Comparative
calculation study
for the existing
and the bypass
line Tbilisi
Final Report
June 2013 - P13005 (19.6.2013)
Client/Beneficiary:
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Content
Content ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.
Project sheet ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.
Management Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7
3.
Methodology and general assumptions ........................................................................................................... 10
4.
3.1.
General assumptions: .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.
Type of traction ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Travel time calculation ..................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2.
Input data ................................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.1.
Infrastructure data plans .................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.2.
Vehicle data ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.3.
Operational requirements ................................................................................................................ 16
4.3.
5.
6.
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1.
Existing line ...................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2.
Bypass line....................................................................................................................................... 22
Train operations/maintenance comparison (TOMC)........................................................................................ 23
5.1.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 23
5.2.
Input Data ................................................................................................................................................ 24
5.3.
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
5.3.1.
Time and traction km ....................................................................................................................... 28
5.3.2.
Electricity costs ................................................................................................................................ 29
5.3.3.
Shunting Personnel and shunting costs (freight trains) ................................................................... 30
5.3.4.
Traction maintenance and utilisation ............................................................................................... 31
5.3.5.
Capacity and necessary traction units ............................................................................................. 33
Infrastructure operations/maintenance comparison (IOC, IMC) ...................................................................... 36
page 2 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
7.
6.1.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 36
6.2.
Input data ................................................................................................................................................. 37
6.3.
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Scenario analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 39
7.1.
Methodology: ........................................................................................................................................... 39
7.2.
Base scenario .......................................................................................................................................... 40
7.2.1.
Assumptions: ................................................................................................................................... 40
7.2.2.
Result: .............................................................................................................................................. 40
7.3.
Scenario 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 44
7.3.1.
Assumptions: ................................................................................................................................... 44
7.3.2.
Result: .............................................................................................................................................. 44
7.3.3.
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Annex ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Annex 1a F-V-diagrams locomotion VL 10 .......................................................................................................... 47
Annex 1b Data locomotion VL 10 ........................................................................................................................ 49
Annex 2a F-V-diagrams EMU .............................................................................................................................. 50
Annex 2b Data EMU ............................................................................................................................................ 50
Annex 3a Existing Line passenger train EMU without stop, Vmax = 80 km/h .................................................... 51
Annex 3b Existing Line passenger train EMU without stop, Vmax = 100 km/h .................................................. 52
Annex 4a Existing Line passenger train EMU with 8 stops, Vmax = 80 km/h ..................................................... 53
Annex 4b Existing Line passenger train EMU with 8 stops, Vmax = 100 km/h ................................................... 54
Annex 5 Existing Line passenger train long 1 locomotive without stop ............................................................... 56
Annex 6 Existing Line passenger train long 1 locomotive 8 stops ...................................................................... 57
Annex 7 Existing Line passenger train short 1 locomotive with 8 stops .............................................................. 59
Annex 8 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 1200 t one stop ........................................................................ 60
Annex 9 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 1800 t one stop ........................................................................ 61
Annex 10 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 2200 t one stop ...................................................................... 61
Annex 11 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 3000 t one stop ...................................................................... 62
Annex 12 Existing Line freight train 2 locomotives 3500 t one stop .................................................................... 62
Annex 13 Existing Line freight train 2 locomotives 4000 t one stop .................................................................... 63
page 3 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 14 Bypass Line passenger train EMU without 2 stops ............................................................................. 63
Annex 15 Bypass Line passenger train 1 locomotive long without stop ............................................................. 65
Annex 16 Bypass Line freight train 1 locomotive 1200 t with one stop ............................................................... 66
Annex 17 Bypass Line freight train 1 locomotive 1800 t with one stop ............................................................... 67
Annex 18 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 2200 t with two stops ............................................................ 67
Annex 19 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 3000 t with two stops ............................................................ 68
Annex 20 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 3500 t with two stops ............................................................ 68
Annex 21 Bypass Line freight train 2 and 3 locomotives 4000 t with two stops .................................................. 69
Annex 22 Running time and energy consumption existing line ........................................................................... 70
Annex 23 Passenger trains existing line in detail ................................................................................................ 72
Annex 24 Running time and energy consumption bypass line ........................................................................... 73
Annex 26 Calculation Model ................................................................................................................................ 74
Annex 26a General Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 74
Annex 26b Train operations/maintenance comparison (TOMC) ......................................................................... 74
Annex 26c Infrastructure operations/maintenance comparison (IOC, IMC) ........................................................ 82
Annex 26d Base Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 91
Annex 26e Scenario 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 102
page 4 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Methodology operation cost comparison study ......................................................................................... 10
Figure 2 Schematic sketch lines .............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3 Overview – Train Operations Cost Comparison ........................................................................................ 23
Figure 4 Overview – Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis (travel km, travel time, maintenance
cost, electricity, personnel for shunting, capacity, necessary locomotives) ............................................................. 27
Figure 5 Overview - Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison .............................................. 36
Figure 6 Diagram - Result Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison ..................................... 39
Figure 7 Diagram - Result Base Scenario ............................................................................................................... 40
Figure 8 Diagram - Result Base Scenario – by items cumulated ............................................................................ 43
Table of Tables
Table 1 Overview of available plans ........................................................................................................................ 14
Table 2 Existing Line – train compositions for travel time analysis ......................................................................... 17
Table 3 Bypass Line – train compositions for travel time analysis .......................................................................... 19
Table 4 Daily operations program ............................................................................................................................ 25
Table 5 Overview – Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis ........................................................... 26
Table 6 Daily travel time comparison ....................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7 Daily travel km comparison ......................................................................................................................... 29
Table 8 Daily train electricity consumption comparison ........................................................................................... 30
Table 9 Daily shunting times and cost consumption comparison ............................................................................ 31
Table 10 Daily train maintenance comparison ......................................................................................................... 32
Table 11 Daily train utilisation comparison ............................................................................................................... 33
Table 12 Daily train capacity over by-pass .............................................................................................................. 34
Table 13 Daily traction unit necessity over by-pass ................................................................................................. 35
Table 14 Result Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison ..................................................... 38
Table 15 Result Base Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 41
Table 16 Result Scenario 1 Comparison ................................................................................................................. 45
page 5 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
1. Project sheet
Project number
Tbl13-080 26-3-2013, P13005
Project title
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line
Tbilisi
Allocation/budget line
Georgian Railways
Implementing partner
MC Mobility Consultants GmbH
Awarded on
25 March 2013 and signed on 26 March 2013
Beneficiary
Georgian Railways
Budget of the component, MEUR
41.600 + travel costs
Responsible project manager at the Georgian Mr. Akaki Saghirashvili, Mr. Giorgi Zasashvili
Railways
Holger Eiletz (V1) – 19.6.2013 – Based on Draft Final Report V5 –
14.6.2013 (Accepted – e-mail 19.6.2013 12:13)
Wolfgang Schausberger, 19.6.2013
Editor:
Quality Check
1.1. Abbreviations
Abbreviation
GR
MC
VL 10/11
Zahes
s
Min
Kwh
Kph
By-pass line
Description
Georgian Railway
Mobility Consultants
Vladimir Lenin Type 10/11 Locomotive
= Zahesi
Seconds
Minute
Kilo Watt Hours
Kilometres per hour
Kakheti line + by-pass line
page 6 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
2. Management Summary
General objective of this study was to compare the operating and maintenance costs and capacity for the existing
system with its line through Tbilisi city on the one hand side and the new by-pass line over Kvirike mountain and
the upgraded Kakethi line on the other hand side.
No feasibility study had been carried out before the implementation of the Tbilisi Bypass Project. All input data
and project information for the comparative calculation have been provided by Georgian Railway.
Following major results were identified.

The total costs over a period of 11 years amount to 126,0 Mio USD for the existing line compared to
198,0 Mio USD for the bypass line.

The total costs for the by-pass system are around 57% higher than the costs of the existing system.
However, this is not astonishing since the track length has increased from total 32 km mainline to 40 km
by-pass line plus 22 km existing line (total 62 km).
o
The yearly maintenance and operations
costs amount to 8,1 Mio USD for the
existing system (Basis year) compared to
12,2 Mio USD for the new system.
o
Main cost element of total operations and
maintenance costs are the infrastructure
maintenance costs (in green) with a share
of 42% existing line / 49% by-pass line.
o
The train operation costs (traction energy,
maintenance, personnel for operation, etc.)
increase from 3,8 Mio USD for the existing
system to 5,1 Mio USD for the by-pass
system, which is an increase of +35%.

For freight operation service an
increase of 50% in transport km
(1280 daily km compared to 1920
daily km in the new system)
together with longer travel times and the additional shunting times for additional
locomotives for lower train weights +149% - (additional locomotive at existing system for
trains with more than 3000 tonnes, compared to trains with more than 1800 tonnes at bypass line) was identified. However, this is not astonishing since the by-pass is longer than
the current line. In addition, the additional shunting requirements will lead to operational
challenges at Mckheta station as long it is not upgraded (additional costs) to a high
capacity turning plate for freight trains over the by-pass, urban/local passenger transport
and maintenance runs.
page 7 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation

One of the most cost sensitive
factors
is
the
freight
traction
energy with a total consumption of
approximately 15.998 MWh for the
existing
system
compared
to
approximately 32.940 MWh per
year for the by-pass system (13,5
Mio USD in 11 years compared to
27,9 Mio USD resulting in a gap
of +14,4 Mio USD). This immense
increase of energy costs can be
attributed
to
characteristics
which
can
be
the
of
the
alignment
by-pass
considered
as
“mountain panorama line”. The
energy demand for heavy freight
trains is more than 2 times higher
than on the existing line.

