan to be valid in concept even though there are practical operating and scheduling issues to be worked out as operations will be analyzed in more detail in the current phase of project development.
4.4.2 Rolling Stock Requirements The Corridor Evaluation Report indicates that 38 trainsets were assumed for the cost estimates of Appendix E. The total vehicle costs of 1,178 million $ as listed result in a unit price of 31 million $ per trainset, which seems to be an adequate order-of-magnitude estimate for a high- speed train. It is not plausible, however, that the number of trainsets is the same for Options A and B, as there is a difference of 7.5% in the running performances of these options and the number of trainsets should vary accordingly. Comparing this number of 38 trainsets with the daily running performances indicated in Appendix I gives a running performance of about 3,000 km per day, which appears to be highly unrealistic. In order to verify this, a train turnround roster for a weekday has been established on the basis of the tabular timetable of Appendix C. As determined through this process, 56 trainsets7 are required to cover all trains according to this schedule (Annex 4 - 78). Including a 10 % spare ratio
~ This number may be further increased if realistic travel times including times for overtaking are used. On the other hand, a more skilful timetable arrangement may slightly reduce the rolling stock requirements. 8 The train numbers of the trains San Diego - San Francisco/Sacramento are the same as in Appendix C. The train numbers of the trains Sacramento - San Francisco and vice versa are augmented by 100 in order to avoid confusion (i,e. train no. 1 of Appendix C becomes train no. 101 etc.). The turnround of trainset no. 7 is highlighted for illustration.
Phase 1 Report PageC010378 4 - 7 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
would require 62 trainsets in total. This results in an average running performance of 1,859 km per day and trainset, which is still very high, but can be explained by the extraordinary length of high-speed sections in the California corridor. Reference values of other high-speed systems vary between 1,000 and 1,700 km per day (see Annex 4 - 8). In view of the substantially higher number of required trainsets, the vehicle investment costs have to be increased by 744 million $ to 1.922 billion $. Parsons Brinckerhoff questions our determination of the number of required trainsets by pointing out that PB had assumed approximately two roundtrips per trainset per day which corresponds to the 3,000 km mentioned above. In response to this, we would like to point out that, on the basis of the tabular timetable of Appendix C of the Corridor Evaluation Report, it is impossible to have trainsets perform two roundtrips per day on averaqe. A more detailed assessment of our trainset roster (Annex 4 - 8) reveals that only 17 of the 56 trainsets (=30%) can complete two roundtrips per day. The majority (30 = 54%) covers only three one-way trips; two trainsets can complete one roundtrip and one trainset is limited to one one-way trip only.
4.4.3 Comparison with German High Speed Operations The operating parameters of the California HSR system are in general not comparable with the operating conditions of the German high-speed network because of the following fundamental differences of the systems: ¯ The California HSR system is a dedicated high-speed system, which can be operated independently of the conventional rail network in the region. On the other hand, the German high-speed lines are an integral part of the German rail network and cannot be operated independently of the conventional lines. Accordingly, the ICE trains run long distances on conventional lines of the existing network in mixed operation with other passenger and freight trains. ¯ The ICE traffic is organized in lines serving the different areas of Germany. At certain busy route sections, several of these ICE lines are superimposed. All trains of a given route have the same travel times and the same stopping pattern and are running in a lat timetable with constant intervals of 1 or 2 hours per line between the trains. This results even for busy route sections with several ICE lines in a quite homogenous timetable. In contrast, the California HSR system is characterized by a multitude of different stopping patterns and different running times on the same route. ¯ The existing German high-speed lines are designed to accommodate the operation of conventional freight trains and the number of freight trains on the high-speed routes is quite high as illustrated in Table 4 - 2. ¯ There are no compatibility problems between high-speed trains and freight rolling stock neither on the high-speed sections nor on the conventional lines as both types of rolling stock comply with UIC regulations.
[Phase 1Repo~ Page 4-8 C010379 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Table 4 - 2: Train Numbers by Type of Train on the German High Speed Line Hanover - WLirzburg 1996/1997
Number of Trains per Train Operating Weight Da~, and Direction Type including Days per Hanover Kassel Year - Loco [t] Kassel Fulda ICE 800 365 55 55 In* 500 365 9 Z: Passenger Trains per Direction 64 55 Freight 900 250 30 34 7. Freight Trains per Direction 30 34 T_, All Trains per Direction 94 89 * locomotive hauled train wiht 200 km/h maximum speed
Some general aspects, however, are independent of these differences and may serve as references.
Dwell Times In the German ICE network, the dwell times average 2.7 minutes. In normal cases, the station stop time is 2 minutes. In some very busy stations, in dead-end stations or in stations with passenger transfers between different ICE lines, dwell times are increased up to a maximum value of 7 minutes. On the other hand, there are a few stations with low passenger volumes, where the dwell time is 1 minute only. Compared with the German experience, the dwell time of 2 minutes chosen for the California HSR system seems to be adequate. We recommend, however, to reconsider the dwell times according to the individual passenger volumes to be handled at each station in further stages of the project. Schedule Recovery Times Schedule recovery times have been used for decades at German Railway. There are two different types of schedule recovery times: Regular recovery times are determined as a percentage of the theoretical running time varying from 3 % to 6 % according to train weight and maximum train speedg; ¯ Special recovery times individually allocated to selected line sections, which are especially prone to train delays because of temporary speed restrictions or high train volume/line capacity ratios. These special recovery times vary from year to year and are usually between 1 and 3 minutes; they are added to the running times and regular recovery times at the end of a section ahead of major junction stations. The 6 % schedule recovery time assumed for the California HSR system corresponds to the value applied for ICE trains in Germany. For the time being, there is no apparent reason to introduce special recovery times on the California HSR system.
9 For higher speed and train weight, higher schedule recovery time percentages are being used.
Phase 1 Report PageC010380 4 - 9 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Station Spacing The distances between stations in any transportation system depend mainly on the regional geographic structure of the area served. Therefore, any comparison of systems in different areas is only of limited value. In the German ICE network, the average station spacing is 99 km, the minimum is 23 km and the maximum at 194 km. The German values are somewhat greater than the California HSR values (51, 16 and 142 km respectively) and reflect the different regional structure of the German ICE network.
4.5 Commuter Traffic Commuter traffic in high-speed trains is nothing extraordinary in high-speed rail systems because not the distance to be covered is decisive for commuters but the time needed to arrive at their destination. As high-speed trains offer considerable time advantages compared to conventional trains, commuters will use these trains to the highest possible extent. In Germany, there is basically a clear distinction between commuter trains and high-speed trains. Commuter trains are operated on the conventional network only and there are no special commuter trains on the high-speed lines. On the other hand, in the ICE network there are many route sections of high-speed lines or conventional lines near conurbations where travel times are in the range of Y2 hours to 1 hour, which is typical for the commuter time budget. In 1997, the average share of commuter travelers in the ICE network was about 19 % of the passengers and 7 to 8 % of the passenger-kilometers reflecting the shorter traveling distances of commuters compared to long-distance passengers. The share of commuters near population centers is of course greater than this average and can attain easily twice that value. The basic concept of the California HSR system to use spare capacities in the high-speed trains for commuter transport (Integrated Scenario) instead of running special commuter trains on the HSR system (Separate Vehicles Scenario) seems to be reasonable. However, it must be assured for such a concept to work that the commuter traffic is fully controlled by the operator in order to prevent low-paying commuters from using up the seat capacity for high-paying, long- distance passengers. This can be achieved by a compulsory seat reservation system for long- distance passengers or by providing entirely separate cars for commuters and long-distance travelers. The assumptions in the Corridor Evaluation Report concerning the rolling stock for the Separate Vehicles Scenario seem to be reasonable. The operating concept, however, is somewhat ambiguous. The peak-hour frequency of 4 trains is not specified (in one or in both directions?) and there is no indication on how these trains will be integrated into the high-speed train operating program nor which program is provided in off-peak hours. Also the Express Commute Analysis in Appendix J is ambiguous as the analysis is made for the total of both directions, which seems not to be adequate. In general, commuter traffic during peak hours has a very pronounced peak in one direction and a comparably low demand in the other one. Thus, an analysis for only the total of both directions is not very meaningful.
4.6 Freight Services
4.6.1 Freight Services in Europe There are two different, basic design concepts of high speed-lines in Europe; one type is designated for passenger traffic only and the other for mixed operation of passenger and freight
Phase 1 Report PageC010381 4- 10 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation trains, with each one subject to different design parameters to conform to the requirements of the different train types. The French TGV lines are representative for the "passenger only" design concept and are designed with maximum gradients of 3.5 %. Nevertheless, freight has been operated on the lines almost from the beginning. One year after the complete inauguration of the first TGV line, the TVG Postal service was put into operation using TGV trainsets, which were especially adapted to the transport of parcels for the French post office. These trains have the same running behavior as the TGV trains for passenger traffic. Since 1997, a few conventional locomotive-hauled freight trains for less-than carload (LCL) freight are operated with 160 km/h maximum speed on some short TGV line sections, and in 1999, the maximum speed of some freight trains was increased to 200 km/h. The German high-speed lines are representative for the "mixed operation" concept and - accordingly - have been designed with maximum gradients of 1.25 %10. With the commissioning of the first high-speed lines Hanover - W0rzburg and Mannheim - Stuttgart, freight services were run at a large scale, the majority of the trains running with 120 km/h maximum speed and 1,200 t typical train weight. These trains are not dedicated to special types of cargo but the prevailing commodities are perishables and other time-sensitive goods. The freight trains do not run during the same time period as the high-speed trains as the great differences of train speeds on the same line at the same time would have a very negative effect on line capacity. Thus, the freight trains are timewise separated from the passenger trains, with the passenger trains running at daytime and the freight trains at night. During the initial years, some fast freight services for LCL freight and containers were operated with 160 km/h maximum speed; however, they were not successful commercially and discontinued after some years. Since January 2000, a freight system with 160 km/h trains was created again in co-operation with the German post office serving for the time being 7 major freight centers in Germany. In the next year, the extension to a total of 15 freight centers is envisaged. This train system is basically designed according to the post office requirements, but is also open for containerized freight or swap bodies of third parties. High-speed freight services similar to the TGV Postal have also been considered, but were never realized in Germany for economic reasons. The newer Spanish and Italian high-speed lines are also designed for mixed operation of high- speed passenger trains and light freight trains.
