High Speed Three (HS3) Feasibility Report
Group 1
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães, Daniel Mitchell, Ahmad Rosli, Juin-Lun Tai, Clare Tracey, Thomas Wallace
14 th January 2011
Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...... vii Glossary of Terms ...... ix 1 Introduction...... 1-1 1.1 Interpretation of the Brief...... 1-1 1.2 Aims and Objectives ...... 1-2 1.3 Situation and Context...... 1-3 1.3.1 The State of the Nation...... 1-3 1.3.2 High Speed Travel in the UK ...... 1-4 1.3.3 High Speed 3...... 1-5 2 System Selection...... 2-6 2.1 Overview...... 2-6 2.2 The Case for Wheel on Rail...... 2-7 2.3 The Case for Maglev...... 2-9 2.4 Conclusion ...... 2-11 3 Train Set and Stock...... 3-13 3.1 Governing Specification ...... 3-13 3.1.1 Maglev Development...... 3-13 3.1.2 Weight Effects ...... 3-14 3.1.3 Operational Tolerances...... 3-14 3.2 Aerodynamic Design...... 3-15 3.2.1 Energy Usage...... 3-15 3.2.2 Relative Area Minimisation...... 3-16 3.2.3 Minimising the drag coefficient...... 3-17 3.2.4 Energy Efficiency...... 3-19 3.2.5 Aerodynamics in Tunnelling ...... 3-19 3.3 Propulsion ...... 3-21 3.3.1 Electrodynamic suspension ...... 3-21 3.3.2 Electromagnetic suspension...... 3-22 3.3.3 Evaluation...... 3-23 3.3.4 Conclusion...... 3-24 3.4 Reliability and Maintenance ...... 3-24 3.4.1 Design Life ...... 3-24 3.4.2 Design life indicators...... 3-25 3.4.3 Maintenance Schemes ...... 3-26 3.4.4 Maglev Design Life Projection...... 3-27
i Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.5 Passenger Comfort and Service ...... 3-27 3.5.1 Noise and Vibration...... 3-28 3.5.2 Pressure (Entering tunnel) ...... 3-29 3.5.3 Acceleration and deceleration...... 3-30 3.5.4 Thermal Comfort ...... 3-30 3.5.5 Conclusion...... 3-31 3.6 Collision Safety...... 3-32 3.6.1 Crashworthiness...... 3-33 3.6.2 Material of the crash elements...... 3-34 3.6.3 Passenger seat arrangement ...... 3-35 3.6.4 Conclusion...... 3-35 3.7 Public Perception ...... 3-36 3.7.1 Conclusion...... 3-37 3.8 Electromagnetic Compatibility ...... 3-38 3.9 Freight Options ...... 3-39 3.9.1 Without Alteration...... 3-40 3.9.2 With Alteration...... 3-40 3.9.3 Conclusion...... 3-41 4 Stations and Route ...... 4-42 4.1.1 Set Capabilities ...... 4-42 4.1.2 Journey Time Model...... 4-45 4.2 City Stations...... 4-48 4.2.1 Design Strategy Overview...... 4-48 4.2.2 London...... 4-49 4.2.3 Birmingham ...... 4-51 4.2.4 Manchester...... 4-51 4.2.5 Glasgow...... 4-54 4.2.6 Summary...... 4-55 4.3 Inter-city Routes...... 4-56 5 Network Infrastructure...... 5-73 5.1 Guideway Design...... 5-73 5.1.1 Track Components...... 5-73 5.1.2 Structural Section...... 5-74 5.1.3 Construction...... 5-78 5.1.4 Adjustment and Replacement ...... 5-80 5.1.5 Conclusions...... 5-81 5.2 Earthworks and Substructure ...... 5-81
ii Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
5.2.1 Foundation Design...... 5-82 5.2.2 Earthworks...... 5-84 5.2.3 Conclusions...... 5-85 5.3 Bridges and Superstructures...... 5-85 5.3.1 Specification Parameters ...... 5-85 5.3.2 Design Viability...... 5-86 5.4 Tunnelling...... 5-87 5.4.1 Introduction to tunnel aerodynamics ...... 5-88 5.4.2 Tunnel diameters ...... 5-89 5.4.3 Tunnel Configuration...... 5-95 5.4.4 Ground Conditions and Construction ...... 5-97 5.4.5 Summary...... 5-98 5.5 Maintenance and durability...... 5-99 5.5.1 Design Life ...... 5-99 5.5.2 Durability...... 5-100 5.5.3 Maintenance...... 5-101 5.5.4 Protecting the line...... 5-104 5.5.5 Protecting the line...... 5-104 5.5.6 Summary...... 5-105 5.6 Power Collection...... 5-105 5.6.1 Power Requirements to the vehicle ...... 5-105 5.6.2 Delivering the requirements ...... 5-106 6 Signalling and Control...... 6-109 6.1 Signalling Methods ...... 6-109 6.1.1 Potential Signalling Methods...... 6-109 6.1.2 Potential Maglev Systems...... 6-110 6.1.3 Summary...... 6-113 6.2 Train Detection ...... 6-113 6.2.1 Microwave Detection...... 6-114 6.2.2 Leaky Coaxial Cable Train Detection ...... 6-114 6.2.3 Electromagnetic Induction Detection ...... 6-115 6.2.4 Long Stator Method of Train Detection ...... 6-117 6.2.5 Summary...... 6-118 6.3 Telecommunications ...... 6-119 6.3.1 GSM-R...... 6-119 6.3.2 Microwave...... 6-120 6.3.3 Leaky Coaxial Cable...... 6-121
iii Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
6.3.4 Optical Fibre Cables ...... 6-121 6.3.5 Summary...... 6-122 6.4 Conclusion ...... 6-122 7 Socio-Economic Appraisal ...... 7-123 7.1 Capacity and Demand ...... 7-123 7.1.1 Market Demand ...... 7-123 7.1.2 Influences and Factors ...... 7-124 7.1.3 Passenger Forecast...... 7-126 7.1.4 Limitations and Uncertainties...... 7-127 7.2 Cost Estimation...... 7-128 7.2.1 Construction costs...... 7-129 7.2.2 Project Costs ...... 7-131 7.2.3 Vehicle Costs...... 7-132 7.2.4 Operating Costs ...... 7-132 7.2.5 Summary...... 7-133 7.3 Revenue Potential ...... 7-134 7.3.1 Ticket Sales...... 7-134 7.3.2 Additional Sources...... 7-135 7.4 Social Effects ...... 7-136 7.5 Economic Feasibility...... 7-137 7.6 Project Financing ...... 7-138 8 Conclusion...... 8-140 8.1 Proposed Scheme ...... 8-140 8.2 Feasibility...... 8-141 8.2.1 Technical Feasibility...... 8-141 8.2.2 Social Feasibility ...... 8-142 8.2.3 Financial Feasibility...... 8-142 8.3 Concluding Remarks...... 8-143 A. References and Bibliography...... A B. Maps and Drawings ...... B C. Modelling and Calculations...... C D. Additional Resources...... D
iv Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Index of Figures
Figure 0.(1) Proposed alignment and stations Figure 0.(2) Proposed journey times and fare structure Figure 1.3.2.(1) High-speed/inter-city rail links the Europe Figure 2.3.(1) Comparison of C02 emissions in different transportation Figure 2.3.(2) Comparison of energy consumption in different speed of ICE and Transrapid maglev Figure 3.2.2.(1) Comparison of the cross-sectional areas Figure 3.2.3.(1) Table with various train fore-body types Figure 3.2.3.(2) The Shanghai Transrapid train Figure 3.2.5.(1) Different train configurations in the tunnel Figure 3.3.1.(1) Electrodynamic suspension Figure 3.3.2.(1) Electromagnetic suspension Figure 3.6.1.(1) Crumple zone mesh in a collision Figure 3.6.2.(1) Layout of energy absorbers of rail vehicle Figure 3.6.3.(1) Simulation with two types of seating configuration Figure 3.8.(1) Transrapid Sourced Clearance Distances Figure 4.1.1.(1) Minimum turning radii for a given speed Figure 4.1.1.(2) Representation of the train going around an obstacle Figure 4.1.1.(3) Obstacle with an elliptical shape Figure 4.1.5.(1). Speed restrictions along the HS3 route Figure 4.3.2.(1)) Birmingham Junction Figure 4.3.4.(1)) Route running through Coppull and the Chamock Richard Golf Club with listed buildings indicated Figure 5.1.1.(1) Diagram of the guideway components Figure 5.1.2.(1) Existing guideway designs Figure 5.1.2.(2) Guideway support configurations Figure 5.1.3.(1) Table of construction tolerances Figure 5.2.1.(1) Indicative relationship between height and cost for viaducts and embankments Figure 5.2.1.(3) CBR Relationships Table 5.5.3.(1)) Wayside Maintenance Figure 5.5.3.(1)) Diagram showing change in condition of a structure with increasing rate of deterioration and the same diagram with regular inspection and maintenance Figure 5.4.2.(1). Illustration of piston effect Figure 5.4.2.(2). Tunnel diameter modelling results
v Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Figure 7.5.2.(1) Economic Analysis Figure 5.6.2.(1) Comparison between energy consumptions Figure 5.6.2.(2) Data for energy consumption Figure 6.1.2.(1) System Lay out based on Electronic Mapping Figure 6.1.2.(2) Hierarchy of Line Data Figure 6.2.2(1) Leaky Coaxial Cable Figure 6.2.3.(1) Cross Inductive Loop Line Figure 6.2.3.(2) Gray Code Cable Layers Figure 6.2.4(1) Long Stator Figure 6.2.4(2) Comparison between the Demodulated Signal and Stator Teeth Slots Figure 6.3.2(1) Microwave Antenna Array Figure 7.1.2.(1) Modal rail/air split curve Figure 7.3.1.(1) Minimum and maximum current train ticket prices Figure 7.3.1.(2) Proposed fare structure during skimming and operation Figure 7.3.2.(1) Predicted annual revenue from advertising Figure 8.1.(1) Journey time target check.
vi Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Executive Summary
Group Work
High Speed 3 will be the dawning of a Maglev age for Great Britain. Linking London, to Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester, this report investigates the feasibility of this pioneering aim, focusing on reducing journey times by 40%. Considered from a strategic view of technological, financial and social viability the most tenable solution has been conceptually defined, and evaluated. Written by a team of interdisciplinary engineers, the conclusions found indicate the likely outcome of further, more detailed, investigations.
The proposed scheme enhances the commercially operational Transrapid propulsion systems with the aerodynamic performance of the JR-Maglev train body. This stock will provide for the sizable market encouraged by quick, cheap and frequent services between economic hubs and accessible parkway stations. The capabilities of Maglev to climb steep gradients, turn sharp radii and pass over obstacles will be used to create a flexible alignment that should shorten lead times. The combination of a modular guideway design and centralised control system is expected to create a safe, reliable and easily maintained network.
Figure 0.(1) – Proposed alignment and stations
The study has found that such a scheme would be technically feasible, as all the components of the design either exist in a commercial setting, or have been significantly developed. This is qualified, however, against the risks of employing cutting-edge technologies that have not been
vii Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 proven in combination, or over a long period. Research has been proposed to address these concerns prior to further development.
(£) / (hours) London Birmingham Manchester Glasgow London - 0:37 0:57 1:57 Birmingham £8.00 - 0:28 1:22 Manchester £12.00 £5.00 - 0:52 Glasgow £18.00 £10.00 £6.00 -
Figure 0.(2) – Proposed journey times and fare structure
Socially the project will address the ‘North/South divide’ and meet government requirements to reduce over-crowding on long-distance lines. Critically, it is envisioned that a significant modal- shift away from aviation over longer distances will occur, reducing the need for further sector expansion. Despite higher efficiency and lower emissions, it is unsure whether the initial carbon cost of construction will offset this. Additionally, a higher level study will be required to balance the advantages of this project against the other demands of the nation.
Financially the proposed scheme is expected to be largely publicly financed due to the high capital investments required, however these are of a magnitude comparable to current undertakings. In operation the network is profitable and has been found to completely return the investment in 75 years after the final construction phase has opened. Considering the additional social value of the service, and in comparison to other infrastructure projects such as motorways, this direct recuperation represents a notable selling point. The sensitivity of the financial model does not match the uncertainty of the cost estimations; therefore such conclusions are indicative only of the merits of further investigation.
This strategic level report outlines a feasible, conceptual solution that warrants an investment in more detailed consultation. Focusing on proving the proposed train design, ability to tunnel, logistics of high frequency control and modular guideway construction; future technical study should confirm the scheme. Following this the scheme should be re-evaluated for its financial viability within a wider societal context. Indicatively, however, HS3 has potential.
“Without its spirit of pioneering a nation rests on its early work and its progress stops”
- Thomas J Watson
viii Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Glossary of Terms
Group Work
Collected list defining abbreviations and specialist terms used throughout the report
AONB –Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bentonite –Absorbent impure clay that is derived from volcanic ash. CAM –Computer Aided Manufacture CBR –California Bearing Ratio CC –Creative Commons CCC (of control,) –Centralised Controls Centre CCC (of carbon,) –Committee on Climate Change CFC –Carbon Fibre Composite CO2 –Carbon dioxide DCS –Decentralised Control System DfT –Department of Transport EA –Environment Agency EDS –Electrodynamic Suspension EEA –European Economic Area EMC –Electromagnetic Compatibility EMF –Electromagnetic Field EMS –Electromagnetic Suspension EPBM –Earth Pressure Balancing Tunnelling Boring Machine ERTMS –European Rail Traffic Management System FEA –Finite Element Analysis GDP –Gross Domestic Product GSM -R –Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway HLOS –High Level Output Specification HS1 –High Speed 1 HSST –High Speed Surface Transportation HVAC –Heating, Ventilating , and Air Conditioning Intuitioistic System –A system that makes decisions according to logic. ICE (of trains,) –InterCity Express ICE (of guideance) –Institute of Civil Engineers IPF –Infrastructure Planning Commission IPC –Internal Processing Control
ix Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
JR –Japanese Rail LNR –Local Nature Reserve LSD –Location and Speed Detection NFPA –National Fire Protection Association NNR –National Nature Reserve NPV –Net Present Value. Algorithm used for calculating financial viabilities of projects NRPB –National Radiological Protection Board OCS –Operation Control System OCC –Operation Control Centre ONS –Office of National Statistics ORR –Office of Rail Regulation Permanent Way –Collective term for the rail, sleepers, fixings, ballast and groundworks that create the track. PDFH –Passenger Demand Forecast Handbook PLANET –Specialist demand forecasting model developed by DfT RF –Radio Frequency RSM –Response Surface Methodology. Using different combinations of design variables to define the best arrangement RSPG –The Railway Safety Principles and Guidance SCL –Sprayed Concrete Lined SFRC –Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete SSSI –Site of Special Scientific Interest STBM –Slurry Shield Tunnelling Boring Machine TBM –Tunnelling Boring Machine TGV –‘Train a Grande Vitesse’ Transrapid –The Siemens and ThyssenKrupp collaboration for the development of a Maglev system . TSI –Technical Standards for Interoperability UIC –International Union of Railways W/C Ratio –Water/ Cement Ratio WCML –West Cost Main Line WoR –Wheel-on-Rail
x Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
1 Introduction
1.1 Interpretation of the Brief
Group Work
The project requires a feasibility study to be carried out for a high speed rail network, spanning across England and Scotland. HS3 will supersede current UK plans for the High Speed 2 rail link. The original brief requires HS3 to link London to Birmingham, Birmingham to Manchester and Manchester to Glasgow. The average speed between stops must be at least 400 km/h, with maximum speeds of approximately 460 km/h. The journey time between existing city-centre main rail termini must not be more than 60% of the current fastest main-line journey time. Meeting the criteria is the focal brief point for assessing the technical feasibility of the project. Socio- economic factors such as network capacity, target market estimation and the project financing, however, will need to be considered to validate the schemes financial viability. The brief requires that the approach to the feasibility study be risk-based, in relation to the types of technology used, or the various uncertainties outlined.
The brief necessitates a choice between the high speed rail systems capable of the speeds required, i.e. Wheel-on-rail or Maglev. The evaluation of propulsion power and collection to the train influences this decision. The type of system dictates the capability of the rail network in respect to lateral stability, vertical gradients, turning radii, acceleration, deceleration and aerodynamics. These parameters are important as the optimum values may be obligatory to meet time requirements, as well as technical standards.
The interpretation of the brief defined in the inception report requires that the effects on both the public and the environment, i.e. noise and vibration and sustainability are considered. Similarly passenger comfort and safety requirements must be met; if the system is not safe or comfortable it will cease to be used revenue will be lost. This not only relates fittings, but also to maintaining passenger comfort during turns at the required speeds. An assessment and choice of signalling and control systems was identified, with the objective to manage and protect the train at the required speeds.
The brief requires an assessment of station locations, city centre routes and the cross country alignment. This must limit disruption to city infrastructure, the various communities along the route and must cause minimal adverse effects on the environment. This will assist in attaining planning permission, which has significant effect on the feasibility. Environmental impacts and climate change will also need to be considered.
1-1 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
At inception it was identified that tunnelling may be needed at intervals throughout the route, thus based on the choice of system type; a conceptual tunnel design is required allowing maximum possible speeds. The design must therefore consider aerodynamics, operation and above ground effects. Additionally, the track alignment and geometry, formation, maintenance, geotechnical works, security and durability, all define the feasibility of the project.
1.2 Aims and Objectives
Group Work
The aim of this report is to define the feasibility of a high speed rail network linking London to Scotland. High speed rail has considerable advantages some of which include quicker journey times, less energy consumption per passenger and more space for luggage when compared to air travel. France, Germany and Spain have high rail speed systems, while Britain has lagged behind with only one short high speed line (HS1). The proposed High Speed 3 (HS3) network would revolutionise north-south travel and would be unique when compared to the European norm. HS3 has been designed to reduce current journey times by more than 40%.
This was a multi-disciplinary project and was carried out by a group of six engineering undergraduates. Each member has skills worked within, and without their various disciplines, which they have been applied throughout the study:
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães (Mechanical) - Governing specifications, aerodynamic design, routing specifications, reliability and maintenance of the train. Daniel Mitchell (Civil) - Inter-city routes, external factors affecting the route, durability and maintenance of the track. Ahmad Rosli (Electronic) - Propulsion, passenger comfort and service, collision safety, public perception. Juin-Lun Tai (Electronic) - Electromagnetic compatibility, signalling methods, detection and control, telecommunications. Clare Tracey (Civil) - City centre stations, inner-city routes, the viability of tunnelling. Thomas Wallace (Civil), Project Manager - Freight options, guideway design, earthworks and substructure, and bridges and superstructures.
Following investigative work carried out for the inception report was produced. This feasibility study aimed to apply a strategic risk based approach. The objective of the study was to prefer conventional technology, while conceptionally proving newer methods and innovations; developed where necessary. To achieve this, the associated risks were identified for each section and their viability was assessed. Given the time allowance for the project, it is not possible to conduct a full detailed feasibly study, and therefore this aims to represent a strategic scope.
1-2 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Each section of the report represents identified areas of concern regarding the feasibility of HS3. A colour coded risk register is located above each section, summarising key risks. Risk levels have been defined as minor, moderate, significant, serious and catastrophic. The risk levels provide a comparative scale for the reader to understand the magnitude of risks involved.
1.3 Situation and Context
Thomas Michael Wallace
1.3.1 The State of the Nation
The UK is currently within the midst of international economic recession, following the 2007 mortgage crisis in the USA. At present there are signs of recovery due to low interest rates, however 2011 has seen the first cuts of the coalition government. These, in combination with rising taxes, are likely to damage public sector growth. The need to comply with EU regulations may still drive infrastructure investment, however, with the (CCC, 2010) asserting that
“[following pre-recession falls of] 0.6% annually... 2-3% annual CO 2 cuts are required in the period to 2020 to meet carbon budgets.”
As a developed nation the UK focuses primarily on the service sectors, with the ONS (2010) attributing “74% per cent of UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP)” to the industry. The need to compete globally requires Britain to maintain, and often lead, world-class infrastructure projects to attract and enable new businesses. As such some key governmental policies focuses on the ‘North/South’ divide, with the BBC (2010a) noting schemes to encourage “companies to move out of the overcrowded south-east and London.” Additionally there is evidence that, in the face of recession, the manufacturing sector is being re-established and growing at a notable rate (BBC, 2010b)
Traditionally infrastructure in the UK was predominately publicly financed and maintained, however the last decades have seen a trend towards private finance initiatives (ICE, 2006). In an annual review of national strategic transport networks the ICE (2010) found these “adequate for now,” however this came qualified with a warning that capacity must be increased. The advice was especially relevant for aviation; where the need to reduce emissions is in contrast to the rising demand for faster, and cheaper, travel.
Rail in the UK is technically privately owned and maintained by Network Rail. This status is confused as the government owns a stake in the company through limited guarantee and influences public interest through external regulation (ORR, 2010). It should be appreciated that Network Rail does not operate passenger or freight services, but instead works as a client and contractor for those who purchase the lease to the lines. Network Rail (2010) consider themselves
1-3 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 responsible for “delivering a long term strategy for Britain’s railways,” and in the face of considerable growth over the last decade have “declared a profit for the first time.”
1.3.2 High Speed Travel in the UK
A high-speed journey is defined as one that travels faster than 250 km/h. Already the UK has a single high-speed line (HS1) linking Gravesend to London. Internationally Japan has the highest density of high-speed rail networks, with France and Germany having substantial offerings. China currently offers the only commercial Maglev system, which is predicted to be the next development in technology. High-speed rail primarily represents a competitor to domestic air travel, rather than highways (convenience,) and conventional rail (commuting). (UIC, 2009)
Figure 1.3.2.(1) – High-speed/inter-city rail links the Europe (CC, 2010)
Network Rail, as the primary authority for developing rail transport in the UK, has mixed views on the development of high-speed rail (Network Rail, 2010). Its obligations to the public for increasing capacity, to meet a 40% rise in demand over the decade, has lead it to focus its finite financial efforts on new commuter lines. The ICE (2010), however, has recommended “the construction of new high-speed rail routes,” representing the role the company can play in easing the demand for domestic air travel.
1-4 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
From its current forays into high-speed rail the government is looking primarily for an opportunity to increase capacity, while improving the state of our public infrastructure. Given the long lead times required for such a major undertaking there is a need for consultation to begin now. A network of this proportion would also be expected to alleviate and distribute economic growth around London, addressing the ‘North/South divide’. Additionally it would encourage a modal shift from high-carbon alternatives such as aviation. (DfT, 2009)
1.3.3 High Speed 3
Internationally the development of high-speed rail routes have been a success, with Keith (2010) noting the proclamation of TGV as “the train that saved French railways.” The nations that undertake such projects typically do so as part of a larger scheme to reconstruct and develop their industries and economy. This was most pronounced in Japan, where the massive Shinkansen endeavour was the result of an effort to bring the country back to the fore, by offering an unparalleled alternative to domestic flights Smith (2003).
Arguably the most equivocal infrastructure investments of Britain are the Motorways. Coming out of the Second World War the UK commissioned a significant overhaul of its transport network that bore fruit in 1958 as the M6. Over fifty years later there are more than 2200 miles of motorways across the country, BBC (2009). The nation that builds HS3 will be a similar one, with the recession clear and aims of development from the government.
The first large-scale maglev network globally will be constructed in the wake of similar schemes to link the large expanses of China, the tentative steps of the USA to connect key capitals and a new line between Abu Dhabi and Dubai (Transrapid, 2010). It will not be the first in the UK, however, with the now obsolete shuttle between Birmingham International Airport and its adjacent rail terminal, bearing testament to the importance of picking the correct technologies and governmental support (BBC, 1999).
1-5 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
2 System Selection
2.1 Overview
Group Work
The system type chosen significantly influences the feasibility of HS3. The project requires a train system which runs across the country, linking London to Glasgow, a distance of 642 km. The system needs to function at an average speed of at least 400 km/ h. If this speed is not met, the project would not meet the brief. These are fundamental requirements affecting the feasibility of the project.
During the inception stage of the project, research was done into different train systems. Two were identified as the optimum choices, given the brief requirements and other factors influencing the projects feasibility. Wheel on rail was chosen as it is the conventional system for high speed travel, consisting of steel wheels travelling on steel rails. Maglev, which uses magnetism for both propulsion and levitation, was chosen because of its advanced capability when compared to other systems. Other alternatives such as internal combustion systems were eliminated after preliminary analysis proved them to be nonviable. Both diesel and jet engines were also disregarded for ecological, sustainable, and social reasons.
The team identified criteria for choosing between the two system types. These were then evaluated prior to the development of the scheme. The criteria for each system included:
Network capacity Financing Potential target market Initial and operational costing Passenger safety and comfort Weather condition compatibility Health issues Aesthetics Planning permission acquisition Contribution to climate change Environmental impacts
Additional specifications include speed, material, maximum gradients and radii, acceleration and deceleration capability, power/ weight ratio and the potential frequency/ distances between trains.
2-6 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Examples of wheel on rail and Maglev systems were collated and compared with respect to the criteria. These results are discussed and a conclusion was found based on evidence.
2.2 The Case for Wheel on Rail
Group Work
The most cost effective method for moving both passengers and freight between two land locations is rail transportation. This is because of the low energy loss of metal on metal contact. This type of transport system has been in use for over 400 years (Shevtsov, 2008). High speed rail is a series of improvements that operates at speeds that are considerably faster than conventional systems. There are various high speed rail technologies that exist, some of which include the Japanese Shinkansen, the French TGV, the German ICE and the Swedish-Swiss ABB X2000 (Najafi & Nassar, 1996). These technologies have been developed and implemented in various countries for specific purposes. Japanese Shinkansen technology exists in networks in China, Taiwan, Brazil, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. French TGV lines currently operate in France, Spain and The Netherlands. High Speed 1, which links London to Paris, also uses TGV technology. German ICE technology exists in Germany, Denmark, Austria and The Netherlands. Swedish-Swiss ABB X2000 is currently only being used in Sweden, but has been used in the United States, Australia and China.
In 1963, the first high-speed train was developed in Japan. The Japanese Shinkansen linked new urban centres and relieved growth pressures on large cities. This technology was an improvement to existing wheel on rail technology, but was expensive with Japan’s challenging terrain. Recent trainsets are capable of record speeds of 390 km/h, however they operate significantly below this. In 1981, the French TGV was first developed as a low-cost technology, consisting of ballasted track and fixed-formation trainsets. Originally it was designed for high profile use with the underlying purpose of future export. It has good properties in the form of aerodynamics, low noise and vibration levels and low operation and maintenance costs. In 1991, the German ICE was developed, consisting of advanced components and a track that catered for mixed traffic, including freight. Because its track had low grades, which required tunnels and bridges, its costs were significantly more when compared to TGV technology. Swedish-Swiss ABB X2000 is a cheaper alternative to the above technologies. It was developed in 1990 and was designed specifically to operate on existing rails. It has a tilting mechanism that allows higher speeds on curves and a reduced lateral acceleration (Najafi & Nassar, 1996). Table D.2.2.(1) illustrates general specifications for TGV, ICE and X2000 trainsets.
Zhengxi Passenger Designated Line in China is currently the world’s fastest railway line. It is a long distance line that has a length of 968 km. The design speed of the network is 350 km/h and it
2-7 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 has a cruising speed of 320 km/h (Balfour Beatty Rail, 2010). The technology used for the trains were based on Shinkansen technology.
The HS3 network is set to be 642 km in length. There are existing long distance wheel on rail networks demonstrating this technology on a similar magnitude. By using wheel on rail, integration into the existing infrastructure is possible. However, the train design would need to be adapted to the existing track and this track would need to be used for the new network. There would then be potential for existing trains to use the new network if necessary. Ascetically, the public have become accustomed to wheel on rail systems. Having a new network that crosses the UK is similar to what already exists. Wheel on rail trains have a high potential capacity, with high speed trains capable of transporting between 400-600 passengers. Existing high speed rail systems carry freight, for example la poste , which is a French postal service (LA POSTE, 2010). If a high speed rail network were constructed, a freight service may be provided, that could be used to generate additional revenue. Wheel on rail signal recognition systems are currently established and are compliant with UK rail EMC.
Wheel on rail will have high wear and tear costs due to the many moving parts in the system and the interface between wheels and tracks. Operation and maintenance costs may be offset by other factors such as the reduction in development costs for the trainsets. The contact also presents noise and vibration issues to the communities that the network passes. This can be mitigated by instituting noise barriers and earth bunds. In the UK, climate change in the form of rising temperatures has caused buckling of rail tracks. Leaves being blown onto rail tracks already stop trains and because of climate change, wind speeds are set to increase, which will make the situation worse (UNECE-UNCTAD Workshop, 2010). It is possible to design out these elements and accommodate for the future environmental uncertainty. Passenger safety due to derailment is the most serious safety hazard with wheel on rail (Shevtsov, 2008). This is predominately caused by rolling contact fatigue; however there are design limits to prevent derailment due to rail breakage (Shevtsov, 2008). Equally relevant design mitigation has been developed for most forms of derailment.
The brief requires an average speed of 400 km/h, with the governing target of achieving a time of 40% less than the existing network times, between each city. As the fastest rail network in the world is only capable of achieving an average speed of 320km/h, achieving this target may prove difficult. Records do exist where high speed rail systems have reached speeds over 500km/h (Guardian, 2007). These systems were either purpose built or under special conditions to beat a record and cannot operate at these speeds.
The route from London to Glasgow has terrain that varies considerably. The wheel on rail train with the maximum gradient is the TGV, which is capable of a 5% change. Technology is always
2-8 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 advancing and one option may be to design the new network based on a future capabilities; achieving higher speeds and travelling over steeper gradients. Otherwise, existing technology may be used along with a need for tunnelling and deep cuttings.
2.3 The Case for Maglev
Group Work
In 1934, the first patent for Maglev was received by Hermann Kemper from Germany. Using magnetically levitated vehicles this new technology is capable of delivering passengers in a more reliable, safe and fast mode when compared to existing wheel-on-rail by being friction-less. The research was stopped due to World War II and continued in 1970s for implementation, development and testing as part of the Transrapid project. Japan is the second major innovator for maglev technology development since 1980s. The two companies responsible are JR-Maglev of Japanese rail and HSST of Japanese Airlines. The highest speed recorded for maglev is 581 km/h by JR in 2003. This new record beat the 571 km/h wheel-on-rail record that was set by French TGV train on the same year (Long, 2009). Both records were set in test tracks with no passengers onboard as per UIC safety precautions.
In 2004 China launched the world’s first commercial high speed maglev line connecting Pudong airport and Shanghai city centre using Transrapid technology. The 30 km long maglev system is the fastest commercial rail transportation and achieves a maximum speed of 431 km/h. This is considerably faster than the fastest high speed wheel-on-rail passenger train that operates at 320 km/h. Transrapid is currently the first maglev train company to build a commercial high speed maglev train and also possesses a 31.5 km test facility in Emsland, Germany (Transrapid, 2010). Current testing has reached a maximum speed of 450 km/h at the test track with passengers onboard comfortably. Following the successful project in Shanghai, Transrapid decided to implement a link between Munich central station and Franz-Josef Strauss International Airport in 2007, however, it was cancelled due to a massive rise in the infrastructure cost and is still being reviewed by the German Federal and Bavarian State Government (Transrapid, 2010).
Figure 2.3.(1) shows the comparison of CO 2 emissions for a number of transport modes. It shows that the CO 2 produced by maglev is less than CO 2 produced by high speed wheel-on-rail at 300 km/h and slightly higher at 400 km/h; the difference is negligible. Less CO 2 emissions indicate that maglev trains are the most sustainable of all high speed technologies.
Figure 2.3.(2) shows the Transrapid maglev train consumes less energy than high speed ICE at both 200 km/h and 300 km/h. At 400 km/h, maglev consumes nearly the same amount of energy with wheel-on-rail traveling at 300 km/h. Additionally, from this relationship it can be inferred
2-9 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 that at 500 km/h the difference is even more pronounced. This is due to the capability of maglev to accelerate faster in short distances than conventional wheel-on-rail (UK Ultraspeed, 2010).
Figure 2.3.(1) Comparison of C02 emissions in different transportation (Transrapid, 2010)
Figure 2.3.(2) Comparison of energy consumption in different speed of ICE and Transrapid maglev (Transrapid, 2010)
Since maglev uses an electromagnetic field to levitate and propel the train along the guideway, it has no contact with the track. UK Ultraspeed (2010) state that ‘ the maglev train has no noise problems from friction between trolley and pantograph, neither does it have noise problems from rolling friction.’ Aerodynamic noise is therefore the only significant source that is produced from maglev, and can be reduced by good aerodynamic design.
Elevated guideway maglev requires only 2.1m 2/m of land; compared to 25m 2/m for wheel-on-rail as maglev uses elevated guideway (UK Ultraspeed, 2010). This also increases the safety of the train and passengers as the guideway is not built on the ground. Obstacles such as animals, trespassers and level crossings can be avoided, as they remain a major cause of third party death on the railway (Kelly, 2007). Additionally, derailment cannot occur by maglev as it is wrapped around the guideway.
2-10 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
At present high speed trains can do 0 km/h to 300 km/h in 18 km whereas maglev can do it in 5 km (Keating, 1996). The ability of maglev to travel at high speeds makes it feasible to cut travel time by 40 percent. The alignment specifications are also more lenient, with the maximum longitudinal and transverse gradient at 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively (Schah, 2006).
However, there are some drawbacks with maglev trains. The guideway is known to be more costly than conventional wheel-on-rail, and depending on the propulsion system, the guideway also requires permanent magnets and electronics circuits to be installed within. Critically, maglev is not compatible with existing infrastructure and would not be able to operate beyond its guideway.
2.4 Conclusion
Group Work
Rail technology has been maturing in the UK for over 400 years (Shevtsov, 2008) resulting in a network infrastructure becoming very dense, as track covers vast sections of country side. High speed rail has only been in development since 1963 (Najafi et al, 1996) with many instances of implementation around the world. In contrast maglev technology has been in development since 1980. This gives wheel-on-rail a 30 years development advantage over maglev. This project hopes to use one of the two train types to provide a 40% decrease in time between existing stations on the route from London to Glasgow.