The capacity calculation results in 78 trains W-E and 85 trains E-W (total 163 train/day,
8,15 trains per hour) for the by-pass system (practical capacity) compared to a practical
capacity of 217 trains/day at the current system which is a decrease of -25%. However,
the calculated practical capacity is still a theoretical approach because the calculation
only analyses the by-pass line itself and does not include network effects in the sense of
bottlenecks before or after the by-pass, optimised working programs, market needs, etc.

Based on the above mentioned practical capacity and the daily operations program the
necessary traction units were calculated. For serving the bypass under the condition of
full capacity a total number (including the current locomotives) of 86 locomotives are
necessary. In comparison, for the existing system only 68 locomotives are necessary at
max. capacity. This means an increase of 18 pieces at full capacity.
o
The infrastructure operations cost (e.g. personnel for maintenance, electricity of lights, etc.)
increase from 1 Mio USD for the existing system to 1,3 Mio USD for the by-pass system, which is
an increase of +31%.
o
The infrastructure maintenance cost (e.g. tunnel maintenance, signaling maintenance, etc.)
increase form 3,4 Mio USD for the existing system to 5,8 Mio USD for the by-pass system, which
is an increase of +73%.
o
The new passenger concept with its two head stations which are not located in the city center
increase the travel km by 1% compared to the existing system. In addition, several operational
issues such as maintenance runs (not decided yet where W-E bound passenger trains will be
serviced and maintained), shunting in the head stations for non-EMU trains etc. will be a major
challenge for operational staff, not taking into consideration disadvantages for passengers in the
new system.
Taking into consideration all items under review in respect to their costs, the most important factors will be the
page 8 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
increasing energy costs (energy for infrastructure operation +118%; freight traction +106%), maintenance costs
for signaling (+101%) and subgrade maintenance (+194%). Additionally the maintenance costs for tunnels (3,4
Mio USD over a period of 11 years) shall be another challenge in the new system.
The results of the comparative calculation clearly show that a project implementation in the present form cannot
be considered as advisable from an economic point of view.
The Consultant suggests undertaking additional research on measures for cost reduction and for increasing
economic attractiveness of the project.
page 9 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
3. Methodology and general assumptions
Based on the meetings and the Scope of Work, the Consultant developed the following methodology as
presented in the figure below and described in the following chapters.
Figure 1 Methodology operation cost comparison study
All calculations are based on data inputs (questionnaire, studies, documents, drawings, graphic timetables and
information received from project) from the Georgian Railways or international best practice examples. The inputs
are transferred into “General Assumptions” defining the frame and specific assumptions as inputs for detailed
calculations. The arrow represents the working steps which combine the detailed calculations into a base
scenario (Scenario 0).
3.1. General assumptions:
The direct railway line through the centre of Tbilisi (Existing Line) will be replaced by a new bypass line north of
Tbilisi, together with an upgrade of the existing Kakheti Line (Bypass Line) in the coming years. The central
station will be closed for passengers, and the existing infrastructure will be dismantled (incl. shunting areas, rail
yards, rail sidings, depots and other infrastructure).
page 10 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Instead of a central station, two Tbilisi stations, the Didube station in the north-western part of the city, and the
Tbilisi rail junction station in the eastern part, will become terminal stations served by passenger trains only.
Through passenger service and direct passenger transfers will not be possible in the future. As a consequence, a
different operations concept is necessary. It is presented in the following figure.
The figure defines the area under study (old system km 2482 to km 5, new system km 2482 Mckheta via BypassLilo-Kakheti line and Marshalling yard 5 km). In the future, all east-bound passenger traffic (7 trains per day) will
leave Tbilisi at Tbilisi rail junction head station, all west-bound passenger traffic (10 trains per day) will leave at
Didube head station. The total freight traffic and 2 international trains in summer will run via the new bypass. Due
to the gradients of the new bypass line, heavy freight trains will require double or even triple traction. Locomotives
will be added E-W direction in Marshalling Yard and uncouple in Mckheta, from W-E coupling in Mckheta and
uncoupling in Marshalling yard.
Figure 2 Schematic sketch lines
page 11 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
3.2. Type of traction
The following two types of traction will be the basis for the calculation:

VL10 and VL11 traction unit for freight and international passenger trains (different variants, based on
weight and speed shall be investigated)
Note: VL10 technical configuration will be the basis for all time calculations

EMU traction unit for local passenger trains (different variants, based on weight and speed shall be
investigated)
Note: ER2 technical configuration will be the basis for all time calculations, which defines an average of
the 3 different types of EMUs used at Georgian Railways.
page 12 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
4. Travel time calculation
The following chapter indicates the results of the calculation for the area under study, based on general and
specific assumptions also described in the following chapter.
4.1. Methodology
The travel time calculation and electricity consumption calculation is based on infrastructure data, vehicle
performance and running data. Infrastructure data must include

lengths (chainage)

position of stations

gradient

curves

tunnels

other speed restrictions (Curve, tunnel and etc.)
The infrastructure database is designed on the basis of vertical and horizontal alignment plans. Since there was
no information available about the signalled speed, the assumed speed in the calculation is the speed allowed by
alignment parameters. Where values were not available, suitable assumptions were made based on experience.
In order to render transparent which values are from plans and which are assumptions, all assumed values are
listed.
Vehicle performance and running data for the VL10 locomotives and for the EMU must include

maximum possible train speed

speed performance diagram

electrical performance diagram

weight of vehicle

function of running resistances
The travel time calculation considers the change of speed over the different routes for different vehicles on the
basis of constant time intervals. The required deceleration times for change of speed due of restrictions or stops,
if any, can be determined. Trains accelerate until they reach the maximum line speed permitted or the maximum
train speed. Once the maximum speed is reached, the trains run with constant speed until section characteristics
change (radius, gradient or other restrictions). Especially for the freight trains their mass is an important factor for
acceleration and deceleration.
The run time calculation considers the change of speed and energy consumption over the different routes for
different vehicles on the basis of constant time intervals. The required deceleration times for change of speed
because of eventual restrictions or stops can be determined. Trains accelerate until they reach the maximum
allowed line speed or the maximum train speed taking into account the line resistance and the running resistance.
Trains run with constant speed until section characteristics change (radius, gradient or other restrictions).
Especially for the freight trains their mass is an important factor for acceleration and deceleration. The estimated
page 13 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
energy consumption run does not include the energy consumption of on-board systems, e.g. air conditioning and
heating and energy losses between the substations and the catenary.
The scenarios to be considered are shown in 4.2.2.1. Results will be visualised in tables and speed profiles. This
will facilitate comparing the different scenarios.
4.2. Input data
The calculation of the running time is based on the following input data provided by the client.
4.2.1.
Infrastructure data plans
All infrastructure plans provided are listed in the following table.
Table 1 Overview of available plans
Route section
Vertical
alignment
Horizontal
alignment
x
x
x
x
Existing line Marshalling between Yard and Tbilisi Rail Junction
x
x
Existing line between Tbilisi Rail Junction and Tbilisi Central
x
x
Existing line between Tbilisi Central and Didube Station
x
x
x
x
Existing line between Zahesi Railway Station and Mckheta
x
x
Legend:
x available plans
0 no/no readable plan available
x
x
New line between Lilo Railway Station
and Zahesi Railway Station
Reconstructed line between Marshalling yard
and Lilo Station
Existing line between Didube Station
and Zahesi Railway Station
4.2.2.
Vehicle data
The running time and energy consumption calculation is based on the following vehicle-related data:

Performance and running dynamic specifications of VL 10 locomotive based on information provided (see
Annex 1a and 1b)
page 14 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation

Performance and running dynamic specifications of EMU based on an assumed equivalent vehicle (see
Annex 2a and 2b)

Train configurations see 4.2.2.1 and 22 to 24

Contingency for headwind 10 m/s²
4.2.2.1. 2 sections VL 10/11
(Reference: Systra Report)
Double sections locomotive VL10/11
(normal composition), 8 driving axles
This solution is widely used Georgia and in CIS countries for more than 40 years.
Main advantages are

Classical and well proven solution.

Only 2 drivers are required.
Main disadvantages are:

Limited hauling capacity with heavy gradients (roughly 2
200 tons in 17 ‰ gradient and 1 460 tons in 29 ‰
gradient).