4.6.2 Freight Services on the California HSR System Two different types of freight services are considered in the Corridor Evaluation Report: ¯ Small Package/Light Container services in especially adapted high-speed rolling stock. ¯ Special Medium-Weight Freight with locomotive-hauled freight trains, which are adapted to the special conditions of the high-speed line (especially the axle load of 19 metric tons or less). The Small Package/Light Container services are similar to the French TGV Postal. They use rolling stock with the same characteristics as the high-speed passenger stock and do not create any operational problems. Loading and unloading of freight is envisaged at the passenger
10 An exception ~s the Cologne - Frankfurt/Main high-speed line, which is designed for passenger trains only and has maximum gradients of 4.0 %.
Phase 1 Report PageC010382 4 - 11 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
platforms of the stations. This is possible in case that these freight services are operated at night and do not interfere with passenger services. Otherwise, separate light freight platforms at or near the passenger stations are necessary. The travel times are more or less the same as for the high-speed passenger trains The Special Medium-Weight Freight services are similar to the freight services on German high- speed lines. The California HSR system, however, is designed according to the "passenger only" design concept with maximum gradients of 3.5 %, which impedes operation of freight trains. In Chapter II of the Corridor Evaluation Report, even a 5 % grade is addressed. In order to show the implications of these gradients on the maximum train loads, we have simulated freight train runs with both maximum gradients; the locomotive used was a 5600 kW Eurosprinter electric locomotive able to run with a maximum speed of 200 km/h. The maximum trainload per locomotive is about 700 t on 3.5 % grades and about 400 t on 5 % grades according to the simulations (Annex 4 - 9). The travel times for the Special Medium-Weight Freight trains have been approximately calculated for different train loads per locomotive with about 5 hours for a non-stop run San Diego - San Francisco on the Option B alignment (Table 4 - 3).
Table 4 - 3: Approximate Running Time of non-stop Freight Trains, San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (6 % Schedule Recovery Time included)
Train Weight [tons Approximate time San Diego - San per locomotive] Francisco and vice versa Ihrsl 200 4:51 300 4:53 400 4:56 500 4:59 600 5:03 700 5:07
Basis: Electric locomotive of 5600 kW rated power, maximum train speed 200 kin/h, 6 % schedule recovery time
4.6.3 Freight Compatibility Issues The high-speed rolling stock, which is presently available on the world market, is produced by Asian or European manufacturers and does not comply with the severe buff strength requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The intention of these requirements is to protect the passengers or staff inside a train in case of collision. As long as the California HSR system is a dedicated system without connections to other railroads in the region, the system could be designed according to construction standards, which differ from the FRA regulations. A problem arises, however, in case it is intended to run high- speed freight trains on other railroad lines11 or in case that standard freight trains coming from those lines are running on the California HSR system. There are two approaches to solve this compatibility problem. The simple approach is to design all rolling stock according to FRA regulations. This would result in a complete change of the
11 At reduced speed of course, depending on alignment, track condition and signaling system of these lines.
[ Phase 1 Report PageC010383 4 - 12 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation vehicle construction increasing the weight of trains, the requirements of traction power and accordingly increasing the investment and operation costs. The second approach would be to permit the use of rolling stock which is not in compliance with FRA regulations under certain conditions, which guarantee the same level of safety in a different way. An example for such an approach is the permission of running light-rail vehicles in mixed operation with fast passenger trains and freight trains on main lines of the German Railway, which was granted by the German Federal Railway Administration "Eisenbahnbundesamt" (EBA) in several cases. The buff strength of these light rail vehicles is considerably lower than that required by UIC standards12, which have been adopted by German railway legislation. The special permission is granted by the EBA for each non-compliant vehicle type for exactly defined lines or line sections after a thorough safety analysis of each individual case. The safety analysis is based on an overall risk assessment comprising the probability of an accident and the extent of damage and harm due to the accident. As the extent of damage and harm is assumed to be greater for light-rail vehicles, the approach is to bring the risk to the initial level by reducing the probability of an accident. The two key issues for this are: ¯ Exclusion and reduction as far as possible of errors of the operating staff by means of technical installations. ¯ Prevention of conflicting train runs by increased requirements on flank protection. Accordingly, each EBA permission is bound to special conditions concerning the signaling installations on the line and in the vehicles13, flank protection measures, and concerning the prohibition of potentially dangerous operating procedures without technical support by the signaling system. In case that such approach is accepted in principle, the running of freight trains on the California HSR system may be possible. The freight rolling stock intended to run on the HSR system must comply to the HSR standards anyway. The signaling and track installations required for the safe operation of high-speed trains guarantee a completely controlled operating environment, which prevents staff errors and assures the best possible flank protection. Thus in this case, the required safety is easily assured. The situation is somewhat different in the case that high-speed rolling stock is running on conventional lines. Whereas the high speed trains are designed according to the highest safety standards and would not need any major modification, it might be necessary to improve the signaling installations and the track layout on those lines to achieve the required safety level.
4.7 O&M Cost Estimates
4.7.1 Energy Costs At first glance, the energy costs of 2.99 $ per train mile given in the Corridor Evaluation Report appeared to be too low for a high-speed operation; these costs correspond to an energy
12 The UIC regulations require a minimum buff strength of 2000 kN for all rolling stock, which is suitable for integration into freight trains. This means that all stock, including passenger stock, have the regular coupling device according to UIC regulations. All stock, which is not suitable to be conveyed by freight trains because of its coupling devices, is allowed to have a lower buff strength of 1500 kN only. Light-rail vehicles actually in operation with EBA permission have 600 kN buff strength only. 13 Signaling equipment w~thout track vacancy detection and without automatic block is prohibited. Automatic train protection systems are usually required.
Phase 1 Report PageC010384 4 - 13 J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
consumption of about 27 kWh per train mile. We have calculated the energy consumption for traction14 on several line sections for the already mentioned DPT 400 train with 68.4 kWh per train mile. In addition, we considered the energy necessary for passenger comfort (lighting, air- conditioning) with 500 kWh per train hour equivalent to 5.8 kWh per train mile1S. The total consumption of 74.2 kWh per train mile corresponds to costs of 8,16 $ per train mile assuming specific energy costs of 0.11 $ per kWh (Annex 4 - 10). Accordingly, the energy costs per weekday increase almost 3 times by 412,987 $ corresponding to 136.9 million $ per year. Thus, the energy bill will increase from 79 million $ to 216 million $. The energy consumption of 74.2 kWh per train mile has been questioned by Parsons Brinckerhoff by pointing out that simulations prepared by DE-Consult in 1993/94 resulted in 49 kWh per train mile for the Los Angeles - Bakersfield line section. In response to this it should be mentioned that the simulation performed seven years ago assumed a CPT-type train with two powered end cars and only six coaches and a total train length of about 200 m; however, the train running time and energy consumption simulations of this peer review were based on the recently developed DPT 400 trainset with a total length of about 400 m. In Appendix J, the energy costs of the special commuter trains are set at 3.74 $, i.e., 25 % more as for the high-speed trains. These higher costs are not at all plausible because the commuter trains operate at lower speeds than the high-speed trains; the energy consumption at high speeds is - to the major part - due to the air resistance. Thus, the energy consumption of the commuter trains is in any case not greater than the consumption of the high-speed trains, but is very probably even lower.
4.7.2 Other O&M Costs The Corridor Evaluation Report does not contain any specification of quantities or unit prices used for the calculation of the other O&M costs and it was not possible to get any more detailed information. Thus, the calculations cannot be checked in detail. We followed two different approaches to assess the adequacy of the costs of 19.70 $ per train mile used in Appendices I and J of the report. ¯ We used the O&M costs estimated for a life cycle cost study last year and converted them in $ per train mile; ¯ We made a more detailed calculation based on the operating performances of the California HSR system, on California labor costs of 1996 increased with a rate of 3 % per year to actual costs, and on certain assumptions of staffing. Both approaches resulted in costs in the order of 19 to 20 $ per train mile. Thus, the costs of 19.70 $ seem to be realistic. Not plausible, however, are some O&M costs used in Appendix J for commuter trains. There, the train operation costs (mainly personnel costs) are the same for intercity and commuter trains. The travelling speed of commuter trains is lower than the speed of intercity trains; thus, the train hours per train mile are higher for commuter trains. On the other hand, the staffing of commuter trains is considerably lower than for intercity trains. Therefore, lower train operating costs can be expected for commuter trains.
Energy recovery for generative braking has been considered with 50 % of the maximal possible value. Based on an average turnround speed of 87 mph resulting from the turnround roster in Annex 4 - 7.