Since wheel-on-rail has such a long establish history, the reliability of this system type is high. With high reliability the choice for wheel-on-rail improves drastically, however there are some disadvantages associated with wheel-on-rail which are linked to the wear and tear. In order to fulfil the time discount on the journey, the costs of travelling at designed speeds and the ability to fulfil the proposed line speed is limited due to propulsion type (Balfour Beatty Rail, 2010) can play a major role. Another problem with wheel-on-rail is the affects of climate change, where increase in localised flooding and foliage on the line (Joint UNECE-UNCTAD Workshop, 2010), and extremes in temperature can cause breakage in rail and potential derailments (Shevtsov, I Y, 2008) this will increase delays, increase maintenance and increase risk.
Maglev trains will not be affected by climate change as much as wheel-on-rail as the majority of the maintenance required for guideway viaducts will be on the viaduct top. However maglev train are not affected by foreign objects on the line so excess in foliage or snow can be easily dealt with in comparison to wheel on rail. Disadvantages associated with maglev are the cost of implementation, as guideways are known to be more costly than conventional steel tracks. Due to the high tech nature of maglev, a higher frequency of maintenance is required to be undertaken. Lack of backwards compatibility and diminishing rail real estate, means that maglev trains will
2-11 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 not be able to make the journey from door to door, but instead from a specialised terminals. These disadvantages are small in comparison to that of wheel-on-rail, and can easily be mitigated.
By comparing and contrasting the different train types the clear choice for this project is the use of maglev. It is evident that using maglev train is a better choice than wheel on rail in order to fulfil the brief, as well as providing immunity to a variety of eventualities. Although maglev has some disadvantages to the system, by complying with what developers have suggested for maintenance the overall costs of the system will be reduced in the long run.
2-12 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3 Train Set and Stock
3.1 Governing Specification
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães
Project Risk Weight reduction and Residual Risk The main contribution the adjustments to long distance intermediate risk is the Moderate travelling Minor tolerance, which needs further R&D. Improvements in the control systems in EMS can drive costs down.
The purpose of this section is to define the Maglev train set. By considering its key features and requirements, such as weight, switching, frequency, viaducts, and new developments, it will define the solution. The existing commercial Maglev line in Shanghai deals with these issues and how other availability of new technologies that will improve the system.
3.1.1 Maglev Development
Maglev was designed as a ground transport alternative to WoR. The main aspect of Maglev is the idea of eliminating static and rolling resistance by eliminating the contact between the train and the track. This is done by electromagnetic levitation. The only operational high speed Maglev line is in Shanghai. It runs as a point-to-point service between Longyang Road Station in the city centre of Shanghai to Pudong Airport Station. The nature of the short distance line meant that the train was made specifically to transport a comparably high number of people across a short distance. The TR09 set was developed to emulate an airport shuttle service, focusing on high payloads, and wide entrance space among other priorities Wolters (2008).
Presently Maglev is being recognised for long distance travelling, and Transrapid have assured that the TR09 can be used for long distance travel following some carriage changes. These would be train sets with more seats, smaller doors, and toilet facilities. Transrapid is involved in many long distance projects in China that have undergone various design stages. Both the Shanghai- Hangzhou (160km approximated) and Shanghai-Beijing (1300km approximated) have had considerable design completed. The Shanghai Hangzhou Maglev line had originally been proposed to open before the Shanghai Expo2010, but public concerns with the health hazards of electromagnetic radiation have delayed the project construction.
Alongside Transrapid, JR-Maglev are developing the system as a high speed long distance ground transportation system. The most important project is the proposed line to run between Tokyo and
3-13 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Osaka. Similar to the Shanghai-Hangzhou and Shanghai-Beijing, this is a long distance line that is yet to be constructed. Development of any of these lines would be a substantial stimulus to investment in Maglev as a ground transportation alternative to WoR.
3.1.2 Weight Effects
For the traditional WoR, the weight of the train is determinant to the friction between the metal track and wheels. Conversely, the non-contact aspect of the Maglev system means there is more freedom in weight reduction efforts. There is also a need to reduce the mass of the system; this is because the weight is directly proportional to the energy cost of the electromagnets suspending the train. Ongoing research in this area is providing improvements with Hong et al (2008) proposing the optimisation of the electromagnets. As the magnets comprise up to 10% of the total weight of the train, this is a critical area. Finite element analysis (FEA) and response surface methodology (RSM) are suggested to optimise the configuration of the electromagnets. This results in both a weight reduction and a force increase exerted by the magnets.
3.1.3 Operational Tolerances
The distance between the Maglev train and guideway is dependent on the suspension system. The Transrapid EMS trains glide 10 mm above the track, where as the JR-Maglev EDS system is designed around a 100 mm gap between train and track (Lee et al , 2006). EMS has been proposed as the levitation system for HS3; thus only these tolerances will be considered.
EMS imposes tight tolerances in the construction and operation phases. This is because EMS uses attraction to vertically suspend the vehicle, whilst EDS uses repulsion and thus allows for more freedom. In order for the electromagnets to be actively suspending the vehicle, the two parts have to be at a relatively close distance of 10 mm . At the same time, the distance cannot be much less than that without running a risk of contact. A very small tolerance is applied; this drives costs up. Research done in this area focuses on the highly complex control systems used to keep the train at 10 mm . Michail et al (2010) suggests using simpler controllers and optimise sensor selection for an improved vehicle response.
3-14 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.2 Aerodynamic Design
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães
Project Risk Optimisations in the drag force Residual Risk Aerodynamically efficient train by enhancing the train body and with a lower coefficient of drag Significant drag coefficient Moderate still needs to be designed.
Train position in the tunnel chosen
The following aerodynamic factors affect the feasibility of HS3:
For Energy usage: Train cross-section Profile of the train Length of the train For tunnelling: Train position in the tunnel cross-sectional area. Pressure waves in the tunnel Tunnel cross-sectional area Tunnel length Tunnel configurations
3.2.1 Energy Usage
Enhancing the aerodynamic profile of the train is crucial to the feasibility of HS3. The aerodynamics affect energy consumptions (operating costs), power input specification of the electric motors, and tunnelling costs. The energy and power of the motors will be talked in another section. It is the purpose of this section only to enhance the aerodynamic profile of the train and to discuss its effect on tunnelling.
Hopkins et al (1999) state that at high speeds most of the energy used by the train motor is to overcome the aerodynamic drag. In minimising energy consumptions, efforts should therefore focus on reducing this force. This resistive drag force can be written as:
1 F = ρV 2C A D 2 D
FD = Drag Force, ρ = density of air, V = speed of the train, CD = drag coefficient, A = Relative area of the train
3-15 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Note on A: This is the cross-sectional area in 2-D objects, but in complex structures such as trains, it is the frontal area of the train. Note on C D: This dimensionless number is calculated experimentally, and its optimisation is also achieved experimentally. The density of air, ρ, is a constant. V is the speed of the travelling train which we are trying to maximise rather than control, and thus its value is also considered ineffective when trying to optimise drag. It can therefore be concluded from the equation that to minimise the drag force at high speeds, we should minimise A, the train relative area; and C D, the train drag coefficient.
3.2.2 Relative Area Minimisation
The first parameter to minimise is the relative area of the train. As the only operational high speed Maglev line in the world, the Shanghai Transrapid will serve as the base design. Considering the short running time and short distances employed, it is likely that significant improvements can be made.
Type System Width (m) Height (m) Area (m2)
TR08 - Shanghai Maglev 3.7 4.16 15.392
TR09 Maglev 3.7 3.35 – 4.25 12.395 – 15.725
ICE 3 WoR 2.95 3.89 11.48
JR-Maglev - MLX01 Maglev 2.9 3.32 9.628
Figure 3.2.2.(1) Comparison of the cross-sectional areas
Note: Transrapid 08 data from Siu (2007), Transrapid 09 data from Wolters (2008), ICE 3 data from Köhler (2004), and JR-Maglev data from Railway (2004)
Its relative area of 15.4 m2 is large in comparison to all the other trains. In addition to energy usage problems, this can be an operational risk with respect to tunnelling. Transrapid have developed a new model, the TR09, which despite many advances in passenger comfort, passenger capacity and power supply, has no emphasis on aerodynamics improvements (Wolters, 2008). There is some ambiguity in where the height of the TR09 was measured, so both measures have been provided. The relative area of the ICE 3 was included in the table for reference, but it will not be considered for HS3 as it is not a Maglev train. It should be noted that the JR body has a smaller cross-sectional area than the Transrapid. From the table, it can be seen that the JR-Maglev train body has an area 0.63 times the one of Transrapid. This means that controlling all other
3-16 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 variables, the smaller relative area of the MLX01 produces a reduction in drag and energy losses of 37%.
There is some risk associated with using the smaller JR-Maglev train body on the HS3 train. It should be noted that the propulsion system for HS3 will be EMS. The small MLX01 train body, may be too small to house the wider drive system. The EMS system is 3.7 m, 0.8 m wider than the MLX01; this would be represented as 0.4 m on either side, and is an issue to be solved at a later design stage. Conceptually, therefore, the relative area of the train can still be comparable to that of the MLX01. A drawback is, however, the lack of an operating line using its system; the Transrapid body has been operating in Shanghai. This is a risk that can be overcome, as there have been sufficient tests done on the body across the JR-Maglev test line. In conclusion, the JR- Maglev train body aerodynamic profile has been selected for conceptual design.
3.2.3 Minimising the drag coefficient
The drag coefficient is an experimental measure of how smoothly the air can travel through a moving body. Factors such as the shape, length, and material of the moving body affect the drag coefficient. The table below summarises typical body shapes.
Figure 3.2.3.(1) Table with various train fore-body types
When comparing the current Maglev train bodies, Transrapid can be seen as 2-B and JR-Maglev as 3-B
Raghunathan et al (2002) states that the Maglev design produces a smaller drag coefficient, and thus will be the chosen design for HS3. It can also be seen that the JR design allows for a smoother airflow; the smaller increment in frontal/end area means there is less flow separation. This indicates that JR-Maglev train bodies might have a lower drag coefficient than Transrapid.
3-17 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
The drag coefficient quoted by many sources for Transrapid is 0.26 per train section of 25 m. The experimental calculation was done with a TR06 54 m long train and the drag coefficient was measured as 0.56 (Hopkins et al , 1999).
Figure 3.2.3.(2) The Shanghai Transrapid train
Figure 3.2.3.(3) The MLX01 JR-Maglev train
The value was calculated per metre and then multiplied by the 25 m length to represent a train section. This poses questions about the credibility of this value. Firstly, the method suggests that the drag coefficient is directly proportional to the train length. Secondly, this suggests that the TR08 design has the same drag coefficient as the TR06, although its design was developed decades later. There is no registered value for the drag coefficient of a JR train, but from the above mentioned observations, it can be assumed to be lower. Hopkins et al (1999) suggest an optimised railway train can have a drag coefficient of C D=0.3+0.0035L, where L is the train length in metres
This formula also suggests that the drag coefficient is not directly proportional to the train length. This optimisation means a 3 section train would improve its drag coefficient from 0.78 to 0.56 (28% more efficient). A 10 section train would improve its drag coefficient from 2.6 to 1.18 (55% more efficient). The risk associated with using this profile of an aerodynamically efficient train is low. The coefficient of drag for JR-Maglev should be measured experimentally. If it is lower than this proposed algorithm, it can be used as a baseline. If not, a train will have to be designed to
3-18 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 match or better the profile used. It is a design which is feasible to achieve, as the journal is from 1999, and there have been technology enhancements in this area since then.
3.2.4 Energy Efficiency
The energy calculations are can be seen in Figure C.3.2.(1). The improved design has a train cross-section area 0.63 times the Transrapid area (almost 40% more efficient), and a drag coefficient ranging from 28% to 55% more efficient; this makes the resistive aerodynamic drag force considerably smaller. In order to calculate the overall energy usage, the levitation and guidance forces, also known as magnetic drag forces are taken into account; they represent a small share of the energy, but should still be considered. Hopkins et al , 1999 writes that in the TR06, these forces were 18.2% of the total energy. In the modified TR07, the same forces are 18.6%. These values are not necessarily comparable to each other. For example the TR06 used the high value of drag coefficient (0.26 per section), but with the TR07 values, they assumed the train would be aerodynamically efficient and uses the algorithm to calculate the drag forces. Of the most current Transrapid trains, (Transrapid, 2010) write: “To hover, the Transrapid requires less power than its air conditioning equipment”. Transrapid (2010) also write that the power for levitation is not drawn from the linear electric motors but from powers using winds in the guideway. A levitation power consumption of 2-4 kW/ton (Yamamura, 1976) only represents 10% of the overall energy usage. It has been concluded that the magnetic drag forces are negligible in comparison to the aerodynamic forces.
The following formula was used to relate the resistive forces acting on the train to the power they drain from the motors:
Power (W )= Force (N *) speed (m s)/
The original Transrapid configurations on a 3 section train exhibit a power requirement of 17.07 MW, for maintaining a speed of 480 km/h . For the JR-Maglev train body with an efficient drag coefficient the power requirement is 7.7 MW at that same speed of 480 km/h ; this is 55% more efficient. A 10 section car would have a predicted 72% efficiency improvement. These are significant energy savings.
3.2.5 Aerodynamics in Tunnelling
The effects of train aerodynamics that will help minimise overall tunnelling costs are specifically considered. The interactions between the train and tunnel cross-sections call for a large ratio of empty tunnel space, compared to that occupied by the travelling train. This can be supported by the need to minimise the change of pressure in the tunnel when the train approaches it. In order to
3-19 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 minimise such a wave, the ratio of unoccupied section should be maximised. In order to minimise the tunnel cross-sectional area when increasing operational speeds, the train cross-sectional area should therefore be minimised. Making the train area smaller for drag force reasons has also benefited the feasibility of tunnelling.
A second factor affecting tunnelling that is the relationship between the position of the train in the tunnel and the aerodynamic response of the compression wave. The compression wave is caused by a change in pressure at the entrance of the tunnel when the train approaches (Raghunathan et al ,2002). Trains are normally configured in one of two ways: two tracks or single track. Where there are two tracks along the same tunnel, the train passes at either the left or right hand side of the tunnel. Where there is only one track in a tunnel, the train is able to be horizontally configured in the middle of the tunnel cross-section.
Figure 3.2.5.(1) Different train configurations in the tunnel (Ogawa et al, 1997)
According to Ogawa et al (1997) changing the horizontal position of the train with respect to the tunnel cross section does not change the magnitude of the compression wave. The difference in pressure is still the same. However, it slows down the rate of change in pressure; Ogawa et al (1997) refers to this as "wavefront of the compression wave is moderated" . For the model using compressible Navier-Stokes computational equations, Ogawa et al (1997) write that the maximum gradient in pressure was 30% lower. This is a contributing factor to running twin bore tunnels for HS3.
3-20 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.3 Propulsion
Ahmad Rosli
Project Risk EMS propulsion system will be Residual Risk This system would not affect applied in this project as it pacemakers, laptop users and Serious shows less risk and drawbacks Significant mobile users as it has been compared to EDS. implemented in China with no major issues involve passengers. A feedback control system is used in EMS propulsion system Onboard batteries is installed in to maintain the gap between the event of power failure so train and the guideway. that train can still operates and go to the nearest station or stopping point.
Maglev technology comprises of two operational principles, electrodynamic suspension (EDS) and electromagnetic suspension (EMS). Selecting between these will define the set that will be used in this project.
3.3.1 Electrodynamic suspension
In electrodynamic suspension, the magnetic field is applied to both train and guideway producing a repulsive force that levitates the train and pushes it away from the rail (Long, 2009). The guideway is designed in a ‘U’-shape and mounted with conducting magnets with the vehicle installed with a superconducting magnet. This combination technology is more expensive than other methods because a permanent magnet is needed in both the guideway and the vehicle. This technology is implemented by Japanese Rail (JR-Maglev) in their maglev system which has set the new world record on their demonstration line. The Japanese used this system because it is safer, uses lighter vehicles, has reduced energy losses and the future cost may be reduced through cheaper materials (Menssen, 2002).
Figure 3.3.1.(1) Electrodynamic suspension (TMS, 2010)
3-21 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Figure 3.3.1.(1) shows the electrodynamic suspension system. The green line under the vehicle represents superconducting magnets and the brown line on the guideway represents conducting magnets that work as propulsion coils. The propulsion coils are used to produce a force on these magnets that move and levitate the train. It works in the same way as an electric motor which applies alternating current in the coils to produce a continuously varying magnetic field (WordIQ, 2010). The superconducting magnets under the train are aligned and are constantly being pulled towards the magnet that attracts them and pushes them away from the magnets that repel them. The induced current in these coils, however, is not large enough to support the train weight at slow speeds (WordIQ, 2010). The system therefore needs wheels to support the train if its speed is below 100 km/h.
3.3.2 Electromagnetic suspension
Electromagnetic suspension applies the principle of attractive magnetic force to move and levitate the train. The vehicle is mounted by electromagnets that are wrapped underneath the track. The track is mounted by ferromagnetic substance that is able to attract the magnet underneath the vehicle. When the electric field is introduced to the electromagnets underneath the vehicle, they act as magnets and are attracted upwards, towards the ferromagnetic track. This will propel the train along the guideway. Muller (1998) states that “ a feedback loop is required to maintain the vehicle in the right gap between the train and the track.” On board sensors are used to create a feedback loop to control the current supplied to the electromagnet. This will keep the vehicle hovering around the track (Hazra, 1999). Due to the constant correction by the on board sensors, there will be vibration during travel.
Figure 3.3.2.(1) Electromagnetic suspension (TMS, 2010)
Figure 3.3.2.(1) shows a maglev system that uses electromagnetic suspension. Under the edge of the concrete guideway (in green), linear synchronous motors are mounted and will attract the lift magnet that is attached to the vehicle (in brown). Menssen (2002) notes that “ a maglev train that
3-22 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 using this system pulls itself along the track with a linear synchronous motor, which, in simple terms, uses the electromagnetic currents in the vehicle to attract it to the track ahead of it, so that the vehicle is drawn further along the track.” The speed can be adjusted by changing the frequency of the electromagnetic fields and reversed electric field will be applied to brake the vehicle without any contact with the track (Muller, 1998). The gap is between 8 and 14 mm depending on the train speed (Kemp, 2007).
This propulsion system is less safe compared to EDS. In the event of power failure, there are no guide wheels to catch the vehicle. Most of the maglev trains that use this system are designed to have onboard batteries in the vehicle. Should power failure happen, the onboard batteries will keep the train moving and slow it down to 10 km/h allowing it to be stopped at the nearest emergency stop. Muller (1998) states that “ since the track need only be a sizeable chunk of ferromagnetic material, they are cheaper compared to other propulsion systems”
This technology is used by Transrapid, a maglev company from Germany who operates in a test track in Ermsland, Germany and Shanghai, China. The first commercial high speed maglev train operates in China and runs between Pudong airport in Shanghai and the city centre. Terry Long (2009) states that “ it travels with the speeds up to 431 km/h which cuts the travel time from the city to the airport to just seven minutes.” Currently, the Chinese government is funding research into extending the line to the city of Hangzhou, over 200 miles away. This will be the first high speed inter-city maglev line in the world if it is built (Long, 2009).
3.3.3 Evaluation
The main advantage of electrodynamic suspension is the stability of the train when traveling at high speeds because the gap between the train and rail is large (approximately 100mm). This has been proven when JR set the world record, travelling 581 km/h on the test track in Japan. It is lighter than EMS and can carry more loads. The main problem with this system is that it depends on induced current. It also must travel more than 100 km/h to keep the train levitated and needs a wheel supporting system when travelling below that speed. The strength of the onboard magnetic field would make the train inaccessible for pacemakers would cause interference to mobile phones, laptops and other electronic appliances (Thompson 1999). This type of propulsion system, however, is currently only being used for the test train without a passengers. The use of magnetic shielding has been studied and could be used to solve the problem.
For EMS, the magnetic field inside and outside the train is much less than EDS. This is the main advantage for EMS as it provides access to people with pacemakers. It requires no wheels, even when the train is stationary, but a major issue for this system is that the train only levitates approximately 10mm off the track, and Muller (1998) states “ this makes the maintenance of
3-23 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 levitation precision difficult when the train loads are changing” . A well designed electronic control system, however, will keep the train levitate constantly above the track. It has been proven that this system works efficiently by Transrapid in Shanghai and no major issues involving passengers has been reported since operation started in 2004.
3.3.4 Conclusion
The selection of propulsion system in maglev technology is essential since both systems use different approaches. Based on the successful implementation of maglev train in China, it has proven that EMS is reliable, safe, and brings no major issues to public. This propulsion system is also produces less electromagnetic radiation and should be able to give access to people with pacemakers, laptop users and mobile phone users. Improvement to the electronic control system can be made which controls the gap between the train and the track to avoid high vibration. As a result, the vibration of the train can be reduced which will provide a quality ride to passengers.
3.4 Reliability and Maintenance
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães
Project Risk Simplification of the complex Residual Risk The large order of complicated parts to optimise root cause new cars can bring availability Serious analysis Moderate and maintainability issues
Rigorous maintenance regime to be implemented
Reduce operational speed from 500 km/h to 480 km/h
Maintenance is an essential ingredient for providing a fully functional system. The trains in a high speed rail network are expected to always be available for use. It is the role of the maintenance regime to provide scheduled maintenance inspections to minimise the probability of failure, and to repair any existing faults as successfully as possible. Repair success is measured by the time, quality and cost. For the specific scope of Maglev, maintenance will be especially determining for providing a feasible network. The uncertainty associated with the young age of the Maglev train as an operating high speed railway train will be in part mitigated by a good maintenance strategy.
3.4.1 Design Life
The service life of the TGV-PSE series can be estimated at 40 years. The series was constructed between 1978 and 1985 and started being operational from 1981 (McKey, 2010). McKey (2010) amongst others estimate that the series will be operational for an additional 10 to 15 years. The design life of aeroplanes depends on flight cycles and flight hours, but can range between 20 and
3-24 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
40 years (Koch, 2000). There is no data regarding the design life of a Maglev vehicle, because the newest operating trains are from 2004. The Shanghai Transrapid fleet has not published data on this matter. It is crucial to access the feasibility of Maglev vehicles matching a design life of their competitive alternatives. From the above information, it is concluded that the Maglev design life requirement should be approximately 40 years.
3.4.2 Design life indicators
There are certain performance indicators which will determine the design/service life of a train. They include, but are not limited to reliability, availability, maintainability, safety, and maintenance regimes. If a train is designed against these five performance indicators, it is highly likely its design life will increase. The five parameters are explained in more detail with special attention to their affects on the overall train design life.
3.4.2.1 RAMS
The concept of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety are very much in the foundation of any railway design, known as RAMS. These parameters are long institutionalised as performance indicators in the railway and will be looked at closely. Mott MacDonald (2009) describes each as follows:
“Reliability: The probability that an item can perform a required function under given conditions at a given instant of time or over a given time interval. Availability: The ability of a product to be in a state to perform a required function under given conditions at a given instant in time or over a given time interval. Maintainability: The probability that a given maintenance action for an item under given conditions of use can be carried out within a stated time interval.” (Mott MacDonald, 2009)
Reliability
Although the Shanghai operational Maglev line is too recent to provide data towards the life cycle of the trains, it can offer data with regards to reliability. Liu et al (2006) praises the Shanghai line for operating reliably and safely; the reliability record for the Shanghai airport line is immaculate. In almost 7 years of operation, the line has always been open for public use (Li, 2006). This is extremely favourable in comparison to other forms of transport. However, it should be noted that it is a short distance line. BSL (2008) also praises the highly reliable operational service in of the Shanghai airport line. The proposed HS3 route requires the trains to run for periods of hours at a time, over both steeper curves and gradients, and at quicker speeds. The reliability can only be expected to decrease, but it is not deemed to be a major change.
3-25 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
The Maglev train has less moving parts than any other train, auto-mobile or aeroplane. On the other hand, its propulsion, levitation and guidance systems are highly complicated. This is a reliability issue because the more complicated a system is, the more likely it is to break. This can be mitigated by design improvements in the EMS control systems.
Due to the nature of the route, and in particular between Manchester and Glasglow, the train will be climbing and descending gradients with a relatively high frequency. The added power needed by the motor climbing a 10% gradient at 500 km/h is 500% for a 3-section train and 800% for a 10 section train. Although it is feasible for the motor to still supply the added power needed, it poses a reliability issue over the vehicle’s design cycle. It is thus proposed to have the operating speeds capped at 480 km/h .
Availability and Maintainability
The existing availability record in the Shanghai line is high. When a vehicle becomes faulty, because it is a short line, there are maintenance depots easily available. Making depots in a long distance line as available as the Shanghai line would prove to be very costly. An alternative is proposed in the (U.S. Department of Transport, 2004) where availability and maintainability are optimised through an innovative maintenance philosophy. It should be noted that this proposed Maglev line is also short distance, but the idea can be scaled up to fit HS3.
The maintenance philosophy proposed by (U.S. Department of Transport, 2004) can be described as such. The first step is to categorise all the components in the Maglev train as a system or sub- system. Thus, in the event of a failure in a vehicle, the root cause can be easily assigned to a specific sub-system. The methodology is not to repair the sub-system, but instead to simply replace it with part(s). The broken parts are then sent off to be repaired remotely. This improves availability and maintainability because the time it takes to make a vehicle operable is vastly decreased. It also means there is a smaller need for highly skilled technicians. This requires, however, spares to be distributed along the network, mainly at stations. Although this increases the requirements on stations, it means there is a much smaller strain on maintenance facilities. The complexity of the sub-systems and their lack of establishment as a used technology will mean that availability and costs of such parts are highly uncertain.
3.4.3 Maintenance Schemes
Maintenance will be done locally, but there will still be a need for train maintenance depots. It is proposed that there will be four depots along the route. Their locations are flexible, but the mean distances needed to tow a maintenance bound train at low speeds should be taken into account. Their locations have been allocated based on the Civil engineering works requirements. Although
3-26 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 they are not optimum locations, maintenance of the Maglev fleet will be feasible provided an intelligent scheme is planned and implemented.
Campos (2007) looks at the acquisition and maintenance costs of WoR high speed lines around the world. The maintenance costs were then calculated to be on average 12% of the capital costs. If trains have a life cycle of 40 years, then it is expected that every year 2.5% of the network is replaced completely. This means that on average 10% of the capital costs is used for maintaining the fleet up to standard. This figure is acceptable and transferable to Maglev. As explained in the areas above, the Maglev train is expected to be more reliable than a conventional train; it is expected to be less maintainable however due to its complex electromagnetic parts. It should be noted that the maintenance strategy for Maglev is far from being an established phenomenon. Vuchic et al (2002) high lights that the projected maintenance costs for 7 Maglev projects in the United States of America vary by a factor of 10. This relates to overall maintenance costs, but the same can be applied to vehicle maintenance.
3.4.4 Maglev Design Life Projection
From consideration of the design life indicators and maintenance regimes, a design life for the Maglev vehicle can be estimated. The conclusion is that the Maglev train is capable of achieving a competitive service life. The uncertainty related to complicated systems and parts is balanced by the improved reliability associated with a contact free and very limited wear and moving parts system, and the improved maintenance strategies. The risk in proposing a design life of 40 years is deemed to be minor. The costs to achieve it, however, are considered more risky.
3.5 Passenger Comfort and Service
Ahmad Rosli
Project Risk Pressure sealing system to Residual Risk Pressure sealing does not rectify overcome the pressure effects in pressure effects in long tunnels. Serious tunnels. Significant Tunnel length needs to be closely studied in preliminary HVAC control is the fundamental design. More research is needed of good temperature and to resolve this issue. ventilation system on board. Limitation of volume of people Control and manage the amount and luggage allowable on trains of load in a compartment to would result in more carriages prevent overcrowding. and longer trains especially during peak times. Aerodynamic design to reduce the noise and vibration resulting from friction between air and train structure.
3-27 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Railway transportation is known as one of the safest modes of transportation in the world. One of the most important elements that make trains both safe and comfortable is the facilities provided onboard. The facilities that are often offered to passengers are cabin tables, special compartment, luggage area, spacious seats, heaters, and emergency telephone. As a result, railway transportation has been one of the most preferable means of transportation in the UK as passengers are able to work while travelling. These kinds of facilities have been improved as more high speed trains have been introduced to maximize passenger comfort levels.
There are many railway companies throughout the world that are still struggling to improve the level of passenger comfort as train speeds increase. Engineering measurements have been studied a curved track in order to increase the train speed with compensating lateral acceleration without detracting from comfort. As a consequence, the ride quality and ability to perform work onboard the train can be improved with faster train. However, there are several factors that need to be considered that influence discomfort to passenger activities. Vibration, noise, jerks, pressure differentials in tunnels and thermal comfort are all factors that need to be taken into account. These factors are very important and can be exacerbated when train travelling at high speed.
3.5.1 Noise and Vibration
Noise and vibration are the important factors that influence the discomfort of passengers. Both are crucial and need to be considered by train companies as there are many protests around the world resulting from noise and vibration problems caused by trains. The train design and route selection are commonly criticized by the public and passengers that demand better comfort. Noise is divided into two types. One of them is the noise produced by passing trains at residential areas and another is the noise in passenger compartments. Noise and vibration issues that cause problems to residents near the track can be avoided by selecting a route that is away from residential areas. Apart from that, limiting the train speed at certain ranges when passing this area could also reduce noise and vibration exposure to residents near track.
There are also studies to quantify the response of passengers travelling by train. The acceptable interior in passenger compartment is 65 dBA (Rotem, 2004). Most of rail passengers find it hard to carry out conversations with other passengers when the noise level is above 65 dBA. In addition, train companies have to keep quality up to standard to avoid passenger discomfort inside the train. The noise level varies depending on the speed of the train. Although maglev is a non- contact system, noise can still be generated between air and the bodywork. Aerodynamic design of the train is vital in this case. Making air resistance small will improve the comfort in passengers’ compartments to allow little noise as it cuts through air as well as to make the train faster without increasing noise levels in the train (Japan echo, 1995)
3-28 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
The other factor that influences passenger discomfort is vibration. It plays an important role for passengers comfort to perform sedentary activities such as writing, reading, eating and walking during travelling. Some research has been carried out on the vibration effect on passengers when performing activities on board. Neil 2006 stated that, ‘ the abilities to read, write and eat are highly affected to passengers through seat, table and floor ’. The vibration is normally caused by certain conditions such as train suspension, track standard, vibration properties of seats and tables.
Recent research, suggests that the effect of vibration on vision onboard train, to perform reading and writing abilities shows that the maximum difficulty occur between the frequency range of 2.5 to 5.0 Hz (Krishna, 2007). Within this range, the energy of vibration is transferred through the combination of hand and head motion and causes a difficulty to perform such activities. For horizontal vibration, within frequency ranges of 1 to 3 Hz causes the body to sway and absolutely not be stable for standing passengers or train crews (Krishna, 2007). This is due to the upper part of the body finding it difficult to stabilize within this range (Neil, 2006). The frequency range as low as 0.1 to 0.3 Hz could also cause problems to passengers. The recent studies have proved that vibration within this range, will cause nausea and motion sickness to passengers onboard the train that normally caused by tilting trains (Krishna, 2007).
It is essential to provide a comfortable ride to meet passengers’ satisfaction. An optimum train design is thus required in order to minimize the adverse effects of vibration. Besides that, seating posture and seat design play an important role to avoid difficulty for passenger to perform sedentary activities as well as limiting motion sickness. It is a crucial parameter in order to transmit vibrations to different body segments and prevent discomfort to passengers during the journey.
3.5.2 Pressure (Entering tunnel)
The comfort of passengers on board is commonly related to the pressure effect on the ear, specifically the pressure difference across the eardrum. Rapid pressure rise may cause severe distress or injury to the eardrum due to the pressure changes. The Eustachian tube in the ear generally functions to relieve the pressure difference across the eardrum by regulating them to the atmospheric pressure (Gawthorpe, 2000).
Acute cases of ear damage reported are resulted from rapid compression due to poor or failure of pressure sealing system is window cracking when passing through a tunnel. The pressure difference will undergo drastic variations as the external pressure is massively higher than the original internal pressure within the train. This situation will cause difficulties to the eardrums to equalize the significant pressure difference. The recommended maximum pressure limit of a train passing through tunnel as given by The Working Group is 10 kPa (Gawthorpe, 2000).
3-29 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
Most of the companies use a pressure sealing system to allow trains to move faster through a tunnel and at the same time provide an airtight atmosphere from external pressure to give comfort to the passengers on board. It works by installing precise sealing to avoid air leakage in various parts of the train structures such as ventilation and air-conditioning systems, external doors, as well as connections between coaches. However, continuous pressure changes in long tunnels are not easily attenuated and thus pressure sealing does not propose an absolute solution for the issue.
3.5.3 Acceleration and deceleration
Acceleration and deceleration of the train is an important element for passenger comfort. The acceleration has to be kept within specified limits to avoid jerks that cause discomfort to passengers. Jerk is essential in evaluating the effect of the motion in the travelling train. Engineers are responsible to keep the jerk less than 2 m/s 2 to avoid passenger discomfort. The standard for passenger ride comfort is stated in ISO 2631-1. From the standard, the most comfortable acceleration and deceleration for passenger is less than 0.315 m/s 2 but this will affect the train speed and will require more time to reach its maximum speed (Neil, 2006). Apart from that, acceleration within 0.315 m/s 2 and 0.5 m/s 2 is denoted as a little uncomfortable and within 0.5 m/s 2 and 1 m/s 2 denoted as fairly uncomfortable (Neil, 2006). Acceleration that greater than 2 m/s 2 is considered as extremely uncomfortable that will cause jerk to passenger.
3.5.4 Thermal Comfort
Thermal comfort also plays a major role in providing a quality to passengers. This is to ensure the air quality and environment onboard the train is well controlled to prevent passenger discomfort. Research investigating the thermal and air quality environment in a coach was carried out to find an ideal control of the ventilation system in order to give ride comfort quality to passengers especially in long-haul journeys.
Parsons (1993) stated that, ‘ the degree of discomfort with temperature will depend on thermal load, individual preferences of heat and clothing effects .’ Apart from that, one of the factors contributing thermal discomfort is crowd density (Turner, 2005). In tightly crowded condition, body temperatures will increase significantly and could affect health and safety of passengers onboard the train approximately in 30 minutes (Braun, 1991). This problem will not occur in high speed train since there is a limitation of passengers in a coach to keep the standard of passenger comfort. It was found that the limit of discomfort in passenger compartment is at 21.8 degree C (Braun, 1991). A temperature above that limit is categorized as extreme discomfort. Hence, good ventilation design and air conditioning control is crucial to avoid passenger discomfort.