Existing VL10/11 locomotives are
based on old-
fashioned technology (DC traction motor), factor of
adhesion is impaired by the control command system (electromagnetic with relays and contactors based
on “notch” system).
4.2.2.2. 4 sections VL 10/11
(Reference: Systra Report)
Four sections locomotive VL 10/11,
16 driving axles
Main advantages are

Already used in some CIS Countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine). This solution is well proven.
Main disadvantages are:

This solution is at the limit of hauling capacity to haul and re-start a 3 000 tons train on a 29 ‰ gradient
page 15 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation

Existing VL10/11 locomotives are based on old-fashioned technology (DC traction motor), factor of
adhesion is impaired by the control command system (electromagnetic with relays and contactors based
on “notch” system).

4 drivers are required because the existing locomotives “VL 10/11 2 sections” are not equipped with any
multiple unit train wire. (Input for financial calculation)

No inter-circulation between each of the VL 10/11 double sections which could involve difficulties to solve
any problem in line without stopping the train.
4.2.2.3. 6 sections VL 10/11
(Reference: Systra Report)
Six sections locomotive VL 10/11, 24
driving axles
Main disadvantages are:

Not a very well know and implemented solution.

Existing VL11 locomotives are based on old fashion technology (DC traction motor), factor of adhesion is
impaired by the control command system (classical electromagnetic).

6 drivers are required because the existing locomotives “VL 11 2 sections” are not equipped with any
Multiple Unit train wire (please refer to chapter “Considerations regarding Multiple unit control command
train wire”).

No inter-circulation between each of the VL 11 double sections which could involve difficulties to solve
any problem in line without stopping the train.
4.2.3.
Operational requirements
The following operational requirements influencing speed and energy consumption have to be taken into
consideration:

Current line
o
Maximum line speed of 100 kph
o
Speed restriction for passenger trains

o
o
80 kph for trains with locomotives VL 10 / VL 11
Speed restriction for freight trains

from Zahes to Tbilisi Marshalling Yard of 80 kph

from Tbilisi Marshalling Yard to Zahes of 60 kph
Stopping time for passenger trains: 3 minutes
page 16 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
o
All freight trains stop at Tbilisi Marshalling Yard. For the running time calculation the stopping
passenger trains from Zahes to Tbilisi Central and from Tbilisi Central to Tbilisi Marshalling Yard
were merged to one train run per direction between Zahes and Tbilisi Marshalling yard. On the
existing line passenger trains with stops at every station start in Zahes Station. Through trains or
freight trains with one stop outside the passenger station were calculated from the starting point
of the new line, which is situated 8 km in West of Zahes station at Mckheta.
For the running time calculation the stopping passenger trains from Mckheta to Tbilisi Central and from Tbilisi
Central to Tbilisi Marshalling Yard and vice versa were merged into one train per direction between Mckheta and
Tbilisi Marshalling yard for presentation reasons. The travel times in the results split into distances between all
stops (Currently, there are three passenger trains stop at Avchala station. But all passenger trains from E-W don’t
stop at Didube station although all W-E directions stop at Didube station. Also, five E-W and five W-E passenger
trains stop at Junction and two passenger trains stop at Marshalling).
Table 2 Existing Line – train compositions for travel time analysis
Freight (W  E)
2
Type of
loco
(model)
VL 10
and VL11
Max.
speed
No. of Stops
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
Average
Tonnes
Averages
Time per
stops
[min]
0
0
1x27 for
50%
of
trains/ for
the others
0
1x27 for
50%
of
trains/ for
the others
0
0
0
0
0
0
4000
0
Freight (W  E)
2
Freight (W  E)
1
Freight (W  E)
1
Freight (W  E)
1
Freight (W  E)
1
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
3500
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
2220
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
3000
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
1800
1 (Marshalling yard)
80 km/h
1200
Shunting
Time
[min]
0
0
1x27 for
50% of
trains/ for
the others
0
1x27 for
50% of
trains/ for
the others
0
Freight (E  W)
2
VL 10
and VL11
1 (Marshalling yard)
60 km/h
4000
0
Freight (E  W)
1
VL 10
and VL11
1 (Marshalling yard)
60 km/h
3500
0
Freight (E  W)
1
1 (Marshalling yard)
60 km/h
2220
0
0
Freight (E  W)
1
1 (Marshalling yard)
60 km/h
3000
0
0
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
page 17 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
East/West
Type
No. of
locos
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Freight (E  W)
1
Passenger
West (Central –
Zahes)
1
Passenger
West (Central –
Zahes)
1
Passenger East
(Central –
Marshalling
Yard)
Passenger East
(Central –
Marshalling
Yard)
1
60 km/h
1800
0
0
1 (Marshalling yard)
60 km/h
1200
0
0
3 (Didube, Avchala,
Zahes)
80 km/h
622
3
0
3 (Didube, Avchala,
Zahes)
80 km/h
840
3
0
4 (Platf 6, Platf 8,
Junction,
Marshalling Yard)
80 km/h
622
3
0
4 (Platf 6, Platf 8,
Junction,
Marshalling Yard)
80 km/h
840
3
0
0
EMU (4
W)
3 (Didube, Avchala,
Zahes)
80 km/h
220
3
0
Passenger East
(Central –
Marshalling
Yard)
0
EMU (4
W)
4 (Platf 6, Platf 8,
Junction,
Marshalling Yard)
100 km/h
220
3
0
1
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
0
80 km/h
840
0
0
West
1
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
0
80 km/h
840
0
0
Int. Passenger
West
(Marshaling yard
– Zahes)
Int. Passenger
East (Zahes –
Marshalling
Yard)

Bypass line
o
Maximum line speed of 80 kph
o
Speed restriction of 40 kph on the link from reconstructed line to new bypass line at Lilo
o
Passenger trains do not stop at bypass line
o
Heavy trains need one additional locomotive for the bypass line
o
Freight trains of 4000 t from Mckheta to Tbilisi Marshalling Yard (W -> E) need 3 locomotives
o
Shunting time for freight trains from 2220 t to 4000 t

from Mckheta to Tbilisi Marshalling Yard (W -> E):
page 18 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Esat
West
Passenger
West (Central –
Zahes)
East
1
1 (Marshalling yard)
West
1
East
Freight (E  W)
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and VL11
VL 10
and
VL11–
Short
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
VL 10
and
VL11–
Short
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation

o

50 % need 14 minutes

50 % need 41 minutes
from Tbilisi Marshalling Yard to Mckheta (E -> W):