[ Phase 1 Report PageC010385 4 - 14 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
According to the Corridor Evaluation Report, the equipment maintenance costs used for commuter trains are 3 times greater than the corresponding value for intercity trains (21.39 $ instead of 7.13 $). This is not reasonable as commuter trains are less sophisticated in design and construction than intercity trains and their wear during service is lower. According to German experience, maintenance costs for commuter trains are considerably lower than for intercity trains and are not higher under any circumstances. 4.8 Summary The operational data contained in the Corridor Evaluation Report are in some parts inconsistent and not plausible. Up to now, a conceptual station layout plan does not exist. The travel time calculations are made in a simplified manner with questionable results. The timetables shown in the report do not reflect real operating conditions with overtaking of slower trains by faster ones. The number of required trainsets is considerably underestimated. The same applies to the energy costs. The other operation and maintenance costs of the high- speed trains seem to be in the right order-of-magnitude. The operation and maintenance costs of the commuter trains, however, are considerably overestimated. Freight operation on the California HSR system seems to be possible and will not create any problems if the HSR system is operated as an independent system. In case of an integration of the HSR system with the existing railroad network and running of high speed trains in the conventional network and running conventional freight trains on the high-speed lines, an exemption of the FRA regulations for these cases seems to be necessary.
Phase 1 Report PageC010386 4 - 15 ] German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 1 ICE-Services (1998/99)
Phase 1 Report PageC010387 4- 16 [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 2 Speed - versus - Distance Diagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
Speed-Distance Diagrams for Express Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 400 I I 3 200 ’ I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 Chainage [km]
Speed-Distance Diagrams for Local Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
400 3 200
350 2 800 ~~
300 f -~ - -~"~ 2 400 /~/~
250 -- 2 000 ~ ~1~~~ i ~
iJ <: ~: X ~1~°°
50 100 150 200 250 Chainage [km]
Ir’--’l Elevation --LA- BAK ~BAK- LA]
Phase 1 Report PageC010388 4 - 17 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 3 Comparison of Speed - versus - Distance Diagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
Comparison of Speed - Distance Diagrams Express Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A
400 I
100 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 Chalnage [krn]
I-- DE-Consult LA- BAK ~DE-Consult BAK - LA ~ Appendix F]
Comparison of Speed - Distance Diagrams Local Train from Los Angeles to Bakersfield, Option A
400 l
35O
300
250
200
~5~
100
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 Chainage [km]
I-- DE-Consult LA - BAK ~DE-Consult BAK - LA --Appendix
Phase 1 Report PageC0103894- 18 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 4
Speed Profile San Diego - San Francisco, Option B
4O0
35O
250
~ 50
50
0 50 1~ 150 2~ 250 3~ 350 4~ 450 5~ 550 6~ 650 7~ 750 8~ 850 9~ 950 1 000 C~ina~
Annex 4 - 5
Approximate Longitudinal Profile San Diego - San Francisco, Option B
1200
000
8O0
600
400
~oo
0 ~ 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 $00 350 400 450 500 550 ~00 650 700 750 800 850 ~hainago [~m]
Phase 1 Report PageC010390 4- 19 I Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 6 Page 1 Results for the Direction San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (12 hours)
Train Departure "13mes Wa=tlng T~mes
Departure Departure Departure Stations [h:min] [h:min] [mini [min] 1 R FRO SF 5:50 5"50 2 R FRO SF 6:35 6:46 11,6 3 L LA SF 5:10 5:10 4 SUB LA SF 5.45 5:45 1,7 5 SUB LA SF 6.00 6:00 13,0 6 E SD SF 5:05 5:05 7 SUB SD SAC 4:50 4:50 30,8 8 SL SD SF 5:00 5:00 3,6 9 Sc SD SAC 5:15 5:15 10 EL SD SF 5:25 5:25 2,6 11 SUB SD SF 5:35 5:35 12 L SD SAC 5:45 5:45 3,0 13 EL SD SAC 6:00 6:00 14 SUB SD SF 6:15 6:15 1,4 15 SUB SD SAC 6:25 6.25 3,2 16 EL SD SF 6:35 6.35 17 L SD SF 6:45 6:45 26,3 18 EL SD SAC 7:00 7:00 19 SUB SD SF 7:10 7:10 15,3 20 Sc SD SF 7:20 7:20 21 EL SD SF 7:30 7:30 6,6 22 L SD SF 7:40 7:40 2,7 23 E LA SF 9:30 9:30 24 S SD SAC 8:35 8.35 25 SUB SD SF 8:15 8:15 4,9 26 E SD SF 9.05 9:05 27 L SD SAC 8:40 8:40 3,0 28 SUB SD SF 9:15 9:15 29 S SD SF 10:10 10:10 30 SUB SD SAC 10:00 10:00 4,5 31 E SD SF 11:00 11.00 32 L SD SF 10:50 10’50 22,3 33 E LA SAC 12.30 12.30 34 S SD SF 11:40 11:40
PageC010391 4 - 20 Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 6 Page 2
Train Departure T~mes Waitin.(i Times atthe atWay No. Type From To Departure Departure Departure Stations I I Scheduled I Real[h:mln] [h:min] [mini [min] 35 SUB SD SF 11:20 11:20 4,4 36 E LA SF 13:05 13:05 37 S SD SF 12:20 12:20 38 SUB SD SAC 12:00 12:00 1,9 39 SUB SD SF 12:10 12:10 11,1 40 E SD SF 13:00 13:00 41 L SD SF 12:40 12:40 6,1 42 SUB SD SF 13:10 13:10 4,4 43 E LA SF 14:55 14:55 44 S SD SF 14:10 14:10 45 L SD SAC 13:45 13:45 3,0 47 SUB SD SAC 14:45 14:45 48 S SD SF 15:25 15:25 49 SUB SD SF 15:00 15:00 3,5 50 S SD SAC 15:45 15:45 51 SUB SD SF 15:20 15:20 7,0 53 R SD BAK 15:55 15:55 101 L* SAC SF 6:24* 6:24* 102 L* SAC SF 7:09* 7:09* 7,9 103 S* SAC SF 7:42* 7:42* 104 L* SAC SF 8:59* 8:59* 12,7 105 S* SAC SF 9:57* 9:57* 106 S* SAC SF 10:42" 10:42" 107 L* SAC SF 11:05" 11:05" 20,9 108 L* SAC SF 11:45" 11:45" 109 S* SAC SF 11:42* 11:42* ----110I S* SAC SF 13:02* 13:02* 111 L* SAC SF 14:59" 14:59" 4,0 112 S* SAC SF 15:42" 15:42" 63 Total number of trains Total of delays 243,3 min 29 Number of delayed trains Average delay 8,4 mm Maximum Delay 30,8 min * Trains are coming from Sacramento Departure t~mes refer to San Joaqu~n River lunct~on
Report PageC010392 4 - 21 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 7 Page 1 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m.
I II I I ......
//// ////
I’III I I I Ill f If I l l
f f f ff
| | l J J
[ Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 22 C010393 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 7 Page 2 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 8 a.m. to 12 noon
Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 23 J C010394 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 7 Page 3 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 12 noon to 4 p.m.
Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 24 C010395 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 8 Page 1 Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C (Option B)
Trains Direction SD - SF/SAC Trains Direction SF/SAC - SD train SD LA 8AK FRO SAC SAC SF trmnset turnback tram SF SAC SAC FRO BAK LA SD tra~nset tumback no. 53dep 13dep 2arr 2dep 18dep 18arr 66arr no t~me no 66dep 18dep 18arr 2arr 2dep 14arr 52arr no. t~me 1 5"50 7 28 1 0"37 1 5:00 7-28 24 0 47 2 6 35 8"13 2 0.37 2 6 00 8 28 25 0"37 3 5"10 8 29 3 0:31 3 5"10 9 59 26 0’81 4 5 45 8.43 4 1 02 4 5,20 9.14 27 0 46 5 6"00 9"04 5 1 ’06 5 5 40 10"08 28 0"52 6 5:05 8 37 6 1,03 6 5"50 9’22 29 0:48 7 4:S0 8:44 7 1:!6, 7 6.40 9 25 30 3 05 8.... 5 00 9.1’7 8 1.23 8 6"45 10"45 31 0 85 9 5:15 9.17 9 0"53 9 6.50 11 24 32 0:36 10 5 25 9"27 10 1.33 10 7.00 9.30 33 3 35 11 535 1003 11 1.27 11 7 10 11 33 34 037 12 545 10.08 12 1 37 12 7 25 11 53 35 0:47 13 6:00 9’41 13 1.04 13 7"30 10:41 36 0 39 ~4 6 15 10’43 14 1"27 14 7.35 1224 37 1 21 ~ 6 25 10"26 15 1,54 15 7’45 12.13 38 0 57 16 6 35 10’37 16 1.18 16 7 55 10.27 39 4:28 17 6,45 11 36 17 1.14 17 8’05 11-37 1 0"43 18 700 1041 18 1 49 18 820 12"07 42 083 19 7 10 11 5~ 19 1:2~ 1~--- 8’~ .... 10.39 47 5"21 20 720 11.40 20 1 20 20 8.40 11 15 40 555 21 730 11 32 21 1.13 21 8.50 13’24 2 1"21 22 7 40 12.29 22 1 ’46 22 9 00 11.30 3 6 00 ~-- 930 ---- 120~ 2~ 1 3~-- 23 9.10 13’59 43 1"01 24 8"35 12 07 41 1 ’53 24 9’30 13.04 49 1.06 2~5C8 15 12:49 24 2 3~6 2~5 9.4~00 ____ 14:14 6 1’11 26 9"05 12 37 25 2:03 26 9"55 12,25 44 6 15 27 840 13,03 51 157 27 1010 1433 9 1:12 28 9.15 13.43 52 2 07 28 10,10 14:44 8 1.11 29 10.10 13 57 29 2"03 29 11 00 13:45 10 5 20 30 10:00 1401 27 2’09 30 11 30 16:19 11 0.41 31 11 00 14’32 28 1:53 31 11.45 15:46 12 0.34 32 10.50 15:39 26 1,21 32 11,55 1527 16 043 33 12 30 ------14 3~--- 30 2’2~ 3~- 12:1~ 15,57 14 0:33 34 11 40 1527 31 1"08 34 12.30 1409 18 1 11 35 11.20 15"54 36 1 16 35 12 30 16:35 46 0 40 36 13’05 15’35 33 1"20 36 12"50 17’24 17 1 46 37 12 20 16:07 1 1 08 37 1300 17 00 20* 2.15 38 12:00 16’01 32 1 24 ~, 1~:10 1~’.-44 7 ~ ~9 12 10 16 44 34 0 46 39 13.25 18.14 19 s 40 13.00 17 05 42 0 55 40 13"5~ 17:56 4 s ~ 1240 1729 35 0-51 41 1405 17:39 48 2’01 ~ 1310 17"38 ~38 --04~ 4~ 14,1~ ...... 18.30 22 s 43 ~ 17 25 39 0"40 43 14 40 19:08 25 s 44- 1410~__ ---- 175~49 033 44 15’00 1852 51 s 45 13:45 1808 37 1:27 45 1525 19:12 24 s
Phase 1 Report PageC010396 4 - 25 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 8 Page 2 Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C (Option B)
Trains Direction SD - SF/SAC Trains Direction SF/SAC - SD tra=n SD LA BAK FRO SAC SAC SF tramset turnback train SF SAC SAC FRO BAK LA SD tramset turnback no. 53dep 13dep 2arr 2dep 18de13 18arr 66arr no t~me no 66dep 18dep 18art 2arr 2dep 14arr 52arr no. t=me 46 16 00 ’ 18 30 47 1:30 46 15 50 19:50 52 s 47 1445 1839 2 2’21 47 16:00 17.38 15 s 48 15.25 19.12 6 4.48 48 16:10 20:33 27 s 49 15:00 19.26 43 2"14 49 16’25 19 57 28 s 50 1545 19.17 9 s 50 16:35 21:03 31 s 51 15,20 19.48 18 s 51 -16:50 20:24 21 s 52 17 10 19’40 40 s 52 17.00 21’49 26 s 53 15 55 18:23 5 s 53 17 05 19 14 30 s 54 17 30 ~ 19:39 3 s 54 17’10 18:48 36 s 55 16 10 20.38 16 s 55 17 20 19.50 41 s 56 16.45 20 17 54 s 56 17.25 20.59 32 s 57 16:20 21 09 12 s 57 17 30 21:58 34 s 58 16 30 20:58 14 s 58 17.40 22.14 8 s 59 16 40 21 ’29 53 s 59 18"00 22 28 42 s 60 17:15 20 47 46 s 60 18.05 20.14 50 s 61 17.00 19.28 11 s 61 18.05 21.54 39 s 62 18’40 20 49 44 s 62 18 20 22"48 38 s 63 17.20 21:48 55 s 63 18.30 23 19 49 s 64 19.05 21 ’35 10 s 64 18’40 22:40 56 s 65 19.15 22:00 20* s 65 19’30 23’17 45 s 66 19:10 23 59 17 s 66 20:45 0:04 23 s 67 19:40 0 03 48 s 67 21"00 23.53 ’ 2 s N i~ :1 68 21.30 000 6 s 101 5:25 7:45 42 0.35 101 5.30 7.50 46 1.25 102 6:10 8.30 43 0:40 102 6:00 7:45 47 0 45 103 7’00 8’45 44 1’10 103 6 25 8’45 48 1’20 104 8:00 10’20 45 1:20 104 6.50 8.35 49 0.55 105 9 15 11:00 / 46 1:30 105 7:35 9:55 50 1.05
107 10’05 12:25 48 1:40 107 10 40 12.25 8 2.35 108 10:45 13:05 13 235 108 11:40 1400 45 2"00 109 11:00 12:45 50 2.15 109 1245 1430 21 2.20 110 12:20 14:05 15 1 55 110 13.40 16.00 23 1 25 111 1400 16’20 41 1.00 111 15:00 16.45 50 1 20 112 15.00 16.45 8 0"55 112 15 40 17 25 13 0 50 113 16:00 18.20 45 1 10 113 16"00 18"20 29 200 114 17 25 19.10 23 1:35 114 16’55 18:40 33 2:50 115 18:15 20:00 13 S 115 17.15 19:35 1 S ~ 1935 21 55 37 S 116 1820 2005 35 S ~ 20 20 22:05 29 S 117 20’00 22:20 47 S ~ 21 30 2350 33 S 118 21 40 000 43 S
M=n=mum turn back t~me 30 m~nutes * empty running from San D~ego to Los Angeles Roster of tramset 7 h~ghhghted s = stabhng overn=ght
Total number required for operat=on. 56 tra~nsets w~thout any spares
Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 26 C010397 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4 - 9 Running performance of the Trains, Option B
Trains per Train Miles Train km From To Miles Day (both Directions/ per Day per Day San Diego Mira Mesa 9,99 106 1.059 1.704 Mira Mesa Escondido 14,73 106 1.561 2.512 Escondido Temecula 29,27 106 3.103 4.992 Temecula Riverside 37,56 106 3.981 6.406 Riverside Ontario 17,92 106 1.900 3.056 Ontario East San Gabriel 16,09 106 1.706 2.744 East San Gabriel LA Union Station 25,22 106 2.673 4.301 LA Union Station Burbank 11,13 132 1.469 2.364 Burbank Santa Clarita 15,99 132 2.111 3.396 Santa Clarita Palmdale 36,75 132 4.851 7.805 Palmdale ,Bakersfield 88,31 132 11.657 18.756 Bakersfield Tulare County 69,56 128 8.904 14.326 Tulare Count,/ I Fresno 38,04 128 4.869 7.834 Fresno Pacheco Junction 27,24 98 2.670 4.295 Pacheco Junction Los Banos 41,88 132 5.528 8.895 Los Banos Gilroy 36,97 132 4.880 7.852 Gilro)/ San Jose 29,91 132 3.948 6.353 San Jose Redwood City 21,44 132 2.830 4.554 Redwood City SF Airport 11,68 132 1.542 2.481 SF Airport SF Downtown 13,70 132 1.808 2.910 Fresno Merced 52,91 36 1.905 3.065 Me rced Modesto 37,52 36 1.351 2.173 Modesto Stockton 21,54 36 775 1.248 Stockton Sacramento 50,71 36 1.826 2.937 Mdes and tram numbers according to Appendix I Total 78.906 126.959
Trains required according to the Corridor Evaluation Report: 38 trainsets * Corresponding train running performance: 3.033 km / day ** Total investment costs: 1.178 million $ Costs per trainset: 31 million $
Trains required according to turnround schedule: 62 trainsets * Corresponding train running performance: 1.859 km / day ** Total investment costs: 1.922 million $ ¯ 10 % spares included ¯ * Number of trains dur=ng For reference: weekend days and holidays is Maglev Berlin - Hamburg: 2.800 km / day equal to 70% of the weekday Taipei - Kaohsiung: 1.700 km / day number of trains. Assumed 253 ICE 1 : 1.500 km/ day weekdays and 112 weekend days Shinkansen 200: 1.400 km / day including holidays in a year. Shinkansen El: 1.100 km / day TGV A: 1.100 km / day TGV R and TGV SE: 1.000 km / day
Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 27 ] C010398 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 10 Maximum Speed of Freight Trains in Gradients, Initial Speed 200 km/h
Grade 3.5 % 2~°I I ---
0 0,0 ],0 2,0 a,O 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 ]1,0 12,0 ]a,O ]4,0 ~5,0 ]6,0 ]7,0 ]g,O ]9,0 20,0 Chainage [km]
Grade 5.0 % 250
20O
150
100
50
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0 14,0 15,0 16,0 17,0 18,0 19,0 20,0 Chainage [km]
[ Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 28 C010399 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Annex 4- 11 Approximate Calculation of Energy Consumption
Calculation of Specific Energy Consumption
Traction max. max. Energy Traction Comfort Comfort Comfort Type of Length Direction Gradients Energy E-back E-back Cons. kWh per kWh per Energy kWh per Train [km] [kWh] [kWh] [%] [kWh] Train Mde Train Hourl [kWh] Train Express LA - BAK 241,8 profile 11.792 1.568 13% 11.008 73,3 500 868 5,8 Express SD - LA 244,7 0 %0 10.658 1.951 18% 9.683 63,7 500 879 5,8 Express LA- SF 713,6 0%0 31.8.34 2.047 6% 30.811 69,5 500 2.562 5,8 Express BAK- LA 241,8 profile 10.205 1.804 18% 9.303 61,9 500 868 5,8 Express SF - LA 713,6 0 %0 31.696 2.022 6% 30.685 69,2 500 2.562 5,8 Express LA- SD 244,7 0 %0 10.657 1.940 18% 9.687 63,7 500 879 5,8 Local LA- BUR 21,0 profile 1.354 347 26% 1.181 90,4 500 75 5,8 Local BUR - SC 26,2 profile 1.952 493 25% 1.706 104,6 500 94 5,8 Local SC - PLM 51,0 profile 3.456 799 23% 3.057 96,4 500 183 5,8 Local PLM - BAK 143,5 profile 5.999 1.631 31% 5.084 57,0 500 515 5,8 Local BAK - PLM 143,5 profile 8.011 884 11% 7 569 84,9 500 515 5,8 Local PLM - SC 51,0 profile 2.081 1.112 53% 1.525 48,1 500 163 5,8 Local SC - BUR 26,2 profile 1.255 852 68% 829 50,8 500 94 5,8 Lm,o~,.alBUR - LA 21,0 profile 803 560 70% 523 40,1 500 75 5,8 Total 2883,7 131.753 18.210 14% 122.648 10.354
400 m trazn length average consumption for tract=on 68,4 kWh ~er tra=n 87 mph average tumround speed O, 11 $ per kWh results =n 7,53 $ )er tram average consumption for comfort 5,8 kWh )ertrain mile 0,11 $ per kWh results zn 0,64 $ ~er tram mile 55,00 $ ~er train hour average total energy consumption 74,2 kWh )er tra=n m=le 0,11 $ per kWh results ~n 8,16 $ ~er train mile