3-30 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
The solution for all these problems is to determine equivalent temperatures in the passengers’ compartment. The comfort level can be improved by adjusting the air temperature in the vehicle compartment to compensate for the asymmetric cooling or heating that exist inside the train environment (Curran et al., 2010). It is based on heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) control strategy in vehicle compartment that controlled air temperature at a constant value. The differences between mean radiant temperatures need to be considered with the manual manipulation of air set-point temperature to obtain an optimum passenger comfort (Curran et al., 2010).
3.5.5 Conclusion
There are several factors that would affect passenger comfort in railway industries. Noise and vibrations are one of the factors that could cause passenger discomfort. Although noise generated by the maglev train is less than conventional wheel-on-rail because of its frictionless design, the speed of the train needs to be considered. The noise produced by wheel-on-rail when travelling at 300 km/h is about the same as noise produced by maglev train travelling at 400 km/h. Aerodynamic design of the train is crucial in this case as the maglev train is expected to go even higher speeds (up to 500 km/h). The noise in passenger compartment is thus will have to be kept below 65 dB, to avoid passenger discomfort. Vibrations of the train must also be reduced to give a quality ride to passengers as it could cause motion sickness and affects passengers in performing sedentary activities such as reading and writing. Seat design is vital in this case in order to transfer the vibration energy to different body segments.
The pressure difference tunnels could result in passenger discomfort. The different has to be kept below or equal to 10 kPa to prevent eardrum injury to passengers. This can be avoided by installing a proper sealing system to vehicles to avoid air leakage at any part of the train. In order to achieve the governing target to cut 40% of the journey time from HS2 as well as to keep the average speed of 400 km/h, acceleration and deceleration are the important parameters. In order to satisfy this speed, travelling passengers’ comfort will need to be considered. If the train could maintain the speed during curve and can accelerate more after stopping point or station, this could be feasible. However, these should not affect the passenger comfort as they deserve the best quality of ride during the journey. Engineers are once more playing a vital role carrying out calculations for accelerating and decelerating the train without detracting discomfort from the passengers.
For thermal comfort, it is crucial to implement the HVAC system as it works to control the air temperature at a constant value and maintain the thermal comfort in passenger compartment. A frequent maintenance of air ventilation for the train is also required to keep the air quality
3-31 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 environment in the coach for passenger comfort. By considering all the factors mentioned, this project would be feasible and no major risk required implementing them.
3.6 Collision Safety
Ahmad Rosli
Project Risk Aluminium honeycombs meets Residual Risk It is a lightweight material and the European crashworthiness the installation would not affect Serious standards and are a good energy Moderate the aerodynamics of the train. absorber. Elongated trains will increase A broader crumple zone will be train weight. designed to absorb more energy during collision. Not applicable because train will travel backwards after final Seat configuration to be uni- stops. directional to reduce injury to passengers.
Over the last two decades, there have been many studies to improve the safety of traffic systems in railway industries. Control and signalling plays an important role in avoiding collisions by making sure where the train is, and which way it is travelling. When travelling at high speeds, the risk is increased. The system must not only rely on control and signalling but must be designed for the worst case scenarios. There is evidence that a maglev system is more reliable than rail-on- wheel in terms of safety. This is because of the braking system and the ability of the train not to derail.
Since maglev train is wrapped around the guideway, if any collision would happened with another train, or any objects are on the guideway, the energy of the collision have to be absorbed entirely by the crushing strength of the vehicle itself (Joachim, 2000). This is because conventional wheel- on-rail trains have the ability to derail in order to absorb more energy in a collision and reduce the impact to the passenger compartment. Thus, maglev trains must be designed and constructed from stronger materials than a normal train.
A collision between two maglev trains is technically impossible. Miller (2004) stated that ‘ as the principle of the long stator linear synchronous motor excludes the possibility of a collision between two maglev vehicles running at different speed in the same direction or travelling in opposite direction in the same motor section. ’ However, the tragic accident at the Ermsland test track near German/Dutch border in August 2006 between a maglev train and a maintenance vehicle shows that there is still a risk. This has to be considered as the control and signalling system may fail causing deaths and injury to passengers and staff.
3-32 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.6.1 Crashworthiness
Crashworthiness of the train is vital in order to ensure the passenger and staff may travel safely. Kelly (2007) states that, ‘ the risk to passengers and staff is a crucial focus but the majority of deaths on the railway involve third parties, suicide and incursion onto level crossings. ’ Since the maglev guideway is elevated, the risk to third parties had been reduced, but the prospective collision of the maglev vehicle with external objects still needs to be considered. The external objects could be trees, animals or stones on the guideway. These obstacles could interrupt the smoothness of guideways (Liu, 2006). The crash safety system of the maglev vehicle must be designed to minimize the collision effect to passengers.
In the automobile industry, there are many types of bumpers and they are normally mounted on the front and rear part of vehicles. This is to provide sufficient protection to passengers if accident occurs. A similar system is employed for train vehicles. The design of maglev vehicles must include a series of crumple zones so that the kinetic energy of the train from the collision can be dissipated through deformation (Butlin, 2006). The larger the crumple zones, the larger the amount of energy that can be absorbed. In addition, by increasing the stiffness of the nose structure of the vehicle, the collision forces could be transferred to the longitudinal structures and thus enlarge the crushing and deformation area (Chiandussi 2000). Butlin, (2006) states that ‘current safety regulations for rail which state that the crumple zones in each carriage must absorb at least 3MJ of energy .’ This is to ensure that there is a high passenger survival rate in the event of a collision.
Figure 3.6.1.(1) Crumple zone mesh in a collision (Butlin, 2006)
Conventional wheel-on-rail standards also include the requirement of unoccupied crumple zones between the headstock and bogie centre. This is vital for plastic deformation in vehicles to absorb
3-33 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 larger impacts during collisions (Butlin, 2006). This is entirely different from maglev vehicles as there is no headstock or bogies in the vehicle. It must, therefore, completely rely on the stiffness of the material and nose of the vehicle to absorb large amounts of energy in the event of collision. This difference justifies a departure for standards.
3.6.2 Material of the crash elements
Material of the train vehicle is an essential element. It increases the crashworthiness of the train and reduces the impact of collision to passenger compartments. The selection of the material selection depends on how much energy can absorbed during a collision as well as the requirement for railway safety standards.
Aluminium honeycomb has been defined as a lightweight and a good energy absorber. Based on the studies, it meets the European rail vehicle crash requirements that are mentioned in EN 15227 “Railway Applications – Crashworthiness Requirements for Railway Vehicle Bodies” (Neill, 2006). It is an optimal material because of its ability to absorb high energy levels up to 700 kJ in a collapse with a force of 1400 kN (Neill, 2006).
Figure 3.6.2.(1) Layout of energy absorbers of rail vehicle (Neill, 2006)
Figure 3.6.2.(1) shows the layout of energy absorbers of rail vehicle. The aluminium honeycomb beam will be placed across the front of the vehicle cab and will be stabilized by an aluminium plate. This position is the same as the existing upper absorbers and would not affect the aerodynamics of the train. By implementing this technology in rail vehicle, it is also brings weight savings of 65 percent over the current rail vehicle and this could increase the train speeds (Neill, 2006). Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that aluminium honeycomb is the preferable selection of crash elements that can be used for maglev vehicle in order to increase the strength of the crash elements.
3-34 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.6.3 Passenger seat arrangement
A study about the ways to improve crashworthiness and the passenger survived capability on the train has been carried out. The Europe-wide collision data is used in this study to determine the passenger injury level by reviewing passenger biomechanical tolerances. The mathematical simulations to assess the level of passenger injuries using different seating configuration is also carried out (Cranfield Impact Centre, 2009).
Figure 3.6.3.(1) Simulation with two types of seating configuration (Cranfield Impact Centre, 2009)
Figure 3.6.3.(1) shows the simulation of two types of seating configuration on train. This is to examine the effect of passenger injuries during collision. From the simulation, uni-directional seating configuration has shown a good result in reducing the collision effect to passengers and is proved that are safer (Cranfield Impact Centre, 2009). These have to be taken into account in order to ensure that the maglev train design not only follows all the safety requirements is also the safest and reliable transportation in the world.
3.6.4 Conclusion
The collision safety is the most important element in railway industries as railways are known as one of the safest transportation in the world. The crashworthiness of the train is, however, needs to be improved and requires high quality in terms of the design and material of the train. As the maglev train will do higher speeds than conventional rail, the crashworthiness of the train must be improved significantly by implementing new technology and design that meets the rail standards and requirements. This could be done by applying wider crumple zones in vehicles, materials such as honeycombs for train bodies and passenger seating configuration that gives less impact during collision. These solutions are crucial in order to increase the crashworthiness of the vehicle and also to reduce the impact to passengers’ compartment in the event of collision.
3-35 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.7 Public Perception
Ahmad Rosli
Project Risk Good insulation preventing Residual Risk EMF radiation are considered leakage of EMF radiation needs safe as long as it is kept below Serious to be designed. Moderate 0.1 mT or 1 Gauss.
Route selection with sensible The noise must be kept below 70 distance from residential area, dB for residential area and 75 dB speed control and train design to for non-residential area when avoid noise and vibration travelling at maximum speed. complaints. Most of people are not exposed More exposure about maglev to this technology and its technology must be given to advantages. public and school children.
Public participation plays an important role in the success of the maglev system implementation. Following the success of recent high speed rail systems, maglev technology has been studied and has become the best option for more reliable transportation that the world needs. The first commercial maglev train was unveiled in 2004 by Chinese government which links Pudong airport with Shanghai downtown core. However, the 30 km long maglev system was highly criticized by residents that live nearby the track. It was reported that the noise and vibration produced by passing trains as well as the health effect from radiation has become major issues after the maglev train began operation in Shanghai (Shanghai Daily, 2008).
A study about the health effects of maglev train to passengers and residents living near the track has been done by all the maglev companies before it was commercially opened to public. Williams (1998) states that ‘ at high frequencies, (above 100 kHz according to NRPB) energy deposited in tissue, leading to tissue heating (as in microwave ovens), is regarded as the prevalent effect.’ This is supported by the fact that mobile phone users and residents nearby the base station are also exposed to RF radiation (Foster, 2000). However, this depends on the duration of calls made by the mobile phone users in order to be fully exposed to the radiation but residents nearby the base station are still exposed 24 hours a day. The studies about the RF radiation have shown no strong evidence about the exposure of base station.
NRPB have funded many studies regarding EMF radiation. The results show certain range of frequency that highly exposed to EMF radiation. The main finding concludes that as long as the frequencies are kept below 100 kHz, there will be no harm or damage to human body (Williams, 1998). According to research, the EMF exposed to human bodies must be kept below or equal to 0.1 mT, which is equivalent to 1 Gauss. Within this range, human bodies would not be exposed to EMF radiation that could possibly deposit energy in human tissue causing thermal interaction as
3-36 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 well as cancer (Williams, 1998). In addition, this could affect maglev passengers that caused by EMF produced by strong magnetic field under the train; especially pacemakers, mobile phone and laptop users onboard the train. This could be avoided with a good design of insulator that can reduce the magnetic flux leakage to the passenger compartment. A strong piece of metal shield can reduce the radiation to leakage considerably. This technology has been implemented by JR in their experimental maglev train (Japan echo, 1995). Since there is a lack of scientific evidence about health effect caused by EMF in maglev train, this technology is still being studied. There are still on-going protests about health hazards caused by maglev around the world are still happened.
Noise and vibration are one of the important factors that need to be considered in planning a new rail network. It requires a route selection that away from urban area when train travelling in its maximum speed or limiting the train speed when passing residential area or city centre. In maglev technology, mechanical noise is negligible and the only noise generated by maglev train is friction between air and bodywork. With a good design of aerodynamics (discussed in section 3.2), the effect could be reduced for high speeds in residential area. However, the Chinese government is still facing public protests over the maglev line extension following the successful 30 km of first commercial maglev train in Shanghai. Residents near the construction of the new maglev line feared health effects from radiation caused by passing trains as well as vibration that could damage houses nearby (Jeffrey, 2008).
In Japan, the noise limits vary according to land use categories, the maximum noise produced by passing train must be less than 70 dBA for residential land whereas the maximum is 75 dBA in the case of non-residential land. When the maglev train operates at 430 km/h, they suggested that the noise boundary limit must be at least 240 metre of radius (Chen et al., 2007). For the German Maglev Noise Standards, 59 dBA noise produced is the allowable upper limit near residential land. The noise limit boundary should be about 50 metre for residential area when the maglev is travelling at 430 km/h (Chen et al. , 2007). Chen et al., (2007) stated that, ‘ the substantial difference in the boundary limits derived from Japan and German standards is due to the different noise descriptors’ .
3.7.1 Conclusion
The answer for all these problems can be found by selecting a route for the guideway at a sufficient distance from residential area and also by providing public education programs about maglev where possible. In addition, with supports from government and department education for, maglev technology should be included in the school education to expose students about this great new technology. These provisions will change the public perceptions about maglev technology so
3-37 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 that this system can be easily implemented worldwide to satisfy the current needs of transportation world.
3.8 Electromagnetic Compatibility
Juin-Lun Tai
Project Risk EMC standards must be met; a Residual Risk Since the technology used for risk of EM interference can the train type has been Moderate cause unknown problems with Insignificant developed in the European the train system Economic Area, the EMC Directive must have been adhered to during development thus reducing the risk of not meeting the EMC standards.
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is a standard that all electronic devices have to comply with inside the European Economic Area (EEA). These standards are created so that electromagnetic radiation cannot interact with electric devices in the vicinity and h produce interferences. This can be enforced by reducing radiation leaks and improving immunity of all devices. In order to ensure that all electronic equipment is compatible with one another, the EMC Directive was created. This limits the electromagnetic radiation of equipment to ensure that, during operation, telecommunication and other equipment will not be affected. The Directive ensures immunity of equipment so that during operation no interference from radio transmissions will occur.
The railway EMC was created to provide EMC between internal parts of the railway systems in order to comply with the EMC Directive. However, adhering to the railway EMC does not always guarantee immunity, nor does it guarantee that emissions are at a satisfactory level of compliance with neighbours. In certain cases near “special locations” with unusually high levels of EM interference which is not covered by the EMC Directive such as radio transmission equipment, military or medical installations (BSI, 2008), compatibility can only be achieved with co-operation between both parties. Without such standards, local personnel with computers and pacemakers will experience interference with their devices. There are four main areas of the railway that have to adhere strictly to the railway EMC; Emissions of the whole railway system; On-board Apparatus; Signalling and Telecommunication Apparatus; Power Supply Apparatus and Installations.
The final decision to use EMS propulsion system for maglev requires technology developed by Transrapid a German company. Since this technology was developed in the EEA it would have to
3-38 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 comply with the EMC Directive which governs the railway EMC. Due to this, the risks of not being able to meet the requirements posed by railway EMC is non-existent.
In order to comply with the EMC Directive Transrapid have set a parameter that limits the distance between Transrapid maglev trains and any other possible neighbouring sources of interference. Transrapid (2010), have quoted that from the centre of the guideway to the centre of the nearest railway line must be at least 7.5m as demonstrated in Figure 3.8.(1). Transrapid (2010), have quoted that from the far side of the guide way to the centre of a electricity pylon there has to be a gap of at least 21m as seen in Figure 3.8.(1). The distance quoted is the clearance needed between train and suspension pylons. However, in the UK, the majority of electricity pylons are tension pylons, in which the power lines are pulled tight, so will not sway in the wind. With tension pylons shorter distances between itself and the guideway will be possible.
Figure 3.8.(1)-Transrapid Sourced Clearance Distances(Transrapid, 2010)
3.9 Freight Options
Thomas Michael Wallace
Project Risk Encouraging private investment Residual Risk Return or interest cannot be to develop freight options guaranteed at this stage. Moderate transfers the financial risk. Minor
Freight transport represents the largest single volume of business traffic across the UK. Accordingly it is a significant earner, and traditional rail provides access to its lines during the night hours to accommodate a share of 25%. The market is peculiar in that, although the bulk of its custom is heavy commodities, the worth is in high-speed deliveries; typically using aviation, (DfT, 2009). High-speed rail links on the Continent and Japan already accommodate some services; however uptake has been limited to mail. HS1 in the UK was built with facilities to allow freight transport but, despite sale, operation has not begun.
3-39 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.9.1 Without Alteration
The advertised carrying capacity of the Transrapid engine is 15 tonnes per section, up to 10 sections, (Transrapid, 2010). This results in a freight maximum of 150 tonnes that is above the typical 80 tonne limit of freighter aircraft (EvaAir, 2010). Business mail markets would likely be interested in this service for same-day delivery between the economic hubs. Unmodified, however, the trains would only be suitable for inner-city couriering during the day, as there would be no depots, etc. for secondary distribution. Private investment in return for preferable rates may encourage development of depots at parkways stations, which would be designed with good rail links.
Royal Mail runs an aviation service from East Midlands Airport to link remote areas of the country, and to ensure first class delivery times. The fleet of 11 planes carries 63 tonnes a day, and would only be partially replaced if HS3 were to run a freight line (Royal Mail, 2010). Although standard mail may, therefore, not be viable, IBIS (2010) acknowledges that the UK courier market is worth over £15 billion. Successful examples from the USA show how private investment by these firms can provide a low risk way to reduce project costs (RT, 2007).
3.9.2 With Alteration
The relationship between weight and levitation performance is a complex one; working inversely to speed. On an ideal plane at speed an increase in mass does not affect the power requirements of the system. The initial force required to lift the train when static is proportional to the square of the magnetic field magnitude, however. This in turn relates to the acceleration (both horizontally, and vertically,) of the train. Theoretically an increase in carrying capacity is limited initially by the maintenance of speed, the specification of alignment and the maximum field strength that can be generated. It follows that by acknowledging that freight traffic will travel slower, and restricting the steepest gradients and tightest track radii it would be possible to carry heavier cargo.
The final option would be to increase the power of the EMS and winds, enabling heavier loads. Due to the detrimental relationship between power and lifting force, however, this would come at substantially rising costs for diminishing gains (Leaner, 1997). Both options would require significant investment for unproven markets and limit the efficiency of the design. It is dubious whether the potential commercial interest would be sufficient, especially given the restricted stops allowed for.
3-40 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
3.9.3 Conclusion
Freight traffic can be accommodated across the network by encouraging private investment. This may be achieved either by developing a solution within the confines of the systems capabilities, or by altering the train and alignment to accommodate a wider market. It is unlikely that interest will be sufficient to justify changes to the design, considering the already established nature of the freight sector. Given the success of involving logistics operators as financers in America, however, there is little risk in engaging courier business for further consultation.
3-41 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
4 Stations and Route
4.1.1 Set Capabilities
Manuel Mesquita Guimarães
4.1.1.1 Turning radii
The turning radii achievable by the Shanghai Maglev for a different range of speeds have not been documented publicly, so the values were modelled instead. The following formula was used for calculating the turning radii correspondent to a set speed and lateral acceleration.
V 2 R= a
R is the turning radius in m, V is the longitudinal speed of the train in m/s, a is the centripetal acceleration of the train in m/s 2
The maximum value for lateral acceleration used was 4 m/s 2. This is equivalent to just under 0.4 g. The justification for this value was based on the acceptable values for lateral acceleration of other systems. A normal passenger car is built to withstand lateral accelerations close to 1 g, and most car journeys involve curves with lateral accelerations near or above 0.4 g. Once turning radii for various speeds were modelled, they were cross-checked with the values of know turning radii for Maglev at set speeds and this model proved to be conservative. Ultraspeed (2010) write that Maglev can achieve a turning radius of 1.6 km at 300 km/h . This model using 4 m/s 2 as the maximum lateral acceleration yields a turning radius of 1.7 km , proving the method was conservative. These values can be seen in the table that follows under the column “R”.
V V (m/s) a R New R Factor Obstacle R (km/h) (m/s 2) (m) (m) (m) 10 2.78 4 *30m *30m *30m *30m 20 5.56 4 *30m *30m *30m *30m 30 8.33 4 17.36 50.69 1.25 63.4 50 13.89 4 48.23 103.78 1.25 129.73 100 27.78 4 192.9 304.01 1.24 377 150 41.67 4 434.03 600.69 1.25 750.86 200 55.56 4 771.6 993.83 1.24 1230 250 69.44 4 1205.63 1483.41 1.25 1854.26 300 83.33 4 1736.11 2069.44 1.24 2560 350 97.22 4 2363.04 2751.93 1.25 3439.91 400 111.11 4 3086.42 3530.86 1.29 4565 450 125 4 3906.25 4406.25 1.25 5507.81 480 133.33 4 4444.44 4977.78 1.25 6222.22
Figure 4.1.1.(1) Minimum turning radii for a given speed
4-42 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3
*Note: The minimum curve radius achievable by the Maglev train is 30 m (Lee et al , 2006). Note: The modelling was done in increments of 10 km/h . For clarity, this table only shows key values
The next step taken was to consider the dynamic behaviour of a train when performing a curve. For high speed applications, 1.18 m/s 3 is an acceptable rate of change of lateral acceleration (Tiwari et al ). This means that if a train is travelling in a straight line and it then must turn, it needs to gradually increase its centripetal acceleration at a limited rate. It takes 4 seconds for the train to reach its maximum turning profile (and smallest turning radius) and then the same time to return to a transient alignment. It can be concluded that using the model above, experimental turning radii are in fact slightly larger than first calculated as “R”. In order to make a simplified model of the train performing a 90° turn, it was assumed that the train would travel straight for 4 seconds, then make the full turn at maximum lateral acceleration, then go straight for another 4 seconds. These new turning radii take rate of change into account and are more realistic of what a train would actually do. The final turning radius can be calculated as the original value for 4 m/s 2 plus the distance the train covers during 4 seconds in a straight line at that speed. The new and improved values of R can be seen in the above table in the column “New R”
4.1.1.2 Route Turning Capabilities
The nature of the route requires the train to swerve around obstacles of different sizes. This section tackles the maximum speeds that the train can achieve to manoeuvre around obstacles of different shapes and sizes. Modelling was made to relate the train going around an object of varying shape and size to an equivalent maximum speed. This approach was carried out using CAD, where the train would have to perform as tight a curve as possible with the new values of R. The route was modelled and resembled the red path in Figure 4.1.1.(2)
Figure 4.1.1.(2) Representation of the train going around an obstacle
The black circle represents the obstacle; the radius represents the minimum radius an obstacle can have for a vehicle to avoid it at a given speed. For a different shaped obstacle, an ellipse was used. It can be seen that for any ellipse can be modelled as a circular object with a single radius. The
4-43 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 logic is as follows. Consider an obstacle with the elliptical characteristics shown in Figure 4.1.1.(3) .
Figure 4.1.1.(3) Obstacle with an elliptical shape
Note: R 1 It can be seen that an ellipse with R 1 equal to a circular profile is not as stringent a curve for the train; however it is not as lenient as a circular obstacle of radius R2. In order to simplify modelling, an elliptical obstacle of R 1 and R 2, will be modelled as a circular obstacle of R3, measured as seen in the illustration. This CAD representations were done at 100 km/h , 200 km/h , 300 km/h , 400 km/h , and 460 km/h Those data points served as a reference point to interpolate for the speeds in between those tested experimentally. The values for the minimum radius of the obstacle can be seen in the former table under the column “obstacle R”. All the modelling in this section served as guidance to establishing speed restrictions along the route where tight curves exist. 4.1.1.3 Maximum Gradient Various sources quote Maglev achieving a 10% gradient, but they do not mention any speed limitations at that gradient. To support the train performance at 10% gradient at the maximum achievable speed of 500 km/h , some modelling was done. For a given speed and gradient, the aerodynamic and magnetic drag forces are calculated. To this value, the gravitational longitudinal resistive force is added. When modelled, a 3-sectioned train running at 500 km/h at level draws 9.01 MW . At a 10% gradient the Power drawn from the motor is 51.6 MW. Ono et al (2002) write that linear electric motors in the JR-Maglev vehicles are capable of supplying 69 MW each, and there are various motors in a 3-section train it is concluded that the train can run at full speed at 10%. The operational speed is currently proposed at 480 km/h , but if it is raised to 500 km/h in the future, the train can manage the extra strain. 4-44 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 4.1.1.4 Rate of change of Gradient Using the new turning radii values for 4 m/s 2 with rate of change incorporated already, a CAD representation of the Maglev at 480 km/h was drawn. This was done to represent a Maglev train that requires to a change in gradient from one specified value to another. Similarly in this case, the train would have to gradually increase its gradient rate of change, and then gradually decrease it when approaching the desired final value. It was measured that the route achieved a change in gradient of 10° in 730 m. This rate of change value was tested in the most demanding section of the route. As it will be clear in the Cross-Country route section, the train can travel at up to 480 km/h and perform the necessary gradient changes with no difficulty 4.1.1.5 Acceleration and Deceleration Using UK Ultraspeed (2010) figures the maximum allowable operational acceleration for HS3 was 0.8 m/s 2. Likewise, the maximum allowable operational deceleration was calculated to be 1 m/s 2. With reference to passenger comfort (section 3.5.3) the acceleration and deceleration lie in the “fairly uncomfortable” category as defined by the referenced standard. Although these figures are sub-optimal, they are justified by their use in Shanghai. The operating acceleration and deceleration limited at 1 m/s 2 have not prompted a negative public response (Yan, 2006). 4.1.2 Journey Time Model Clare Tracey The routing specification parameters stated in section 4.1.1 have been used in a model, which calculates the journey times between stations. The HS3 journey time model calculations are shown in Appendix C.4.1.2.(1). In the UK, Network Rail is responsible for developing a National Working Timetable (WTT) and uses an advanced system called TrainPlan . Each individual journey time on the WTT is the sum of four elements (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009): Point-to-Point timings Engineering Allowance Performance Alowance Pathing Allowance The point-to-point timing is simply the time a train takes to get between two points. It is computed using algorithms ‘ which take into account distance, geography (including gradients), power of locomotives, maximum speed, load of train, train classification, permanent speed restrictions and driving techniques (such as defensive driving) ’ (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009). The use of algorithms for calculating the journey times is beyond the scope of this feasibility study. Instead an appropriately simplified approach has been taken for calculating the 4-45 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 HS3 journey times. The Rail Safety and Standards Board report 2009 outlines some basic principles for developing an optimum speed profile, which are applicable to a Maglev system as well as wheel-on-rail. These principles have been have been kept in mind whilst developing the simplified HS3 journey time model: ‘An optimum strategy is typically made up of four components: Maximum power acceleration. Driving at constant speed Coasting Maximum braking ’ (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009) The report comments that using maximum acceleration and braking ‘ enables the lowest possible maximum speed to achieve a required journey time’ although it may seem ‘ counter-intuitive for energy efficiency’ (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009). It should also be noted that the report states that maximum braking is not used in reality because of the risks associated with overrunning signals and stations due to poor adhesion conditions. Maglev trains, however, do not have any such braking issues and hence maximum braking has been incorporated into the HS3 journey time model. The HS3 model applies the maximum constant operational speed of 480kmh wherever possible. Maximum acceleration and deceleration are applied either side of station stops and permanent speed restrictions. Permanent speed restrictions have been applied for sections of the route that are tunnelled and sections where the curvature exceeds the minimum allowable radius at 480kmh (Figure 4.1.5.(1)). Station dwell times have been set at 2 minutes; this is the allowance made by HS2 for Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange station stops (HS2, 2009a). The full journey time model is shown in Appendix C.4.1.2.(1). The limitations of the journey time model are that no adjustments are made for gradients, train loads or wind loads. Consideration of energy efficiency/journey time adjustments in relation to gradients, train loads and wind loads is something which is beyond the scope of this feasibility study. In terms of the three different allowances, which are applied on top of the point-to-point journey time, engineering allowances have been discounted on the grounds that engineering works will be far less onerous for the Maglev line than for the dated wheel-on-rail network. The pathing allowance is ‘ additional time added to resolve conflicts at a junction or remove any headway violations ’(Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009). Because the HS3 line is dedicated to a single 4-46 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 service route and train operator, headway violations are far less likely, and for this reason the pathing allowance has been discounted. Also, the HS3 line will have comparatively fewer junctions, and hence regular delays of this nature are not expected. Figure 4.1.5.(1).Speed restrictions along the HS3 route The performance allowance is the ‘ margin added to allow for late running on a day-to-day basis to achieve arrival times ’ (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2009). It was considered appropriate to add a percentage performance allowance on to the HS3 point-to-point journey times. An estimate for this allowance has been made from data published in the Rail Safety and Standards Board report 2009 for other inter-city services (Figure D.4.1.2.(1)). An average of this performance allowance data of 2% of the point-to-point journey time has been incorporated into the HS3 journey times. This is reasonable considering the punctuality of the Shanghai Maglev; between April 2004 and December 2006, only 1 in every 400 trains had a delay of over 20 seconds (Fritz et al, 2008). The final journey times result from routing and tunnelling feasibility decisions (sections 4.2, 4.3 & 5.4) and are presented in section 8.1. 4-47 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 4.2 City Stations Clare Tracey Project Risk Conflicts with built-up areas Residual Risk Necessary tunnelled routes in have been avoided by using London and Manchester Significant existing transport corridors or Moderate increase construction risk. new tunnels. City centre and parkway stations Potential passenger numbers will represent a large proportion have been maximised by the of capital and operating costs. strategic positioning of HS3 stations. Reference has been made to recent government transport studies in order to adopt an integrated transport approach. The objective of this section is to identify locations for the HS3 stations, which enhance the feasibility of HS3. In addition, this section of the report will also explain how the route of the HS3 line in and out of the cities was optimised. This section of the report should be read and understood in conjunction section 4.3 Inter-city Routes , which deals with the route optimisation process outside of the cities. Appendix A has A3 drawings for each city route. Specific points are explained in relation to their location on these maps as London (L), Birmingham (B), Manchester (M) and Glasgow (G). Additional figures are also provided in Appendix D to aid the route description. 4.2.1 Design Strategy Overview The HS3 specification is for a station in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. Research indicated the importance of having the station in the heart of the city centre; HS2 ‘concluded that city centre stations should be an essential part of the scheme’ (HS2, 2009b) . The alternative to city centre stations is out-of-town stations. One of the benefits of out-of-town stations is that complicated construction in dense urban areas is avoided. An ICE report on highspeed rail remarks that an out-of-town station can ‘stimulate development and regeneration in city fringe areas’ (ICE, 2005). On the other hand, passengers wanting the city centre would be inconvenienced by having to transfer to another mode of transport, not to mention the increase in door-to-door journey time that such a transfer would create. This may cause some of the route’s advantage over air travel to be lost (ICE, 2005). Justification for major new transport links, like HS3, is founded on their ability to improve current journey times (e.g. bring two cities within commutable distance) such that economic growth is stimulated. It is for these reasons that the provision of out-of-town stations only for the HS3 scheme is considered non-viable: they would fail to provide a direct link to key financial locations; the city centres. 4-48 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 The economic feasibility of HS3 hinges on providing a service that will be in demand. The station location has to be made desirable for the largest number of passengers. With this in mind it is considered important to introduce as much flexibility for passengers as possible. For this reason, the out-of-town stations, in addition to city centre stations, have been considered to increase the feasibility of HS3. The feasibility of providing a service which stops twice (i.e. out-of-town station and city centre station) has been proven by using the journey time model to check that times are not more than 60% of the current rail journey times. The out-of-town stations will be named parkway stations, similar to the existing UK National Rail convention. A convenient location for parkway stations is often near regional airports. The benefit of a parkway station, in addition to a city centre station, is evident from the proposed HS2 scheme. The merits of each HS3 parkway station will be discussed individually in the following sections. The selection of the best locations for the HS3 stations within the scope and timeframe of this feasibility study requires a strategy, which negates the need for in depth geographical study. Consequently, great attention has been paid to existing government and city council rail reports in order to extract the key conclusions where extensive studies have already been performed. A prime example of relevant existing studies is HS2. Although, there are significant differences in specification between HS2 and HS3 (namely HS2 is compatible with the existing UK rail network and is designed to travel at lower speeds), the HS2 station location preferences that are the result of work by engineering consultancy, Arup are considered relevant for HS3. The information currently available for HS2 includes the engineering drawings of the preferred route and station locations for the London to Birmingham leg. Although the intention of HS2 is to extend northwards calling at Manchester and Glasgow, there will be no detailed information available until July 2011, when Arup are due to submit work on the next stage of the route (Arup, 2010a). Consequently, innovative investigation for this feasibility report will be more heavily weighted towards Manchester and Glasgow. For London and Birmingham the investigations for this feasibility report will focus on adapting the HS2 proposals to suit the Maglev system. 4.2.2 London Please refer to Appendix B.4.2.2.(1)&(2) and D.4.2.2.(1) for London route plans. The HS2 prefered option terminates at London Euston. The HS2 Route Engineering Study looked at numerous different station options and found that: ‘No existing London Station could accommodate the length required for platform and throat, but Euston offered the best opportunity to achieve the desired provision ’ (Arup, 2009) 4-49 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 It is felt that Euston provides the best location for a high speed service regardless of train system type. If anything, Maglev, rather than wheel-on-rail, will improve the constraints of the Euston development; Maglev trains are shorter (maximum 250m, see section 3.2) and hence do not require the HS2 400m length platforms. The HS2 proposal involves demolishing buildings and taking land to the west and south of the existing station to increase the number of platforms from 18 to 24. A brand new station concourse will be located above platform level. The advantage of HS3 is that it has less impact on the equivalent existing rail services than HS2, and hence HS3 services can be introduced more gradually. Consequently, HS3 may allow a more phased approach to the construction work (i.e. fewer platforms required to begin with) thus spreading the expense of the Euston redevelopment over a longer period. The HS2 route in/out of central London is via new tunnels between a portal at Old Oak Common and a portal to the northwest of Euston Station. Once the HS2 tracks emerge from the new tunnels at Euston, they run adjacent to existing tracks for 850m before entering the station (L1). This configuration is subject to achieving sufficient clearance between Maglev and conventional rail overhead lines (see section 3.8). It is proposed that the HS2 tunnelled route in/out of London is adopted for HS3. Although the Maglev viaduct system allows more scope for accommodating the line in built-up areas, the disruption during construction and the environmental effects during operation (speeds of up to 300km/h in central London) made the above ground option unviable. The size of the HS3 tunnels is not expected to be significantly larger than those proposed for HS2 (see section 5.4), hence this section of the HS3 route is considered feasible. A station at Old Oak Common, similarly of HS2 design, is to be part of the HS3 proposed route. It has been included in the HS3 network for all the reasons it is included in HS2 proposals: ‘ to significantly relieve passenger dispersal pressures at Euston, by offering access to the West End, the City and Canary Wharf via Crossrail; and it could provide easy interchange to fast services into Heathrow Airport’ (HS2, 2009b). The journey time model confirmed that the stop still allows the journey time target to be met. Trains enter and exit the station via tunnel. The station will be sunk to tunnel level but will remain open; HS2 propose a design like Stratford International (Figure D.4.2.2.