50 % need 25 minutes

50 % need 41 minutes
Speed restrictions for freight trains on bypass line

Loaded train 45 kph and unloaded train 60 kph up Kvirike mountain

50 kph down Kvirike mountain
Type
No.
of
locos
Type
of
loco
No. of Stops
3
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Mckheta,
Marshalling
yard)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Mckheta,
Marshaling
yard)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Mckheta,
Marshalling
yard)
Freight (W  E)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Mckheta,
Marshalling
yard)
Freight (W  E)
1
VL 10
and
VL11
1 (Marshalling
Yard)
Freight (W  E)
1
VL 10
and
VL11
1 (Marshalling
yard)
Freight (W  E)
Freight (W  E)
Freight (W  E)
Max.
speed
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
Averages
Time per
stops
[min]
Shunting
Time
[min]
0
1x14 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
0
1x14 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
0
1x14 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
2220
0
1x14 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
1800
0
0
1200
0
0
Average
Tonnes
4000
3500
3000
Bypass (East /West
Table 3 Bypass Line – train compositions for travel time analysis
page 19 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Freight (E  W)
Freight (E  W)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Marshalling
yard, Mckheta)
2 (Marshalling
yard, Mckheta)
4000
3500
3000
0
0
1x25 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
0
1x25 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
1x25 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
Freight (E  W)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
2 (Marshalling
yard, Mckheta)
Freight (E  W)
1
VL 10
and
VL11
1 (Marshalling
Yard)
Freight (E  W)
1
VL 10
and
VL11
1 (Marshalling
Yard)
1
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
0
80 km/h
840
0
0
1
VL 10
and
VL11–
Long
0
80 km/h
840
0
0
0
EMU
(4 W)
1 (Avchala)
80 km/h
300
3
0
West
2
2 (Marshalling
yard, Mckheta)
1x25 for
50%/
1x41 for
50% of
trains
0
EMU
(4 W)
1 (Marshalling
Yard)
80 km/h
300
3
0
East
Freight (E  W)
2
VL 10
and
VL11
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
50 km/h
down//45
km/h up
loaded60 km/h
empty
0
1800
0
0
1200
0
0
West
East
Passenger
International
West
(Marshalling
Yard – Zahes)
Passenger
International
East (Zahes –
Marshalling
Yard)
Passenger
(Maintenance)
West
(Marshalling
Yard – Avchala)
Passenger
(Maintenance)
East (Avchala –
Marshalling
Yard)
2220
The respective average speeds for the bypass line are based on legal restrictions and technical restrictions
page 20 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
mainly for heavy freight trains (defined in the inception report). The weights are based on Georgian Railways
information.
4.3. Results
The results of the running time and energy consumption calculation are summarised in the Annexes 22 to 24. The
speed profiles for the different train types are shown in the Annexes 3 to 21. The diagrams in the Annexes provide
the following details as described below:
The horizontal axis shows the chainage in kilometres of the line according to the alignment plans and the
schematic system. The speed of the train in kilometres per hour (at the point of chainage) is shown at the left
vertical axis. This way the speed development over the train run is displayed. The red line shows the speed
development of the train run from West to East and the green line shows it in the direction from East to West.
Additional in dark grey under the speed lines there is shown the ground level under the track for information if the
train is going up or down. The values for ground level are shown on the right vertical axis in meters above 0. This
information is important for interpretation of the energy consumption table considering the downhill force (because
of trains weight): climbing up the mountain the train needs more energy and maybe it is not able to reach the
maximum allowed speed, rolling down the mountain it needs less energy for the same speed.
4.3.1.
Existing line
The maximum line speed of the existing line is 100 kph. Only the EMU are allowed to run this speed. Trains with
locomotives (VL 10 / VL 11) are limited to run 80 kph. In the direction from Tbilisi Marshalling Yard to Zahes (East
to West), freight trains are restricted to run with 60 kph maximum speed. The running times for all train types for
both directions are nearly the same. The delta is always less than one minute for the passenger trains and less
than two minutes for the freight trains with different speeds. The runtimes lie between 15 minutes (853 s for the
nonstop passenger trains and 33 minutes (1984 s) for the heavy freight train with 2 locomotives and 2 stops (see
Annex 22).
The differences are conspicuous when looking at the results of energy consumption. A nonstop EMU with 300 t
weight needs 105 kWh to 174 kWh whereas a 4000 t freight train needs up to 2816 kWh.
4.3.1.1. Passenger trains
Neither the EMU nor the long or short passenger trains with locomotive have any problems to reach the maximum
line allowed speed on the existing line. The acceleration capacity of the locomotive is more powerful than the one
of the EMU which can be seen in the Annexes 3 to 7. The greater values on acceleration ability and train mass
lead to higher energy consumption (Annexes 22 and 23). This can be seen at the stations for the stopping trains
(Annexes 3, 6 and 7). The EMU with 11 stops is not always able to reach the maximum of 100 kph because of the
page 21 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
stations being to close to each other to reach this speed.
4.3.1.2. Freight trains
All freight trains on the existing line have one stop at Tbilisi Marshalling Yard. The heavier the trains with one
locomotive are the more time they need to reach the maximum line speed. This can be seen especially between
Tbilisi Central and Tbilisi Junction (see Annexes 8 to 11). When having two locomotives the line speed can be
reached better even when having heavier trains but the energy consumption is much higher (see Annexes 12, 13
and 22).
4.3.2.
Bypass line
The maximum line speed of the bypass line is 80 kph but there is a speed restriction of 40 kph on the link from
reconstructed line to new bypass line at Lilo for all train types in both directions. Freight trains have speed
restrictions of 45 kph up Kvirike mountain and 50 kph down.
4.3.2.1. Passenger trains
The passenger trains are able to reach the designed line speed of 80 kph except for on the sections with speed
restrictions (see Annex 14 and15). The EMU has more problems when going up the mountain than the train with
locomotive has. This is because the long passenger train with locomotive has got a stronger engine but it also
needs four times more energy (see Annex 24).
4.3.2.2. Freight trains
The light freight trains of 1200 t and 1800 t have one stop in Tbilisi Marshalling Yard (see Annex 16 and 17). The
heavier trains need an additional locomotive to climb up the mountain and have an additional stop in Mckheta
(see Annex 18 to 21). The 4000 t train needs three locomotives at all in the direction from West to East.
All freight trains show running times between 63 minutes (3749 s) for the light trains and 64 minutes (3803 s) for
the heavy trains (see Annex 24). Because of the speed restriction of 45 kph up and 50 kph down the mountain, all
freight trains have no problems in their speed profile. The biggest difference can be seen in the acceleration
phase when starting in Tbilisi Marshalling Yard: the heavier the train the longer it lasts to reach maximum speed.
The energy consumption lies between 1308 kWh for the light train with one stop and 5660 kWh for the heavy train
of 4000 t.
page 22 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
5. Train operations/maintenance comparison (TOMC)
The following chapter summarises the results of the calculation for the area under study as well as the general
and specific assumptions behind the calculation.
Figure 3 Overview – Train Operations Cost Comparison
5.1. Methodology
The train operations comparison is based on the travel time calculation using assumptions based on the existing
trains running in the network:

Passenger trains: 34 passenger trains/day + 2 Erevan trains (day),

Freight trains: Theoretical capacity is 100 E-W and 117 W-E freight trains/day; actual traffic is 20 trains EW and 20 trains W-E (20 pairs) /day (for the comparison we recommend to use 40 pairs freight trains).
The composition of train weights and speed are specified in Table 4 Daily operations program . It will be assumed
to be equal for both system (existing system and bypass system). The output of the calculation will be a
comparison of indicators (see above figure) and the maintenance/operations costs per year for a base year (=
year 0).
The following indicators will be compared and calculated respectively:

Traction-km and respective time consumption for a representative operations scenario (year 0)
Calculation of the average times and respective operation-km for the defined operations concept based
on
o
Traction-km and respective time consumption for different train categories, train variants and
destinations
page 23 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
The comparison is based on the travel time calculation (see 4.2) and will be adapted for the base
scenario.

Electricity costs for a representative operations scenario (year 0)
Calculation of the average electricity costs for the above mentioned operations concept based on:
o
Electricity costs of different train categories, train variants and destinations
The electricity calculation considers the change of speed over the different routes for different
vehicles on the basis of constant time intervals for the respective train categories, train variants
and destinations defined in the travel times calculation. The following parameters are included in
the electricity cost calculation:

Required deceleration times for change of speed because of restrictions or stops
effecting the energy consumption

Train acceleration until the train reaches the maximum line speed allowed or the
maximum train speed.
Note: The determination of energy consumption per train run does not include the energy
consumption of on-board systems, e.g. air conditioning and heating.

Train personnel and shunting costs for a representative operations scenario (year 0)
Calculation of the average personnel cost for train running and shunting based on 3 operation concepts
for both lines:

o
Freight trains
o
Local passenger trains
o
International passenger trains
Traction maintenance and utilization for comparable representative operations scenario (year 0)
The calculation of maintenance costs and utilization is based on the current average maintenance cost
for traction material and current capacity utilization provided by Georgian Railways. Utilised capacity and
the line geometry (gradients, curves) will be taken into consideration since they influence wear and tear.
Additional maintenance costs for the new operations concept will also be calculated.

Capacity
Calculation of the capacity based on UIC (International Union of Railways) 405 Formula and experts
opinion
5.2. Input Data
The following general input data were used for the calculation (the specific inputs are defined and documented
with each calculation sheet):

Alignment current line/by-pass line

Inception report V10

Travel time and energy consumption calculation (Interim report V4)