Comparison of Energy Consumption and Costs
Calculated Values per Weekday Values Append=x per Weekday Tract=on Comfort I Total Total Trains MilesTra=n pel Tra=n Energy Costs Difference From To Miles hours Energy EnergyI Energy Energy per Day ] par Train M~e [$ Day per day Costs [$]I Costs [$] Costs Costs I$1 [$] San D=ego M~ra Mesa 9,99 106 1 059 12 7 97"~ 673 8 644 2,99 3 166 -5 478 M~ra Mesa Escond~do 14,73 106 1 561 18 11 754 992 12 746 2,99 4 669 -8 077 Escond.do Temecula 29,27 106 3 103 36 23 356 1 972 25 327 2.99 9 277 -16 050 Temecula R~vers~de 37,56 106 3 981 46 29 971 2 530 32 501 2,99 11 904 -20 596 R=verslde Ontar=o 17,92 106 1 900 22 14 299 1 207 15 506 2,99 5 680 -9 827 Ontario East San Gabriel 16,09 106 1 706 20 12 839 1 084 13 923 2,99 5 100 -8 823 East San Gabnel LA Un=on Stat=on 25,22 106 2 673 31 20 124 1 699 21 823 2,99 7 993 -13 830 LA Unton Station Burbank 11,13 132 1 469 17 11 059 934 11 993 2,99 4 393 -7 600 Burbank Santa Clarda 15,99 132 2 111 24 15 889 1 341 17 230 2,99 6 311 -10 919 Santa Clarda Palmdale 36,75 132 4 851 56 36 517 3 083 39 600 2,99 14 504 -25 095 Palmdale Bakersf=eld 88,31 132 11 657 135 87 750 7 408 95 158 2,99 34 854 -60 304 Bakersfield ]’ulare County 69,56 128 8 904 103 67 025 5 658 72 683 2,99 26 622 -46 061 Tulare Count}, Fresno 38,04 128 4 869 56 36 653 3 094 39 748 2,99 14 559 -25 189 Fresno LOS Banos 69,12 132 9 124 105 68 682 5 798 74 480 2.99 27 280 -47 199 LOS Banos G=lroy 36,97 132 4 880 56 36 736 3 101 39 837 2,99 14 591 -25 245 G=lro}, San Jose 29,91 132 3 948 46 29 720 2 509 32 229 2,99 11 805 -20 424 San Jose Redwood C~ty 21,44 132 2 830 33 21 304 1 798 23 103 2,99 8 462 -14 641 Redwood C~ty SF A~rport 11,68 132 I 542 18 11 606 980 12 586 2,99 4 610 -7 976 SF Atrport ;F Downtown f3.70 132 1 808 21 13 613 1 149 14 762 2,99 5 407 -9 355 Fresno r,,/lerced 52,91 36 1 905 22 14 339 1 210 15 549 2,99 5 695 -9 854 Merced Modesto 37,52 36 1 351 16 10 168 858 11 026 2,99 4 039 -6 988 Modesto ;tockton 21,54 36 775 9 5 837 493 6 330 2,99 2 319 -4 012 Stockton Sacramento 50,71 36 1 826 21 13 742 1 160 14 902 2,99 5 458 -9 444 Total 79.832 922 600.954 50.730 651.685 238.698 -412.987
Bas=$ 87 mph average turnround speed
Phase 1 Report PageC010400 4 - 29 I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
5. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS AND SCHEDULES
5.1 Unit Costs
The unit costs of the California High-Speed Rail Study (HSR) have been compared with comparable unit prices of German Railway construction projects. The unit prices used originate partly from standard catalogs for costing preliminary planning and from empirical values for construction projects already completed (see Table 5-1). In particular, the figures for new German high-speed lines (InterCityExpress - ICE) with a speed of up to 300 km/h have been considered.
All unit costs for the German system are shown in DM (Deutsche Mark). During the year 2000, the average exchange rate amounted to about 1 DM = 0.5 US$.
Most California unit costs are given on a per-km basis, whereas in Germany unit costs generally are presented on a per-m basis. In order to permit a direct comparison, the California values are given also on the meter basis in the subsequent report sections.
5.1.1 Track and Guideway Items
Ballasted and Direct Fixation Track
The costs apply to a two-track line in each case.
HSR: Contents of ballasted track: ballast, substructure, rail, sleeper, fixing aids Cost of ballasted track: 781 $/m
Cost of direct fixation: 1,477 $/m
New ICE line: Contents of ballasted track: rail, sleeper, ballast, fixing aids Cost of ballasted track: 1,500 DM/m
Cost of direct fixation: 3,400 DM/m
The unit price for ballasted track of the California HSR system appears to be too low considering that the substructure (sub-ballast and frost proofing) are supposed to be included in this price. For a new ICE line, a layer of 0.3 m sub-ballast with approx. 3.75 m3/m would cause additional costs of approx. 225 DM/m. The total price would then be 1,725 DM/m; this total would go up to 1,950 DM/m if the costs for frost proofing (0.6 m) are added.
The California unit price without sub-ballast would correspond approximately to the usual level in Germany and the unit price with sub-ballast is approx. 25 % too low.
C010401 I Phase 1 Report Page 5- 1 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Cost ratio of direct fixation/ballasted track ICE 3,400/1,500 = 2.27 HSR 1,477/781 = 1.89
The unit price for direct fixation appears to be too low on the basis of the deviation from the German unit prices.
Special Trackwork
This item covers mainly bypass and parking tracks in stations and crossovers on the open line. On the basis of experience with new German lines, a flat-rate surcharge of 15 % of the cost for the regular trackwork is adequate for this item.
5.1.2 Earthwork and Related Items Site Preparation
The California Corridor Evaluation Report shows 0.95 $/m2 (equivalent to 9,500 S/hectare) for this item.
A figure of 5 DM/m2 is usually calculated for site preparation in Germany, i.e., more than twice the price estimated for the California HSR system.
Earthwork
In California, 7 $/m3 are assumed for earthwork; the corresponding costs in Germany amount to 20 - 25 DM/m3.
The unit price is approx. 30 % lower than the comparable German price.
Imported Borrow
A comparable unit price for Germany is not readily available.
Landscaping/Erosion Control
The HSR report indicates 0.635 $/m~ (= 6,350 S/hectare) for this item; the unit cost for landscaping / planting / seeding and planting slopes averages 50 DM/m~ in Germany. This major discrepancy cannot be explained. Fencing
California: 80 $/m (both sides)
Germany: Fencing up to a height of 2.50 m: 250-500 DM/m fence Simple fence up to 1.00 m: 35 DM/m fence
C010402 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 2 J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
The type of fencing can differ widely: with foundation, simple piles, dug-in posts, type of fence. The cost estimate therefore cannot be finally assessed. However, as the fencing concerns the entire length of the line, it is advisable that the type of fencing and the associated unit price be verified accurately.
Drainage Facilities
HSR: 5% of the costs for earthwork
ICE drainage: Side ditches 80 DM/m Deep drainage 250 DM/m
It is not meaningful to assess the costs of drainage coupled with earthwork.
For example, high drainage costs occur in cut and trough areas and with unfavorable sub-soil conditions and high ground water levels. For embankments with comparably high earthwork costs, special drainage facilities other than side ditches are not usually required.
The total costs determined for the segment "LA-4" were checked as a random sample. The equivalent of approx. 4 $/m is estimated for this cost item. This section is located in a dense urban area in which far higher drainage costs will very likely occur.
5.1.3 Structures, Tunnels and Walls Aerial Structures and Tunnels
Bridges are divided into aerial structures and grade separations. Aerial structures include elevated tracks, e.g., in urban areas, viaducts with spans larger than 36.6 m and waterway crossings. Grade separations include highway and railroad overcrossings/undercrossings (see next section).
The prices for aerial structures are given in $/km. The comparison of typical cross-sections of new German lines and the California HSR shows that the standard width of each of the structures is approx. 13.00 m, so that comparable constructions can be assumed.
The California unit costs are appreciably less than the comparable values for new German lines. The difference between standard and special aerial structures at 3-times the cost for special structures is disproportionately large. This is not very realistic, as high costs for foundations and superstructures are also incurred for constructions with shorter spans.
The prices for tunnels vary according to the construction method. This in turn depends on the topographical and geological conditions.
The relationship between the costs of 2-track tunnels compared with 2 single-track tunnels agrees closely with German experience.
C010403 Phase 1 Report Page 5- 3 ] [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
The cost differences between the various construction methods are larger for the HSR than for the German estimates (HSR factor 2.7; factor for new German lines 1.5).
This means that the choice of the respective construction method for the California system has a large influence on the construction costs. Detailed studies of the geological conditions should therefore be conducted in advance, in order to obtain a realistic estimate of the actual costs for the construction of the tunnels.
This particularly applies to the problem of regions with seismic activity. A seismic chamber item is listed in the unit costs with a unit price corresponding to a tunnel length of approx. 1 to 2 km. This estimate cannot be checked due to the lack of corresponding experience in Germany.