(1)). 4-50 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 4.2.3 Birmingham Please refer to Appendix B.4.2.3.(1)&(2) for Birmingham route plans. All elements of the Birmingham stations and route have been based on HS2 proposals. The spur in/out of the city centre mitigates the issues associated with finding a through route (i.e. additional land take or tunnelling). Other transport corridors were considered for HS3, however the rail line connecting Water Orton station (B1) to the centre of Birmingham (preferred HS2 route) is the widest and least residential existing corridor. The additional risks associated with the Maglev line are clearances to conventional rail overhead lines and to electricity pylons/power lines (B2). The clearance to existing rail is likely to result in a larger land-take footprint. Industrial premises may have to be demolished in some areas, although according to HS2, ‘ the south side [of the existing railway] is largely unoccupied land ’(Arup, 2009). The city centre station at Fazeley Street is very close to major city centre locations. HS2 propose travelators and a concourse which bridges over the streets below to provide direct pedestrian access to the Bull Ring and to New Street Station. HS2 also recommend ‘ an interchange station in the West Midlands, extending the overall West Midlands market and providing very fast connections between London and the outskirts of Birmingham, Birmingham International Airport and the National Exhibition Centre.’ (HS2, 2009b). The HS3 journey time model confirms that the journey time for London Euston to Birmingham Fazeley Street calling at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Parkway is within the target. 4.2.4 Manchester Please refer to Appendix B.4.2.4.(1) – (3) for Manchester route plans and D.4.2.4.(1) – (5) for supplementary figures. Manchester posed the greatest challenge out of all the cities in terms of finding a route into the city centre. All the transport corridors which approach the city from the south pass through dense urban land making the prospect of widening a one of these corridors for HS3 a disruptive and expensive option. Currently, services from London and Birmingham arrive into Manchester Piccadilly station in the southeast via the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The land adjacent to the WCML is primarily residential for almost 20km on the approach to Manchester (M1). An HS3 line would require at least a 7.5m clearance from the existing railway (see section 3.8). Properties and/or the WCML would have to make way to accommodate the HS3 line. The social impact of affecting so many homes is deemed unacceptable, not to mention economically unviable. 4-51 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Additionally, it is concluded that even if HS3 eventually replaced WCML tracks, that the disruption to current services during construction would be too great. An alternative rail corridor in the southwest which passes through Altrincham and Sale is similarly bound by residential properties. A spur towards the west of Manchester, similar to that proposed for Birmingham was considered. However, there is no obvious location for a spur due to the high density of urban areas between Manchester and Warrington (Figure D.4.2.4.(1)). Also, the rail corridors from Liverpool pass through residential areas on their route into Manchester. One of the early factors in the route design was the potential for a station at Manchester airport. A Network Rail study on Manchester’s rail network highlighted the need for improved rail links to and from Manchester Airport: ‘ Surface access capacity is the most significant constraint to the airport’s future growth. Increasing public transport mode share is the preferred way to overcome these constraints ’(Network Rail, 2010). The Network Rail report also comments on guidance from the DfT concerning the development of High Speed options. The comments suggest that a Manchester parkway station is likely to be an HS2 component. From these findings, the route design focused on entering Manchester via the airport. The proposed route lies to the west of the airport with the intention of aligning with the M56 motorway. One alternative was to run the HS3 line adjacent to the M56, which becomes the Princess Parkway dual carriageway. Once the space adjacent to the highway becomes insufficient (due to increased urban density) there was the option of running the raised guideway along the central reservation of the dual carriageway (Figure D.4.2.4.(2)). Even though Princess Parkway becomes Princess Road, the width of the road is maintained. This route also has the advantage of being very straight. However, as the route nears the congested city centre there is no obvious path for the line to take to a station and then out of the city. A variation on this alternative was to run the guideway along the central reservation for as long as possible before descending the line into a tunnel which would avoid the most congested part of the city. The problem with this alternative is the Princess corridor is bisected by lots of residential streets, which makes it difficult to find an uninterrupted stretch of sufficient length to create a tunnel approach. Also, a tunnel approach (i.e. guideway at grade as opposed to on viaduct) would take up considerably more width, especially including the earth retaining structures that would be required. It has been decided that the most suitable location for a tunnel portal and approach is on a strip of land to the east of the M56 motorway. The length of the approach is 1.5km (between motorway junctions), which is judged to be a sufficient length over which to reduce the elevation of the guideway so that the line can tunnel under the branch of the M56 motorway (M2). 4-52 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 The next consideration was a location for the city centre station. The choice of station location was based around the Network Rail plans for improving Manchester’s rail infrastructure. The Manchester Hub Rail study assessed two strategic options: ‘ one to allow greater use of Manchester Piccadilly; the other greater use of Manchester Victoria ’ (Network Rail, 2010). The result was that Manchester Victoria was the preferred station to be expanded as part of the Manchester Hub. For this reason, the preferred option for HS3 is to also connect into Manchester Victoria to take advantage of the integrated transport potential and thus maximise access to the HS3 station. Manchester Victoria is also in the heart of the city centre, very close to the pedestrian priority core (Figure D.4.2.4.(3)). The options for the position of the HS3 platforms are improved due to the fact that the HS3 line will arrive at the station in tunnel and therefore the HS3 platforms will be below ground level (i.e. the orientation of the HS3 line does not need to align with the above ground east-west platforms at Victoria). Having decided that a tunnel into the city centre was likely to be the most feasible solution, the position of the second tunnel portal had to be decided. The route out of the city centre was somewhat governed by the position of the route northwards to Glasgow. Topography, National Parks and environmentally protected areas surrounding Manchester (see section 4.3), meant that the options for the route were quickly narrowed down to the M61 motorway corridor in the northwest (in the direction that trains to the north currently take). To determine the extent and line of the tunnel, the topography and geology of Manchester was investigated. It was discovered that a straight line route from Manchester Victoria to the M61 encounters some difficult gradients. The ground level rises from approximately 40mAOD at Manchester Victoria to 90mAOD at the start of the M61 corridor, with a sharp rise in the Clifton and Pendlebury area (Figure D.4.2.4.(4)). It can be observed that the existing railways hug the contour lines to avoid the gradients. The increase in ground level between Manchester Victoria and the M61 present a challenge for bringing the HS3 line out of the tunnel. The final alignment of the tunnel portal and approach, have been positioned to best avoid infrastructure and the topography issues (Figure D.4.2.4.(5)). The relatively flat and undeveloped land close to the river Irwell provides the best location for the portal. The proposed tunnel approach is likely to require retaining structures and will run parallel to the existing railway. Once the guideway is at ground level the HS3 route will continue to run alongside the existing railway to avoid crossing the high ground at Clifton. The proposed HS3 route will then skirt around the residential area of Clifton Green before crossing the M60 to align with the M61. The tunnelling risks associated with the geology are evaluated in section 5.4. 4-53 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 4.2.5 Glasgow Please refer to Appendix A.4.2.5.(1)&(2) and D.4.2.5.(1)&(2). Glasgow Central station is the current terminus for WCML services from London, the Midlands and North West England and is ‘ the busiest station in Scotland’ (Transport Scotland, 2010). Glasgow Central is in a very confined position on the edge of the river Clyde, with the Clyde viaduct providing the only access. Scotland’s strategic transport projects review states that at peak times there is no spare capacity at Glasgow Central (Transport Scotland, 2010). The other main line terminus station is Glasgow Queen Street, which has similar capacity constraints (Scottish Executive, 2006). Glasgow Queen Street services access the station via tunnel. It is concluded that neither Glasgow Central nor Glasgow Queen Street offer a feasible site for the HS3 station. Scotland’s strategic review suggests that a new city centre station is required: ‘ the new city centre station options would provide additional platform capacity in the city centre and permit cross-city services to be provided’ (Transport Scotland, 2010). In order to determine a suitable location for a new station, the direction of approach to the city centre was considered. Due to the terrain, there were only two realistic corridors through the Southern Uplands; river Nith/A76 or river Annan/M74. To continue the HS3 line along one of these two main transport corridors, avoiding the worst gradients and environmental issues, gives the option of an approach to the southwest or the southeast of Glasgow (Figure D.4.2.5.(1)). Following general HS3 strategy of providing a parkway station near the city airport, a route via Glasgow airport in the southwest was considered. One of the objectives in Scotland’s strategic review was ‘to promote efficient and effective transport links to support the development and implementation of the proposed national development at Glasgow Airport’ (Transport Scotland, 2009). Glasgow is undergoing a considerable amount of regeneration, particularly towards the west of the city centre, along the River Clyde. The Glasgow Harbour Regeneration project has seen £1.2billion of investment (Clyde Water Front, 2010) (G1). ‘ The economy of the city and the region has been growing in recent years and Glasgow is now recognised as one of the fastest growing cities in the UK.’ (Transport Scotland, 2009) The Scottish Government’s Strategic Transport Projects Review lays out plans to improve transport links in the centre of Glasgow in order to serve areas of economic activity. With all these factors in mind, the proposed location for the HS3 station towards the west, on the south bank of the river Clyde. This location has the advantage of being in a less highly developed area and that it is just across the river from the new developments. This location is also ideal for a route in via Glasgow airport. The route can enter the city along the M8 corridor. The proposed 4-54 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 area for the station building is in the Govan area adjacent to a park and the category A-listed, derelict Fairfield building (Figure D.4.2.5.(2)). The Fairfield building used to be shipyard offices and is described as ‘ the nerve-centre of what was once the most famous shipyard in the world’ (Govan Workspace, 2008). It is envisaged that the Fairfield building could be rescued by HS3 to provide office space adjacent to the new station for HS3 headquarters. Although the proposed location for the station is not in the heart of the city centre, it is felt that the economic growth that will be stimulated by HS3, coupled with the nearby regeneration along the river Clyde, justify the station’s offset from the city centre. In addition, Govan has an underground station (SPT Subway) and proposed developments of a ‘ Metro/ Light Rapid Transit network across Glasgow’ (Transport Scotland, 2009) will ensure that integrated transport enables access to other areas of the city. 4.2.6 Summary The proposed HS3 stations are as follows: London Euston (EUS) Old Oak Common (OOC) Birmingham Parkway (BHP) Birmingham Fazeley Street (BMF) Manchester Parkway (MCP) Manchester Victoria (MCV) Glasgow Parkway (GGP) Glasgow Govan (GGG) Services are designed to call at all stations en-route with the exception of Birmingham Fazeley Street because of its terminus status at the end of the spur line. There will be no significant time advantage created by not stopping at the parkway stations. This is due to tunnel and guideway curve speed limits, and deceleration distances for the city centre stations. Stopping at all stations will increase flexibility for passengers and simplify timetabling and operation. The journey time model has been used to check all journey combinations and all are well within the 60% target (section 8.1). The target average speed of 400km/h has not been met for all journeys. For example, the average speed for London to Glasgow, calling at all stops (other than Birmingham Fazeley Street) is 353km/h. It is reasoned that the average speed is not important as long as the required journey time is achieved. The key features of the proposed stations and the route in and out of the cities have been designed to maximise the feasibility. The environmental impact has been minimised by following existing transport corridors, avoiding residential areas and tunnelling. The strategic positioning of stations 4-55 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 ensures the HS3 service will generate maximum demand. The construction of the Maglev stations and the inner city routes are considered technically feasible. The cost of the stations and the tunnelled sections in London and Manchester will however, have a significant affect on the economic feasibility of the HS3 scheme. 4.3 Inter-city Routes Dan Mitchel Project Risk Adverse turning radii and Residual Risk All major infrastructure has been mountains with steep gradients avoided. The route needs to run Serious have been avoided. These affect Moderate through one small town called the technical feasibility of the Coppull. trains. The route cannot avoid the Where possible, infrastructure Chilterns, however, it does avoid across the route has been many other sensitive areas. avoided. This limits the cost implications involved in Where possible throughout the acquiring land that is built on. route, extensive earthworks in the form of tunnelling and Where possible, environmentally cuttings have been avoided to and historically sensitive areas minimise costs. have been avoided. Where this cannot be done, the use of tunnels, cuttings and keeping the viaduct at ground level minimises the visual impact of the viaduct. The objective of this section was to outline a route that is the most feasible option for HS3. There are both minor and major obstructions between each city. The key aim is to provide a route that is fast enough and that has a minimal affect on the UK’s environment and its infrastructure. Appendix A has A3 drawings for each leg of the route. Specific points are explained in relation to their location on these maps as London to Birmingham (LB), Birmingham to Manchester (BM) and Manchester to Glasgow (MG). The ground level topography of the route can be seen in Appendix B, along with additional figures in Appendix D. The following section demonstrates how the route has been optimised and provides an overview of the route, with key specific risks noted and relevant mitigation. 4.3.1 Method of Route Optimisation In choosing a route between any two points the first step would be to draw a straight line between the two cities and vary the route in accordance with any obstacles. Different tools were used to 4-56 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 identify these obstacles and thus to establish the optimum passage for HS3. The main obstacles identified between London and Glasgow are the three National Parks and five Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (See Figure D.4.3.1.(1)). There are also numerous Nature Reserves, Country Parks and Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI). For England, an online interactive map was used to outline these sensitive areas (Natural England, 2010). Another online interactive map highlighted flood plains and different rivers (Environment Agency, 2009). For Scotland, similar interactive maps were used for the same purposes. Scottish Natural Heritage has a map for sensitive areas (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010) and flood plain information was shown on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s flooding maps (SEPA, 2010). In England alone there are 374,081 listed buildings (English Heritage, 2010). Listed buildings were shown using an online interactive map (British Listed Buildings, 2010) (see Figure D.4.3.1.(2)). Digimap Collections provides Ordinance Survey maps which were used to provide an overview of the change in levels throughout the route (Edina, 2010). The National Grid has drawings of over head power lines which were used to minimise their interface with the route (National Grid, 2010). For London to Birmingham, HS2 documentation was used along with all their drawings (Department for Transport, 2010). Each drawing had to be downloaded and viewed in order to transfer the route. Some risks were highlighted in their report (Arup, 2009). These were noted; however the route had to be reassessed to ensure that all risks were reviewed. The HS2 route was analysed and improved at various locations, where the HS3 train had better capability or for example, where listed buildings were at risk. Each of the above tools were used to provide a general outline of the route along with areas of concern. This was then set out using Google Earth (Google, 2010a), which provided a good means of visual illustration (See Appendix B) Section 4.1 outlines routing specifications based on the train’s capabilities, which were the main criteria when deciding the route. Both the vertical and horizontal gradients are in compliance with the routing specification. 4.3.2 London - Birmingham A feasibility study has been done by Arup for this leg of the route. They have spent thousands of pounds assessing different route options and have decided on an optimum passage. Their route caters for a wheel on rail train, which is more constrained in relation to turning and changes in gradients, when compared to the Maglev train. The cross-section of the maglev train is smaller compared to HS2’s train (see Section 5.4.2). This indicates that where the HS2 route goes under, i.e. a bridge, the maglev can do the same. Arup’s referred route was the baseline for the chosen HS3 route; however it has been adapted to suite HS3’s purpose. The key difference between their 4-57 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 route and the HS3 route is that Maglev will be on a viaduct almost throughout. Major infrastructure and towns have been avoided, but the Chilterns (an AONB) is unavoidable (see Figure D.4.3.2.(1)). The gradients along this leg of the route are moderately level. The worst case is at South Heath, which has a maximum gradient change of 4.7% (LB 3). This will be mitigated by a cutting through the hill and by raising the viaduct over the valley. The route is 176 km in length and runs as follows: Old Oak Common - Hanger Lane - South Ruislip - West Ruislip - Amersham - Wendover - Stoke Mandeville/ Aylesbury - Brackley - Ufton/ Long Itchington Wood - Burton Green –Birmingham Parkway - Birmingham Junction (see Figure B.4.3.2.(1)). Old Oak Common to Hanger Lane Currently, there is both industrial and domestic development in this area. Tunnels will need to be used running under North Acton and emerging to the surface just west of Park Royal Road. The route then goes to Hanger Lane, running alongside existing rail. In order to run parallel to the existing rail, there must be widening to allow 7.5 metres of clearance between existing track and the maglev track (see Section 3.8). HS2 requires existing overbridges to be demolished and reconstructed at higher levels. This section of route has no flood plains and therefore HS3 will also run at ground level under these bridges. At Hanger Lane, there is the A40 Hanger Lane Gyratory system, which is a heavily trafficked junction consisting of two bridges, which will also be lifted. Space running alongside existing track is limited and therefore the abutments of the bridges will need to be strengthened to allow widening. Hanger Lane to South Ruislip The route will pass over the River Brent and over the Grand Union Canal. HS2 proposes that it will continue over A4127 and then under both the existing A312 and Eastcote Lane bridges. As there are lines merging and diverging at South Ruislip Station, HS3’s viaduct will pass over all these roads and over the South Ruislip Station to minimise disruption to the existing lines. South Ruislip to West Ruislip The route crosses A4180 and both the Piccadilly and Metropolitan Lines. The viaduct will be raised for these crossings. Because of its position, the route requires land from some residential properties, a scrap yard and the car park of West Ruislip station. The route will run beneath the B466 and pass north of West Ruislip station. 4-58 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 West Ruislip to Amersham The route will run over the River Pinn, three flooded gravel pits, the River Colne, the Grand Union Canal and the A412. The route will not be at ground level as it will be elevated, to permit these crossings. At this point the main obstacle is the M25 and the Chilterns (an AONB). HS2 proposes a tunnel to run 9.6km under the M25 (see LB 1). HS3 will do the same with the route passing under Chalfont St. Giles, a historical village and under the River Misbourne. The tunnel emerges just west of Amersham Old Town. Emergency access to the tunnels will be at 2 km intervals and will be located near road sides. Amersham to Wendover The route goes through Shardeloes garden, an area of historic interest. Planning permission will be an issue and therefore deep cuttings will be undertaken to minimise the adverse visual impact of the viaduct. The route passes Little Missenden and climbs up the Chiltern Hillside to South Heath (see LB 2). Road crossings will be elevated along this passage, again to limit the visual impact of the viaduct. There is a steep valley at Wendover Dean and just outside Wendover the A413 and existing railway lines will be crossed. There is also a pylon line running parallel to the route. Safe distance will need to be maintained and there is a requirement to move them at both South Heath and Wendover. The route passes Wendover and runs parallel to the A413. Wendover to Stoke Mandeville/ Aylesbury The A4010 is crossed and the route runs parallel to the River Thames, avoiding residential property. It continues through a series of flood plains near the Southcourt area of Aylesbury, crosses the A418 and runs through the Aylesbury Park Golf Club. A deviation was attempted at this point, avoiding the flood plains and the golf course and consequently moving the line away from Aylesbury. The route length would have increased and the terrain presented gradients that would have required major earthworks, resulting in additional costs. Aylesbury to Brackley North of Aylesbury and Stone, the route crosses the River Thame and its flood plain. The alignment then passes over the A41 and crosses the River Ray along with its flood plain. Between Quainton and Godington there are a series of flood plains that would need to be crossed and between Godington and Brackley there are a number of waterways. The route then crosses the A4421, the A421and the A422. 4-59 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Brackley to Ufton/ Long Itchington Wood The route goes east of Brackley, passing over the A43 at an angle. It crosses A361 at Chipping Warden and A423 at Southam, both areas prone to flooding from the Great Ouse River. HS2 proposed this alignment to minimise the effects on Brackley and to avoid the settlements of Turweston, the SSSI at Radstone and the airstrip at the east of Turweston (LB 3). The route then passes through flood plain areas and HS2 proposes that a 1.4 km tunnel goes under Ufton Wood and Long Itchington Wood (SSSI). To minimise costs and because of the capability of the Maglev train the HS3 route will skirt around to the east of this area (see LB 4, Figure D.4.3.2.(2)), thus no tunnelling is required. Ufton/ Long Itchington Wood to Burton Green The alignment passes over the Grand Union Canal, the River Leam and over the River Sowe. The route crosses the A445 before going between the grounds of the National Agricultural centre and Stoneleigh village, and is forced through Stoneleigh National Park and Garden. Acquiring planning permission for this section will be an issue. The route then passes over the A46, through a section of the Kenilworth golf course and over the A429. It then goes through a series of flood plains between Cubbington and Stoneleigh. It will also need to go through Birches Wood Farm area, but Broad Wells Wood can be avoided as well as Burton Green. HS2 goes through all three areas. Burton Green to Birmingham Junction The route crosses the Birmingham to Coventry railway line north of Balsall Common and Berkswell Station. HS2 proposes a bridge over a flood plain before the A452. They also state that they want the A452 lifted to allow the train to pass under and then over the river Blythe and its flood plain. Instead, HS3 will pass over both flood plains and the A452 (LB 5). The A45 will be lifted and Birmingham Parkway will be located just after it. This station will serve both Birmingham International Airport and the National Exhibition Centre. The viaduct will then pass over Hollywell brook, the M42 and the M6. Birmingham Junction (LB 6) There will be a spur off from the line towards Birmingham (south Link), but the line will also continue towards Glasgow (mainline). From Birmingham, the line spurs back into the mainline route towards Glasgow (north link). The mainline will continue from the M6 viaduct, over the M42, over several flood plains and finally over some existing railway lines. 4-60 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 This alignment avoids any impact on Coleshill and Bannerly Pools (SSSI). South Link continues from the M6 viaduct and over the M42/M6 slip roads. North link passes over the M42, some flood plains from the River Tame and existing railway lines. Glasgow London Figure 4.3.2.(1)) Birmingham Junction (Department for Transport, 2010) 4.3.3 Birmingham to Manchester Between Birmingham and Manchester the gradients change more dramatically because of various mountain ranges. There is the city/town infrastructure of Strafford and Stoke-on-Trent to avoid as well as Cannock Chase (an AONB). The maximum gradient is 7.1% at Whitmore (see BM 2). Cuttings will be required at this location with the falling topography mitigated by fill and the use of higher piers. The route is 139 km in length and runs as follows: Birmingham Junction – Lichfield – Rugeley – Stone – Alsager – Holmes Chapel – Manchester Parkway (see Figure B.4.3.3.(1)). A straight path from Lichfield to Manchester Parkway was considered as an alternative. It would have crossed various open fields and would have run fairly close to the Peak District, a National Park. It would also cross ‘The Cloud’ a 343m hill and would consequently require a 10 km tunnel. The cost of this along with potentially not being able to attain planning permission cancelled out this option. Birmingham Junction to Lichfield The route runs to the east of Lichfield missing its infrastructure. It did not run straight from Birmingham Junction to Lichfield because the horizontal alignment provides a good transition. The main roads that are crossed include A51, M42, A4091, A453, A5, A51, A5192 and A5127. The route passes a few spurs from the River Tame. 4-61 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Lichfield to Rugeley The route runs to the east of Rugeley and then travels north-west. The main roads that are crossed are the A515 and A513. At Rugeley, the route crosses flood plains from the Trent & Mersey Canal. Rugeley to Stone Just past Rugeley, the route diverges and runs close to Little Haywood and great Haywood. It cannot go straight at this point to Hixon because of a hill that requires a 11% gradient (see BM 1, Figure D.4.3.3.(1)). At Hixon, the route crosses the A51 and runs along existing rail past Weston where it crosses the A51 again. Here, there is a flood plain from the River Trent. It then runs south west of Stone where it crosses the A34. Stone to Alsager The route continues north-west to miss the infrastructure of Stoke-on-Trent. It crosses the M6, the A51 and the A519, before arriving at Whitmore. Here it crosses a tributary of the River Sow and the A53 before travelling north over the M6, the A525 and the A500. Just after the M6 it narrowly avoids both Bateswood Local National Reserves (see BM 3), and continues north. The route passes on the east of both Audley and Alsager, where there are numerous small watercourses. Alsager to Holmes Chapel Just past Alsager, the route passes a few tributaries from the Trent & Mersey and continues north parallel to the M6. It crosses A533, A50 before passing east of Holmes Chapel, where it crosses the A54 and the River Dane. The route was restricted at this location as it runs between Holmes Chapel and the River Dane and Holly Banks (SSSI) (See BM 4). Holmes Chapel to Manchester Parkway Just pass Holmes Chapel the route crosses existing rail and some canals that are prone to flooding. It continues vertical and passes the east of Knutsford and across the A537 before crossing a vast quantity of canals and tributaries from the River Mersey. At Mobberley there is a line of residential housing that cannot be avoided. The amount of demolition has been limited to only one property, however the property is between two Grade II listed buildings. There is 65 metres that the track can take up without using any of the two listed building’s property (see BM 5, Figure D.4.3.3.(2)). The speed of the train will be reduced at this point, to minimise the noise impact on adjacent properties. This is not an issue as the train needs to decelerate to curve around the east of Manchester Airport, bef ore passing Cotteril Clough (SSSI) and the A538. It then crosses over Manchester Airport’s car park, which will need to be redesigned. 4-62 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 4.3.4 Manchester to Glasgow During this leg of the journey, there is a transition from England to Scotland. The gradients are increased considerably due to more numerous mountain ranges. The maximum gradient for the route is -10%, located just before Glasgow Parkway. Cuttings and the use of higher piers for the viaduct will resolve the issue of the rising and falling topography. The route misses the Forest of Bowland and the North Pennines, both AONB. It also runs between the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales National Parks. The proximity of the track to the coast is also an issue along this leg of the route and has numerous city/ city infrastructure to bypass. The route is 351 km in length and runs as follows: M61/M60 Interchange – Preston – Lancaster - Kendal – Carlisle – Dumfries – Kilmarnock - Glasgow Parkway (see Figures B.4.3.4.(1), (2) & (3)). A path between M61/M60 Interchange to the east of Kendal was considered. However it was hindered by the Forest of Bowland, an AONB (see MG 3). This would firstly be a sensitive area to have such a structure and secondly the gradients would be unachievable for the maglev, because of the steep gradients. Approximately 26 km of tunnelling would be the only viable option and even with such costly tunnelling, planning permission may be unattainable. M61/M60 Interchange to Preston The route runs west out of Manchester and parallel to the M61, with a need to go vertical as soon as possible. An alternative was considered going north between Bolton and Horwich and passing between Preston and Blackburn (see MG 1, Figure D.4.3.4.(1)). This option was eliminated as there is both the Lever Park and Smithills (Country Parks) in the way as well as significantly high summits requiring a substantial amount of tunnelling. Instead, the route travels north-west passing the east of Preston. The main roads that are crossed include the A6, A58, A6 again, A49, A6027, M6 and the A59. At Eccleston, the route passes through flood plains before crossing both the River Yarrow and the River Lobstock. It goes through the small town of Coppull and then through the Charnock Richard Golf Club, however no listed building will be demolished as a result. Instead of running through Coppull, an alternative was considered (see MG 2, Figure D.4.3.4.(1)). However it would have increased the length of the route by 1 km and would also run fairly close to Worthington Lakes (Country Park). This option was disregarded as a result. Following this, the route passes the east of Preston’s infrastructure and crosses the River Ribble, along with its flood plain. It then crosses the River Ribble’s length of 180 metres, thus the viaduct will need to be designed accordingly. 4-63 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 4.3.4.(1)) Route (red) running through Coppull and the Chamock Richard Golf Club with listed buildings indicated by balloons (English Heritage, 2010). Preston to Lancaster The route travels north at Preston and starts to runs relatively close to the coast line. The route has been kept at least 1km away from the coast to ensure that viaducts superstructure does not suffer from marine exposure conditions (Fried, 2010). The main roads that are crossed are the A583, M55, A6 and the M6. It crosses the Lancaster Canal and both the River Brock and River Calder, along with their flood plains. It also crosses the River Conder and travels to the east of Lancaster and across the River Lune along with its flood plain. Lancaster to Kendal The route continues north and passes the east of Camforth, which is the closest point between the coast and the line - 4 km (see MG 4). The main roads that are crossed are the A683, A6070, A65 and the M6 which is crossed three times. The line would have stayed on the east side of the M6 and avoided crossing it two additional times, but Lake Killington is in the way (see MG 6). At Kendal, the path is restricted by the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dale National Park, with a 12 km corridor between the two National Parks. There is also adverse terrain which causes the route to deviate from its straight path by approximately 5.6 km (see MG 7). This curve was also limited due to the Bowland Fellis (SSSI), Lawthorpe Fell (NNR), Holme Park Quarry (LNR) AND Hutton Roof (NNR) halting its transition into the curve (see MG 5). Kendal to Carlisle After the bend at Kendal, the route travels north-west toward Carlisle. It follows the M6 corridor through Crosby Ravensworth Fell (SSSI), which is a high level area and therefore cuttings will be required (see MG 8). Attaining planning permission for this will be an issue. The route crosses the 4-64 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 A685, M6, A66, A686 and the A6 twice. It passes to the east of Penrith’s infrastructure and continues north – west passing the east of Carlisle, where it crosses the River Eden and the River Esk, along with both their flood plains. Carlisle to Dumfries A straight line between Carlisle and Dumfries is prevented due to The Upper Solway Flats & Marches (SSSI) (see MG 9). Thus, the route starts curving west at Carlisle and enters Scotland passing the east of both Gretna and Annan before passing the north of Dumfries. At Gretna, the closest distance from the marsh to the line is to 2.7 km (MG 9). The route crosses the River Annan, but avoids flood plains from Dumfries to Thornhill. The route crosses the A689, the A7, the A6071, the A74 (M) and the A701. A route from Gretna, following the A74(M) up to Glasgow was considered (see Figure D.4.3.4.(2)). This would of made the route approximately 10 km shorter; however, the gradients may require deep cuttings or a 20 km tunnel. This diversion also causes the angle at which the route enters the airport to be adverse and was consequently decided against. Dumfries to Kilmarnock The route travels north-west passing the east of Thornhill and runs parallel to the River Nith, passing the east of Cumnock and finally passes the east of Kilmarnock. The route crosses the A76 twice, the A70, the A719 and the A71. Between Cumnock and Kilmarnock there are various canals that the route will pass over and a flood plain at Kilmarnock. There cannot be a straight line from Thornhill to Cumnock because of a hill called Cairnkinna Hill (MG 10). There also cannot be a straight line from Cumnock to Glasgow Parkway as there are various SSSI’s as well as Whitelee Forest that is obstructing this option (MG 11). Kilmarnock to Glasgow Parkway The route continues north and passes the east of Johnstone, through Elderslie Golf Club and curves to the south of Glasgow Airport. The route crosses the M7, the A736, the A737, the M8 and the A726. It also crosses over various canals and through a flood plain before arriving at Glasgow Parkway. 4.3.5 Summary At each major town/city there will be interface between pylons and the route (see Figure D.4.3.5.(1)). Section 3.8 outlines the allowable clearance between the maglev trains and pylons. Whenever the route crosses pylons, there would need to be a cutting to allow the track sufficient clearance from the overhead lines. If this is not possible, the pylons can be relocated or made tort, 4-65 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 to lift the lines. As mentioned above, there are locations that are prone to flooding. At these flood plain locations, the viaduct will be raised. This will mitigate the issue of the guideway being flooded. If this is not possible, flood defence systems or an efficient drainage system will need to be designed at that position. Unless stated above, the route passes all roads. Tunnels have been avoided where possible to minimise the cost of the route. Where the route runs adjacent to existing rail lines, there will be sections of residential and industrial properties that will need to taken to allow for widening. The amount of land will be minimised by using retaining walls. Figure D.4.3.5.(2) illustrates the change in ground topography along the route. Cut and fill will be used throughout the route to keep the change in gradient minimal. At some locations deep cuttings or higher piers will be required. The route has been analysed with the worse case noted as a 13% change over a 2.3km length (just past MG 7). This is within the routing specifications maximum change of gradient for a 10% change over 730 metres length travelling at 480 km/ h. As mentioned above, the route will also have cut and fill to minimise significant gradient changes. All horizontal curves have been assessed and speeds calculated and allocated for each. The worse change in horizontal alignment has been noted and analysed (see LB 4, Figure D.4.3.2.(2)). Section 8.1 demonstrates the results of these assessments by illustrating journey times based on the route. The inter-city route is viable because it is possible to design a corridor carrying a Maglev train from London to Glasgow. The system type assists with the various concerns associated with the route. Avoiding obstacles presented vertical and horizontal alignment that would have been challenging for any other system. Consequently, the optimum passage for HS3 was achievable and has been proposed. 4.4 External Factors Dan Mitchel Project Risk Consultation will take place Residual Risk The new network will have to be between relevant stakeholders viewed as in the countries best Significant regarding the impact on ecology, Moderate interest, for the affects on water resources, air quality and individual properties to be the existing transportation justified. systems. This will ensure there is public awareness and that Environmental mitigation will mitigation procedures are assist in attaining planning identified and adequately permission and avoiding issues carried out. with communities, which may result in protests or petitions against the new line. 4-66 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Planning permission will be All forms of mitigation aim to attained for the HS3 network by ensure progress of HS3 is either a hybrid bill or by unopposed, hence minimising application to the IPC. the cost of delay. Through the Chilterns, both tunnels and cuttings will be used, in addition to keeping the viaduct at ground level, where possible. This will minimise the adverse visual impact when the viaduct passes this sensitive area. This section introduces external factors that may affect the new network. These factors are explained along with the extent they may influence the project, the level of uncertainty they present and the methods they may be overcome. External factors are non-technical risks that still require mitigation to prove that the scheme is feasible. Third party influences can affect the feasibility of the route significantly. For example, residents who have lived in a house their entire lives may refuse to leave, unless good reason is provided. The route goes through an AONB, a SSSI, numerous houses, hotels, woods, golf courses and small towns. All of these present challenges opposing the feasibility of the project. 4.4.1 Consultation An important part of any large scale infrastructure project is consultation of all the stakeholders involved. Throughout the design process there will be meetings with relevant stakeholders ensuring that appropriate design solutions are identified. Consultation will occur with the public, local authorities, environmental bodies, local highway authorities, railway industry bodies and heritage organisations. The proposed route will be introduced and explained through a Public Awareness Campaign. Once the route has been confirmed by the Government, a detailed design can be undertaken and a second public consultation will subsequently follow. This would include more detailed planning, an environmental assessment, mitigation plans and a more accurate costing analysis (Crossrail, 2007). 4.4.2 Blight HS3 will have two types of blight, namely statutory blight and generalised blight. Statutory blight refers to properties that are in the path of the new line and will undoubtedly need to be demolished. Generalised blight refers to property adjacent the line that may be affected either by the operation or construction of the line. It also includes property that a seller is attempting to sell, 4-67 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 but is unsure if the route will affect the property during the planning phase. These forms of blight may make the property unsellable or may significantly devalue the property (Crossrail, 2007). HS2 has a voluntary purchase scheme for individuals who may be affected by their route (Department for Transport, 2007). HS3 will undertake the same form of mitigation, taking into consideration the potential adverse affects of the new network on the subject property. Some people will undeniably refuse to opt for this scheme and in this case compulsory purchase orders will need to be pursued. 