International experience within other railways service providers (Italy, Austria, Germany, etc.)
page 24 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
All train operations calculations (maintenance, travel times, travel km, etc.) are based on an average daily
operations program as defined below:
Table 4 Daily operations program
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
train
weight (t)
Freight trains
no of
trains/day
40
E-W
Freight
3500
12
E-W
Freight
3000
0
E-W
Freight
1800
2
E-W
Freight
1200
W-E
Freight
3000
12
W-E
Freight
1800
2
W-E
Freight
1200
6
Transported tonnes/year (incl. Tara)
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
2490
6
25.896.000
Average
train
weight (t)
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
no of
trains/day
36
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
E-W
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
14
10
The above mentioned definition is based on Georgian Railways inputs. Key inputs were average transported
goods (2060 t in 2012), number of daily freight trains (20 E-W direction, 20 W-E direction), number of daily
passenger trains (20 E-W direction, 14 W-E direction, + 1 train pair international train representing seasonal
trains).
page 25 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
5.3. Results
The following table presents an overview of the results. The subchapters show the detailed calculations.
Table 5 Overview – Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis
Overview - Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis
km
freight
passenger
Total
km
km
km
Existing
line
1,280
638
1,918
Travel times
freight
passenger
Total
min
min
min
1,302
773
2,076
3,242
599
3,841
149%
-23%
85%
Electricity (Traction)
freight
passenger
Total
USD
USD
USD
3,242
395
3,636
6,674
404
7,078
106%
2%
95%
USD
297
593
100%
USD
USD
USD
2,584
868
3,452
4,599
954
5,553
78%
10%
61%
tonnes
trains
trains
locos
1,134,000
324
217
68
868,839
248
163
86
-23%
-23%
-25%
26%
Description
Unit
Personnel costs for shunting
Maintenance
freight
passenger
Total
Theoretical capacity (based on 3500 tonnes trains)
Theoretical capacity (without station restriction)
Practical capacity (without station restrictions)
Necessary locos at full practical capacity
By-pass
line
1,920
646
2,566
In/Decrea
se (%)
50%
1%
34%
The results of the calculation clearly indicate that compared to the existing system all indicators increase
significantly. The new by-pass line has two major disadvantages compared to the existing system. The first is the
length (around 50% longer than the current system) and the second are the gradients (W-E 20.0‰ and E-W
18.0‰) which influence travel time, electricity consumption, maintenance and handling (additional shunting).
The major benefit of the new system may lie in safety and environmental issues (noise).
The following figures present the findings in graphical form.
page 26 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Figure 4 Overview – Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis (travel km, travel time, maintenance cost,
electricity, personnel for shunting, capacity, necessary locomotives)
page 27 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
5.3.1.
Time and traction km
The following tables present the travel time and traction km calculation based on the operations program
described above.
Table 6 Daily travel time comparison
Time Comparison
Direction
E-W
Description
Freight trains
Freight
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
weight
(tonnes)
no of
trains/
day
Average
Average
shuntin
travel
g/stoppi
time
ng time
(min)/train
(min)
Existing line
(min)
Average
Average
shunting By-pass line In/Decrease
travel time
time
(min)
(%)
(min)/train
(min)
40
375
42000
0
3600
7200
36000
3600
7200
3,242
149%
*
3500
12
32
14
549
63
33
1,156
0
33
0
0
63
33
0
2
32
0
65
63
0
126
6
32
0
192
63
0
376
301
63
28
1,085
125
E-W
Freight
3000
E-W
Freight
1800
E-W
Freight
1200
W-E
Freight
3000
12
25
0
W-E
Freight
1800
2
25
0
49
63
0
W-E
Freight
1200
6
24
0
147
62
0
2490
Total Freight
Transported tonnes/year (incl. Tara)
1,302
25,896,000
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains) 56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
18
0
18
38
0
38
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
12
9
64
9
6
46
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
12
9
63
9
6
46
E-W
14
12
9
295
9
6
212
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
18
0
18
38
0
38
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
12
46
4
3
14
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
12
45
4
3
13
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
10
12
225
4
3
20
6
Total Passenger
773
Total s/year
* Marshalling Yard - Mckheta (8 km W of Zahes)
2,076
120
*
67
594
3,836
-23%
85%
The comparison of daily travel time compares the two systems according to the above mentioned daily operations
program in respect to time consumption. The calculation is separated for freight and passenger operation. The
calculated travel times (see Annex 24 – 26) together with respective stopping or necessary shunting times form
the basis.
The major differences are longer travel times for freight operations due to the increase in line length (nearly
double the existing line) and the additional shunting times for additional locomotives for lower train weights +149% - (additional locomotive at existing system for trains with more than 3000 tonnes, compared to trains with
more than 1800 tonnes at by-pass line).
The new system in passenger transport shows a decrease in travel time since line km and stops decrease in the
new system (-23%).
page 28 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 7 Daily travel km comparison
Traction km comparison
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Freight trains
no of Average
trains/ travel km
day (km)/train
40
trains
Existing line
(km)
Average
travel km
(km)/train
By-pass line In/Decrease
(km)
(%)
E-W
Freight
3500
12
32
384
48
E-W
Freight
3000
0
32
0
48
0
E-W
Freight
1800
2
32
64
48
96
E-W
Freight
1200
6
32
192
48
288
W-E
Freight
3000
12
32
384
48
576
W-E
Freight
1800
2
32
64
48
96
W-E
Freight
1200
6
32
192
48
288
Total Freight
1,280
576
1,920
E-W
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains) 56
1
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
32
32
48
48
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
63
17
51
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
63
17
51
E-W
14
21
294
17
238
7
140
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
32
48
48
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
22
5
10
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
22
5
10
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
11
110
5
20
20
14
Total Passenger
Total Passenger+Freight
50
638
646
1%
1,918
2,566
34%
498,680
Total km/year
50%
667,160
34%
The comparison of daily travel km compares the two systems according to the above mentioned daily operations
program in respect to travel km. The calculation is separated for freight and passenger operation.
For freight service, an increase of 50% (1280 daily km compared to 1920 daily km in the new system) in transport
km was identified. This is not really astonishing since the by-pass is longer than the current line.
The new passenger concept with its two head stations which are not located in the city center increase the travel
km by 1% compared to the existing system. However, this does not necessarily result equal operation km since
several operational issues such as maintenance runs (not decided yet where W-E bound passenger trains will be
serviced and maintained), shunting in the head stations for non-EMU trains etc. are not included in the
calculation.
5.3.2.
Electricity costs
The following table presents the electricity consumption for the two systems according to the above mentioned
operations program.
page 29 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 8 Daily train electricity consumption comparison
Electricity cost comparison
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
electricity
no of
consumpt
trains/d
price
ion/train Existing line
ay
USD/kwh
(kwh)
(USD)
Freight trains
Average
electricity
consumptio
n/train
By-pass line In/Decrease
(kwh)
(USD)
(%)
40
E-W
Freight
3.500
12
0,053
2.469
1.561
4.962
E-W
Freight
3.000
0
0,053
1.984
0
4.265
0
E-W
Freight
1.800
2
0,053
1.280
135
2.567
270
E-W
Freight
1.200
6
0,053
863
273
1.726
546
W-E
Freight
3.000
12
0,053
1.531
968
3.327
2.103
W-E
Freight
1.800
2
0,053
958
101
1.943
205
W-E
Total
Freight
Freight
1.200
6
0,053
646
204
1.308
413
3.242
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
3.137
6.674
106%
56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
0,053
365
19
1.258
66
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
0,053
369
58
267
42
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
0,053
282
44
205
32
E-W
14
0,053
137
101
99
73
20
0,053
83
87
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
0,053
237
12
1.005
53
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
0,053
428
45
184
19
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
0,053
324
34
80
8
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
0,053
153
81
42
22
Total Passenger
Total Passenger+Freight
Total Costs for traction energy in USD/year
395
404
2%
3.636
7.078
95%
945.468
1.840.282
95%
The electricity consumption is based on the travel time calculation with respective stops and paths taking into
account type of traction with its technical characteristics and train weights.
The electricity calculation shows an immense increase of energy demand for freight service on the by-pass line
(+106%). This high demand is caused by the characteristics of the designed alignment of the by-pass which can
be considered as “mountain panorama line”.
The new passenger concept with its two head stations increase the electricity consumption by 2% compared to
the existing system. However, this does not necessarily result in equal costs since several operational issues
such as maintenance runs (not decided yet where W-E bound passenger trains will be serviced and maintained),
shunting in the head stations for non-EMU trains etc. are not included in the calculation.
5.3.3.
Shunting Personnel and shunting costs (freight trains)
The shunting personnel and shunting cost calculation is based on the above mentioned freight train operations
concept and presents the comparison between existing system and by-pass system. This calculation uses a
page 30 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
rather theoretical approach which allows determining the production costs for each service provided by the
railways, in this case the shunting services for freight trains (adding of locomotives for heavy trains).
Table 9 Daily shunting times and cost consumption comparison
Personnel&Shunting (Freight)
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
no of
trains/day
40.00
Additional
shunting
Existing
line (USD)
Additional
shunting
2
Freight trains
By-pass In/Decrease
line (USD)
(%)
E-W
Freight
3500
12
296.75
2
296.75
E-W
Freight
3000
0
0.00
2
0.00
E-W
Freight
1800
2
0.00
E-W
Freight
1200
6
0.00
W-E
Freight
3000
12
0.00
W-E
Freight
1800
2
0.00
0.00
W-E
Freight
Total Freight
1200
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
297
Category
Train driver
total
working
costs/loco
Salary in
working preparation time per coupling/un
No. Of staff
USD
time (min) time (min)
loco
coupling
coupling/un
(USD)
coupling
810
1
34
20
4.56
54
659
1
34
9
486
1
15
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
9
454
1
15
Specialist in cargo services
10
324
1
3
15
Train Checker-compiler
9
486
1
10
20
324
1
15
Station assistant
100%
154,310
Marshaling hill on duty
Train driver assistant
296.75
593
77,155
Total USD/year
Staff
0.00
20
54
15
15
18
30
15
3.71
0.76
0.71
0.61
1.52
0.51
12.36
Total
The second table defines the staff which directly handles the coupling or uncoupling of additional locomotives.
The working times assumptions rely on the experience of the Consultant and figures of Georgian Railways (12,36
USD/train and shunting process). Based on these assumptions the average cost for this kind of service can be
calculated.
The result clearly shows an increase of 100% in costs for the new system on a daily basis.
5.3.4.
Traction maintenance and utilisation
The following tables present the maintenance and utilization calculation according to the above mentioned
operations program.
page 31 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 10 Daily train maintenance comparison
Traction maintenance comparison
DirectDescription Weight (tonnes)
ion
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
Freight trains
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
W-E
Freight
Total Freight
Average
Mainten
no of travel
ance
trains
km
cost/km
/day (km)/trai
(USD)
n
Unit
No. Of Existing
tractio
line
n units (USD)
3500
3000
1800
1200
3000
1800
40
12
0
2
6
12
2
32
32
32
32
32
32
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
2
1
1
1
1
1
1200
6
32
1,55
USD
1
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
Add
AverNo.
ups
age
Add
ByOf
In/Decr
gradie
travel ups
pass
ease
n-ts tracti
km utilisaline
on
(%)
and
(km)/t tion
(km)
curves units
rain
(USD)
1.192
0
99
298
596
99
48
48
48
48
48
48
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
2
2
1
1
2
1
298
48
0,07
0,78
1
USD
2.584
1.380
0
230
690
1.380
230
690
4.599
78%
56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
1,55
USD
50
48
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
1,55
USD
98
17
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
1,55
USD
98
17
79
E-W
14
21
1,25
USD
368
17
298
20
0
1,25
USD
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
1,55
USD
50
48
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
1,55
USD
34
5
16
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
1,55
USD
34
5
16
10
11
1,25
USD
138
5
USD
868
954
10%
USD
3.452
5.553
61%
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
Total Passenger
Total
0,07
0,78
1
115
79
7
175
0,07
0,78
115
63
The maintenance cost comparison is based on direct running km resulting from the above mentioned daily
operations program, specific cost and maintenance figures of Georgian Railways as well as comparable best
practice examples in Europe (mainly Austria which also operates several mountain lines). For example additional
maintenance costs for the by-pass line (factor 1.5) are based on the experience of ÖBB Production GmbH
(Austrian Federal Railways) which identified 2,5 higher maintenance costs for traction unit on the Semmering line
(23 ‰, 9 tight curves 190 m radius) compared to the west line with its low gradients and Georgian Railways
experience. Wear and tear due to heavy train weights and narrow curves together with the utilization of traction
units are the main reasons for higher maintenance cost. Both are included in this calculation.
The results indicate +78% higher maintenance costs for freight traction maintenance and also an increase of 10%
of passenger traction maintenance. However this small increase can be even higher since the direct maintenance
cost will increase due to operation of two service facilities for E-W and W-E bound traffic or additional running km
for maintenance runs over the by-pass.
page 32 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 11 Daily train utilisation comparison
Utilisation comparison
Theoretical Utilisation calculation VL10/11
locos
Total theoretically operation hours (working
traction)/day
Unit
Existing
line:
In/Decr
By-pass ease
line:
(%)
h
620
620
average round trip duration existing line (Border -->
Kashuri --> Border), incl. Empty operation times
h
11,08
12,22
additional Shunting times train
h
0
1,25
Push/pull operation time roundtrip
h
0
4,19
26
26
369,888
Total train roundtrips/day (average)
Total Operation hours/day
h
288,132
Utilisation
%
46,47%
59,66% 28,37%
The utilization comparison is based on calculated working hours per day and the respective possible roundtrips
within the network. Also the actual availability of traction material is included. Based on the above mentioned daily
operation program the utilization of traction units will increase by 28,4 % which directly influences the
maintenance costs.
5.3.5.
Capacity and necessary traction units
The following capacity calculation is based on UIC 405 (1996) formula determining the capacity based on an
analysis of infrastructure parameters (single/double track, blocking system, etc.) and network effects (block
occupation, headway distance, headway time, etc.). The calculation is based on the above mentioned daily
operations program and was interpolated for a theoretical 20 hour production day (4 hours reserved for traction
and track maintenance). The area for the capacity analysis was the exit Mcketa station to exit Marshalling yard.
page 33 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 12 Daily train capacity over by-pass
By-pass capacity
Direction
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
weight
(tonnes)
Freight
3500
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops 0/ 2 stops
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops0/ 2 stops
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
0
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops 0/ 1 stop
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops0/ 1 stop
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
0
no of
trains/day
12
0
2
6
1
3
3
14
12
2
6
1
2
2
10
Average Influence average
Average
shunting
on byspeed in
travel time
time
pass
slowest
(min)/train
(min)
capacity
block
63
33
x
40
63
33
x
40
63
0
x
40
63
0
x
40
18
0
x
60
12
9
12
9
12
9
63
63
62
18
11
11
10
Slowest
throuput
throuput
Block operation
time
time
passing s/safety
cummulated
time
time
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
126.0
0.0
21.0
63.0
7.0
126.0
147.0
210.0
217.0
ratio
5.5
theoritical capacity (trains/day)
practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day) - E-W
116
x
x
x
x
28
0
0
0
12
12
12
40
40
40
60
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
78
126.0
21.0
63.0
7.0
147.0
210.0
217.0
ratio
theoritical capacity (trains/day)
practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day) - W-E
5.5
127
Total theoritical capacity (trains/day)
Total practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day)
243
Total Theoretical capacity (existing line)
Total Practical capacity (existing line)
324
217
85
163
The theoretical capacity means the number of trains that could run over the by-pass, during a specific time
interval (20 h), in a strictly perfect, mathematically generated environment, with the trains running permanently
and ideally at minimum headway. The calculation results in 116 trains W-E and 127 trains E-W (total 243
train/day, 12,15 trains per hour). The practical capacity is the practical limit of “representative" traffic volume that
can be moved on a line at a reasonable level of reliability intended as terms of punctuality. Represents a more
realistic measure and calculated under more realistic assumptions, which are related to the level of expected
operating quality and system reliability. It is the capacity that can permanently be provided under normal operating
conditions. It is usually around 60%-75% (depending of the type of traffic – mixed, homogeny) of the theoretical
capacity, which has already been the result of several studies. However, the calculated practical capacity is still a
theoretical approach because this calculation only analyses the by-pass line itself and does not include network
effects in the sense of bottlenecks before or after the by-pass, optimised working programs, market needs, etc.
The calculation results in 78 trains W-E and 85 trains E-W (total 163 train/day, 8,15 trains per hour) for the bypass system. However, compared to the current system which has a total theoretical capacity of 324 trains and a
practical capacity of 217 (Theoretical existing line: W-E 175 trains, E-W 149 trains), the theoretical capacity
decrease by -23% and the practical capacity by -25%.
The major bottleneck which was not taken in consideration is the station Mcketa.
page 34 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation

Mcketa has only 3 sidings for train formation beside its two main tracks

No sidings for keeping buffer locomotives or push/pull locomotives

Passenger trains serving Didube will also go through Mcketa.

All maintenance runs go through Mcketa
These factors will significantly reduce the capacity of the by-pass, to approximately 4 trains per hour (total 80
trains/day).
Table 13 Daily traction unit necessity over by-pass
By pass system necessary traction units
Direction
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Freight
3500
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
no of
trains/day
12
0
2
6
1
12
2
6
1
max.
Additiona max.
necessar
Locos based
Locos
No. Of
necessary
roundtrip
l locos for roundtri y no. Of total no.
on
based on
traction
no. Of
s/traction
mountain ps/tracti additonal Of locos theoretical practical
locomotive
locos
unit
traction on unit
locos
capacity
capacity
1
2.00
6
1
2.00
0
1
2.00
1
1
2.00
3
1
2.00
0
1
2.00
6
1
2.00
1
1
2.00
3
1
2.00
0
Locomotives
20
Locomotives Buffer
13%
Total Locomotives by-pass line
Total Locomotives existing line
Increase/Decrease in total figures
1
1
11
11
2
0
1
9
2
4
24
114.0
15.0
129.0
76.0
10.0
86.0
68.00
18.00
Based on the above mentioned practical capacity and the daily operations program the necessary traction units
were calculated. For serving the bypass under the condition of full capacity a total number (including the current
locomotives) of 86 locomotives are necessary. This means additional 18 pieces at full capacity. In comparison, for
the existing system only 68 locomotives are necessary at max. capacity.
page 35 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
6. Infrastructure operations/maintenance comparison (IOC, IMC)
The following chapter indicates the results of the calculation for the area under study, based on general and
specific assumptions also described in this chapter.
Figure 5 Overview - Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison
6.1. Methodology
The infrastructure operations comparison is based on the construction costs of the new bypass line as indicated
in the tender documents. Based on international best practice, the respective operations and maintenance costs
of the different subsections (e.g. bridges, tunnels, tracks, catenary …) have been calculated for the base year
(=year 0).
The following subsections shall be compared:

Track

Bridges

Tunnels

Stations (+ technical buildings such depots, etc.)

Embankments, cuts and walls
Due to the fact that Georgian Railways have no detailed cost calculation system for different substructures as well
as specific maintenance and improvement plans for the area under study, the Consultant shall calculate the
current line based on the operations and maintenance costs of specific subsections of the bypass line. E.g. the
maintenance costs of steel bridges over the life time are based on best practice examples: 1,5% per annum of
total construction costs. If the construction costs for 300 m steel bridge on the bypass line are 1 Mio. US-Dollar,
the respective maintenance costs are 15.000 US-Dollar per annum. Example, line has 450 m steel bridges with
construction costs of 1,5 Mio USD. The maintenance costs are approximately 22,500 USD/a.
page 36 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
6.2. Input data
The following general input data were used for the calculation (calculation-specific inputs are defined and
documented with each calculation sheet):

Contract price break down Tbilisi By-pass project

Alignment current line/by-pass line

Estimations made by power, operations and signalling department (personnel, material, etc.)