According to the California HSR Report, the seismic chamber will be used when crossing a major fault line. Special measures are not listed for the remaining tunnel sections in other regions with seismic activity. Due to the high standards for high-speed lines, increased costs that are not yet estimated may also occur in these areas.
The comparison of the costs for aerial structures and tunnels shows that the prices for aerial structures in the HSR study are appreciably lower than the tunnel costs. The comparable German figures tend to give higher costs for a bridge kilometer than for the corresponding tunnel line. The unit prices for the bridges therefore appear to have been estimated too low. This should be checked carefully, as this item constitutes a large part of the total costs due to the large share of aerial structures on the line (see also Chapter 5.3 - Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Costs).
Retaining and Crash Walls
The California unit prices are given in $/km: 3.5 million $/km for retaining walls and 1.2 million $/km for crash walls.
Retaining walls can, however, vary considerably in height and thus in the actual costs incurred. The German cost estimate assumes approx. 1,000 to 2,500 DM per m2 of visible retaining wall. For a retaining wall height of, for example, 4.00 m, this equates to approx. 8,000 DM/m. If a retaining wall is necessary on both sides of the line, this results in a price of 16,000 DM per line meter.
Sound Walls
As for the retaining walls, the costs depend on the height of the wall. Comparative figures amount to 1,900 DM/m (1 m height) to 4,200 DM/m (5 m height). For both sides of the line, the unit price is doubled, so that the $450,000/km estimated for the HSR seems very low.
5.1.4 Grade Separations
The unit costs are given per bridge structure. The difference is shown for the respective regions (urban, suburban, etc.). This breakdown seems to be not very practical, as the construction
C010404 Phase 1 Report Page 5- 4 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ
costs depend largely on the size of the structure (bridge area and - for a standard cross-section width - bridge length). For example, the construction costs for the same size of bridge in an urban area and an undeveloped area only differ to a minor extent in spite of different initial conditions.
As a more detailed description of the assumptions made to determine the unit costs is not available, an assessment of this aspect is only possible to a limited extent.
The following costs are estimated for standard structures for new German lines:
Rail over freeway: 4,300,000 DM each Rail over highway: 2,700,000 DM each Rail over rural road: 1,200,000 DM each
The slightly higher California costs for undercrossings compared with overcrossings are realistic on the basis of the higher railway loads.
5.1.5 Building Items
The station buildings are all special buildings; the costs are specific to railway or HSR/ICE only to a minor extent.
Comparable transport buildings in the USA can be used as a guide, starting with a simple railway station through to an airport terminal with road, rail/underground railway and bus connections.
A few current projects in Germany are given below:
ICE station at Frankfurt airport:
4 long-distance rail tracks connections to regional railway, freeway and local roads, air terminal length 700 m, width 63 m length of railway platforms approx. 400 m construction: fish girder (structural steel with cladding), multi-story
costs including finishing: 460 million DM
The Frankfurt/M airport station is a through station; rail vehicle maintenance facilities are not provided.
Larger commercial areas are not considered; these are contained in the airport building itself. The entire area features an extremely intensive use of the building environment (airport, existing railway tunnel, motorway, feeder roads to airport).
C010405 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 5 [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
Cologne airport station
4 tracks open building with glass roof construction costs 106 million DM
Limburg station (in rural area)
2 tracks no escalators Park & Ride facility costs include access and Park & Ride facilities 28.5 million DM
Montabaur station (in rural area)
3 tracks lifts, escalators floor space of passenger terminal: 22 x 50 m Park & Ride facility costs include access and Park & Ride facilities 38 million DM
5.1.6 Rail and Utility Relocation
The Corridor Evaluation Report assumes 1 million $/km for the relocation of existing railroad tracks; it is not clear whether this refers to permanent or temporary relocations.
A temporary relocation includes the construction of a new temporary track, dismantling of existing track, restoration of the old track and dismantling of the temporary track.
Permanent relocation encompasses construction of a new track and dismantling of the existing track.
In Germany, this distinction is made to reflect the different unit costs for these works as shown below.
¯ Assuming the California unit cost applies to the relocation of one track on a temporary basis, then the California price appears adequate for the construction of the track without substructure.
¯ In case of a one-track permanent relocation, that price tends to be too high.
¯ Assuming the California unit cost applies to the relocation of two tracks on a temporary basis, then the price would tend to be too low in comparison with German experience.
C010406 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 6 [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
In case of a two-track permanent relocation, that price would be adequate.
In all cases, the costs for substructure (sub-ballast, frost proofing) need to be considered extra! (See also Chapter 5.1.1 - Track and Guideway Items)
Utility Relocation
In Germany, these prices are graded according to the type of line to be relocated as follows:
Gas: 1,000- 1,200 DM/m Water: 500 - 700 DM/m Sewage: 500- 700 DM/m Electricity (laid underground): 180- 250 DM/m Telecom (laid underground): 200 DM/m
Overall, this gives an average price of approx. 550 DM/m. The prices apply to the railway area, e.g. station, but without expensive crossing of tracks.
In urban areas, the unit costs are to be increased appropriately; the deep location causes increased earthwork costs, the surface must be restored and traffic must be temporarily rerouted. The California prices therefore appear reasonable, with the exception of the price for "Suburban" ($215,000/km), which seems to be too low, and for "Undeveloped" ($11,000/km), which is definitely too low. For $11,000/km ("Undeveloped"), only a simple power line or telephone line spanned between wooden poles can be rerouted. Underground lines cannot be rerouted for this price; the cost is higher for just the earthwork alone. Furthermore, the relocation of larger trunk lines for gas or water in undeveloped areas cannot be adequately covered by this unit cost.
5.1.7 Right-of-Way
The California land/site prices cannot be meaningfully assessed by us. However, it is conspicuous that purchasing land in densely populated areas in Germany is appreciably more expensive than in California, but the relationship is reversed for undeveloped areas, i.e., appreciably more expensive in California than in Germany.
5.1.8 Environmental Impact Mitigation
In Germany, costs of approx. 500 - 1,000 DM/m of line are allowed for environmental impact mitigation measures. Considered over the whole line, a surcharge of 3 % as planned in the HSR study corresponds to a unit price of 365 - 375 $ per meter of line. This estimate can therefore be considered as adequate. The required extent depends heavily on locally applicable rules and legal requirements.
C010407 I Phase 1 Report Page 5- 7 ] [ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]
5.1.9 Signaling and Communications
The costs for signaling are lower for HSR than for new ICE lines and the costs for communications are higher for HSR than for ICE. Signaling for the HSR has been estimated at $665,000/km and communications at $550,000/km.
The costs for communications for new ICE lines are usually estimated as approx. 25 % of the costs for signaling. In a very recent analysis of the new Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line, it was found that the share of the costs for signaling is 72 % and the share for communications 28 % percent of the total costs for technical equipment.
Wayside Protection Systems
The costs for the Wayside Protection Systems for ICE lines are normally included in the communications costs. However, rail break alarms are not usually installed in Germany.
The total wayside equipment costs for the ICE are 2,200 DM/m of line compared with costs of 1,268 $/m of line for the California HSR system. The total equipment costs (signaling, communications and wayside equipment) are 1.47-times the track work costs (rail, sleeper, fastener, ballast) for the ICE and 1.62-times for the HSR system. Therefore, the total California estimate appears to be reasonable.
5.1.10 Electrification
The ratios between traction power supply and traction power distribution are as follows:
HSR: 3405 / 6345 = 0.54 ICE: 400 DM / 1,160 DM = 0.34
On the basis of a currency exchange rate of 1 $ = 2 DM, the costs for traction power supply and traction power distribution for the HSR system are higher than comparable estimates for ICE lines. The price for traction power distribution alone appears reasonable, but the price for the traction power supply seems somewhat excessive. In addition to technical factors, the costs of the traction power supply are, however, also dependent on local circumstances in the national power grid, which cannot be assessed from Germany.
5.2 Completeness of Cost Items The construction cost items that occur in the construction of a high-speed railway have been included in the California estimates to a large degree. The discussion of the respective unit costs in terms of amount and commensurability has been presented in the relevant chapters. In our opinion, the following items have not yet been adequately considered:
C010408 Phase 1 Report Page 5- 8 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Costs for Temporary Site Facilities
Costs will occur here for the development of the construction sites, i.e., the erection of site roads and access routes for material and bulk transport, plus the provision of energy (electricity, fuel), water, storage areas for building materials and soil, and accommodation and supplies for the workforce.
These costs are usually estimated as a percentage surcharge of 6 - 10 % on the construction total.
Safety Concepts for Tunnels
The California unit prices for the tunnels appear to include only the construction costs of the tunnel tubes. Extensive safety and emergency rescue concepts have to be provided for railway tunnels in Germany.
The rescue of the passengers must be assured in the event of an accident. This is achieved by emergency exit shafts at certain intervals or connecting tunnels in the case of two single-track tunnels. Rescue areas must be provided for at the exit shafts and tunnel portals, which are connected to the public highway network by new access roads to be laid.
In addition, smoke extraction shafts, ventilator systems and water pipes for fire fighting may be necessary in case of fire.
Although not explicitly described in the Corridor Evaluation Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that safety facilities were included in the tunnel costs, including "ventilation equipment, ventilation/evacuation shafts, twin tunnel methods, etc."
Large pressure differences occur during high-speed travel in tunnels. If this is not taken into account in the design of the trains, broader cross-sections or air pressure shafts must be provided at certain intervals.