4.4.3 Network Approval Planning permission is the consent required for anything to be built or developed on land. The new network will run across both England and Scotland. Both England and Scotland have their own systems for planning. England uses the legislation from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and four other acts, which are known as the Planning Acts. Parts of these acts have been revised by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (The Property Law Website, 2004). Scotland’s equivalent is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 (The Scottish Government, 2009). Generally, planning permission is applied for to each Local Planning Authority. These Local Authorities are either the District Council or the local Borough. It should be noted that the government is able to change the law and overturn a Local Authorities decision (BBC, 2010). Because of the scale of the project, planning permission will take several years to attain, hence is a major risk. Crossrail has taken 15 years of planning and has resulted in a hybrid bill being passed, “ The Crossrail Act ”. Hybrid bills are created by the Government on behalf of Local Authorities and are used to gain permission for projects that may affect private interests, but are good in relation to national interest (Parliament, 2010). HS2, which predominantly has the same route as HS3 and travels to the same final destinations, is set to also have a hybrid bill. This will negate procedures under planning systems such as requesting land from Local Authorities. Because HS3 is of national interest, it may also have its own hybrid bill, which would mitigate many of the risks associated with planning permission. Organisations or individuals do have the opportunity to oppose the bill in Parliament. They can also attempt to adjust it when it goes before a Select Committee in either the House of Commons or Lords (Department for Transport, 2009). The Planning Act 2008 has introduced a form of obtaining authorisation for works from the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The organisation would need to have done public consultation before submitting a request to the IPC. Any individual or body can also submit their views, which may oppose the works, to the IPC for consideration. The IPC has the power to 4-68 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 approve applications and provide both planning permission and compulsory purchase orders (Department for Transport, 2009). 4.4.4 Cost of Delay The new network will enable more accessibility for people across the UK. One benefit would be a reduction of congestion in and around London, as individuals will not need to live as close to London as previously required. The benefits of the new network will only be available once it is complete. While the alignment of the route is being agreed, the project will accumulate consultant fees. This is due to changes being required, hence sections being redesigned. Therefore, the quicker the alignment can be agreed, the more cost effective the project will be. Every year the delivery date is delayed there is the immediate cost of inflation and the construction sector tends to have higher price inflation than that of the economy. There will also be delays to other development projects across the UK, which may be affected if the route had to change or are waiting for sections of the network to be complete. A halt to their progress will cause jobs losses (Paul Buchanan and Volterra Consulting, 2007). A delay to the project will also cause HS3’s construction work force to lose money as there will be no productivity for the subcontractors involved. The quicker the network becomes available, the more revenue can be accumulated, and thus the network is losing money if the project is delayed. 4.4.5 Environmental Factors The environment is that which surrounds an item of interest. Everything has its own environment and altering a constituent of a particular environment may either positively or negatively affect another’s. Environmental impacts include noise and vibration, air quality, visual amenity, townscape and built heritage, traffic and transport impacts, community, contaminated soil from excavations, archaeology, ecology, water resources and climate change (Crossrail, 2010). Achieving Excellence in Construction is a UK government initiative, which strategies to achieve the best value in construction procurement. The government has objectives to achieve sustainable procurement, thus all works must satisfy the targets within their Sustainable Action Plan. This would include demonstrating the performance of the new projects against industry benchmarks, on issues like energy, waste, water and pollution. There are now sustainable initiatives within construction guidance and legislation such as Environmental Impact Assessments, Climate Change Levy, Landfill Tax and Aggregate Levy (BRE, 2003). Both the hybrid bill and IPC require an Environmental Impact Assessment and an Environmental Statement, which assesses the environmental effects of the proposed route. The route would also be subject to an Appraisal of Sustainability, which assesses whether sustainable development objectives have been met. 4-69 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Thus, every effort will be made to ensure sustainability in both the design and construction of the new network. The Environment Agency (EA) is an executive non-departmental public body that aims to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. They are a statutory consultee in all local government planning processes (Environment Agency, 2010a). They are the primary regulator for discharges to water, land and air and issue permits through formal consents to allow discharge. Criminal prosecution may follow failure to adhere to the permitted allowances, or if no consent has been given. Therefore, attaining their permission through consultation and then satisfying their requirements are vital to making the new network feasible (Environment Agency, 2010b). 4.4.6 Environmental Mitigation Operation noise levels are much less for maglev trains than for conventional wheel on rail train as they have contactless technology. At high speeds, it is only the sound of the wind that is producing noise (see Section 3.7). Noise issues will be mitigated by having noise barriers or earth bunds between the track and residences. If necessary, additional noise insulation will be provided to nearby housing. Vibration will be mitigated through the track design. Both shocks between each pier and the track itself will absorb the energy from the passing trains and prevent it from transferring to properties in the vicinity (Transrapid, 2010). Under the Control of Pollution Act, contractors performing any works will request consent from the relevant local authority. This will help manage noise and vibration impacts for each area that work is carried out. The plant used will be well maintained, low noise machinery and local noise screens and barriers will be also used. In some cases, temporary re-housing may be the only option (Crossrail, 2010). The impact of the new network on ecology can be mitigated by early identification, through surveys. These would target protected species, important plant and animal communities, and habitats. During construction, the layout of the site will adapt, if habitats are affected. After construction of a section is complete, the ecology and habitat will be reinstated as best as possible to the pre-construction state (Crossrail, 2010). Because the track is generally elevated, the affect on ecosystems and habitats is minimal as wildlife can pass under. The impact on traffic and transport may be disruption to roads during construction of the track or delays to the rail network. Where reasonably practical, existing transport systems will continue to be used and disruption will be kept to a minimum. Through consultation with local highway authorities, solutions will be attained to achieve this (Crossrail, 2010). Regarding the impact on water resources, guidelines provided by the EA for preventing pollution will be followed. Mitigation measures will be in place for the construction and operation of the 4-70 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 network to protect the water environment from pollution and affects such as change of quality, flow and water levels. Measures will include allowing treated site drainage to flow into sewers and special care adjacent to watercourses (Crossrail, 2010). A strategy will be agreed with the EA regarding handling of water resources. With respect to contaminated land, site assessments will be conducted where construction is to be carried out. This will determine the level and type of contamination. The measures required to mitigate the type of contaminated soil can then be determined and agreed with the EA. Measures may include disposal of land to landfill site, vertical barriers and cover systems (Crossrail, 2010). In relation to archaeology, the contractor undertaking the ground works will monitor for archaeological remains. In the event that they are found, redesign of foundations may be the only form of mitigation if in-situ preservation is required. If this is not feasible, preservation by record will need to be carried out, while the works continues at other locations along the route (Crossrail, 2010). Regarding built townscape and built heritage, the HS3 route has avoided damaging most listed buildings. There are many websites dedicated to protesting against HS2’s route, primarily because it goes through the Chilterns (AONB) (see Figure D.4.3.2.(1)). This would be worse for HS3 because the structure is a continuous high level viaduct, causing greater visual blemish than that of just a track (as with HS2). A large section of the Chilterns will be tunnelled, as mentioned in the Section 4.3. The visibility of the viaduct will be kept to a minimum by keeping it at ground level where possible and by using deep cuttings. Where possible, the positioning of the route has also been designed to run parallel to existing transport corridors. During construction, hoarding will be used to hide construction plant from view. These solutions minimise the adverse visual impact of the track and will help attain the permission required to cross the Chilterns. Climate change has become a major issue in the construction industry. The effects of climate change include warmer weather, colder weather, flooding, sea level rising and an increase in wind velocity. Humans contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The construction of such a structure across the UK will produce an immense quantity of carbon from the amount of concrete required. After this initial cost in terms of carbon emission, the operating energy consumption and carbon emission is considerably less than wheel on rail, making it more sustainable in this respect. Additionally, the reduction in greenhouse gases from individuals using HS3 instead of flying will be substantial. Impacts on air quality for the operation of the network will be zero, because the maglev train emits no pollution (Transrapid, 2010). Various measures will be undertaken to ensure that limited air pollution will be emitted during the construction of the network. These include using well maintained, low emission vehicles and having dust management plans such as damping down of stockpiles (Crossrail, 2010). Both the construction and the operation of the new line will impact 4-71 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 various communities that the route either runs past or through. To minimise this impact, local authorities will be consulted and the mitigation mentioned above will be carried out. 4.4.7 Terrorism The scale of the project will make it a monumental structure for the UK. Consequently it may become a target for an act of terrorism. The viaduct will need to be robust to prevent catastrophic consequences from an act of terrorism. Terrorism may be in the form of a pier being destroyed or badly damaged due to a blast. Menzies suggests that robustness may be satisfied through either one or a combination of the following: Resistance, Avoidance, Protection and Sacrifice (Menzies, 2005). The viaduct design will incorporate a combination of Resistance and Protection. At road sides, the piers will be both strong and ductile as to withstand a vehicle impact (see Section 5.5.4). Alternative load paths will also be integrated in the design, in the event of a column failing. Both of these methods illustrate a Resistance design. Where the track is at an accessible height, a physical barrier will prevent access to the guideway. This demonstrates a Protection design. Terrorism in the form of suicide bombings on the train itself will be mitigated in the same way it is for existing public transport systems. For example, the use of CCTV at stations that monitor suspicious activity. 4.4.8 Summary It is possible to overcome the issues associated with the external factors affecting the project. Network approval can be achieved by attaining a hybrid bill or by applying to the IPC. Environmental mitigation will take place and terrorism will be designed out. The main concern is the aesthetics of the viaduct crossing the country. This is a familiarity issue and the question of whether or not people can accept the appearance of the viaduct must be raised. It has been accepted in both Germany and China, and therefore may also be accepted in the UK. 4-72 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 5 Network Infrastructure 5.1 Guideway Design Thomas Michael Wallace Project Risk Prefabrication allows tight Residual Risk Modular track design concept tolerances to be met. cannot be proven at this stage. Catastophic Significant Creating a modular track design Significant reductions in weight mitigates speed constraints and are unlikely, and expensive reduces design time. lifting equipment may still be needed. Emerging designs suggest that the weight of the girders can be made more manageable for constructability. The guideway defines the viaduct-like structure that carries the maglev trains, similar to the track of traditional rail-on-wheel. This represents the most significant proportion of the work, with typical tenders for maglev tracks estimating its worth at almost half the complete project costs (MaglevInc, 2003). Financially, therefore, the guideway has a notable influence on the feasibility of the scheme. Additionally, as the majority asset, its buildability, maintainability and durability have a profound effect on the viability of HS3. With such a chaotic impression it is important that the risks involved are fully investigated, and an investment made into optimisations. 5.1.1 Track Components Unlike traditional rail-on-wheel permanent way the guideway is not simply a running interface, but part of the train propulsion system. The track must therefore integrate a number of components with the structural design. These include, Junchang (2009) iterates, “propulsion winding, location flag, power rail, rotor location antenna, and earthing system.” Aside from discrete signalling requirements and cabling, that are discussed later in this report, the two main components are the stators and skids. The first is the track-half of the propulsion system, which Sandberg (1997) notes “are attached by inserts and are tensed against the machined concrete.” Failure of the levitation system is statistically expected once every 37 years, and the skids are designed to accommodate this safely. Originally the Transrapid test track designs used CFC plates on the train; however the friction of the machined concrete rendered these unsuitable. A coating has been developed, and was used in Shanghai, that re-enables such a design. The application proposed survives 40-50 skids, suggesting that it is a maintenance free system. Such claims should be treated with caution, however, and a single component on the train that could be easily 5-73 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 inspected and maintained would be preferred. Research should therefore be applied to improving the redundancy undercarriage of the vehicle. (Diekmann A, 2004) Figure 5.1.1.(1) – Diagram of the guideway components (Suding, 2006) As the stators provide the magnetic forces required for levitation and propulsion their positioning has an important impact on ride comfort (Junchange, 2009). It should be appreciated that mechanical and civil engineering tolerances are typically orders of magnitude apart, and this creates a difficult interface between the disciplines. It is therefore important that each of the components is mounted on adjustable fixings to make these idiosyncrasies more manageable. Equally, given the structural nature of the guideway, each component must be easily replaced to reduce maintenance costs and times. Currently, mounting options exist that allow for fine adjustment and quick release of the stators, while reducing the number of fastening elements to improve maintainability. Additionally, built-in redundancy from increased component frequency can be used to prevent disproportionate damage from premature breakdown (Steinert W, 1997). 5.1.2 Structural Section In essence the guideway represents a structure, and concern should be given to materials with suitable mechanical properties. Due to its prominence, however, these must be weighed against cost, availability, workability and aesthetics. The architectural response would be expected, for such a dominant structure, to tend towards slim sections; reducing the impact on the landscape and easing planning permission. The need to optimise and meet engineering requirements, however, places this as a secondary criteria. Plotkin (1997) defines the serviceability requirement, specifically deflections, as determinant of the structure. This is a result of the mechanical tolerances needed for operation. Under live loads the track cannot deflect more than L/4000, or 5mm across a typical span; a requirement that is onerous compared to normal design standards. In addition thermal deformation must be restricted to L/6500 (3.5mm) making the performance of the material under UK weather conditions critical. Coates (2005) highlights the magnitude of the analysis needed to develop girders to these 5-74 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 stringent requirements, noting that in Shanghai “as many as 14,000 load cases [were needed, with no previous infrastructure project] exacting such deflection or design specifications.” Structurally the rigidity of the guideway will depend on its geometry and the elastic/plastic moduli of the parent material. There are a number of concerns that should be addressed before simply increasing the design parameters, however. As a material becomes more rigid it often becomes less durable and workable, threatening the maintainability of the structure. Additionally exceptionally tall, wide, or irregularly shaped members are difficult to construct and transport, rendering them uneconomical. Substantial research has already been undertaken into Steel, Concrete and Composites as guideway materials. Steel is a stiff and precession engineered material that would allow high tolerance finishes in a lighter structure, however it is expensive and the volume required (approximately 10% of the total UK production,) would be impractical. The thermal deformation of any steel used would prove a significant challenge, with the deflections caused from horizontal gradients requiring consideration. Insulation or reflective coatings could address this, but the cost effects are unknown (MaglevInc, 2003). Concrete is cheaper, rigid and has noise absorption properties, but concerns were raised during the Shanghai investigations that it would not be sufficiently durable (Coates, 2005). This conclusion was probably reached due to the significant creep deflections expected from the material. The complex relationship between creep, strength, buildability and induced stresses would make these deformations impossible to predict within the required accuracy, without empirical evidence for the girder (MagneMotion. 2003). Using new technologies such as SFRC can help to improve the mechanical performance of the concrete, but would still not address deflection concerns suitably (Jin, 2006). Composite sections combine steel and concrete to take advantage of properties of both materials. This can be provided simply as a hybrid; employing different materials across the element. Pre- tensioning can offer similar properties to reinforced concrete, but further optimised for cheaper construction and reduced creep. Issues accommodating alignment curvature economically would, however, make it unsuitable for the complex route required (Jin, 2007). Geometry also dictates the stiffness of the structure. As a section becomes deeper it becomes more rigid, as its second moment of area increases. There are issues with increasing the size, ad infinitum , of the members, as rising dead-weight causes further deflection and creates difficulty in transportation. Constructability of the girder also determines the geometrical limits, with the Shanghai design necessitating a change from ‘T’ to ‘I’ sections to provide adequate stiffness during handling (Coates, 2005). 5-75 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 A number of guideway designs have been developed for the Transrapid system, as demonstrated in Figure 5.1.2.(1). In Shanghai a hybrid approach has been taken, with a reinforced concrete core supporting two steel cantilevers. This was chosen as an engineered compromise after looking at a number of options (Coates, 2005). It should be noted that this represents the heaviest of all of the girders, and the construction savings from researching lighter designs would be a worthwhile investment. Figure 5.1.2.(1) – Existing guideway designs (Jin, 2007) Various configurations of supports have been shown viable for the guideway. During the construction of the Shanghai link, significant savings were made by moving from a double- to a single- span design. Coates (2005) notes that these girders were developed so that they “could be 5-76 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 coupled to form double-spans to maintain strict deflection requirements, if required.” This feature should be employed as part of the final guideway design to allow for greater flexibility. Figure 5.1.2.(2) – Guideway support configurations (Transrapid, 2010) It is intuitive that the inclusion of steel within a powered, or magnetic, structure would be detrimental. As a result there has been significant research in this area. The agreed specification, as derived by Diekmann (2004), is that “standard steel reinforcement should be kept away from areas experiencing fields stronger that 0.001T”. This can be overcome, as Burke (1979) states, by using tensioned cable reinforcement as the “total loss in a stranded connector varies inversely to the square root of the number of strands.” In EMS the field strength is reduced, with the critical electromagnetic used for control on the train, rather than the track. This allows reinforcement to be used across the deck without compromising the specification. Additionally, as the field does not need to be generated throughout the track section, steel sections are suitable. Using fibre, of plastic, reinforcement methods could enable a design that would be free from power-loss concerns. This would increase the cost of the structure significantly, however, making it financially unviable (Diekmann, 2004). The logistics of a maglev network require switches to be installed across the network. This requires a mobile structure. Given the strict tolerances, a flexible system must be used, as a rigid rotational equivalent could not provide a constant surface. Transrapid have already developed bendable switches from steel, using electromagnets to set and secure the girder into position. This 5-77 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 configuration, although unrestricted when straight, limits the turn-out to 200km/h. Preferably further research would be undertaken to lift this requirement. (Transrapid, 2010) Within the climate of sustainability and greenhouse emission cuts, the sustainable credentials of the guideway will be scrutinised by critics. It is important that the quarter reduction of harmful gas emission, are not offset by the carbon cost of the structure (Canadian Press, 2004). The average carbon footprint of the guideway section at grade is 8.5 tonnes, and 10.3 tonnes elevations. This compares favourably to conventional high-speed rail, at 17.0 tonnes (200%) and 33.6 tonnes (325%) respectively. Given the size of the network, however, research into further improvements should be undertaken, as these will have a significant impact on the carbon viability. (Buss, 2010) 5.1.3 Construction Plane Inclination Cant Gauge Stators ± 1.0mm ± 1.5 mm/m ± 1.5mm/m - Guidance Rail ± 2.0mm/m - ± 1.5mm/m ± 2mm Supports ± 0.2 mm/m ± 0.2 mm/m - - Figure 5.1.3.(1) – Table of construction tolerances (Suding, 2006) The tolerances required of the guideway necessitate high precision fabrication. Typically in-situ concrete is fixed to 25mm, down to 1-2mm for key components. Equally, bolted steel connections are fabricated to 2mm, and normally fitted to a similar tolerance, although it is usual to have slotted holes to allow for quicker construction. Variations of these magnitudes are not suitable for the mechanical nature of the guideway, and therefore tighter quality control will be required. The tolerances of the guideway are high to ensure that the stators are well placed, however mounting these on plates that allow larger adjustments could help alleviate this. There is also a need to ensure that the magnetic stiffness created across the air-gap is maintained. This requires that the track surface is smooth; a finish that would be difficult to achieve without compromising the advantages of slip-forming methods. Plates could be attached to the surface to accomplish this, however they would likely affect power-loss, and fixing them level across large distances would be overtly challenging. To meet such stringent measures there will be no other choice but to pre-fabricate the track, although generally slower, and more expensive. Efforts should therefore be made to modularise the guideway system to reduce the impact of this decision. By moving from a structure of bespoke length and curvature, to a system of components, the track is altered from a specialised viaduct, to a set of individual sections. This will allow for faster construction, and cheaper prefabrication, as 5-78 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 each length would essentially be 'off the shelf.' Additionally the network would be more maintainable as failing sections could be replaced by stockpiled sections. A modular track system would have to be defined iteratively to meet the requirements of the alignment. It is expected that three modes; at-grade, short- and long- span, are used. These would all be fabricated in straights, transitions and fixed curves. Sinusoidal solutions were used to provide transition curves on the Shanghai line, moving from beeline to circular alignments for passenger comfort (Junchang, 2009). It is expected that a resolution of 25 (providing 15 fixed radii and 10 levels of curvature, as judged from the current route,) sections will describe a suitable flexibility, requiring 75 casting methods in total. Modular construction would reduce complex construction programmes into repetitive processes that could easily be optimised. With the manufacture of a distinct number of pieces, prefabrication can be easily managed and a number of facilities established to provide and stockpile the track. The construction of the guideway would then become an issue of transportation and installation. Modularity could even extend to supports, creating a series of block segments that could be stacked and fixed structurally, using small amounts of earthworks to provide intermediate lifts (Bilwow, 2007). The Shanghai design is a 190 tonne beam, 25m in length. For highway transportation across the UK this would require specialised licence for a long-vehicle and heavy vehicle, and it is possible that the DfT would not allow the use of motorways due to potential road damage (DfT, 2010). In China a 700-tonne crane was used to lift and month the girders, established on a temporary rail link laid alongside the guideway, and it is probably that a similar solution will be required unless a significant reduction in weight is achieved (Junchange, 2009). The tight tolerances require special prefabrication facilities. Shanghai constructed a climate- controlled facility in combination with specially developed laser guided CAM machines. This allowed guaranteed quality in an environment where curing could be controlled to minimise long- term creeping and shrinkage (Jin, 2006). The specialisation of the system would mean a reduction in labour, compared to other alternatives. This method would also create the guideway maintenance buildings in-line with the enabling asset construction. In China prefabrication produced, on average, 10 units, 7 days a week (Caotes, 2005). By using multiple facilities work could be vastly accelerated, however. As a single set of designs are to be reused extensively it is important that suitable testing is undertaken as part of the consultation process. Although finite element analysis, etc. can be used to predict the theoretical behaviour of the members, an aspect as critical as the guideway will need physical testing. It is recommended that contractors are invovled early to help develop a buildable 5-79 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 solution, providing testing both of the long-term suitability, and the constructability, of the final elements. 5.1.4 Adjustment and Replacement With the need for such precision comes the requirement for adjustment. As found with the Shanghai Maglev, despite careful investigation and detailed design aspects such as settlement, creep and shrinkage are simply facts of civil infrastructure (BBC, 2004). The stators have limited capacity to deal with these movements, and therefore the guideway itself must be moveable. Equally the need to quickly replace any aspect of the track to reduce disruption requires consideration at the design stage. The bearings of the structure must accommodate the most significant movements. This is because, (Suding, 2006) recognises, the supports represent the only place in a rigid structure to “set and correct 3-dimensional assignment to the space curve.” Configuring the bearings is a complex problem, however, with the need to balance force proportions over the four support points. A computer aided jack system has been proposed as a solution to this, and has been tested on the Shanghai network (Junchang, 2009) The adjustment of the jacks is primarily used to counter settlements expected, and predicted, as part of the long-term design. Discrepancies along the guideway are detected using long, and short, wave deflection analysis. Feedback from test, and passenger, vehicles can be analysed to measure deviations and inform maintenance requirements. Failures in the short-wave plane typically represent issues with single components or girders, where as long-wave problems require the adjustment of multiple spans. (Junchang, 2009) The need to accommodate movement in the guideway, as well as to prevent deflections from structural effects, such as thermal expansion, requires detailed joint design. A coupling system, as used in the Shanghai track, will be needed to enable modular construction. Expansion joint filler has been proposed for the Colorado system that would allow for flexible matching on site, easing construction methods. As the joint represents a small strip comparative to the span, the structural performance of the material need not be high. (MTG, 2004) Selecting the design life of the structural aspects is important, as it has an effect on the construction and maintenance costs. It is important that such a pioneering project appreciates that the technology will evolve over time, and therefore being tied into a specific configuration is not ideal. Long-term serviceability requirements, such as creep and settlement, mean that the longer the life of a structure, the more onerous the design. However the scope of this project means that 5-80 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 the complete construction is likely to last at least a quarter of a decade, with distant investment return. As a result it is unjustifiable to reduce the design life below the standard 100 years. Mandyam (2004) specifies that “rail elements should be stockpiled and immediately replaceable while any malfunction is repaired offline.” The modular nature of the system will easily allow this. Given the integral nature of the guideway, structural serviceability failures would require the complete element to be destroyed. It is envisioned that a salvaging facility would be established, which can reuse the components, crush the concrete for aggregate and separate the steel for recycling. This system would reduce the material cost of future sections. 5.1.5 Conclusions The proposed guideway design is a composite beam, used to create a modular design that allows for quick prefabrication. Although initially significant design will be required, and testing needed to assure the buildability of the solution, having a distinct number of track-pieces will reduce the overall development time and cost. This will also allow quick and elementary maintenance, and ease the roll-outs of future technological developments. World wide current research is focusing on verifying long-term durability, reducing cost and achieving better structural design (Luu, 2005). It is expected that our testing will collaborate with these schemes. 5.2 Earthworks and Substructure Thomas Michael Wallace Project Risk Existing foundations, in more Residual Risk Ground conditions vary onerous situations, have been significantly over the UK, Significant used in China; proving that a Significant predicting these is impossible at design is capable. this stage. Use of ‘stock’ designs matched There is limited worth in stock with CBR testing can improve designs across a network of this design times. size, and difficulties cannot be predicted prior to site Preference to at-grade investigation. alignments can reduce the need for slow piling. The earthworks of any infrastructure are an important field that cannot be dismissed readily. Variance of ground conditions across a network of this magnitude is likely to be huge, and often impossible to predict prior to detailed investigation. Foundations, therefore, often present significant design challenges, even in less stringent specifications. In previous tenders earthworks have accounted for 6% of the total cost, however they are works in magnitude second only to the 5-81 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 guideway, and require individual bespoke designs carrying significant uncertainty (MaglevInc, 2003). 5.2.1 Foundation Design Unlike traditional rail-on-wheel networks the guideway does not require earthworks to form its alignment; instead the superstructure can be raised or lowered. This reduces the need for embankments and cuttings that often significantly increase the land requirements of the project. As the guideway can be configured to run at-grade or elevated, it should be appreciated that earthworks cannot be completely eliminated from the project. To inform the alignment and final costing a guidance speciation is needed for the lowest viabile guideway elevation. A balance has been struck between the construction, design and cost elements of each option against height to inform the alignment options. Figure 5.2.1.(1) shows an indicative relationship between height and cost for viaducts and embankments. Although subject to numerous variables, within the scope of this project this point is judged to be 2-3m typically. Cost Height Figure 5.2.1.(1) – Indicative relationship between height and cost for viaducts (blue) and embankments (green) The maximum allowable total settlement for the guideway is 10mm (Coates, 2005). This defines the amount of vertical movement that can be accommodated by the adjustment systems. The need for tight tolerances in the spatial curvature of the track, however, means that stricter specifications will be required for differential settlement (i.e. tilt,) across the discrete supports. Indicatively this suggests that sizeable foundations will be required along the whole alignment (Diekmann, 2004). 5-82 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Ground conditions vary significantly across the UK, ranging from London Clay to Chalk and Alluvium further north. Each soil will represent a different engineering challenge and the uncertainties will be notable. This can be reduced, however, by preferring at-grade alignment that will better spread the load, and although strip foundations may still be needed, they are unlikely to be as critical. Geological challenges and obstacles often represent discrete points, and it is typically difficult to predict where they will occur. The buildability requirements of the guideway mean that trouble spots will be hard to avoid, as the support intervals cannot be easily altered. Equally alignment constraints restrict how optimised the route may be towards the substructure. For the project to feasible, therefore, the foundations should be capable for a wide variety of ground conditions. For the Shanghai maglev route SPTs, CPTs, ground water assessments and bore-holes were taken at each pier location (Coates, 2005). On a network of this size it would be impractical to require full site investigations of each pier and at-grade location. It is therefore suggested that methods such as plate-testing or Californian Bearing Ratios (CBRs) are used in conjunction with conservative stock-solutions. Although this will not cover every eventuality it will allow for a modular approach to the complete guideway and will accelerate construction. Typical CBR recommendations can be developed, especially for the at-grade solutions, from the Highways Agency approach (HA, 1994). Figure 5.2.1.(3) – CBR Relationships (HA, 1994) The CBR relates to the moduli of the soil (E = 17.6 (CBR)0.64, MN/m 2). As stiffness is related to compressibility, there is therefore a correlation between consolidation and settlement. It should be noted that these are loose relationships and should be treated conservatively. Given the similarity 5-83 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 between rigid road design and at-grade maglev, this will provide a suitable foundation for future research. 5.2.2 Earthworks The Shanghai Maglev is built in an earthquake zone upon weak alluvial soil that could easily liquefy under seismic activity. This represents a substantial geotechnical challenge that is unlikely to be matched in the UK. The foundation design for each pier included 10x12x2m pile caps over 20-24 no. 60cm diameter piles up to 70m deep (Coates, 2005). Although this does not represent a feasible design for the numerous supports required of the guideway; it does prove the engineering capacity to provide foundations over any worse-case scenario that may be found en-route. UK conditions, as aforementioned, typically represent gravel, or clay, deposits sitting over deep bed rock. Chalk and sandstone are also prominent; however their integrity is difficult to depend upon (Cirra, 1994). There are a number of spots that can already be foreseen as troublesome. The first is the surrounds of Manchester, which has mined, and often undocumented, coal seams. This may represent dangers that would only be detectable by full site investigations. Additionally the guideway often follows rivers and valley paths that may have high water-tables and soft soils, requiring even the at-grade track to be considered a viaduct structure. Deformation led design presents a number of challenges. Factors such as immediate settlement can be addressed through observation and adjustment; however secondary factors such as consolidation and creep are long-term effects that require significant design to predict. Additionally the static concerns of plastic settlement are confounded by unknown dynamic and cyclical loads creating elastic settlement. As the primary concern is deformation ideally the foundations should be well spread (Craig, 2004). The at-grade track may avoid the need for piles, with the ground simply replaced to-depth with stronger inter-locking fill to provide a base that behaves elastically and spans across softer spots (HA, 1994). This would not be practical for the piers, however, and it is likely that piles would represent the only buildable solution. As a modular system is suggested for the supports there, variable cap sizes could be employed to provide finer adjustments. Prefabrication of piled solutions is not an option, and therefore would require casting in place. The significant design used in China required a month of site investigation, notable design time and nine months to construct the 30km of track (Coates, 2005). This represents an impressive speed, however the difference between working standards makes this difficult to compare to the UK. If a similar approach was used the track would take 17 years to build, a speed that would negate the use of prefabrication, methods. 5-84 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 5.2.3 Conclusions Earthworks for the Maglev do not represent a technical barrier for the project; however they are a source of significant uncertainty. Critically the works have potential to cause notable rises in cost, and increase the programme time. It is also likely that, if unchecked, they will dictate the time that the guideway can be erected. It is suggested that a number of standard details are designed, alongside a specific set of tests to support and dictate them. Additionally an at-grade alignment should be preferred along the route, with spread foundations. 5.3 Bridges and Superstructures Thomas Michael Wallace Project Risk Addressing the guideway design Residual Risk Research into defining modelling and employing the elevated techniques will be required Significant viaduct would allow most small Moderate before detailed design can be obstacles to be crossed. undertaken. Focusing on rigid bridge Arch bridges are unlikely to structures such as arches reduce represent the most economical frequency problems. crossing, however the use of other structural types cannot be Using special ‘bridge’ sections guaranteed. can continue modular track over structures. The guideway is essentially a viaduct, and therefore there will be little requirement for minor structures along the alignment compared to traditional rail-on-wheel. The interval between piers for the suggested modular construction is 25m, which would allow it to cross roads perpendicularly, as well as most obstructions. There will still need to be bridges crossing wider obstacles, such as the 180m Ribble River. Although these will be infrequent, the technical viability of such structures must be considered before the project is concluded feasible. 5.3.1 Specification Parameters As the guideway is a structure, the parameters determining its design will also inform the requirements of any bridge. Comparatively the Maglev train is light and does not rely heavily on a friction interface. At high-speeds the lift to weight ratio effectively means that the maglev is flying, and therefore does not inflict high loads (Kwon, 2008). Critically, however, the structure must present and preserve mechanical tolerances to the train, requiring more stringent specifications than normal. The deflection of the bridge, or deformation of the structure, leads the dominating serviceability design requirements for any structure along the network. The tendency to deflect increases as the 5-85 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 distances between supports grow, therefore requiring a stiffer structure to maintain the specified response. This could be achieved either by changing the geometry, or material, of the member. Geometrically the guideway is already significant, so in the interests of buildability it would be preferable to alter the material. Use of techniques such as pre-cambering, etc. are not viable in this situation, where positive deformation still represents a hazard to the train. As the span increases, however, vibration and oscillation becomes more critical. As the Maglev does not represent a single discrete load, but rather a long, uniformly applied load, the effect of the train on the structure may be limited. (Plokin, 1997) Limits of serviceability, however, dominate the design, requiring 5 Hz for the first natural frequency and 450 Hz for the stator cantilever. Dampening may therefore be required against other responses, such a wind, in addition to the dynamic train load. Research into using cable stayed bridges for slower Maglev systems has shown that such an option would not be viable. This is because of flexibility of the deck. The modelling approach proposed an 11 DoF model that could be re-employed in a finite element analysis of other bridges. Velocity and roughness profile were identified as the most detrimental to ride quality through induced oscillation. (Kwon, 2008) Preference would therefore tend towards more rigid structures, such as arches. Deck-supported these bridges can span up to 500m, which would cover all crossings along this alignment. Additionally the only bridges currently in use on Maglev tracks are arches (Transrapid, 2010). As each case is different it would be difficult to prescribe specific solutions. This tested proof of concept, however, proves that longer distance carrying structures are possible. 