The items listed here should be assessed in detail during the subsequent project phase, especially in the areas with increased seismic activity. Sub-Ballast, Frost Proofing and Drainage
As already mentioned in the chapters above, the costs for the substructure (sub-ballast, frost proofing) appear not to have been estimated and the costs for drainage not meaningfully estimated.
It would be possible, for example, to estimate the substructure and drainage (750 DM/m of line in Germany) at a flat rate or with separate unit costs for substructure (sub-ballast, frost proofing) and drainage.
C010409 [ Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 9 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
5.3 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Costs
The California costs of the construction elements are broken down into nine main groups. The percentage breakdown of the total construction costs to the individual items can be determined from Appendix E of the Corridor Evaluation Report for the respective line alternative.
The largest share of the costs is attributed to civil engineering works (tunnels, aerial structures, grade separation and walls) with 40.9 to 43.5 % depending on the alternative investigated. Right-of-way would be the second largest cost factor with a share of 11.4 to 12.4 %. The remaining approx. 45 % is distributed between the rest of the items with shares of 2 to 10 %.
The cost breakdown was compared with the corresponding figures for two high-speed rail projects in Germany (see Table 5-2) and relatively close agreement between the cost breakdown is apparent initially.
Differences result, however, from the considerations of the line profiles. The line alternatives of the California HSR run approx. 80 % at grade, whereas the comparable lines in Germany run only 70 and 54 % at grade due to the highland topography.
In the consideration of the individual line segments, the sections from Los Angeles to Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley to San Francisco are of a comparable mountainous nature (see Table 5-3). For these two line sections, however, it is mainly the earthwork costs that increase. This means that there is no tendency to expect higher costs for tunnels and aerial constructions. This should be checked carefully, especially for the hilly line sections, as a realistic determination of the necessary cost for structures and tunnels is a decisive factor here due to the large share of these costs.
There is a further difference in the breakdown between tunnels and aerial structures. The share of tunnels for the California HSR is much lower than the share of aerial structures. Depending on line alternative, line shares of 12.7 to 17.5 % result for aerial structures alone.
As seen from the assessment of the California unit cost, the price for aerial structures has been estimated lower than for tunnels. Comparable German figures tend to show the same order of magnitude for the costs per kilometer of tunnels and aerial structures. Because of the large shares of line costs for aerial structures, a realistic estimate of these unit costs is of crucial importance.
5.4 Comparison of Typical Cross-Sections
As already discussed in detail in Chapter 2, the California cross sections essentially are adequate with the exceptions noted earlier.
Right-of- Way Width
The minimum R-O-W width of 50 feet, i.e., 15.2 m, should be checked. This corridor is just enough for erecting a pure rail line at grade. However, more space will be required if drainage
C010410 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 10 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
facilities are necessary (side ditches). A corridor width of 15.2 m does not allow space for cut or embankment slopes.
5.5 Schedules
The following time periods are planned for the implementation of the California HSR system:
Preliminary planning and approval: 6 years Construction time until operation: 10 years
Appendix K of the Corridor Evaluation Report shows an outline plan of the resources required for the individual years. This provides the following information:
¯ The main construction work takes place in years 11 to 14, i.e., from the 5th to the 8th year of the construction phase.
¯ Transferring this to the complete line shows that a maximum line length of 190 km/year can be expected for the individual works.
¯ The "Line Construction" block (earthwork and structures) ends one year before the end of the total construction time, but like the other items includes the largest amount of construction work in years 11 to 14.
The following comments are offered:
In our opinion, the line construction block should have a longer lead before the railway work and more line construction work should start at the beginning of the construction period. This is necessary, as bridges, tunnels and earthworks have relatively long individual construction times and the railway equipment incl. track work cannot be installed in the respective sections until line construction has been completed.
The total duration of construction depends heavily on the respective logistic and organizational planning, so that the assessment of line km per year is not automatically possible. A number of guide values for the construction times of individual main structures in new lines in Germany are given below for comparison.
New Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line:
Total length: approx. 200 km Construction time: approx. 5 - 6 years
Viaducts with a length exceeding 100 m and height exceeding 20 m: Total construction time incl. foundation, abutments, piers and superstructure: approx. 2 - 3 years
C010411 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 11 J German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]
Tunnels: The construction time for tunnels depends heavily on the prevailing conditions. First the geology, on which the construction advance depends. The daily progress here can vary from less than 1 m per day to 20 m per day. Second the topography, which determines whether a tunnel can be driven from the portals only or whether additional intermediate stages are necessary.
In the mountainous sections of the new Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line, construction times of approx. 2 to 5 years were required for tunnels with lengths of up to 4 km. Correspondingly longer construction times may be necessary for long tunnels under difficult conditions.
Earthwork and Track Work: For embankment filling work, settling times of half a year may be necessary to allow for subsequent subsidence. These measures are particularly necessary for site-sensitive high- speed lines.
For direct fixation tracks of new German lines, line progress of approx. 150 - 200 m/day is estimated. Ballasted track can be laid at the rate of 700 - 1000 m/day under optimum conditions (track meters).
Key milestones of new lines in Germany:
Cologne - Frankfurt/Main:
Length of line 200 km
Topography: mainly hilly to highland
Start of planning activities 1992 (design, approval and execution planning)
Start of construction 1996
Planned operation 2002
Total costs (without rolling stock) 10 billion DM
Hanover - Berlin:
Length of line 264 km
Topography: mainly lowland
Start of preliminary planning 1988
Start of detailed planning activities 1991
C010412 Phase 1 Report Page 5- 12 L German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J
(design, approval and execution planning)
Start of construction 1994
Start of operation December 1998
Total costs (without rolling stock) 5.85 billion DM
5.6 Summary
The assumptions and investigations concerning the costs and construction times for the California High-Speed Rail Study (HSR) have been compared with comparable empirical values and planning parameters of German Railway construction projects. In particular, relevant figures have been considered for new German high-speed lines (InterCityExpress - ICE) with a speed of up to 300 km/h.
The cost items estimated in the HSR study cover a majority of the costs occurring. However, the costs of temporary site facilities, track substructure and safety facilities for the tunnels apparently have not been included. (Parsons Brinckerhoff stated that safety facilities were included in the tunnel costs, although not explicitly described in the Corridor Evaluation Report.) The substructure for the tracks is of great importance, particularly for high-speed lines, as high standards are required for secure and accurate track positioning.
The line sections in regions with seismic activity place high demands on tunnels. These concern both constructional and railway matters as well as safety and emergency rescue concepts which need to be considered in more detail in the next project phase.
The relationships between the estimated unit costs compared with the German figures indicate that the estimates for some items tend to be too low. An example of this is the comparatively low price for aerial structures. With a share of up to 17 % of the line costs for aerial structures, this item has a relatively large influence on the total costs. Appropriate comments on the separate unit prices for earthwork, drainage, line-laying, signaling and electrification can be found in the corresponding sections.
An assessment of the approval, planning and construction times estimated in the HSR study is only possible to a limited extent. The necessary preliminary planning and studies prior to obtaining building permission and thus the start of the actual construction depend on the respective legislative situation and the approval procedures to be completed. These cannot be automatically compared with German conditions.
The actual construction time of 10 years can be viewed as a realistic minimum period, if the relevant dependencies and external conditions have been adequately clarified in the preliminary stages. These concern the local conditions (geology, topography and the construction method to be selected), the construction capabilities to be achieved for the individual works and their coordination.