5.3.2 Design Viability That Maglev guideways are track, propulsion system and support complicates their integration with bespoke structures such as bridges. As the viaduct itself represents a significant dead-weight it would not be economical to simply carry the at-grade configuration across any obstacle. It would be preferable, however, if the modular nature of the track could be preserved. Ideally this means that all crossings would be covered as a viaduct, with the use of bridges minimised. For unavoidable obstacles a solution would be to develop 'bridge-track' that could represent the equivalent of concrete-sleepers for rail-on-wheel. The largest crossing on the route is 180m, across the Ribble River. This is possible using an arch bridge, although it may be more economical to investigate alternative options. Ideally most crossings would be spanned by founding intermediate piers; however on shipping routes, etc. this 5-86 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 may not be a valid configuration. Other rigid deck options, such as trusses, may provide a more feasible alternative to arches in these situations. Further research should be done if there is a need to increase the span beyond 500m. Preferably a specification for increasing track length, ideally in keeping with the modular concept, should be investigated to avoid structures altogether. If bridges are to be needed then steel girders may allow for increased spans without the need to design bespoke superstructures, however arch bridges, or other rigid deck options, should be preferred if this is not found to be the case. 5.4 Tunnelling Clare Tracey Project Risk Speed limits applied to tunnels Residual Risk Tunnelling is a major to minimise tunnel diameters construction risk. Extensive Serious and keep aerodynamic effects Significant geotechnical investigation and within tested range. design will be required. In addition, technologies are Uncertainty of ground available to ensure aerodynamic conditions in Manchester effects do not cause passenger especially, could represent comfort standards and noise unforeseen costs and time pollution levels to be exceeded. implications. Tunnel boring machines can be Operating and maintenance designed for virtually all ground costs are greater for tunnelled conditions. sections. Tunnel configuration designed to maximise safety in emergency situations. Space in city centres identified for shafts. This section of the feasibility report focuses on how to reduce the risks associated with the major tunnelled stretches of the HS3 route. The earlier sections of this report have investigated the alternatives for a route between the HS3 stations and have identified three main locations where the preferred option is to tunnel: Length London Tunnels 8.2km Chilterns Tunnels 9.6km Manchester Tunnels 15.3km 5-87 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 The underlying principle when designing the route has been to avoid tunnelling where at all possible, primarily because of cost and cost uncertainty. In the above locations however, it was decided that the advantages of tunnelling outweighed the disadvantages (see sections 4.2 and 4.3). One of the key factors that will affect the viability of HS3 tunnels is the ground conditions. The geology will establish the construction method. In order to tunnel through favourable and/or consistent ground conditions, the tunnel may have to take a less direct route. ‘ The ground is the principal determinant of the cost of a tunnel of a given size’ (Wood, 1989). Another of the key factors in determining the impact that tunnelled sections will have on the viability of HS3, is the cross-sectional area of the tunnels. For instance, the cross-sectional area dictates the volume of earth that needs to be excavated, transported and disposed. The following sections aim to identify the key principles of high speed rail tunnel design with a view to proposing a design for the HS3 tunnels which minimises the risk to the scheme. Additional figures are provided in Appendix D. 5.4.1 Introduction to tunnel aerodynamics The aerodynamic effects are a governing factor in the size of the tunnel required. Thus it is important to understand what the aerodynamic issues are in order to design a more feasible solution. ‘It has been well known that the aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of speed ’ (Raghunathan et al, 2002). In comparison with a train traveling in the open air, the aerodynamic drag on a train in a tunnel is greatly increased. When a train enters a tunnel the sudden reduction in air space around the train causes a large pressure increase at the front of the train. This pressure increase is known as the piston effect . The air in front of the train is compressed. The larger the free space around the train, the easier it is for the air to be displaced along the sides of the train, and hence the less the air in front of the train is compressed. The ratio of the area of free space (not occupied by the train cross-sectional area etc) to the total tunnel cross-sectional area is called the blockage ratio. The pressure drag acts on the fore and after bodies of the train and will increase with increasing train speed and decreasing blockage ratio. An increase in pressure drag due to entering a tunnel will obviously increase the energy required to maintain the train speed. The pressure drag will also induce increased temperatures in the tunnel: a ventilation system has to be able to deal with this effect. However, the most design restricting effect of the pressure increase inside a tunnel is passenger aural discomfort. The 5-88 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 magnitude of pressure permitted on high speed rail services in the UK is governed by TSI guidance. ‘ The pressure at any point on a train must not vary by more than 10kPa during the passage of the train through the tunnel.’ (Arup, 2010b). The TSI guidance also stipulates that the sealing of a train must not be taken into account, i.e. in the event that the sealing fails (or a window is broken) the 10kPa variation is not exceeded. In addition to this, HS2 have agreed that the rate of change in pressure must also be limited for passenger comfort. These limits are allowed to take into account that the train is sealed (the more efficient the sealing system, the more gradual the pressure variation on-board). Another consequence of the piston effect is that as the air is compressed in front of the train, compression waves are formed. These waves propagate forwards along the tunnel and can create a booming noise and vibration as they are released at the tunnel portal. These noise and vibration emitting waves are known as ‘micro-pressure waves’. The Bingo tunnel in Japan is an example of where an unacceptable booming noise has caused an environmental health problem (Arup, 2009). The HS2 tunnelling studies used formulae to assess the HS2 tunnels sensitivity to this phenomenon relative to the Bingo tunnel in Japan. The results for some of the configuration options for the HS2 tunnels are found to be unacceptable (Arup, 2009). 5.4.2 Tunnel diameters An assumption was made by the HS2 studies that ‘tunnels above 2km would be likely to be more cost-effectively driven by TBM (tunnel boring machine) rather than mined with SCL (sprayed concrete lined) support’ (Arup, 2009). Hence, because all three major HS3 tunnels are greater than 2km length, TBM is likely to be most appropriate. The use of TBM infers that the tunnel cross-section will be circular. The HS3 tunnels will be twin-bore, single-guideway, i.e. one train per tunnel (see tunnel configuration section). An appropriate tunnel diameter for the HS3 tunnels will be the result of a compromise between cost and speed. As explained previously, the aerodynamic effects worsen as the speed of the train increases/ tunnel diameter decreases. The obvious solution is to increase the diameter of the tunnel, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach to tunnel design is questionable. A simplified illustration of the how sensitive cost is to tunnel diameter is given by Wood, 1989: U = A + Bd+ Cd 2 Where: U is the unit cost of tunnelling, d is the finished tunnel diameter, A, B and C are constants The relationship assumes that a variation in tunnel diameter does not entail a change in the basic tunnelling technique. It can be appreciated that the quadratic relationship will cause costs to rise 5-89 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 steeply with increasing tunnel diameter. The fact that a highly mechanised system will be used (TBM), will result in A being high. Spoil disposal costs will tend to affect C (Wood, 1989). The difficulties of transporting and disposing spoil near the city centres will be a large feasibility concern. One of the largest risks associated with running Maglev trains at 480kph in tunnels is that there are no operational examples elsewhere (Maglev or conventional) which achieve those kind of tunnel speeds. In terms of the risk to tunnelling design, it is very hard to predict with any accuracy what tunnel diameters will be required for HS3. In response to this difficultly, modelling has been carried out to estimate the diameter that would be required in order for maximum speed to be achieved in an HS3 tunnel. This modelling is based on an equation, which relates the pressure rise in a tunnel to the train speed and the tunnel blockage ratio. The equation is a simplified one-dimensional representation of the pressure differences either side of the compression wave caused by the piston effect (figure 5.4.2.(1)). This equation is as follows (Raghunathan et al, 2002): Where: Mt is the train Mach number = speed of train (V) / density of air p1 is the pressure upstream of the compression wave p2 is the pressure downstream of the compression wave p21 is the pressure rise = p 2 – p 1 γ is the ratio of specific heat of air Φ is the blockage ratio = (A-A')/A. A is the tunnel cross-section A' is the train cross-section. In order to use this equation to predict likely tunnel diameters for HS3, data from existing high speed rail tunnels has been used. The existing tunnel data has been used as a benchmark for an acceptable pressure rise. In other words the pressure rise calculated for an existing high speed tunnel is assumed to satisfy passenger comfort criteria. The calculated pressure rise for an existing high speed tunnel has been used to solve the equation to find the required diameter for a hypothetical HS3 tunnel. 5-90 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 5.4.2.(1). Illustration of piston effect (where u is the flow velocity) (Raghunathan et al, 2002). From researching high speed lines in operation and under construction, it seems that 350kph is the top end of tunnel speeds. The following tunnels have been selected for use as benchmarks for the modelling because they are the highest speed tunnels for which data was available: The Guadarrama tunnel on the Madrid-Valladolid Line in Spain. Opened December 2007 Twin, single track tunnels of circular cross-section Tunnel operating speed 350kph 28.4km in length Tunnel internal diameter 8.5m AVE Class 102 trainsets 9.9m 2 train cross-sectional area (HBI Haerter Consulting Engineers, 2010a), (HBI Haerter Consulting Engineers, 2010b), (Wirth GmbH, 2010) The Jin Shazhou tunnel on the Wuhan-Guangzhou Line in China Opened December 2009 Single, twin track tunnel of non-circular cross-section Tunnel operating speed 350kph 4.5km in length Tunnel internal cross-sectional area of 100m2 CRH2C (Kawasaki) and CRH3C (Siemens) trainsets 5-91 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 12.5m 2 train cross-sectional area (SSF Ingenieure, 2010), (Railway Gazette, 2010) The proposed HS2 Amersham tunnel At preliminary design stage Twin, single track tunnel of circular cross-section Tunnel design operating speed 320kph 9.6km in length Tunnel internal diameter 8.5m UIC-GB gauge trainsets 11m 2 train cross-sectional area (Arup, 2010b), (Arup, 2009) The cross-sectional area for the HS3 train is based on the MXL01 JR-Maglev; this is 9.63m 2. The results show the diameter required at different HS3 design speeds based on each of the above benchmark tunnels. Guadarrama Speed (kmh) 250 275 300 320 350 375 400 425 450 480 Diameter Required (m) 6.4 6.9 7.4 7.8 8.4 8.9 9.5 10.0 10.6 11.4 Cross-sectional Area Required (m 2) 32.7 70.5 88.9 Jin Shazhou Speed (kmh) 250 275 300 320 350 375 400 425 450 480 Equivalent Diameter Required (m) 7.4 8.0 8.6 9.1 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.6 Cross-sectional Area Required (m 2) 43.4 77.0 99.6 126.8 145.6 Amersham Speed (kmh) 250 275 300 320 350 375 400 425 450 480 Diameter Required (m) 6.6 7.1 7.5 8.0 8.6 9.1 9.7 10.3 10.9 11.7 Cross-sectional Area Required (m 2) 34.0 74.0 93.5 Figure 5.4.2.(2). Tunnel diameter modelling results The results from using the Jin Shazhou data display the largest diameters and cross-sectional areas, but this is to be expected because the Jin Shazhou tunnel is a twin track tunnel. Comparing the Jin Shazhou cross-sectional area results with some indicative twin-track cross-sectional areas published by Transrapid demonstrates quite large discrepancies (Figure 5.4.2.(2) compared with Figure 5.4.2.(3)). It is suggested that using the piston effect equation for a non-circular, twin-track tunnel does not produce reliable results; the relationship between twin-track tunnel cross-sectional area and speed cannot be extrapolated using the piston effect equation. The Guadarrama tunnel and the Amersham tunnel results, on the other hand, seem to correlate reasonably well. Note that both the Guadarrama and Amersham trains have larger cross-sectional 5-92 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 areas than the HS3 JR-Maglev. This means that that if HS3 Chilterns tunnel was designed for the HS2 speed limit (320kph) then the HS3 tunnel could afford to be smaller than the HS2 tunnel (HS2 = 8.5m diameter, HS3 = 8m diameter). The Guadarrama and Amersham results suggest a cross-sectional area in the region of 90m 2 for a speed of 450kph. For comparison purposes, the cross-sectional area of a single track tunnel quoted by Transrapid for a speed of 450kph is 120m 2. The difference (120m 2 vs 90m 2) can be attributed to the vastly differing train cross-sectional areas: Transrapid = 15.73m, JR-Maglev = 9.63 (see section 3.2). At maximum speed, the Guadarrama tunnel and the Amersham tunnel results indicate that a tunnel diameter of 11.4 – 11.7m would be required. This diameter of tunnel is achievable using a TBM (The largest TBM is 15.62m diameter and will be used in the construction of the 2.5km long twin bore Sparvo road tunnel in Italy (Tunnelling Journal, 2010), however there are issues to do with the availability and procurement expense of such large TBMs (Arup, 2009). Figure 5.4.2.(3). Typical tunnel cross-sections (Transrapid, 2006) The next question is whether the use of tunnels large enough to achieve maximum speed is justified in terms of the journey time saving. The HS2 studies commented that ‘ It is, however, recognised that 400kph running in tunnel could be extremely expensive, and therefore unjustifiable, and the impact of running at certain speeds will need to considered in the cost- benefit analysis’ (Arup, 2009). Consequently, the HS2 Amersham tunnel has been designed for a reduced operational speed of 320kph. The speed in the London tunnels and Manchester tunnels is limited by the proximity to the stations. On the basis that trains will always stop at Old Oak Common, the maximum speed that can be reached in the London Tunnels is 313kph. On the basis that trains will always stop at Manchester Parkway and Manchester Victoria, the maximum speed that can be reached in the 5-93 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Manchester Tunnels is 400kph. The Chilterns tunnel is not close to any station stop hence the maximum speed of 480kph is possible in this tunnel. The journey time model has been used to quantify the impact that various tunnel speed limits will have on the journey times. For the Chilterns tunnel, a speed limit of 300kph applied for the length of the tunnel would only increase the journey time by 1 minute 4 seconds (compared with allowing maximum 480kph tunnel speed). The effect of a 300kph speed limit is even less for the city centre tunnels because the achievable speed is lower due to the proximity of station stops. The final consideration is how the guideway and emergency escape requirements effect the cross- sectional area. The relevant standards have been satisfied by HS2 by providing a 850mm wide evacuation walkway plus an additional walkway on the opposite side for emergency service access (Arup, 2010b). For HS2, the ‘ minimum space-proofing envelope ’ (i.e. the diameter required for accommodating the track, train, walkways and clearance to services etc) will be the diameter for the London tunnels. This internal diameter of 7.25m allows speeds of 225kph and potentially 250kph (Arup, 2010b). The guideway is the main difference between the Maglev and conventional wheel-on-rail space requirements. The proposed Maglev line in Munich between the city centre and the airport was to include tunnelled sections. A different type of Transrapid 09 guideway, with a reduced height, would be used in the tunnelled sections (Werth & Kretschmer, 2004). Another reference to the Munich Maglev suggests that ‘s maller free cross-sections are possible because of the absence of a catenary system’ (Ravn & Reinke, 2006). A wind tunnel test on a French TGV train at 260kph found that 17% of the aerodynamic drag was due to the pantograph system and other devices over the train (Raghunathan et al, 2002). It is therefore concluded, that the Maglev space-proofing envelope is likely to be more favourable than a wheel- on-rail space-proofing envelope with a catenary/pantograph system. From all the information gathered on tunnel diameters, it is decided that the HS3 scheme shall adopt speed limits for the tunnelled sections in order to avoid the risk of operating at untested tunnel speeds and to reduce the construction cost. The results of the journey time model prove that the time advantages of allowing maximum speed in the tunnels are minimal. Hence, the extra cost and risk associated with construction and research on the tunnel aerodynamics at 480kph, does not justify the benefits. The proposed JR Maglev has aerodynamic advantages in comparison with the Transrapid 09 and convention trains; the required diameter is smaller; this has been illustrated by the tunnel diameter modelling results. The Maglev system may offer further tunnel size savings compared to a convention system due to the absence of overhead power lines. With all these considerations in mind, a speed of 300kph with an associated diameter of 7-8m is proposed for the HS3 tunnels. This is based on the Guadarrama and Amersham tunnel diameter 5-94 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 modelling results of 7.4-7.5m for a speed of 300kph, and the 7.25m minimum diameter for space- proofing in the HS2 tunnels. 5.4.3 Tunnel Configuration At each of the tunnelled sections it is assumed that there will be two trainlines (one in each direction) and hence the tunnelled solution will need to accommodate two guideways. There are two options available; twin, single-guideway tunnels (one guideway per tunnel) or single, twin- guideway tunnels (two guideways per tunnel). HS2 state that the two governing parameters for the configuration of the tunnels are safety regulations, and aerodynamics and ventilation. The studies that have been carried out for HS2 provide this feasibility study with a good point of reference. It is felt that the HS2 information is often the most applicable (compared with other sources), since it is based on UK standards and has been published very recently. Also, the London tunnels and the Chilterns tunnels are modified versions of the HS2 tunnels, since it was decided that the best route for HS3 was the pre-validated HS2 route. The design basis for the HS2 tunnels has been developed from reviewing the following guidelines on safety: ‘Technical Standards for Interoperability’ (TSI) ‘Safety in Rail Tunnels’ – Europe ‘The Railway Safety Principles and Guidance’ (RSPG) – which has a section specific to the UK ‘Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems’ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) The HS2 design basis for the London Tunnels concludes from the safety guidelines that the normal arrangement for tunnels greater than 1.5km in length should be twin bore, single-track tunnels (Arup, 2010b). For the three main tunnels it is proposed that HS3 will adopt the same convention, hence all the tunnels will be twin, single-guideway tunnels. The twin, single- guideway tunnel configuration has several advantages over the single, twin-guideway configuration. In the event of a fire the ‘non-incident’ tunnel acts as a place of relative safety for passengers to be evacuated to via cross-passages which link the two tunnels. The same effect can be created in a single tunnel by separating the two guideways with a dividing wall, however the twin tunnel arrangement is better for controlling the spread of fire and smoke (Arup, 2009). The cross- passages used in the twin tunnel arrangement can be pressurised to prevent smoke from entering whilst passengers are escaping. In comparison, for a single tunnel to provide a pressurised area to 5-95 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 prevent the spread of smoke, space between the two guideways or space on the outside of each guideway would have to be created. Another advantage of twin tunnels over single tunnels is that there is no risk of collision between trains traveling in opposite directions. This factor has less significance for Maglev than wheel-on- rail high speed services, where derailment is possible. Another advantage is that twin tunnels avoid the negative aerodynamic effects caused by trains passing each other in opposite directions and the also avoid the increase in rate of change of pressure associated with the train offset from the tunnel centre line (see section 3.2.5). The next consideration for tunnel configuration is the frequency of cross-passages i.e. how often an escape to the ‘non-incident’ tunnel is provided. Again, to ensure the HS3 scheme meets safety requirements, the HS2 spacing of 250m is to be adopted for the HS3 tunnels. Shafts connecting the tunnels to the surface can be provided for a number of reasons but are essential for emergency intervention. In the UK, emergency service access points are spaced 2- 3km apart; this has been an acceptable spacing for HS1 and Crossrail (Arup, 2010b). Shafts may also be necessary to provide ventilation via mechanical systems, as well as natural draft/pressure relief to minimise aerodynamic effects. A significant feasibility consideration for HS3 is, to what extent does increased shaft frequency help to reduce the required tunnel diameter? This is something, which can only be determined by in depth modelling and is outside the scope of this feasibility study. Shafts are not easily accommodated in urban areas. HS2 estimate the land area required for the head-houses over the shafts, and also the land required for access, to be in the region of 1000m 2 – 1100m 2 (Arup, 2010b). In London, many potential shaft sites have been assessed by HS2; three shafts are to be provided. In Manchester, there is adequate space in the Princess Road area. At Manchester Victoria station, it is proposed that the underground station is partially uncovered by means of an open box construction. This opening would facilitate access for a mined construction method for the station, as well as acting as a ventilation shaft for the tunnel. As well as increasing the tunnel diameter and providing shafts, there are other measures available to mitigate aerodynamic effects. Tunnel hoods are widely used to reduce the magnitude of the compression wave, and prevent the booming noise and vibrations from the micro-pressure waves (Liu et al, 2010) (Raghunathan et al, 2002) (Figures D.5.4.3.(1)&(2)). Some experiments show that the magnitude of the noise at the tunnel portal is proportional to the cube of the speed (Raghunathan et al, 2002). Ravn and Reinke, 2006 also warn that higher acceleration/deceleration of Maglev compared with wheel-on-rail may cause higher pressure fluctuations, and that concrete guideway as opposed to ballast can increase the possibility of micro-pressure waves. This is 5-96 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 further justification for keeping HS3 tunnel speed within the tested range i.e. less than 350kph. Should the aerodynamic effects be an issue for the HS3 tunnels despite the speed limits, there are further counter-measures available; water curtains, spray mists, porous tunnel lining materials, inverse phase wave generators and silencers (Raghunathan et al, 2002). 5.4.4 Ground Conditions and Construction The London and Chilterns tunnels will be essentially the same as those proposed for HS2, so it has been assumed that their construction is feasible. That is not to say that their inclusion in the HS3 scheme does not increase the risk to the project; HS2 have increased the tunnel budget by 23% to allow for risk (Arup, 2009). The greatest risk to feasibility, however, is the Manchester tunnels due to their original design. To assess how the geology of the area affects the feasibility of tunnelling, a report on the ground conditions in central Manchester and Salford has been studied (British Geological Survey, 2010). The study area in the report covers about 50% of the Manchester tunnels, giving an indication of the likely tunnelling conditions (refer to Figures D.5.4.3.(3) – (8)). In addition, Figure D.5.4.3.(3) shows tunnel route overlain with the bedrock geology in Google Earth. Much of the area is covered in thick superficial deposits including till, and alluvium and river terrace deposits in the river Irwell channel. In terms of engineering soils, these range from firm to soft fine soils. The bedrock geology of the wider area includes Coal Measures and sandstone. The Coal Measures do not subcrob below the superficial deposits over any of the study area suggesting that they would not be encountered at tunnel depth (i.e. 10-30m below ground level). Most of the engineering rock that lies below the superficial deposits along the line of the tunnel is classified as weak sandstone. ‘This sandstone-dominated sequence, up to 620 m thick, forms the most important groundwater aquifer in north-west England’ (British Geological Survey, 2010). Tunnelling poses the risk of disturbing the aquifer, hence it is suggested that where possible, tunnelling is confined to the layer of superficial deposits. Figure D.5.4.4.(5) shows a cross-section through the river Irwell area with an indicative position of the tunnel. As stated previously, the tunnels are likely to be constructed using a TBM due to the length of tunnel. There are two possible types of TBM that could be used in soft ground (i.e. Manchester’s superficial deposits); Slurry Shield Machines (STBM) and Earth Pressure Balance Machines (EPBM) (EFNARC, 2001). In soft ground the issue is ground stabilisation. The STBM does this by injecting bentonite or polymer slurry at the cutting face which ‘forms a mud cake to stabilise and seal the open face of the tunnel’ (EFNARC, 2001). The EMB pressurises the cutting face by balancing the advancement speed with the removal of spoil. The choice of TBM will depend on the soil characteristics and the TBM is often bespoke. 5-97 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 In Manchester’s case, there is the possibility that neither TBM type will be sufficient to deal with the ground conditions (i.e. proximity to the river Irwell, the underlying sandstone aquifer and overlying structural foundations, in weak superficial deposits). One solution is to condition the ground in front of the TBM. An STBM can be adapted to pump water and/or bentonite slurry into the ground ahead. An EPBM can be adapted to pump soil conditioning products into the ground ahead (EFNARC, 2001). These methods are designed to reduce the risk of settlement. ‘However, it is also possible for such machines to over-pressurise the face, causing ground heave – which can be more damaging to the surrounding buildings’ (Pound, 2003). A STBM with Bentonite slurry injection ahead of the cutting face may be preferable due to the proximity of the tunnel to the sensitive sandstone aquifer below (The Bentonite will provide initial protection against contamination, should the aquifer be breached). Also, a STBM is more suitable over a wider range of ground conditions (EFNARC, 2001). In urban areas, the EFNARC guidelines comment that the risk of ‘damage to structures is high, and almost unlimited claims could arise’. In London, compensation grouting has been used extensively and successfully on the Jubilee Line Extension (Mair, 2003); this is an option for HS3 tunnels (Figure D.5.4.4.(8)). However, compensation grouting ‘is expensive, requiring a very high level of engineering’ (Mair, 2003). For all the HS3 tunnels it is proposed that a structural lining will be used; HS2 state ‘it is anticipated that the safety of operating a high speed line would necessitate a lining ’. The tunnel lining is likely to comprise of precast segments, which are sealed with grout to prevent groundwater ingress (Arup, 2009). 5.4.5 Summary Tunnelling presents a broad range of uncertainties at this stage of the HS3 scheme. The key features of the proposed tunnels have been designed to maximise the feasibility. The twin, single- guideway tunnels offer the best safety provision. The benefits of the 300kph speed limit are two fold; reduces the tunnel diameter for economy and avoids unknown aerodynamic effects at untested tunnel speeds. It must also be emphasised that the 300kph limit does not compromise the scheme as a whole. The acceleration capabilities of Maglev, combined with the fact that the tunnels constitute only a small percentage of the route, ensure that the speed limits have a negligible effect on journey time. In terms of tunnel construction, there will always be inherent risks, especially in urban areas where disturbance to property could have catastrophic consequences. Keeping tunnel diameters to a minimum i.e. within a common range, which has previously been successfully constructed, 5-98 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 helps to reduce the risk. However, in the words of Wood, 1989, ‘ no two tunnels are the same; experience, and real insight of the value of that experience, are necessary to transmute particular experience to more general understanding and thus to transmit the experience of one tunnel appropriately to another’ . Overall, the tunnels are deemed necessary for the HS3 route to be feasible, and although they add to cost and risk, their successful construction and operation is feasible. 5.5 Maintenance and durability Dan Mitchel Project Risk Durability will be ensured by Residual Risk The concrete will have a low having a good design and by W/C ratio and a high cement Significant using good quality concrete. The Moderate content. Coatings will be applied design requires sufficient cover to both the steel reinforcement and a drainage system that and the concrete structure, keeps the concrete dry. depending on specific environmental conditions. Inspections will be carried out to ensure that adequate To limit costs, maintenance will maintenance takes place. be carried out on a need basis with Inspections controlling this. The line will be protected by designing for vehicle impact to Barriers will protect the line both columns and the overhead from vandalism when the height superstructure. Alternative load of the guideway is at an paths will also be integrated in accessible level. the design, to account for the loss of an element. The guideway will need to withstand the effects of both the current and future environment. The objective would be to design the track to adequately function throughout its design life. The durability of the structure will be influenced by quality control during construction, specification of materials and the design itself. Maintenance will be required as all materials deteriorate with time. The operation of the Maglev vehicle, weather conditions and the specific environments that the track is in will cause the viaduct to both deteriorate and weaken. Adequate maintenance sustains the structures durability. 5.5.1 Design Life In the UK, concrete bridges generally have a design life of 120 years. Transrapid recommends that the guideway design life should provide 80 years of useful life. The amount of capital due to be invested in the project signifies a good argument for designing the viaduct as to match the UK’s standard bridge design life. However, the UK now uses Eurocodes and as a result these will be the basis for the viaduct’s design. BS EN 1990:2002 Table 2.1 states that monumental 5-99 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 structures, bridges and other civil engineering structures should have an indicative design working life of 100 years (British Standards, 2002). Therefore, the structure will need to be structurally durable and well maintained to allow for this. 5.5.2 Durability Climate change is a big issue because of the uncertainty of the changing environment. It is not sufficient enough to design for current weather conditions, as the functionality of the train and the durability of the materials used depend on their environment. Predictions from climate change models indicate that the UK is expected to have warmer, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters (UNECE-UNCTAD Workshop, 2010). In 2009, flooding caused 6 bridges to collapse in Cumbria (BBC, 2009). The design will consider all the anticipated effects from climate change. For example, flooding may cause the viaduct to fail as with the Cumbria bridges. Thus, where the viaduct crosses various flood plains, the design will accommodate for potential flooding. A good design should be implemented, to ensure that the viaduct has long-term durability. Concrete cover is important in maintaining the durability of the structure. It will vary throughout the route depending on specific environment conditions and the degree of expected exposure. Allowing water to stand on any part of the structure must be avoided, thus a good drainage design is vital. This will mitigate the issue of aqueous corrosion and will help prevent frost damage. Frost damage causes cracking, which exposes reinforcement to environment specific attacks. The structure will be coated at locations where the environment could inflict potential ingress of aggressive ions such as chlorides, or where carbonation may take place. The reinforcement steel can also be coated where high risk areas are identified. Good design also facilitates ease of inspection, ease of construction and considers possible repair and replacement of elements (Mulheron, 2010). The concrete used must be of a good quality, which will be ensured during its mix design. The concretes porosity will dictate how durable it is. The objective of the mix design is to make sure that the concrete is dense, impermeable and well compacted. Mitigation for this includes (Mulheron, 2010): Specifying maximum cement content, i.e. > 350 Kg/m3 Specifying minimum water/cement ratio, i.e. w/c < 0.45 Specifying the use of hard, dense, durable aggregates Considering different cement types, i.e. sulphate resisting cement Considering the use of additives, i.e. Pulverized Fuel Ash or Blastfurnace Slag Using air-entrainment within the concrete, to improve frost resistance 5-100 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 These measures will be implemented where necessary, depending on the environmental location of the track. During construction, concrete must be mixed, placed, compacted and cured adequately as to ensure that durability is achieved (Mulheron, 2010). The initial costs required for the mitigation above will be offset by the decrease in the required future maintenance. 5.5.3 Maintenance The track is 642 km long, comprising of the viaduct superstructure, substructures, tunnels and bridges (long span viaducts). A maintenance regime for the scale of the proposed HS3 line has never been designed before. As the maglev vehicle does not physically touch the viaduct, there is no friction while the train is in motion. Minimal maintenance work to the guideway itself will thus be required, as there is almost no wear and tear. However, there will be a force acting down on the viaduct from the train, which will cause fatigue on the structure. Weather conditions and the environment will also affect the viaduct. The concrete will be designed for the viaducts specific environment, but maintenance is still required as all materials deteriorate with time. Maintenance Facilities Currently maglev systems use special vehicles to inspect and monitor the network. These are deployed from maintenance facilities along the route. The Maglev trains themselves are also repaired and serviced at these facilities. The vehicles also have optical systems that use digital photo interpretation to assess the surface deterioration, i.e. corrosion. Daily operation of the Maglev fleet gathers sensor data that may also be used to identify locations where changes in the guideway position may need attention (Transrapid, 2010). The UK’s weather conditions will not normally affect the performance of the maglev train. Snow deflectors may be fitted to the Maglev vehicles, if there is thick snow on the guideway (Liu et al, 2006). If required, maintenance vehicles can be deployed to clear the snow. Generally, the viaducts are high enough off the ground as to prevent any debris being blown onto the guideway. Again the maintenance vehicles can remove any debris if required. There is a Maglev project being proposed in Colorado, with a track length of 250 km. Two maintenance facilities have been proposed near airports (U.S. Department of Transport, 2004). HS3 will have four maintenance facilities and will also have them near the city airports (See Appendix B, Maintenance 1 - 4). They have been positioned to limit the environmental impact on surrounding areas, to maximise speeds of the trains and to create jobs for local community located nearby. Maintenance 1 has been positioned in a field just before the M25 tunnel. Maintenance 2 is alongside Birmingham Parkway. Maintenance 3 is in a field adjacent Manchester Airport. 5-101 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Maintenance 4 is located in an industrial area that will need to be acquired for both the route and the maintenance facility. Maintenance Scheduling Table 5.5.3.(1) illustrates the maintenance schedule for a Maglev project in Colorado. This would be similar to the maintenance schedule for HS3. Table 5.5.3.(1)) Wayside Maintenance (U.S. Department of Transport, 2004) Structures generally exhibit few signs of deterioration during the early stages of their lives. Rapid deterioration subsequently follows (see Figure 5.5.3.(1)). Regular inspections should be carried out in spaced intervals to monitor the deterioration of the structure. If an increase in deterioration occurs, i.e. at ip3, the next inspection should be moved forward. This will inform the maintenance engineer whether or not the structure’s condition is critical. Figure 5.5.3.(1) also shows how maintenance of the structure’s water management system and minor repairs can prevent the rate of deterioration from increasing. This does not restore the structure to any lost condition, but helps prevent further deterioration from occurring and will help maintain the structure for its design life. Often regular maintenance is not possible given the finances available, which often leads to structures being maintained on a need basis. The structure can be allowed to deteriorate in a controlled manner as long as the inspection frequency monitors the rate of deterioration and suitable mitigation is carried before the structure is compromised (Mulheron, 2010). 5-102 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 5.5.3.(1)) Diagram showing change in condition of a structure with increasing rate of deterioration (top) and the same diagram with regular inspection and maintenance (bottom) (Where Ci = initial condition, Ca = limit of acceptable condition, Cs = limit below which serviceability is compromised and ip = initial inspection) (Mulheron, 2010). Maintenance Regime The maintenance regime will comprise of inspections, repairs, scheduled services and improvements. Inspections will cover monitoring, examination, expert’s assessment and special inspection. They will be done to ensure that there is sufficient time provided, to notice any defects that may pose a safety concern or a serviceability risk. Monitoring will consist of visual monitoring of the surface parts and geometric monitoring of the function planes. Visual monitoring will be done during the evening breaks in service, using cameras fitted to the maintenance vehicles. Geometric monitoring will take place once the information is gathered and assessed against a stored set of reference data. Aspects that are monitored include bearing wear, deformation behaviour, monitoring of coating, carbonization of concrete parts and general aging behaviour (Hauke, 2006). Examinations are hands-on inspections which generally take place if the information attained from the visual inspection is adverse. All monitoring and examination information must be documented. An expert’s assessment of the structure will take place every 3-6 years. The documented inspection data is assessed and further special inspections may be arranged as a result of the reviewing data. The piers will be inspected by foot as there is no access road running alongside the viaduct. The Highway Manual for Roads and Bridges recommends an inspection regime consisting of mainly general inspections, which take place every two years and principal inspections, which take place every six years. General Inspections are visual inspections of each part of the structure. Principal inspections provide information on the physical condition of all inspectable parts of the structure 5-103 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 (Highways Agency, 2007a). Inspections will indicate the need for repair, scheduled services and improvement. The work carried out on the guideway will be done during the evening break in service if possible and by a special vehicle (Hauke, 2006). 5.5.4 Protecting the line The guideway is predominantly elevated to a level that cannot be accessed, preventing vandalism to the guideway. Where the viaduct is at ground level or is at a level that can be accessed, it will be fenced off. The new route will cross many major and minor roads. These roads are used by heavy goods vehicles, some of which may be travelling at high speeds. There is a risk to both the soffit superstructure of the bridge and the piers that are supporting the bridge. Vehicle collision to the maglev viaduct could have catastrophic consequences, to both the train and to the onboard passengers. Sufficient measures will need to be in place to prevent such from taking place. Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures provides design values for actions caused by road vehicles to supporting substructures and superstructures (British Standards, 2006). These values may be chosen in the design by considering the consequences of an impact and the volume and type of traffic expected. Not all columns will need to be designed for vehicle impact. Only those that are in close proximity to the road. The guideway cannot be allowed to collapse, because of the potential disproportionate consequences. If a column fails, it may result in the guideway collapsing. If this happens when a train is approaching, the onboard passengers will be at risk. The entire network would also be halted due to a section of the guideway collapsing. Both scenarios demonstrate disproportionate consequences due to local failure. Thus, the structure must be designed to be robust. In order to make the structure robust, in the event of local failure to a column, alternative load paths can be designed. Thus, redundancy elements will be designed to redistribute the load of the guideway to compensate for local failure (Noeldgen et al, 2009). This will mitigate the risk of terrorist attack by way of a blast on an individual element. The columns on the road will have this design as well as being designed for vehicle impact, as they present a higher risk. 5.5.5 Protecting the line The guideway is predominantly elevated to a level that cannot be accessed, preventing vandalism to the guideway. Where the line is at ground level or is at a level that can be accessed, it will be fenced off. The new route will cross many major and minor roads. These roads are used by heavy goods vehicles, some of which may be travelling at high speeds. There is a risk to both the soffit superstructure of the bridge and the piers that are supporting the bridge. Vehicle collision to the maglev viaduct could have catastrophic consequences, to both the train and to the onboard 5-104 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 passengers. Sufficient measures will need to be in place to prevent such from taking place. Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures provides design values for actions caused by road vehicles to supporting substructures and superstructures. These values may be chosen in the design considering the consequences of an impact and the volume and type of traffic expected. Not all columns will need to be designed for vehicle impact. Only those that are in close proximity to the road. The guideway cannot be allowed to collapse, because of the potential disproportionate consequences. If a column fails, it may result in the guideway collapsing. If this happens when a train is approaching, the onboard passengers will be at risk. The entire network would also be halted due to a section of the guideway collapsing. Both scenarios demonstrate disproportionate consequences due to local failure. Thus, the structure must be designed to be robust. In order to make the structure robust, in the event of local failure to a column, alternative load paths can be designed. Thus, redundancy elements will be designed to redistribute the load of the guideway to compensate for local failure (Noeldgen et al, 2009). This will mitigate the risk of terrorist attack on an individual element, by blast. The columns on the road will have this design as well as a vehicle impact design. This is because they are more at risk than columns away from the road. 5.5.6 Summary The viaduct will be designed to be fully functional for 100 years. The new viaduct will be made durable by having a good design and by using good quality concrete. Routine maintenance will take place on a daily basis, using maintenance vehicles that take readings along the track. Regular inspections of both the guideway and piers will also take place, which will identify areas that require maintenance. The line will be protected by having a robust design and physical barriers at locations. 5.6 Power Collection Manuel Mesquita Guimarães Project Risk Decrease in the energy usage Residual Risk Feeder stations’ configuration to be designed at a later design Minor Smaller unbalance felt by the Minor stage national grid 5.6.1 Power Requirements to the vehicle The Maglev vehicle requires electrical power for various applications: the propulsion, levitation, guidance, and on board consumption. The new TR09 was built in accordance to the 2007 comprehensive rules and regulations for the design and operation of high speed Maglev. The 5-105 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 design principles publication (Eisebahn-Bundesamt, 2007) was written by the German Federal Railroad Authority Eisenbahn-Bundensamt (EBA). The report states that a Maglev system must have a levitation and guidance system controlled by electromagnets, a drive and brake system comprised of linear motors which transform the traction power from stationary plants, and a non- contact energy supply to the vehicle to cover all the on board power demand. The requirements for the power supply to the vehicle is the following: “The energy supply must include the sub-functions of energy matching and distribution, auxiliary energy supply (for the OCS), external on board (for the levitation and guidance) energy in-feed, traction energy supply, power factor correction and control energy supply...The converters must transform the provided energy according, the vehicle speed, and the required acceleration. The transformers must be constructed so that the brake energy can be fed back into the public grid. The line must be divided up into drive sectors in which an MSB vehicle can be driven according to OCS requirements.” (Eisebahn- Bundesamt, 2007) The overriding principle in supplying power to the vehicle is redundancy. All of the small systems in the vehicle that provide levitation, guidance and traction should be electrically separate from each other so that if there are local faults, the system function is still fulfilled. Interruptible Power Supply must be made available if there is a major power loss such as mains power failure. This backup power is stored in the form of DC batteries and is used in emergency situations for a safe braking, emergency lights, and all other facilities necessary to accommodate an emergency situation. Eisebahn-Bundesamt (2007) write that the drive sectors must either be electrically live or not, depending on whether the OCS wants the train to move or not. Only the drive sectors that the OCS recognises as safe zones can be electrically live. When they are live they are called propulsion areas (Eisebahn-Bundesamt, 2007). The power to electrify the drive circuit must be AC. The windings in the guide-way must be able to change the frequency in order to provide varying power to the propulsion motors. 5.6.2 Delivering the requirements Applying the former design principles, HS3 is highly feasible; the only area posing uncertainty is the connecting to the national grid. The data available for Maglev lines energy usage is highly contradictory. Transrapid (2010) write that their energy consumptions at 400 km/h are the extremely comparable to WoR energy consumptions at 300 km/h . 5-106 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 5.6.2.(1): Comparison between energy consumptions (Transrapid, 2010) Conversely, Rote (2004) suggests that Maglev energy consumption is higher than conventional rail as seen in Figure 5.6.2.(2). The ambiguity comes from statistical manipulation. Because the data is references per seat, different entities use low seat occupancy, or high seat occupancy, to validate their argument. Figure 5.6.2.(2) Data for energy consumption (Rote, 2004) From section 8.2, it can be seen that the average speed in HS3’s various journeys varies between 300 km/h and 400 km/h . The energy consumptions in Figure5.6.2.(1) in Wh/seat-km were converted to 1.7 MW/section . The calculations can also be seen in Figure C.3.2.(1). One important factor to consider when accessing the feasibility of HS3 drawing electric power from the national grid is the imbalance it creates on the grid. A limiting factor in conventional WoR drawing energy 5-107 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 from the grid is the imbalance of the manner in which it draws energy. Since the input voltage to the WoR vehicles has to be of a single-phase, the high energy consumptions are amplified in the local grid. One advantage of Maglev is that the AC current is 3-phase. This creates a more balanced load on the national grid (Rote, 2004). Because Maglev can draw more power whilst creating a smaller unbalance in the national grid, the power collection is deemed highly feasible for HS3. Specific locations for feeder stations should be designed at a later design stage. This is an extremely established practice, and no specific risk is forecast. 5-108 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 6 Signalling and Control 6.1 Signalling Methods Juin-Lun Tai Project Risk Train control system must Residual Risk Rigorous testing on models adhere to high levels of would have to be performed as Serious redundancy and accuracy to Moderate well as real world testing to ensure that no incidents ensure that proposed schemes resulting from poor signalling or for signalling and control stay at detection can occur. a consistently high level of accuracy and reasonable Not many high speed maglev response time. traffic control systems developed. This is due to low number of high speed maglev trains in operation. In order for trains to safely travel at speeds up to 480 km/h a new train traffic control system will have to be implemented as the use of conventional line side signalling cannot be used. Research has shown that as trains approach 300 km/h, line side signalling can only be perceived once they have passed (Li et al ., 2005). In order to provide a safe signalling system for high-speed rail in- cab signalling must be used, as well as the use of automated train control. The use of automation provides fast reliable signalling and response time which will optimise train timetabling and improve safety. 6.1.1 Potential Signalling Methods Since traditional line side signalling systems cannot be used due to the speeds that will be achieved (Li et al ., 2005). In this case in-cab signalling will be provided, as this will provide useful data to train operators in advance so that the proper precautions can be taken. However this form of reactive operation of trains can be unsafe if operators do not react in time. This gives rise to automated systems which apply pre set controls (i.e breaking) to the system. There are two main types of in-cab signalling systems: intermittent and continuous (Lowe, 2010a) (Lowe, 2009) 6.1.1.1 Intermittent In-cab Signalling These systems provide information and enforcement on upcoming line restrictions. This type of signalling has been used around the world in most modern train systems. This system will give a warning to the operator with information on the speed restrictions; if the correct adjustments are not met within a certain time limit then the system will take control and initiate breaking until the operator overrides the command (Lowe, 2010a). 6-109 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 6.1.1.2 Continuous In-cab Signalling Continuous systems of in-cab signalling provide a constant stream of information to and from signalling systems and the train (Lowe, 2009). This requires regular train detection which in most cases cannot be implemented. This system reduces direct input by the train operator leaving the majority of the adjustments to the control system. Due to the reaction time for enforcement this system provides reliable changes to train speed while taking into account breaking characteristics (Lowe, 2010b). 6.1.1.3 Summary As line speed exceeds 300 km/h, train drivers will not have sufficient reaction times to provide a safe journey. By implementing an automated system such as continuous in-cab signalling, those risks can be mitigated. However, system failure is still a possible risk, so removing the train driver completely is not an option, as human input can override decisions made by the onboard computer. 6.1.2 Potential Maglev Systems In the inception report, two control system types were proposed, the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and Operation Control System (OCS). Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages depending on the train type that the control system will be implemented on. The decision to use maglev limits the types of control system that can be used, since maglev uses electromagnetic fields for levitation and propulsion. Due to high levels of electromagnetic interference train detection methods specific to ERTMS would be made redundant. In order to provide safe rail travel, a similar system to the OCS designed for the maglev in Shanghai will be used. Due to the rise in maglev technologies countries are holding maglev control technology as confidentiality (Liu et al ., 2010). 6.1.2.1 Shanghai Maglev Control System The OCS designed by Siemens for the maglev in Shanghai uses interconnecting subsystems in order to create a fully automated train control system. This system would monitor and control all vehicle movements on the line and adjust accordingly each train whilst taking into consideration; train optimisation and timetabling. Although all trains will be controlled automatically, a driver must be present at all times to intervene in order to eliminate faults (Bitter, U. et al 2003). There are three main components that make up the OCS; a decentralised control system (DCS), the operation control centre (OCC) and on-board train instruments. The OCC is a centralised control centre that is responsible for main traffic control. This provides real-time optimisation 6-110 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 and timetabling for trains that are running on-track as well as providing diagnostics and operational statistics. The OCC has information that is fed from the DCS, which can be found at each section of track, providing location and train speed. The DCS provides information regarding the safety of the train by reserving sections of track so that only one train is present on each section of track in order to prevent train on train collisions (Bitter, U. et al 2003). The on-board component to the OCS, obtains and processes information regarding the location and speed of the train. This ensures that trains are within the designated speed and breaking limits for specific sections of track (Bitter, U. et al 2003). All data used in the OCS is transmitted over three networks; a wide area network, an interlocking bus and a radio system. The information is passed from component to component to guarantee that all information collected is congruent with each other. Although this system is comprehensive, it has not been fully tested with a high rail traffic volume, as the Shanghai maglev trains running with one train at a time in a single direction over the 30km of track. As no clear reasoning behind the decision to reduce capacity of the line to only one maglev, possible conclusions can be made with regard to reasons for this change. Reasons for having limited service could indicate lack of demand for commuters between the stations, lack of funding to acquire another train, or the control system can only deal with one train at a time. 6.1.2.2 Proposed Design of a New Maglev Traffic Control System A proposed framework for high-speed maglev control features and structures is a system based on electronic mapping as shown below in Figure 6.1.2 (1). This system uses fibre grating sensors that connects to a decentralised control unit (DCU) that processes the information collected from the sensors. This processed information is then sent to two locations; centralised controls centre (CCC) and to an internal processing control (IPC) interface. The IPC provides direct alterations to the train with regard to the data, such as slowing down or stopping due to geometric and speed restriction for current sections of track or potential hazards on the line. The data that is sent to the CCC is analysed with regard to scheduling and operational control and higher order commands can be issued to the DCU to change the current behaviour of the train for any given section of track. In order to carry out real-time and intuitionistic decisions on rail traffic the use of accurate electronic mapping is needed. Electronic mapping contains geographic information and operational behaviour parameters for individual sections of track. In order preserve a logical precedence of actions, the digitally mapped data is hierarchically sensitive as shown in Figure 6.1.2.(1). 6-111 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 6.1.2.(1) – System Lay out based on Electronic Mapping (Liu et al., 2010). Figure 6.1.2.(2) – Hierarchy of Line Data (Liu et al., 2010). 6-112 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 This shows the relationship between data and the precedence that each section takes. The main information that the line contains: line coordinates, turning radius, line gradient, stations and stopping points, power supply sections, speed range, operational speeds and relative run times. Each data layer is then indexed by co-ordinate values for ease of computation. Both the train running data and real-time positioning system are combined to calculate the operation speed and acceleration. Once calculated it is then cross analysed with any restrictions and any appropriate changes then made (Liu et al ., 2010). This system uses fibre grating sensors as a train positioning system, which is distributed along the railway. This type of sensor provides immunity to electromagnetic interference and can provide a fast and reliable method of train detection. However this system has only been designed and theorised and has not been implemented in any current maglev train systems. Although the system seems to be secure and have no evident errors, the real test for any traffic control system is during implementation where unknown variables can cause systems to go down. System failure is not the only down side to an untested system, restart time after failure can cause unnecessary disruptions, after the initial break. 6.1.3 Summary Although both systems have not been fully tested, initially line traffic would be low so there is an initial start up time for the system to be tested. Most components in the system are interchangeable, as basic traffic management systems require train detection and telecommunication that can be found in both. The effectiveness of the system depends on the quality of information provided to and from the train and the accuracy of location and speed detection. If sufficient redundancies are built into the signalling, detection and telecommunication systems then almost any logical, intuitionistic system would be feasible. 6.2 Train Detection Juin-Lun Tai Project Risk Due to low number of maglev Residual Risk Implementing low tech train train in operation around the detection leaving no room for Significant world, train detection in this Minor any untested errors. field has not been tested as much as rail-on-wheel Using multiple train detection methods to cross check different methods of detection. Train detection is the most integral part of a train control system. Train detection provides a means of knowing the location of any given train on the line in order to protect other trains, passengers and the surrounding environment. With a reliable real-time train detection system in place, all risks in the field of train protection are reduced. 6-113 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 The majority of modern rail on wheel trains use an inductive train detection system. These systems use induced electromagnetic fields in order to locate the current position of the train (Long et al ., 2010). However the majority of train detection systems do not provide locational information to a centralised database to enable traffic optimisation, only information is passed from guideway to train regarding current line signalling conditions. Although details of restrictions will vary from system to system, the use of this train detection system is to ensure that trains comply with speed restrictions and stop trains from colliding and over-speeding. The use of a maglev train system poses an array of hazards when implementing common rail on wheel techniques to train detection, this is due to the fundamental nature of electromagnetic suspension in maglev trains and no contact with the guideway during run time. During run time, train location and speed detection (LSD) has to incorporate three main principles in order to provide a suitable form of detection: Due to high speed requirements, quality real time data is required (Liu et al ., 2010). Due to electromagnetic propulsion system, resistance to electromagnetic interference is needed. Due to electromagnetic suspension, non-contact mode of detection must be used. There are various methods of LSD that fulfil these conditions: Microwave, Leaky Coaxial Cable, Electromagnetic Induction, Long Stator Train Detection, and Guideway Power Detection (Long et al ., 2010). 6.2.1 Microwave Detection An array of microwave transmission equipment installed near the guideway provides location data to the train. Once the train receives signals from various transmissions, devices on-board the train compare arrival times of signals from each transmitter and using the distance between each transmitter, the coordinates of the transmission equipment can be calculated. This information, coupled with a mathematical model of the guideway, provides the location of the train. From the time taken between coordinate points of the transmitters, the speed of the train can also be calculated. The use of a microwave detection system is easy to maintain, and has a high level of accuracy even when a train is travelling at high speeds (Long et al ., 2010). However, microwave signals are disrupted by adverse weather conditions (that are common in the British Isles); easily affected by terrain (Grémont, 2009); and can be expensive to implement. 6.2.2 Leaky Coaxial Cable Train Detection A leaky coaxial cable is a standard coaxial cable that has notches periodically along the outer conductor, as seen below in Figure 6.2.2.(1). 6-114 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure 6.2.2(1) – Leaky Coaxial Cable (Fujikura, 2010) Another type of train detection is the use of a leaky coaxial cable. This coaxial cable has notches periodically along the outer conductor. These notches provide the cable the ability to transmit, radiate and receive electromagnetic waves. As signals are transmitted down the cable the electromagnetic waves leaked from the notches act as a antenna array. This antenna array provides vital information to the train such as train location and distance-to-go from line side train protection equipment. Using the antenna array the speed can also be calculated using time intervals between signals and the notch spacing. This technology is used in Japanese JR maglev test lines and is also being used in current Japanese high speed rail (Igarashi et al ., 2010). 6.2.3 Electromagnetic Induction Detection Although traditional train detection is achieved using electromagnetic induction, the same method of detection cannot be used for maglev due to electromagnetic interference. However there are two main methods of train detection that can be used on maglev that uses the principle of electromagnetic induction. Each method utilises a different method of detection depending on the structure of the cable. However each method of electromagnetic induction that can be used for train detection uses an on-board detecting coil and a fixed guideway looped cable. 6.2.3.1 Cross Inductive Loop Line The structure of an crossed inductive loop line shown below in Figure 6.2.3.(1). Figure 6.2.3.(1) – Cross Inductive Loop Line (Based on: Long et al., 2010) 6-115 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 A crossed inductive loop line works on the principles that when a given frequency is transmitted from the detecting coil on-board the train to the loop line in the guideway, electromagnetic induction will occur. This inducted voltage will be at a maximum when the on-board coil is directly over the guideway loop and when that particular frequency is transmitted. As the train is running, the induced voltage will vary at intervals. By demodulating the induced signal and comparing it to a fixed threshold value the location of the train can be calculated. The time period between peaks in voltage provide an indication of speed that the train is travelling as the guideway loops set at fixed distances, so as the peaks in voltage are closer together the faster the train will be going. A similar system has been heavily used in the automotive industry for traffic management, where stationary cars at traffic lights can prompt the lights to change, since the flux change induces a voltage in the induction loops which lets main traffic control algorithms to set priority of traffic lights (Coleri et al, 2004). The use of a figure of eight coil super imposed above the guideway loop can also be used to reduce external noise in the system. 6.2.3.2 Gray Code Cable Gray Code cable is a set of crossed inductive loop lines that have been superimposed on each other in a set pattern as shown below in Figure 6.2.3.(2). Figure 6.2.3.(2) – Gray Code Cable Layers (Based on: Long et al., 2010) Each looped cable has identical width and length, but have different loop size. As the detecting coil passes over the guideway loops, depending on the location of the train different sets of guideway loops will have a voltage induced. Speed of the train is obtained by analysing the time taken for the train to move from section to section. The accuracy of this system is dependant on the size of a single loop in the top most layers. If this loop is too small the strength of the induced signal will be too low to differentiate it from noise in the system; this will not be accurate enough for use in high speed maglev. 6-116 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 6.2.4 Long Stator Method of Train Detection A stator is a tooth-slot structure that is made from laminated silicon steel with a high resistance. If a stator is then unrolled this produces a long linear stator see Figure 6.2.4.(1). Figure 6.2.4(1) – Long Stator (Based on: Long et al., 2010) This method of train detection uses similar processes to an induced detection system, however instead of measuring just the amplitude of the induced voltage, the signal is demodulated and then analysed. Due to the toothed surface of the long stator, the amplitude of the signal induced is constantly fluctuating. This varying signal (once demodulated) produces a quasi sine wave as seen below in Figure 6.2.1.4(2). Figure 6.2.4(2) – Comparison between the Demodulated Signal and Stator Teeth Slots (Based on: Long et al., 2010) The location of the train can be calculated through processing the sine wave with a threshold, this will determine the precise location for one tooth-slot. The sine wave strength gives an indication of the suspension gap. The location of where the sine wave is detected provides the location of the train. Depending on the frequency of the quasi sine wave, the speed of the train at that instant can also be calculated. As passing over each tooth slot on the stator produces a peak and trough 6-117 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 of voltage induced, the faster each tooth slot is passed over, the faster each peak and trough is induced thus calculating speed. 6.2.4.1 Guideway Power Usage Detection The easiest form of train detection that can be implemented is by analysing the power supply to sections of guideway. An increase in power is an indication that a train is present on that section of guideway. The train speed can be calculated from the time each section of the guideway is drawing power from the substation and the length of each section of guideway. This system is very basic and is by far the most reliable form of train detection as power will always have to be used during the run time of the train. The precision of this system depends on how the train's propulsion system is powered. As individual electromagnets are activated to move the train, localised power consumption will increase this provides high precision train detection. However analysing such localised power consumption will increase the costs of implementation. To reduce costs of this type of train detection power detecting devices can be attached to arrays of electromagnets instead. In order for preserve the accuracy of data, each electromagnetic array that has a power detecting device attached must be at half train length or smaller. Using the time taken for transitions between arrays of electromagnets and the length of each array, the speed can easily be calculated. This system of LSD is highly accurate, and not affected by guideway side electromagnetic interference. However the only downside to this type of train detection is that if power supplied to the electromagnets stops during emergencies then train detection would cease to function. 6.2.5 Summary The development and implementation of maglev technology requires precision LSD for control systems to provide high levels of safety for passengers. From this survey of possible different modes of train detection, the system that would provide the most accurate and reliable method of LSD is guideway power usage detection. Power detection is chosen over other methods is due to the simplicity and accuracy of the system, leaving less possible components and errors to occur in the system. However, since LSD of trains on the guideway is an essential component of the control system, implementation of other systems to provide checks on LSD would be necessary. Other possible LSD systems that can be implemented along side power detection that have a high level of reliability and have been tested in other maglev systems around the world are microwave (transrapid) and Leaky coaxial cable systems (JR-Maglev). Each system would provide data through different bus systems for added redundancy. All technology is currently available so pose no risk to the feasibility of the project. Implementation of these technologies also is cost 6-118 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 effective as microwave antennas on trains that are used for train LSD can also be used for telecommunications. 6.3 Telecommunications Juin-Lun Tai Project Risk Communication systems have all Residual Risk Minor improvements with been well established, there are allocating certain bandwidth for Minor minimal risks involved with Insignificant microwave communication, and implementation. placing antennas and cabling in easy to maintain locations. There are two main parts to any control system, detection and communication, each part as important as each other as each system relies on the other to provide a secure and safe control system. Without a reliable telecommunication system any extra information regarding other trains on the line would not be possible. Telecommunication technology has been used for a long time and is a highly researched field. In this system two main communication links are needed; train to train; and train to command centre. Each communication link can have multiple mediums of communication, each interacting with each other to provide information most efficiently. There are various telecommunication methods available: GSM-R, Microwave, Leaky Coaxial Cable, Optical Fibre. All of which have been implemented before in other systems around the world. 6.3.1 GSM-R GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway) is an international wireless communications stands for the use in railway networks. The main user of this system is ERTMS, which it is used for communication between train and control centres. Since GSM-R is restricted to railway networks only, specific frequency bands are allocated (Willtek, 2006). These frequencies are solely used for GSM-R so not to incur excess data traffic which can cause loss or service. Due to high security requirements in railway operations additional services are embedded in GSM-R, these include; enhanced precedence of calls depending on the level of authorisation and priority of message; location dependent addressing; line restrictions depending on authorisation; and emergency precedence for track-to-train radio (Willtek, 2006). GSM-R has been guaranteed performance up speeds up to 500 kph, this is so long as each line side transmitter mast is sufficiently spaced and not too far or too close from the train. This system is already being introduced to the UK as it is being testing in many areas around the UK, as Department of Transport (DfT) are looking to become more interoperable with Europe. 6-119 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Currently GSM-R is being fully used along the Cambrian line (DfT, 2010) since it is also an integral role in ERTMS testing. 6.3.2 Microwave Microwave communication uses the same principle as GSM-R as it is a form of radio communications. Microwave transmission operates at a higher frequency than that of GSM-R. Due to the age of this technology there is an abundance of information and resources available as microwave technology has been research since the 1940s (Burcham, 2003). Since the frequency of microwave transmission is higher than that of GSM-R the bandwidth is higher. An increase of bandwidth increases the amount of data that can be sent across from antenna to receiver. This enables faster connections and can provide extra data connection for passengers in the train. Since microwave antennas have been around for a long time many different configurations of microwave communication systems have been developed. Many countries have used purely microwave systems, with relay towers that boost or redirect microwave signals if these signals need to travel over long distances as seen in Figure 6.3.1.2.(1). Figure 6.3.2(1) – Microwave Antenna Array(Wikicommons 2010) However there are common misconceptions with regards to microwave transmission. As the general public's perception that microwave radiation is harmful. However, the levels that are used to transmit data is relatively low, as well as the power drop off from transmitter to receiver is significant. The amount of radiation that people would experience is lower than the radiation from mobile phones (Prado, 2002). A major downfall that microwave communication can experience disruption due to adverse weather conditions and can easily be affected by terrain. 6-120 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 6.3.3 Leaky Coaxial Cable As seen in Figure 6.2.1.2.(1), a leaky coaxial cable is made from a standard coaxial cable with notches at regular intervals. These notches provide the cable the ability to transmit, radiate and receive electromagnetic waves. As signals are transmitted down the cable the electromagnetic waves leaked from the notches act as an antenna array. This antenna array can be used to transmit data to and from the train with a receiver placed along the base of the train. However due to the leaky nature of the signal, the signal strength is low and will require line amplifiers at regular intervals, in order to boost the signal to a acceptable level. This method of communications is usually used in areas where standard wireless communication signals cannot reach such as in tunnels, this system can be also used to bridge connections, providing underground network coverage, this type of underground network coverage can be found in Hong Kong underground network (Churchill, 2009). Due to the flat nature of this form of communications, the effectiveness of the cable can be affected by weathering and external factors such as rain and snow where the small cable can become completely submerged. This technology is used in Japanese high speed maglev test lines and is also being used in current Japanese high speed rail (Igarashi et al ., 2010). 6.3.4 Optical Fibre Cables Optical fibre cables are thin, flexible fibres that act as a waveguide to transmit light between two points. Optical fibres consist of a transparent core with a transparent material wrapped around it with a lower refractive index (Ientilucci, 1993). This contrast between the inner and outer material make total internal reflection possible. As this technology utilises total internal reflection light can be transmitted over large distances using optical fibres, as light signals do not decay, unlike electrical signals, thus so having to boost signals will not be necessary. This enables longer distances and higher bandwidths which previously difficult to obtain. One major advantage that fibre optics provides is electromagnetic immunity (Ientilucci, 1993). This means that no matter how much electromagnetic interference from the environment, the signal will not become corrupted. The light travels as binary data down each cable providing a series of on and off signals that can be decoded at either end. This form of communication can only be made from stationary transmitters, so cannot be used directly from train to command centre. However optical fibre cables provide a reliable system to provide a data service between command centre and each radio wave antenna. By using optical fibres to connect antenna to antenna for the entire system instead of using an entirely wireless communication system, this would provide a highly reliable system that contains and extra redundancies. 6-121 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Since the project is not building upon any existing lines and will be completely self contained, the laying of optical fibre cables will be cost effective as cables can be laid during construction of the tack. Due to the flexible nature of the optical fibre cables a network that follows the track is possible. 6.3.5 Summary Since information will have to be passed over many mediums a combination of different telecommunication systems is necessary in order to preserve information. By using well established technology, the reliability would increase. From this review it can be seen which forms of communication will be the most suitable for the current project. By linking both GSM-R with optical fibre can produce the most reliable system, as GSM-R is a well established communications system, and has complied to UK regulations. Optical fibre has shown to be the most reliable and fastest mode of communication. By combining both systems the overall control system will benefit. Although this set up provides the most reliable communications system, instead of using GSM-R the use of microwave transmission would be better as alteration to the microwave frequency can provide immunity from scattering by adverse weather conditions, as water resonance due to microwaves only occurs around 20GHz (Wills, 2006). The choice to use microwave transmissions instead of GMS-R, provides additional benefits to customers as well as more information being transmitted to and from the train. Using microwave transmission the possibility to share data connection with customers on the train is a possibility as microwave bandwidth is very high. Since these systems will be used in railway operations which require high levels of accuracy, regular maintenance of both receiver and antenna on train and line side must be conducted on top of standard error checking. 6.4 Conclusion Having looked at each component that makes up the control system, an overall decision of the components can be made. The overall control system will be made up of, an OCS traffic management, microwave LSD as well as for telecommunication, fibre optic cables for data transfer, power detection as well for LSD. This amalgamation of different systems provides the best combination for a safe and reliable control and traffic management system. 6-122 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 7 Socio-Economic Appraisal 7.1 Capacity and Demand Thomas Michael Wallace Understanding the demand for a system is important, not only to calculate the required capacity of the network, but to inform the financial implications of it. As a result HS2 Limited (2010) notes that “[any business case is] dependent on realising the level of demand growth forecast.” As a Maglev system represents an expensive undertaking, understanding the level of demand will help to specify the level of investment required (UIC, 2009). Typically demand is defined by considering the existing volume of traffic, while capacity is considered the increase required to sustain the market profitability. 7.1.1 Market Demand The current methodology for defining the capacity of future projects is proving that there is a gap between what is required in the future and what is provided for now (Network Rail, 2007). Therefore for HS3 to be considered feasible it must be proven that there is both sufficient demand to finance the project and that the capacity required can be provided by such a scheme. Simply extrapolating present passengers is not, alone, sufficient for predicting the demand for the system as, DfT (2007) notes, “[this method is] targeted at overcrowding,” and does not consider the aims of HS3 to encourage modal-shift and economic development. Rail travel has traditionally retained a strong hold on the long-distance travelling market, offering times from London up to Manchester that are already competitive with air travel. Since 1995 demand for inter-city rail travel has grown by 35%, although it should be noted that this is behind the 43% of domestic flights (DfT, 2007). Levinson (2001) notes that high-speed rail is “focused on the business travel market [while] pleasure travel is a secondary market,” continuing that connected cities are turned into “commuter bedroom communities.” In addition the Oil-Shock recession of the late 1970's to early 1980's has shown that as oil prices continue to rise the demand for alternative options, such as HS3, will increase (Levinson, 2001). Business travel represents 16% of all journeys in the UK (with leisure contributing 21%, and commuting 63%.) Predominately (approximately 50%) of both business and leisure customers are infrequent travellers and are not subject to peak periods, instead creating a constant demand curve throughout the working day and evening. Commuting on long distance rail services, however, is typical of stops that are under an hour’s journey from London, and therefore the current proposal 7-123 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 is likely to encourage a commuter market, although the cost of city living will be limiting. (DfT, 2007) Hong (2009) states that “transport infrastructure projects typically take place over a long time span [and as such] the travel demand will change over time, as will the network itself and the tolls.” As a result predicting the demand becomes a problem as a function of time, rather than a static calculation. It is currently the view of the governing bodies that transport projects should address capacity issues in the short to medium term, while providing indicative solutions, or reserve capacities, for the long term. This problem is compounded by the already present 40% growth deficit in the network, predicted to improve only to 30% over the next decade (DfT, 2007). Implementations of national high speed rail services have shown that the best way to ensure demand is, as Levinson (2001) states, to “connect pairs of the largest nearby cities.” This is, in essence, what is being proposed; however the comparative size of the cities does not match those of the most successful parings worldwide. The busiest high speed line in the world, UIC (2009) notes, is from Tokyo to Osaka, “carrying more than 360,000 passengers every weekday.” As systems become larger the growth-span, or time until capacity, grows longer with small networks reaching load at 6 years and some of the biggest JR lines providing 40 years (Levinson, 2001). 7.1.2 Influences and Factors The population, and more importantly the working population, of the UK is expected to increase in the future, however only London is expected to grow notably, with Manchester and Birmingham showing negligible increases and Glasgow declining (ONS, 2009). Public mobility has, however, increased, and ONS (2009) considers that new networks can create demand with “[sizes increasing by] 70% and passenger traffic increasing by 160%.” The effect of inter-city networks on stimulating economies is ambiguous however, with suggestions that shorter transport times enables single offices to serve wider communities and therefore cannibalises economic growth in smaller cities. Cheaper prices, however, arguably encourage new business to set-up with reach of larger markets. These effects should therefore not be relied upon (De Rus, 2008). DfT (2007) provides a base-case for long-distance passenger demand, predicting an increase of 2.5% a year, with an overall growth of 73% by 2030. As a result of this prediction the London to Birmingham route will be the only line at greater than 100% loading and in need to support services. This model takes into account future timetable developments, but not demand stimulated by a new service. It is expected that without HS3 service demand for these lines will increase three to four fold, with the most notable increase being between London and Glasgow (HS2 Limited, 2010). 7-124 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 One of the key competitors for the HS3 market is domestic flights. High-speed corridors are thought to initiate modal-shifts between passengers, with 81% of travellers now using Eurostar to move from London to Paris. Research indicates that this movement largely effects planes and does not notable reduce the number of drivers, or bus users. The correlation is limited to journey times shorter than 2.5 hours, matching the brief of this scheme (UIC, 2009). Previous investigations suggest that HS3 will create a 145,000 shift from air-travel and car journeys to Birmingham (HS2 Limited, 2010). Figure 7.1.2.(1) – Modal rail/air split curve (UIC, 2009) A large driver for modal-shift is climate change, with social and economic conscious creating regulations that influence users to focus on low CO2 solutions. The Stern Review has concluded that emissions must be cut by 60% for 2050, and as a result new parliamentary acts are making a target of 80%; all of which are making modal competitors less financially challenging (Network Rail, 2007). The effects of this are unknown, however, with DfT (2009) predicting that the air market will “continue growing with 350 thousand passengers predicted daily by 2030.” DfT (2007) notes that this advantage may become a future detriment to growth as “long-distance commuting [at high-speeds is still] a high carbon cost.” This is especially important with virtual technologies improving and dispensing the requirement for face-to-face travel. ONS (2009) states that for “well designed and implemented [high-speed rail systems] customer response is, as a rule, very positive and traffic will (reliably) grow.” The implementation of a 'novel' Maglev system will have an additional identifier for growth; that it is unique. This should not be underestimated, with nations such as Japan being internationally recognised by their 7-125 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 visionary implementation of a high-speed rail system. This may also be disadvantageous, however, as Goodman (2006) warns, “objectives and values change over time [with projects] implemented with full public support [later] reversed [due to] certain lifestyle objectives.” For example a move to 'small community' living would seriously endanger the project. Equally it should be noted that there are two separate business cases surrounding HS3, that of capacity and that of shorter journey times, and it is argued that the market for either is mutually exclusive (DfT, 2007). 7.1.3 Passenger Forecast Modelling for industry level predictions of demand, etc. is undertaken using the PLANET strategic model, while referencing larger schemes such as HLOS (High Level Output Specification) (Network Rail, 2007). Forecasts can then be undertaken using the PDFH (Passenger Demand Forecast Handbook) to dictate capacity of future lines (DfT, 2007). HS2 Limited (2010) notes significant issues with this approach, however, has the approach “implies rail demand will grow indefinitely [thus] over an appraisal period of 60 years this can have a very strong influence on the appraisal results.” Predictions for future capacities in 2020 show that only the WCML will be sufficiently crowded to require additional works, although some long-distance services that have been adopted by commuters full around London (Network Rail, 2007). Out of all the major routes across the country only Birmingham to London would, according to DfT (2007), suffer from “peak-period crowding [that was] acute.” In a high-growth scenario it has been suggested, by DfT (2007), that “[there would be a] possible need for additional tracks towards the end of 2024” on long-distance routes, with inter-urban journeys raising steadily from 15 to 18 billion passenger km from 2005 to 2015. Current investigations into similar routes suggest that demand from London to Birmingham will dominate the network with 145,000 passengers, while links between Manchester and Birmingham will be the least significant at 6750, and up to Glasgow showing 13850 of the linked demand (HS2 Limited, 2010). This would represent a scenario of a much larger network, however, with increased stops. The effects of maglev on demand, with notice to the unprecedented speeds offered by such a system, should also be appreciated. It is suggested that by simply being a different model it will generate demand, with potential rider-ship growth between 3-6% annually as the mode becomes standard. Equally, opportunities exist that are not available to the current market, and the ability to travel quickly between major cities may create an unprecedented demand and passenger style (UK Ultraspeed, 2008). 7-126 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 The demand for a line is related to the economic GDP, which is turn relates to the size of the working population. The external factors discussed also mean that interest in the network will also increase over time. Assuming that passenger patterns do not change drastically, this relationship allows the demand for each leg of the proposed route to be predicted. Calibrating this to the HS2 model defines the additional growth from modal-shift; considering the differences between the projects negated by the unique advantages of maglev. The full method and results are described in Figure C.7.1.(1). ( Passengers) London Birmingham Manchester Glasgow London - 79,313 74,753 18,139 Birmingham - - 30,871 3,176 Manchester - - - 15,332 Glasgow - - - - Figure 7.1.3.(1) – Daily 2060 demand to/from stations The market aim for the project is fast and frequent. The size of the fleet has therefore been optimised to meet timetable requirements of departures every 5 to 10 minutes across a typical 17 hour working day. Transrapid (2010) advertise the flexible configuration of their train’s distinctly connectable sections, up to ten in number. This will be employed to make capital expenditure more manageable and it is envisioned that the system will start with 4 no. four section trains and purchase five new sections every year to meet demand; stockpiling prior to the construction of each network phase. 7.1.4 Limitations and Uncertainties Predictions are inherently complex, as assumptions are made and carried forward. This is further exacerbated by the long duration that demand forecasts are made across (ONS, 2009). There is conflicting evidence surrounding the effectiveness of rail demand predictions with DfT (2007) considering that it “cannot be predicted with any confidence over a 20-year time horizon,” but evidence from De Rus (2008) shows how both JR and TGV successfully predicted demand from 1965 to 1990. One of the biggest issues is social behaviour, with micro issues such as local conditions and the workings of organisations providing a significant source of uncertainty (Goodman, 2006). Financial incentive has been identified as one of the chief drivers for demand. Currently, however, that nation is in recession, and as HS2 Limited (2010) notes “people's propensity to make more frequent and longer trips [grows only] as they get richer.” The effect that this may have on the opening capacity of the network is important, and is illustrated by the post-war period decline for Network Rail that lost the market share from 16% to 5% between 1955 and 1995, a trend that has 7-127 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 only been fully reversed in the last booming decade (DfT, 2007). It is therefore possible that demand may not, in-fact, grow, but fall over future periods. A plateau to the design growth of the system has been set at 2060, although it should be appreciated that there remains an engineering reserve in the network. This matches the timeline estimates used during HS2 to calculate demand (HS2 Limited, 2010). The individual correlations used in the model have coefficients of determination ranging from 0.7 to 0.9. Although this does not assure the relationships employed, it does provide a degree of certainty in their extrapolation. In conclusion; predictions are uncertain things, and it can be seen that many items influence the demand of a high-speed rail network. Mitigating the risks of over-capacity can only be done through successful forecasting. Creating a network designed to stimulate demand by respecting influences, such as financial and social responses, can help to reduce uncertainty, however. Proof that there is adequate demand will give confidence to future investors, with the modelling already undertaken considered indicative of further research. 7.2 Cost Estimation Group Work This section aims to provide an approximation of the cost of the HS3 scheme. At this early stage in the project’s development there is insufficient design information (i.e. detailed route plans) for a bill of quantities approach. Instead, costs have been taken from other highspeed rail projects and applied with a broad brush to HS3. The following projects and associated published documents have been used as a basis for the cost estimation: High Speed 2 – London to the West Midlands and Beyond HS2 Cost and Risk Model, December 2009 This document sets out very clearly the way in which the costs for the proposed highspeed line from London to Birmingham have been determined. Although there is the fundamental difference of train system types between HS2 and HS3, there are some costs that are common to both systems. It is also favourable that the document has been published recently and that it is based on prices in the UK. West Los Angeles to Ontario International Airport Maglev Southern California Association of Governments Maglev Deployment Program Refined Cost Estimates, July 2006 7-128 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 This document costs the first phase of the proposed California-Nevada Interstate Maglev project. Construction of this project has not gone ahead (Las Vegas Sun, 2010). Even though the project has not gone ahead, there are similarities in its design to the HS3 scheme, which make it a useful tool for cost estimation. The speed capabilities are comparable, and the California-Nevada route can be considered long distance (like HS3) in comparison with existing Maglev applications. The HS3 costs have been broken down into manageable sections: Construction Costs Project Costs Vehicle Costs Operating Costs The method of cost estimation used within each of these sections is discussed in the following paragraphs. The Californian Maglev prices were converted from American dollars to British pounds using the exchange rate in July 2006 (X-rates, 2010). All costs have been brought in line with 2009 levels (a rate for 2010 was not available) using the World Bank GDP inflation data for the UK (World Bank, 2010). The full cost estimation spreadsheet can be found in Appendix C.7.2.(1). 7.2.1 Construction costs This section includes the base construction costs, the Contractor administration costs, the land/compensation costs and environmental mitigation costs. It also includes a sum for construction risk. 7.2.1.1 Base construction cost The base construction costs include the guideway, earthworks, tunnels, stations and infrastructure for the train control systems and the power supply/distribution. The guideway and earthworks costs are based on results from a cost estimation study of a Transrapid Maglev system (Schach & Naumann, 2007) and take the form of a mean cost per double track kilometre. The tunnel costs have been based on the HS2 figures. HS2 tunnelling costs have been ‘ built up from generic and historic data’ and have been reviewed by the Crossrail tunnel package manager and hence represent the most accurate starting point available for the HS3 tunnel costs. Although it is appreciated that the tunnelling costs will be extremely sensitive to the ground conditions and the tunnel diameters, it is beyond the scope of this study to determine location and size specific tunnelling costs. The tunnel costs take the form of cost per tunnel route metre. All three tunnels 7-129 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 have been priced as twin bore 7.25m internal diameter tunnels. This specification matches the preferred configuration of the HS3 tunnels and internal diameter is within the preferred HS3 range. It is acknowledged that the level of cost uncertainty for the HS3 tunnels, especially for the Manchester tunnels, is significant. The station costs are also based on HS2 station cost estimates, which in turn have been based on recent station construction works such as Ebbsfleet International and Stratford International on the Highspeed One line. The parkway station costs appear to be disproportional to some of the city centre station costs; the reason for this is that they include extra civils works for expanding the surrounding road networks, car parks and airport connecting structures. The proposed control system's cost can be estimated using quotes provided for ERTMS implementation. This is due to similarities between ERTMS and proposed system. These similarities cover the telecommunication system, in-cab equipment (see section 7.2.3) and control centre. For the proposed system, the microwave transmission towers are similar to towers for GSM-R used in ERTMS. The cost of the ERTMS infrastructure is based on figures published by The Association of the European Rail Industry, and are given as a cost per route km (Hope, 2006). The power supply/distribution costs include the cost of constructing ‘feeder stations’ and associated infrastructure along the route to transfer power from the National Grid to the guideway. The cost of this for HS3 is applied per route-km and is based on the Californian Maglev figures. 7.2.1.2 Contractor administration costs The Contractor administration costs are calculated as percentages of the base construction costs. The percentages used in the HS2 cost model are applied to HS3. It is judged that Contractor cost percentage is unlikely to vary significantly for the construction of a Maglev system as opposed to a conventional highspeed system. The percentage allocation for testing, commissioning, training and spares within the Contractor’s administration costs has also been taken as the HS2 allowance (7%). Although it is felt that because the HS3 Maglev system is a leading edge technology, that the cost of testing etc will be greater than that for HS2, the 7% allowance has not been increased on the assumption that Transrapid will be liable for much of the testing (Bitter & Matthee, 2003). 7.2.1.3 Land/compensation costs The land/compensation costs are impossible to estimate accurately at this stage of the HS3 project. The HS2 valuation has been carried out by property advisors and is estimated at £0.93 billion for the railway corridor between Euston and Birmingham Fazeley Street. This is equivalent to approximately £5.3 million per route-km. To generate the HS3 land/compensation cost, £5.3m/km has been applied over the length of the route. Although this is a very crude estimate, it is 7-130 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 envisaged to be conservative; the urban density en-route from Manchester to Glasgow is considerably less, and hence land value is expected to be less than for the London-Birmingham leg. 7.2.1.4 Environmental mitigation costs Environmental mitigation costs are represented as a percentage of the base construction cost. HS2 has applied two levels, 3% or 5%, depending on how significant the potential environmental damage in particular areas. The Californian costs allowed for 3% of the base construction costs for environmental impact mitigation. Based on the assumption that the environmental impact in terms of noise and vibration will be less for the HS3 Maglev than for HS2, the lower end of 3% will be applied for the HS3 costs. 7.2.1.5 Construction risk costs The HS2 costs include a cost for construction risk. This has been calculated using a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). Location specific and route wide risks have been identified and assigned a monetary value. The highest value risk to the cost of construction for HS2 is tunnelling. At this stage in the development of HS3, the uncertainty about cost is extremely high, making it near impossible to recommend a value for construction risk. It is felt however, that to generate an estimated scheme cost which does not take any account of risk would be even more unrealistic than including a guesstimate value of risk. Although the Maglev technology is deemed less established than conventional highspeed rail technology, the component parts of the construction of a Maglev highspeed line have all been done before. For this reason, a percentage risk allowance of 19% base construction cost (equivalent to that generated in the HS2 QRA) will be included in the HS3 total construction cost. 7.2.2 Project Costs These are based on HS2 allowances as these provide the best available indication of costs for the UK and are as follows: Item Allowance applied Client/project management 8% of construction cost Design including consultancy charges 8% of construction cost Surveys (ground/topography) Allowance of £150,000 per route-km 7-131 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 HS2 also applies allowances for the cost of affecting existing railway. HS3 is obviously not compatible with existing railway and so most of the allowance for rail possession and train operator compensation etc will not apply. However, due to the fact that the HS3 line has been designed to run adjacent to existing transport corridors wherever possible, there are some areas where existing railway is affected during construction. HS2 allowed 10% of base construction cost to cover the cost of route sections affecting existing railway; it is proposed that an allowance of 5% is a conservative reduction for HS3. Statutory charges are another area of cost estimation that is very hard to predict within the scope of this feasibility study. Once again, the HS2 allowance for this item forms the basis of the HS3 allowance. 7.2.3 Vehicle Costs Unfortunately, due to the fact that there are no JR Maglev trains in public operation, there is no published data on the cost of a JR Maglev train. The Californian Maglev document provides the cost of a TransRapid 09 train with eight cars. The TransRapid 09, with a design cruising speed of 500kph, provides the next best benchmark for cost estimation. The proposed in-cab equipment will provide similar services to ERTMS; the signalling is all in-cab. The cost per train of the in- cab equipment has been based on an ERTMS system purchased by Renfe, a spanish train operator for a train line in Madrid (Barrow, 2010). 7.2.4 Operating Costs These have been broken down into the following items: Infrastructure operations and maintenance Train maintenance and renewal Power supply Traincrew Station staffing and maintenance 7.2.4.1 Infrastructure operations and maintenance The cost of replacing the RC guideway have been assumed equivalent to a guideway renewal rate of 1% every year; this has been based on Network Rail values altered for the increased reliability of Maglev guideways (Network Rail, 2010), (Transrapid, 2010). The infrastructure operational costs and other general maintenance costs are not quoted in the Californian Maglev document and consequently the cost for HS3 has been based on the HS2 allowance of £180,000 per route-km per year. 7-132 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 7.2.4.2 Train maintenance and renewal The JR Maglev trains are estimated to have a 40 year life. It is assumed that the route will be completed in phases, and hence the fleet of trains will also be increased gradually. The allowance for train renewal and maintenance costs is 12% of the value of the train fleet per year (Campos, 2007). 7.2.4.3 Power supply The power supply is based on a train section energy usage of 1.643MW (see section 5.6). An electricity price (Europe's Energy Portal, 2010) has been applied to calculate the yearly energy usage based on 17-hour operational days. 7.2.4.4 Traincrew Each train in service will require one driver and one guard; the annual salaries have been estimated and allowed for in proportion to the planned number of services (BBC, 2010). 7.2.4.5 Station staffing and maintenance Similarly to the station construction costs, the station staffing and maintenance costs are not expected to differ significantly from for an HS3 station compared with an HS2 station. The HS2 prices have been scaled to suit the size and type of HS3 stations. 7.2.5 Summary It must be stressed that the costs that have been generated for HS3 are by no means certain. One element which the HS3 costs do not include in comparison with the HS2 costs is Additional Risk Provision . This allowance in the HS2 costs was calculated in line with HM Treasury supplementary Green Book Guidance. It is a method of counteracting ‘optimism bias’, which is a tendency for project evaluators to under-estimate the costs. The method of calculating this additional risk provision is based on factors which would be impossible to evaluate at this stage of a project. For this reason an allowance for this has not been made in the HS3 figures. The estimated scheme cost (including construction and project costs but excluding vehicle and operational costs) is £44.8 billion. 7-133 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 7.3 Revenue Potential Group Work Calculating the revenue potential of the system relies heavily on a number of assumptions already made in this report, and therefore is susceptible to significant changes under scrutiny. The potential earnings of the network are limited both by its capacity and the demand for it. Iteratively the demand is then affected by the ticket costs (Goodman, 2006). A balance must therefore be struck between the need for low prices to compete and drive the market and the need to cover operating costs and recuperate the initial investment. 7.3.1 Ticket Sales Currently Passenger Focus (2010) has found that customer satisfaction with the speed and frequencies of long-distance services are already within 90%. This suggests that economical advantage cannot be pushed for a quicker network. HS2 Limited (2010) argues, however, that “international and historical experience of high speed rail suggests that journey times of around 4 hours are where the rail market is most sensitive to changes in rail journey times.” This argument is, however, counter intuitive with the majority of stops already being without this limit. It can be argued that the most determinant influences to perceived value are accessibility, parking conditions and facilities (De Rus, 2008). The value for money of the current services have been found, by Passenger Focus (2010), to be below 55% for long-distance rail journeys; suggesting that a major opportunity to motivate choice is financial. This is even more important if the service is to target the leisure market, as DfT (2008) finds “commuters and business travellers tended to have higher household incomes than leisure travellers.” The cost of a ticket on the rail is a difficult subject to balance, however, as attempting to value the service better for investors; that is to shorten the capital return time, would result in radical changes to the railway demand (De Rus, 2008). (£) London Birmingham Manchester Glasgow London - £ 5.00 £ 8.00 £ 12.00 Birmingham £ 20.00 - £ 4.00 £ 10.50 Manchester £ 97.50 £ 30.10 - £ 9.50 Glasgow £ 113.70 £ 40.00 £ 89.00 - Figure 7.3.1.(1) – Minimum and maximum current train ticket prices (National Rail, 2011) The total cost of a ticket should reflect the competition. Domestic airlines currently offer flights for a price varying from £60 to £185 (Expedia, 2011). These, however, do not include the trips from centre to airport, normally from £17.90 (National Rail, 2011). Arguably there is also 7-134 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 additional value that can be brought both for the speed and ease of the service; however this may be countered by the increased frequency that, despite appearing an enhanced service, requires lower prices to encourage a market. The price elasticity of demand for the novelty of the system should not be ignored. As with most new technology there is a market that will be willing to pay a premium for early adoption. Known as price skimming, this approach is normally used to recuperate high research costs (Greyling, 2007). Although it is unlikely this exercise can be used to completely cover the initial investment, its application is likely to contribute to the projects success. Pending further market research it is suggested that for the first month of each track launch exceptional prices are employed, before falling to standard rates. Both the trains and plane operators employ an opaque fares scheme based on the demand for each individual journey. One of the governmental objectives is to encourage economic development, and therefore travel, across the country. Combined with the project aim to be quick, cheap and frequent it is suggested that a fixed price structure be offered. Considering current costs these represent competitive fares, while their static nature will promote a new market of impromptu travel between the cities. (£) London Birmingham Manchester Glasgow London - £ 8.00 £ 12.00 £ 18.00 Birmingham £ 50.00 - £ 5.00 £ 10.00 Manchester £ 100.00 £ 50.00 - £ 6.00 Glasgow £ 150.00 £ 100.00 £ 50.00 - Figure 7.3.1.(2) – Proposed fare structure during skimming (red) and operation (green) For clarity the proposed fare structure represents 2010 prices. Given the long lead times and staggered construction phasing the true ‘opening’ tickets have been adjusted to include inflation. Figure C.7.1.(1) includes the fully integrated demand and ticket revenue model. The largest uncertainties from this calculation are derived directly from the predicted demand, negating those of the accepted fares. 7.3.2 Additional Sources Revenue streams are not limited, however, to ticket sales. There are a number of additional options that should be identified as they would help finance the project. Advertising is a huge industry in the UK, and reaching businesses through a dedicated route is of significant worth (Greyling, 2007). In-train advertising would therefore represent a premium, and could be better accommodated using on-board screens; providing a more interactive medium. Additionally the 7-135 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 guideway structure itself would provide an unrivalled board for posting, with each of the piers capable of holding adverts Quantifying the sales potential is difficult prior to established capacity across the system. Typical revenue across long-distance lines earned by Network Rail and within London stations have been collated (CBS, 2010). This information has been combined with average earnings from billboards, assuming that with aesthetic planning limitations only one for every mile will be allowed (Morden, 2010). It is likely that this will be conservative for urban areas; however this will be balanced by the cross-country legs of the journey. It is therefore considered that these predictions carry a degree of accuracy in keeping with the scope of this report. Key Date On-Board Station Cross-Country Total London - Birmingham £82m £52m £30m £165m Birmingham - Manchester £88m £78m £24m £190m Manchester - Glasgow £110m £104m £56m £270m Figure 7.3.2.(1) – Predicted annual revenue from advertising 7.4 Social Effects Group Work The social effects of HS3 commissioning are viewed from some perspectives such as market accessibility, economic growth, land take, dependency on the mode of transportation and several other factors. According to findings from the London School of Economics and Political Science and in collaboration with the University of Hamburg, towns that are interconnected with high- speed lines portrays the increment in GDP per capita of at least 2.7 percent as compared to the bordering towns which are not located alongside the train route (LSE, 2010). This also brings a large economic benefits to the community of the town. The potential economic effects of high speed train were studied by the USA Economic Development Research Group upon its implementation in 2035. The research covers four cities which are Chicago, Los Angeles, Orlando and Albany. It is reported that existence of high speed train assist in accelerating local development in the cities where the stations are built (Nusca, 2010). Indirectly, this would reflect a good impact on the tourism activities in the long range as well as creates more job opportunities to the cities. High speed trains also contribute to the betterment of business productivity by providing bigger access between places. Larger cities are accessible within a short period of time which would increase individuals’ mobility, thus widening inter-region labour markets, exchanging expertise and encouraging more collaboration in terms of technology, education and so forth (Nusca, 2010). 7-136 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Road and air traffic overcrowding could be reduced with shortened travel time. In Europe and Japan, high speed trains usage has greatly reduced on-the- road vehicles which have benefit the society by lessening road repairs and maintenance. In addition, CO2 emissions could also be reduced as road transportation and airplane are the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect (Transrapid, 2010). For most people, train travel is also more convenient and comfortable as it seldom being delayed due to bad weather. In addition, train traveling eliminates the jet-lag and bumpy issues. Less bumpy journeys allow passengers to be able to read and walk stably on board thus making trains more suitable for families with babies or elders (LuggageGuides, 2008). The drawbacks of maglev trains as mentioned in section (2.2) have to be taken into account in order to have good impact from public. The public perception can be improved to implement maglev trains in the UK since i had been proved to be more safe, reliable, fast, and environmental friendly. Down the road, high speed trains advantages outweigh the drawbacks. Besides its main purpose of shorten long-haul journeys to be 40 percent less time than current high speed train, it also encourage the exchange of people and thoughts between regions and cities the train connects. 7.5 Economic Feasibility Tang et al (2010) stresses that the risk of bankruptcy needs to be scrutinised in large-scale public projects. The project cash flow is dependent on operating revenue, and thus it should be introduced as soon as possible. The scope of HS3 is to provide a high speed ground transportation system between London and Glasgow, but there is no specific constraint on the the order and phasing of how the line will ultimately be constructed. When assessing the feasibility of the project, different phasing options were considered. From the Cost Estimation and Revenue Potential sections it can be concluded that Birmingham-Manchester is the shortest route, but London-Birmingham has the lowest capital costs and the highest revenues. The following options have been considered: Building the project in its entirety in one phase Or building London-Birmingham first, and get immediate revenue benefits and then build Birmingham-Manchester, then Manchester-Glasgow or Manchester-Glasgow, then Birmingham-Manchester Based on the information above, it is suggested that the project will be constructed in phases to generate revenue as soon as possible. The following phasing is proposed. The London- Birmingham will be designed and constructed first. Once it becomes operational, the other two 7-137 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 legs will be designed and construction will begin at the same time. The Birmingham-Manchester route is expected to become operational first due to its shorter length and will be able to generate revenue sooner. 7.6 Project Financing Juin-Lun Tai Due to the shear size of this project, the costs to build even the guide way and communication towers would be in the tens of billions of pounds. The cost of this scheme means that the project cannot be funded entirely by the private sector, and the majority of the project's funding would have to come from government expenditure (HM Treasury, 2010). Financially the assests can be separated into: stationary and moving categories. Moving assets encompasses the trains and all equipment within the set. Stationary assets encompasses, the guideway itself, telecommunication, train detection hardware, command centres, and stations. Due to the high capital costs of stationary assets government expenditure is required as private firms cannot fund the construction of a new network of this magnitude. The Department for Transport (DfT) is allocated a fraction of the public expenditure in order to upgrade existing lines and fund new projects. In 2010 a total of £22bn was allocated for the DfT of which £14bn was spent on rail investments such as Crossrail and £8bn on other major local transport projects (HM Treasury, 2010). Despite this, private investment is encouraged with 20% of the construction costs met by various companies (Crossrail, 2010). Large scale projects, such as constructing a new railway network, do not require the entire funds before construction begins, however funding can theefore be obtained over large spans of time, thus the annual budget will be minimised. Moving assets, since the privatisation of British Rail in 1994 have been provided by private firms and then leased to train operators. Currently there are three companies which provide such a services are, Eversholt Rail Group, Angel Trains, and Porterbrook (ORR, 2010). Providing exclusivity to one of these three companies for the funding, at preferable routes, of the entire fleet would reduce reliance on government expenditures. By combining both government and private funds enough capital should be generated to float the project. However in this current financial climate in guaranteeing funding commitments for such a large project would be near impossible, in the face of government cuts across the board. Looking to the future of the country could indicate when this could be possible. Windows of opportunity will arise once new construction projects (i.e. crossrail) finishes and the country emerges from the current recession and slump and rising national debt. Once out of the current recession the start of the 15year design phase can begin, as the initial costs for designs is relatively inexpensive. Once design is completed sufficient amount of time would have passed 7-138 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 for UK to emerge from the recession and funding once again available for infesting in a new railway system. 7-139 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 8 Conclusion 8.1 Proposed Scheme Group Work High Speed 3 is the beginning of a new era for British train travel. The proposed line from London to Glasgow, via Birmingham and Manchester, will allow Maglev trains to travel at speeds of up to 480km/h. HS3 journey times will be less than half of current rail journey times. The remit for HS3 is to provide a journey time that is not more than 60% of the current main-line journey time. The table below shows how the HS3 journey times easily meet the 60% target. HS3 time as a percentage Journey HS3 journey time of current time (National Rail Enquiries, 2010) London - Birmingham 0 hr 37 min 45% London - Manchester 0 hr 57 min 45% London - Glasgow 1 hr 51 min 45% Birmingham - Manchester 0 hr 28 min 32% Birmingham - Glasgow 1 hr 22 min 35% Manchester - Glasgow 0 hr 52 min 27% Figure 8.1.(1). Journey time target check. The HS3 train is bespoke, combining two leading technologies to create the revolutionary Maglev system. The aerodynamic design of the JR Maglev train body will be used with the Transrapid propulsion, levitation and guidance system which has already been a success in Shanghai. Enlarged crumple zones made of energy absorbing aluminium honeycomb are a key feature of the train design, demonstrating that safety is a HS3 priority. Accelerations, vibrations and noise levels have been carefully considered to ensure maximum passenger comfort. Guideway power usage detection will be the basis of the train control system; it will provide a simple and reliable method of allowing high frequency services. The train telecommunication system uses microwave transmission, which is fail-safe in virtually all weather conditions and can accommodate a wireless passenger internet service to meet the expectations of the business market. The guideway structure will be pre-fabricated, pre-stressed concrete. The modular design will reduce development time and cost, and allow the discrete sections to be maintained and replaced with ease. The strategic positioning of city centre stations and parkway stations ensures the HS3 8-140 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 service will generate maximum demand. The optimal route follows existing transport corridors, avoiding residential and environmentally sensitive areas. HS3 will largely be publicly financed. Revenue will be generated from ticket sales, guideway and in-train advertising, and the network also has the potential to be used for freight. HS3 business model is for an affordable and frequent service, in order to compete with aviation. 8.2 Feasibility Group Work Feasibility is a measure of whether a project may be practically undertaken. From the interpreted brief a solution has been developed that represents, from the view of this strategic study, the most viable conceptual design. By undertaking a risk-based analysis of key technologies, the social impact and the financial return of the scheme, an overall opinion of HS3 can be concluded. The conviction of this judgment may then be measured against the uncertainties of the study. 8.2.1 Technical Feasibility There have been no areas within the proposed scheme that could not be technically overcome. The main components of the system are technologies that have already been developed, and often commercially tried and tested. The uncertainties surround the implementation and integration of them. Additionally, the employment of cutting-edge systems carries the risk of unproven design lives and levels of reliability. The most significant assumption made is the compatibility of the Transrapid propulsion system with a more aerodynamic body; comparable to JR-Maglev. The successful alignment of the track also requires tunnelling that, if nonviable, may render the project impossible due to planning constraints. Initial justification of the concepts has been made, however, the technical feasibility carries a moderate uncertainty. This conclusion yields to further research into the reliability of the train-set, the logistics of the signalling system and the complete definition of the modular guideway. Following this, a more detailed consultation should be undertaken to develop the concept into a testable design. It is anticipated that this will result in a scheme that does not deviate significantly from that proposed in this report. 8-141 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 8.2.2 Social Feasibility A limited investigation into the social impact has been undertaken as part of the report, and has been found broadly positive. While it is sure that such a project would encourage movement between these economic hubs, whether this will create, or minimise business is not clear. Additionally it is not certain that the whole life carbon cost of the scheme would be positive. Following the assurance of technical feasibility, a detailed proposal should be used to inform a study on the wider socio-economic effects of the brief. This must be viewed, alongside a more complete financial investigation, before a complete conclusion can be sought. Indicatively, however, it is suggested that the scheme has significant potential social merits, which should be possible to achieve. 8.2.3 Financial Feasibility Financially, the scheme is considered feasible as its projected revenue is beyond its operational costs. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project will return the capital investment 75 years after the final phase is commissioned. Although the expenditure required renders it unsuitable for completely private financing, the predicted recuperation is typically unrivalled in public infrastructure spending. The uncertainties of the design, however, augmented with the significant potential for variation in costs renders conclusions unclear at this stage. Aside from the costs, the most notable assumptions made surround the rates of interest applied and the simplifications of the model. A sensitivity analysis has proven that the range of profitability does not match the potential variation of expenditure. Although this model can be used to provide an initial indication of the success of the project, the claim of financial feasibility carries significant uncertainty. Following the development of a more detailed scheme, it is recommended that the financial model is revisited. With the costing uncertainties reduced, the analysis may yield a level of sensitivity that encompasses the risks, thus providing justification to begin detailed planning. Consideration for the funding of HS3 should start early, as this will take considerable consultation and is an important factor of viability. It is anticipated that future financial scrutiny will differ significantly from that found in the report, however it is suggested that the notion of the conclusion will persevere. 8-142 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 8.3 Concluding Remarks Group Work The feasibility study considers the brief feasible for future investigation, outlining a conceptual solution that warrants the investment of more detailed consultation. Future technical studies should focus on train design, the ability to tunnel, logistics of high frequency control and modular guideway construction in order to confirm the design. Following this, the scheme should be re- evaluated for its financial viability within a wider societal context. Indicatively, however, the brief of HS3 would be feasible. 8-143 Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 A. References and Bibliography Complete list of Harvard style references, ordered by chapter, with bibliography where appropriate. A Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 B. Maps and Drawings Figure B.4.2.2.(1) Greater London route plan Figure B.4.2.2.(2) Central London route plan Figure B.4.2.3.(1) Birmingham route plan Figure B.4.2.3.(2) Central Birmingham route plan Figure B.4.2.4.(1) Manchester route plan Figure B.4.2.4.(2) Central Manchester route plan Figure B.4.2.4.(3) Greater Manchester route plan Figure B.4.2.5.(1) Glasgow route plan Figure B.4.2.5.(2) Central Glasgow route plan Figure B.4.3.2.(1) Proposed HS3 route between London and Birmingham Figure B.4.3.3.(1) Proposed HS3 route between Birmingham and Manchester Figure B.4.3.4.(1) Proposed HS3 route between Manchester and Glasgow (Part 1) Figure B.4.3.4.(2) Proposed HS3 route between Manchester and Glasgow (Part 2) Figure B.4.3.4.(3). Proposed HS3 route between Manchester and Glasgow (Part 3) B Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 C. Modelling and Calculations Figure C.3.2.(1) Energy and Power Model Figure C.4.1.2(1) Journey Time Model Figure C.7.1.(1) Demand, Capacity and Ticket Revenue Model Summary Figure C.7.2.(1) Cost Estimation Figure C.7.5.(1) Economic Feasibility Model C Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 D. Additional Resources Figure D.4.1.2.(1). Performance allowance for HS3 based on these figures Figure D.4.2.2.(1) Stratford International station of open box construction with tunnel portals at both ends of the station; Old Oak Common station will be similar to this Figure D.4.2.4.(1). Map showing high urban density west of Manchester Figure D.4.2.4.(2). Princess Road, Manchester as an alternative over ground route to the city centre Figure D.4.2.4.(3). The proximity of Manchester Victoria Station to the pedestrian priority core Figure D.4.2.4.(4). Ground level increase between Manchester Victoria and M61 limits options for tunnel portal position. An especially sharp rise is observed in the Clifton and Pendlebury area Figure D.4.2.4.(5). Final alignment of Manchester’s North tunnel portal Figure D.4.2.5.(1). Two routes through the Southern Uplands to Glasgow; river Nith/A76 or river Annan/M74 Figure D.4.2.5.(2). Grade A-listed Fairfield building to be restored as part of Glasgow Govan HS3 station Table D.2.2.(1). General outline of capabilities for wheel on rail technologies Figure D.4.3.1.(1). Map of protected areas in the UK showing National Parks in yellow and AONBs in orange Figure D.4.3.1.(2). Listed Buildings between London and Birmingham Figure D.4.3.2.(1). The Chilterns with the HS3 route Figure D.4.3.2.(2). LB 4 HS3’s deviation of Ufton and Long Itchington Wood (SSSI) and HS2’s original proposal Figure D.4.3.3.(1). BM 1 Route diversion considered between Rugeley and Hixon and proposed route (red). Cannot take place due to terrain causing an 11% gradient Figure D.4.3.3.(2). BM 5 line of residential housing that cannot be avoided and the proposed route. The image also illustrates the measured length of 65 metres that the track can take up without using any of the listed building’s property D Group 1 Feasibility Report High Speed 3 Figure D.4.3.4.(1). Alternative route option running between Bolton and Horwich and passing between Preston and Blackburn. Image also shows alternative route option to running through Coppull and the proposed route Figure D.4.3.4.(2). Alternative route from Gretna to Glasgow Parkway and proposed route Figure D.4.3.5.(1). Electricity Transmission UK Figure D.5.4.3.(1). Effect of entry hood length on the peak pressure of impulse wave Figure D.5.4.3.(2). Tunnel hoods at the south portal of Guadarrama tunnel Figure D.5.4.4.(3). Bedrock geology overlay showing tunnel alignment and existing railways Figure D.5.4.4.(4). Distribution of engineering soils Figure D.5.4.4.(5). Section B shows the superficial deposits in the River Irwell region – the Manchester tunnel is shown indicatively Figure D.5.4.4.(6). Rockhead elevation and thickness of superficial deposits Figure D.5.4.4.(7). Thickness of till Figure D.5.4.4.(8). The principle of compensation grouting E