C010413 Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 13 1 Table 5-1: Alignment Unit Costs
Track and Guideway Items HSR California Cost Guidelines of German Railway Summary of other Sources Unit Pnce Unit Remarks Source Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 HS/VHS Track - Ballasted km $781 00[ 1500 DM/m double track Rail, sleeper, ballast 1500 DM / m of I~ne Project Frankfurt 21 2 HS/VHS Track - Direct Fixation km $1.477 00( 2800 DM/m double track Rail, concrete slab, hxlng 3400 DM / m of hne Project Frankfurt 21 3 Maglev - At Grade Slab & Track Beam km $3 295.60( 4 Maglev - Track Beam (Aerial and Tunnel) km $2 166 75( 5 Special Trackwork (VHS) % 15% of Mainline Trackwork Earthwork and Related Items Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Site Preparation hectare $9.50( 5 DM/m2 S=te preparation 5 DM / m3 DE-Consult, =nternal 2 Earthwork Cu-m $7 20 DM/m3 So=l classes 3-5 25 DM / m3 DE-Consult, internal 3 Imported Borrow Cu-m $1( DM/m3 So=l classes 3-5 4 Landscapm,q / Erosion Control hectare $6.35( 5[ DM/m2 Landscap=ng, plant~ng 5 Fenc=ng (Both Sides of R/W) km $80 00( 50£ DM/m (1 rn cappln~ rail 350 DM/m) = 250 DM / m DE-Consult, internal 6 Dra=nage Facihhes 30 DM/m D~tches % 5% of Earthwork 250 DM/m Deep drainage 80 S=de d=tches DE-Consult, internal Structures, Tunnels and Walls Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Standard Aenal Structures km $10 800 00( 5850C DM/m structure 4500 DM/m2, b=13m 2 Spec=al Aerial Structures km $29 550 00( 84500 - 11830£ DM/m structure 6500 -9100 DM/m2, b=13m 3 Cut and Cover Tunnels km 4400( S=ngle track $20.960 00(: 5900( DM/m structure Double track 4 Double Track Tunnels - Doll and Blast km $23 940 00( 44000 DM/m structure 5 Double Track Tunnels - M=ned (soft sod) km $64 270.00( 65000 DM/m structure 6 2 S~ngle Track Tunnels - Doll and Blast km $47 000 00( 78000 DM/m structure 7 2 S~n,qJe Track Tunnels - Tunnel Bonn.g Machine km $31 440.00( 4700t DM/m structure 60% o~ 8 Se=sm=c Chamber EA $60 680.00C 9 Retaining Walls km $3 460.00C 1500 - 250J DM/m2 structure e ~ h=4m => 7000 DM/m 10 Crash Walls km $1 180 00~ 11 Sound Walls km 190C m above top of rail $450.00C 420(: DM/m structure 5 m above top of rail 2200 DM / m Prelect Frankfurt 21 Grade S~ )arations Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Undercross~n,q - (Dense Urban, Urban) EA $14 100 00C 2 Overcrosslng - (Dense Urban, Urban) EA $13 500.00[ 60 000 000 DM/km - structure Ra~l/rad DE-Consult, =nternal 3 Undercrosslng - (Dense Suburban) EA $5 400.00C 4 Overcross=ng - (Dense Suburban) EA $5 100 00C 4 300 000 Each Rad/motorway DE-Consult, =ntemal 5 Undercrossm,q - (Suburban, Undeveloped) EA $910 00C 6 Overcrossin.q - (Suburban, Undeveloped) EA $860 00C 2 700 000 Each Ra~l/road DE-Consult, internal 7 Close Ex=st~ng At Grade Crossing EA $140.00C 8 Waterway Crossln,g - Primary EA $5.400 00C 1 200 000 Each Rail/path stream DE-Consult, =nternal 9 Waterway Crossing - Secondary EA $2 700 00C 10 Irr=,gahon/Canal Crossing EA $320.00C 210£ DM/m Nom=nal diameter < 1000 mm
Buildin9 Items Item No.] Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 ITerm~nal Station LS $88.000 3 IS~te Development/Park=ng (Term na Stat on) LS $22.000 00¢ 2 I Urban Stat=on ’ LS $44 000 00C 4 IS=te Development/Parking (Urban Stat on) LS $11 000 00£ 5 Suburban Stat=on LS $22 000 00(; 6 S=te DevelopmenVPark~n,q (Suburban Station) LS $5 500 00£ 7 Rural Stat=on LS $11 000 00£ 8 S~te Development!Parking (Rural Stahon) LS $2 200.00£ Rail and Utility Relocation Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Ex~st~n,g R/R Relocahon km $1.000 000 Honzontal track sweep 2 Ut=llty Relocat=on - Dense Urban km $700.000 1200 DM/m - Gas All types of I~ne lay=n9 1000 DM / rn DM / m - Gas DE-Consult, internal 3 Ut=llty Relocation - Urban km $535 000 700 Water Line laying] 650 DM / rn Water DE-Consult, =nternal 4 Utdlty Relocahon - Dense Suburban km $375.000 700 Sewage L=ne lay=n~ 500 DM / rn Sewage DE-Consult, internal 5 Uhhty Relocat=on - Suburban km $215.000 250 Power (laid under~round) L~ne la~=n~l 180 DM / m Power (under~rd) DE-Consult, internal 6 Ut=hty Relocat=on - Undeveloped km $11 000 200 Telecoms (laid underground) Line 610 Mean va~ue Right of Way Item No, Item Description Unit Unit Price Land purchase 1 RI,ght of Way - Dense Urban (50’ Corndor 15 20m km $4 920.00£ 16000 (2280 - 304001 DM/m 15o - 2000 DM/m; 2 R~ght of Way - Urban (50’ Corndor) km $3.280.000 16000 (2280- 30400) DM/m t 50- 2000 DM/m~ 3 R=,qht of Way - Dense Suburban (50’ Corndor) km $1 640.000 5000 (760- 9120 DM/m 50- 600 DM/m; 4 R=ght of Way - Suburban (100’ Corridor 30 40m km $1.150 000 10000 (1520 - 18240) DM/m 50 - 600 DM/m: 5 R=,qht of Way - Undeveloped (100’ Corndor) km $820 000 300 (152- 456 DM/m 8 - 15 DM/m; Environmental Impact Mitigation Item No, Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 3% of Enwronmental M~hgat~on % Construction 510 DM / rn Project Frankfurt 21 Signalin! ~ & Communication Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Si,qnahn,q (ATC) - VHS km $665 000 1580 ~M / m Cologne - Frankfurt DE-Consult, internal 2 Commumcat~on - VHS/w/F~ber Optic Backbone) km $550.000 62C DM / m Cologne - Frankfurt DE-Consult, internal 3 Signahng (ATC) - Maglev km $770 000 4 Communication - Maglev (w/F~ber Optic Backbone km $550 000 _5 Ways=de Protection Systems (VHS & Maglev) km $52.800 Electrification Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price 1 Tract=on Power Supply - VHS km $340.000 4oG 3M/rn DE-ConsuJt, internal 2 Traction Power D~stnbuhon - VHS km $634.000 1160 3M / m DE-Consult, ~nterna~ 3 Trachon Power Supply - Maglev km $640 000 4, Traction Power Dlstnbut~on - Ma,~lev km $2,440 000
C010414 C010415 LLI
C010416 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI
6. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Report represents a valuable milestone document in the ongoing development of the California High-Speed Rail Plan. For a comparative assessment of the alternative corridors, the information provided is comprehensive and sufficient at this time.
However, there are several areas with questionable assumptions and findings, most notably the entire operations concept and related fleet requirements and costs. The train running time calculations have been made in a simplified manner with questionable results. The timetables shown in the report comprise a great variety of trains with different stopping patterns and a mixture of very fast non-stop trains with various medium fast and slow local trains. Due to the travel time differences between the different train categories, the density of the timetable and the length of line, overtaking of slower trains by faster trains cannot be avoided. Our operations simulation program has shown that almost half the trains are overtaken by faster trains, some of them 2 to 3 times, with passed trains encountering delays of up to 30 minutes. Therefore, the timetables do not reflect real operating conditions. According to Parsons Brinckerhoff, the timetable included in the Corridor Evaluation Report was merely intended to illustrate a possible scenario of how the system could operate once implemented and was not based on a detailed operations analysis or simulation modeling.
The report implies a daily running performance per train of about 3,000 km which is highly unrealistic. Our calculations have shown that 1,860 km per day and trainset would be more reasonable. As a result, the number of required trainsets given in the report with 38 has been substantially underestimated; we have determined that 62 trainsets would be required which includes a 10-% spare ratio.
Furthermore, the energy costs appear to be underestimated. Our computer simulation of train runs indicate an energy consumption three times higher. The operations and maintenance costs of the high-speed trains seem to be in the right order-of-magnitude, whereas those for the commuter trains are considerably overestimated.
The alignment design parameters used are appropriate and comply with the requirements for an HSR-system for a design speed of 350 km/h. Not specified in the report are the relevant dimensions for station platforms and platform access, special requirements and protective measures for line sections parallel to existing roads and railways, and rescue/evacuation provisions in tunnels and on long bridges. Since these requirements are very similar to the various alternative corridors under investigation, they may not influence the relative merits of these options, but could very well affect the overall costs of the alignment alternatives.
In selecting the final design parameters during the upcoming project phase, the pro’s and con’s of opting for minimum versus more generous alignment and permanent way design parameters should be carefully weighed, particularly with regards to their impacts on (1) wear of permanent way and rolling stock, (2) maintenance requirements and costs, (3) passenger comfort, and (4) options for future improvements.
C010417 Phase 1 Report Page 6- 1 German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation
Furthermore, it may be prudent to re-assess the requirement to design the California HSR system for a top speed of 350 km/h under consideration of the economics of operations and maintenance, travel time savings, environmental impacts, and investment costs for infrastructure and rolling stock.
The construction cost items in the Corridor Evaluation Report cover the majority of costs occurring. However, the costs of temporary site facilities, track substructure and safety facilities for tunnels apparently have not been included. (Although not explicitly described in the Corridor Evaluation Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that safety facilities were included in the tunnel costs.) Furthermore, some unit cost estimates appear to be too low in comparison with German experience; in particular, this is the case for aerial structures. With a share of up to 17% of the line costs for aerial structures, this item has a relatively large influence on the total costs.
The Corridor Evaluation Report does not include a general technical description of candidate train technologies. Some of the train data are in part inconsistent; for example, the acceleration rates shown for higher speeds are far too high.
Our assessment of the merits of locomotive-hauled trains (concentrated power) versus EhlU- type trainsets (distributed power) indicates that the EMU trainsets have a higher seating capacity of approximately 8% and, more importantly, a superior climbing capability. Alignments with sustained gradients of 3.5% and even 5.0% are possible, but require the deployment of EMU-type trainsets with high power output and tractive effort.
This peer review also included an assessment of mixed operations of high-speed passenger trains and freight services on high-speed lines. Two types of freight services were considered in the Corridor Evaluation Report: (1) small package/light container services in especially adapted high-speed rolling stock and (2) special medium-weight freight with locomotive-hauled trains, adapted to the special conditions of the high-speed line.
The first category would use rolling stock with the same performance characteristics as the high- speed passenger trainsets and does not create any operational problems. However, separate loading and unloading platforms may be required at stations. The slower locomotive-hauled freight trains would have to operate at night to avoid interference with the much faster passenger trains.
The locomotive-hauled freight trains are capable of negotiating long sustained gradients, but with significant weight restrictions. We have simulated freight train runs with the German 5600- kW-"Eurosprinter" locomotive with the following results: The maximum trainload per locomotive is about 700 t on 3.5-% grades and about 400 t on 5.0-% grades. This corresponds to train lengths with 8-9 wagons and 5 wagons, respectively. With additional locomotives, the maximum train load could be increased proportionately.
Phase 1 Report C010418Page 6 - 2