Inception report V10

International experience with other railway service providers (Italy, Austria, Germany, etc.)
6.3. Results
The following table shows the output of several calculations in order to compare existing system with the new bypass.
The comparison shows an increase of operation and maintenance costs for all structures. This fact is not very
astonishing since the track length will increase from total 32 km mainline to 40 km by-pass line plus 22 km
existing line. Based on the data of the different infrastructure departments the additional operational efforts where
estimated. The main increase (+118%) was identified for the power generation in the transformer stations
together with an increase for staff expenses in the power department (+52%). All together the cost increase for
operation of the by-pass system will be 29% compared to the existing system.
The infrastructure maintenance costs include general maintenance, repair and respective replacements over the
life time. The infrastructure maintenance costs show an even higher increase in costs. The most significant
increase was identified for the subgrade maintenance (+233%). This is mainly based on the deep cuts and huge
embankments on the new line. The main cost drivers are the track maintenance (+114%; approximately 1,5 Mio
USD for the bypass system) and electric system (+103%, approximately 3,1 Mio USD). The total costs for the
maintenance of infrastructure of the new system was identified with 6,9 Mio USD/year which is a +113% increase.
page 37 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 14 Result Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison
Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison (Basis Year)
Existing
line
Description
By-pass
line
USD
25,062
18,303
118%
52%
2%
-26%
12%
58%
20%
-27%
USD
956,438
1,236,045
29%
Power (non-traction)
USD
148,488
324,382
Staff (Power department)
USD
246,609
374,682
Staff (Track department)
USD
375,136
383,493
Staff (Signalling department)
USD
125,348
92,649
Material (Power department)
Fuel (Power department)
USD
USD
23,969
4,087
26,788
6,463
Other expenses - Signalling department
USD
7,738
9,286
Other expenses - Power department
Total
In/Decrease
(%)
Existing
line
Description
By-pass
line
In/Decrease
(%)
Track maintenance/anno
USD
689,434
1,474,812
Electricity system maintenance/a
USD
1,538,524
3,115,965
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a USD
Total
USD
386,385
881,366
#DIV/0!
40%
233%
114%
103%
128%
3,215,626
6,859,455
113%
Tunnel maintenance/anno
USD
0
240,969
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
USD
443,707
621,090
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade for stations)
USD
157,576
525,252
The following figure presents the findings in a graphical way and clearly shows the main differences between the
two systems.
page 38 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Figure 6 Diagram - Result Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison
7. Scenario analysis
The following chapter examines the respective scenarios for the next 10 years based on chapter 4.4 and 4.5.
7.1. Methodology:
Based on the year 0 calculation model, the Consultant calculated the respective figures for the following years (110) allowing for indexation of costs for energy, personnel, etc. Furthermore, parameters such as mark-downs of
maintenance costs for new constructed subsections, mark-ups for old system components, financing costs for
new system, etc. were included to specify the system in more detail in order to ensure a more objective view of
the two variants (current line versus bypass-line).
page 39 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
7.2. Base scenario
7.2.1.
Assumptions:
The following main assumptions were taken into consideration:

Indexation of electricity: 4,75%

Indexation of other costs: 6,40 %

Increase of transported goods: starting with 25,9 Mio tonnes (incl. Tara) to 34 Mio tonnes in 10 years

Passenger transport: no increase

Personnel: stable (no additional staff – optimized operation and utilization of staff)

Add-up/down: Maintenance intensity old vs. new: between + 5% for existing line and -20% for by-pass
system

Add-up/down: Maintenance due to tight curves and gradients: + 5% for by-pass line

Financing costs are not part of the calculation
7.2.2.
Result:
The following results were identified. Main cost element of total operations costs are the infrastructure
maintenance costs (in green) with 42 % existing line / 50% by-pass line. However, the ratio of train operations
cost to total operation cost will increase from 47% existing line to 40% by-pass line. Compared to the existing line
the increase in costs is much steeper. This is based on the yearly indexation starting with higher basis amount.
The total costs for the by-pass system are around 50% higher than the costs of the existing system. However, this
is not astonishing since the track length increases from total 32 km mainline to 40 km by-pass line plus 22 km
existing line (total 62 km). The following diagram shows the result on a yearly basis.
Figure 7 Diagram - Result Base Scenario
page 40 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 15 Result Base Scenario
Base Scenario
year
0
Train Operations
Electricity (Traction)
Staff direct
Maintenance
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
842,805
102,663
332,452
671,753
225,772
1,613,176
1,735,360
104,923
543,996
1,195,639
248,140
1,301,938
1
Existing
By-pass line
line
882,839
1,817,789
107,539
109,906
353,729
578,812
714,745
1,272,160
240,221
264,021
1,716,419
1,385,262
Mio tonnes
25.90
0%
3,788,621
25.90
0%
5,129,996
25.90
0%
4,015,492
Indexation
Freight
Passenger
Freight
Passenger
Staff indirect
4.75%
4.75%
6.40%
6.40%
6.40%
6.40%
Freight volume
Increase of freigth volume in %
Total operation
Existing line By-pass line
USD
year
Infrastructure
0
Indexation
Add-up/downs
Maintenance intensity old vs. new
Maintenance due to tight curves and gradients
26
0%
4,262,911
1
Existing line By-pass line
Operation
Power (non-traction)
4.75%
USD
Staff (Power department)
6.40%
USD
Staff (Track department)
6.40%
USD
Staff (Signalling department)
6.40%
USD
Material (Power department)
6.40%
USD
Fuel (Power department)
6.40%
USD
Other expenses (electricity, supply) - Signalling department)
6.40%
USD
Other expenses (electricity, utilities, diagnostics) -6.40%
Power department)
USD
Maintenance
Tunnel maintenance/anno
6.40%
USD
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
6.40%
USD
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade for stations)
6.40%
USD
Track maintenance/anno
6.40%
USD
Electricity system maintenance/a
6.40%
USD
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a
6.40%
USD
25.90
0%
5,427,951
2
3
4
5
Existing
By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line
line
928,487
1,911,781
1,009,998
2,079,614
1,097,157
2,259,077
1,190,317
2,450,897
112,647
115,127
117,998
120,596
123,603
126,324
129,474
132,324
376,367
615,856
400,455
655,270
426,084
697,208
453,353
741,829
763,543
1,359,015
843,657
1,501,607
930,897
1,656,884
1,025,849
1,825,886
255,596
280,919
271,954
298,897
289,359
318,027
307,878
338,380
1,826,270
1,473,919
1,943,151
1,568,250
2,067,513
1,668,618
2,199,834
1,775,410
Existing
line
26
0%
5,756,616
27
4%
4,587,212
2
By-pass line
Existing
line
27
4%
6,224,234
28
8%
4,934,612
3
By-pass line Existing line
28
8%
6,726,137
29
12%
5,306,705
4
By-pass line Existing line
29
12%
7,264,726
5
By-pass line Existing line
By-pass line
148,488
246,609
375,136
125,348
23,969
4,087
7,738
25,062
324,382
374,682
383,493
92,649
26,788
6,463
9,286
18,303
155,542
262,392
399,145
133,370
25,503
4,349
8,234
26,666
339,790
398,662
408,036
98,578
28,502
6,876
9,880
19,474
162,930
279,185
424,690
141,906
27,135
4,627
8,760
28,372
355,930
424,176
434,151
104,887
30,326
7,317
10,513
20,721
170,669
297,053
451,870
150,988
28,872
4,923
9,321
30,188
372,837
451,323
461,936
111,600
32,267
7,785
11,185
22,047
178,776
316,064
480,790
160,651
30,719
5,239
9,918
32,120
390,547
480,208
491,500
118,742
34,332
8,283
11,901
23,458
187,268
336,292
511,561
170,933
32,685
5,574
10,552
34,176
409,098
510,941
522,956
126,342
36,529
8,813
12,663
24,959
465,893
165,455
723,906
1,615,450
405,704
204,824
527,927
446,465
1,253,590
2,648,570
749,161
495,710
176,044
770,236
1,718,839
431,669
217,933
561,714
475,038
1,333,820
2,818,079
797,108
527,435
187,310
819,531
1,828,844
459,296
245,520
632,821
535,173
1,502,666
3,174,814
898,012
561,191
199,298
871,981
1,945,890
488,691
261,234
673,321
569,424
1,598,836
3,378,002
955,485
597,108
212,053
927,788
2,070,427
519,967
277,953
716,414
605,867
1,701,162
3,594,194
1,016,636
635,322
225,625
987,166
2,202,935
553,245
312,172
804,612
680,456
1,910,594
4,036,680
1,141,795
5%
0%
-20%
5%
5%
0%
-20%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
Total Infrastructure
USD
4,332,846
7,066,582
4,607,698
7,513,491
4,900,024
8,377,026
5,210,937
8,907,283
5,541,621
9,471,197
5,893,335
10,538,610
TOTAL Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance
USD
8,121,467
12,196,578
8,623,190
12,941,442
9,162,935
14,133,642
9,798,149
15,131,517
10,476,234
16,197,334
11,200,040
17,803,336
In/Decrease in %
50%
50%
54%
54%
55%
59%
page 41 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass
In/Decrease
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
Existing line By-pass line
in %
1.290
2.656
1.396
2.875
1.510
3.108
1.631
3.358
1.760
3.624
13.538
27.875
106%
136
139
142
145
149
152
156
159
163
167
1.440
1.471
2%
482
789
513
840
546
894
581
951
618
1.012
5.083
8.318
64%
1.129
2.010
1.241
2.210
1.364
2.427
1.496
2.663
1.640
2.919
11.821
21.040
78%
328
360
349
383
371
408
395
434
420
461
3.452
3.794
10%
2.341
1.889
2.490
2.010
2.650
2.139
2.819
2.275
3.000
2.421
24.666
19.907
-19%
30
16%
5.705
30
16%
7.843
31
20%
6.132
31
20%
8.462
32
24%
6.589
32
24%
9.127
33
27%
7.078
33
27%
9.840
34
31%
7.601
34
31%
10.604
60.000
82.406
37%
Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass Existing By-pass
In/Decrease
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
Existing line By-pass line
in %
196
358
544
182
35
6
11
36
429
544
556
134
39
9
13
27
205
381
579
194
37
6
12
39
449
578
592
143
41
10
14
28
215
405
616
206
39
7
13
41
470
615
630
152
44
11
15
30
225
431
656
219
42
7
14
44
493
655
670
162
47
11
16
32
236
459
698
233
45
8
14
47
516
697
713
172
50
12
17
34
2.082
3.771
5.736
1.917
366
62
118
383
4.549
5.729
5.864
1.417
410
99
142
280
118%
52%
2%
-26%
12%
58%
20%
-27%
676
240
1.050
2.344
589
332
856
724
2.033
4.295
1.215
719
255
1.118
2.494
626
353
911
770
2.163
4.570
1.293
765
272
1.189
2.654
666
376
969
820
2.301
4.862
1.375
814
289
1.265
2.823
709
400
1.031
872
2.449
5.174
1.463
866
308
1.346
3.004
754
426
1.097
928
2.605
5.505
1.557
7.124
2.530
11.069
24.701
6.203
3.407
8.781
7.426
20.852
44.056
12.461
#DIV/0!
23%
194%
88%
78%
101%
5%
0%
6.267
-10%
5%
11.206
5%
0%
6.665
-10%
5%
11.916
5%
0%
7.088
-10%
5%
12.672
5%
0%
7.539
-10%
5%
13.475
5%
0%
8.017
-10%
5%
14.329
66.064
115.473
75%
11.973
19.049
12.797
20.379
13.677
21.799
14.616
23.315
15.619
24.933
126.064
197.879
57%
59%
59%
59%
60%
60%
57%
page 42 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Figure 8 Diagram - Result Base Scenario – by items cumulated
The main differences between current system and by-pass system after 11 years are:
1. Tunnel maintenance (no tunnels on the existing line)
2. Subgrade maintenance - +194% 3. Energy for infrastructure operation (transformer stations) - +118% 4. Energy cost for traction (substations) - +106% 5. Signalling and Telecommunication maintenance - + 101% -
page 43 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
The new system allows savings in indirect staff (-19%), other expenses – power department (-27%) and signalling
maintenance staff costs (-26%). However, the total savings of 5,4 Mio USD in 11 years can be considered as
“peanuts” compared to the increase of other factors.
The most cost sensitive factor is the freight traction energy with a total consumption of approximately 15.998
MWh for the existing system compared to approximately 32.940 MWh for the by-pass system (12,0 Mio USD in
11 years compared to 24,7 Mio USD resulting in a gap of 12,7 Mio USD). This immense increase of energy costs
can be attributed to the alignment characteristics of the by-pass which can be considered as “mountain panorama
line”. The energy demand for heavy freight trains is more 2 times higher than on the existing line.
7.3. Scenario 1
7.3.1.
Assumptions:
The following main assumptions were taken in consideration:

Indexation of electricity: 3 % (Base scenario 4,75%)

Indexation of other costs: 5 % (Base scenario 6,4%)

Increase of transported goods: starting with 25,9 Mio tonnes to 34 Mio tonnes in 10 years

Passenger transport: no increase

Personnel: stable (no additional staff – optimized operation and utilization of staff)

Add-up/down: Maintenance intensity old vs. new: between + 5% for existing line and -25% for by-pass
system (Base scenario -20%)

Add-up/down: Maintenance due to tight curves and gradients: +3% for by-pass line (Base scenario: 5%)

Financing costs are not mentioned in the calculation
7.3.2.
Result:
The following table shows the comparison between Base scenario and Scenario 1.
The calculation shows that a reduction of the indexation of 1,75% (electricity) and 1,4% (other costs) will lead to a
total reduction of almost 10% of total costs. That means that the system is highly sensitive for inflation. As already
mentioned in the base scenario, the main factor for significant savings is the energy consumption. Measures for
reducing energy costs would be optimized train weights or purchasing strategies. The reduction of 1,75% of
energy indexation leads to saving of 1,2 Mio USD (existing line) and 2,5 Mio USD (by-pass line), which are 10%
compared to the total savings (21,3 Mio USD by-pass line) in Scenario 1. Further major saving potentials (13,0
Mio USD by-pass line – 22%) are reduced maintenance costs for new infrastructure based on optimized
maintenance methods (Keyword: preventive vs. corrective maintenance).
page 44 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Table 16 Result Scenario 1 Comparison
Scenario Comparison
Scenario 1
Base Scenario
Total
Total
year 0-10
Train Operations
Electricity (Traction)
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Freight
TUSD
12,303
25,332
13,538
27,875
Passenger
TUSD
1,315
1,344
1,440
1,471
Staff direct
Maintenance
Existing line
Difference Sceanrio 1 to Base Scenario
TUSD
4,723
7,728
5,083
8,318
Freight
TUSD
10,940
19,472
11,821
21,040
Passenger
TUSD
3,207
3,525
3,452
3,794
Staff indirect
TUSD
22,918
18,496
24,666
19,907
Total operation
TUSD
55,406
75,898
60,000
82,406
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
year
Total
Infrastructure
Existing line
91%
91%
93%
93%
93%
93%
92%
-1,235
-125
-360
-881
-245
-1,748
-4,594
By-pass line
91%
91%
93%
93%
93%
93%
92%
-2,543
-127
-590
-1,568
-269
-1,411
-6,508
Total
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Operation
Power (non-traction)
TUSD
1,902
4,155
2,082
4,549
Staff (Power department)
TUSD
3,504
5,323
3,771
5,729
Staff (Track department)
TUSD
5,329
5,448
5,736
5,864
Staff (Signalling department)
TUSD
1,781
1,316
1,917
1,417
Material (Power department)
TUSD
341
381
366
410
Fuel (Power department)
TUSD
58
92
62
99
Other expenses (electricity, supply) - Signalling
TUSD department)110
132
118
142
Other expenses (electricity, utilities, diagnostics)
TUSD - Power department)
356
260
383
280
91%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
-180
-267
-407
-136
-26
-4
-8
-27
91%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
-394
-406
-416
-100
-29
-7
-10
-20
0
-505
-179
-785
-1,751
-440
86%
86%
86%
86%
86%
86%
-474
-1,221
-1,032
-2,899
-6,125
-1,732
-4,716
0
-9,310
87%
-14,865
0
-21,373
Maintenance
6,394
2,530
7,426
Track maintenance/anno
TUSD
10,284
17,953
11,069
20,852
Electricity system maintenance/a
TUSD
22,950
37,931
24,701
44,056
5,764
10,729
6,203
12,461
0%
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
61,348
100,608
66,064
115,473
93%
Tunnel maintenance/anno
TUSD
-
2,933
-
3,407
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
TUSD
6,619
7,561
7,124
8,781
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade
TUSD
for stations) 2,351
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a
TUSD
Total Infrastructure
TUSD
-
-
TOTAL Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance
TUSD
116,755
In/Decrease in %
51%
176,506
-
-
126,064
197,879
93%
89%
57%
page 45 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
7.3.3.
Conclusion
For freight operation services, an increase of 50% in transport km (1280 daily km compared to 1920 daily km in
the new system) together with longer travel times and the additional shunting times for additional locomotives for
lower train weights +149% - (additional locomotive at existing system for trains with more than 3000 tonnes,
compared to trains with more than 1800 tonnes at by-pass line) was identified. However, this is not astonishing
since the by-pass is longer than the current line. Besides that, the additional shunting necessities will lead to
challenging operations at Mckheta station as long it is not upgraded (additional costs) to a high capacity turning
plate for freight trains over the by-pass, urban/local passenger transport and maintenance runs. Even then, the
capacity calculation results in 78 trains W-E and 85 trains E-W (total 163 train/day, 8,15 trains per hour) for the
by-pass system (Practical capacity) compared to a practical capacity of 217 trains/day at the current system
which is a decrease of -25%.
The new passenger concept with its two head stations which are not located in the city center increase the travel
km by 1% compared to the existing system. However, this does not necessarily result equal operation km since
several operational issues such as maintenance runs (not decided yet where W-E bound passenger trains will be
serviced and maintained), shunting in the head stations for non-EMU trains etc. will be a major challenge for
operational staff, not taking into consideration disadvantages for passengers in the new system.
Taking into consideration all items under review in respect to their costs, the most important factors will be the
increasing energy costs (energy for infrastructure operation +118%; traction +106%), maintenance costs for
signalling (+101%) and subgrade maintenance (194%). The maintenance costs for tunnels (3,4 Mio USD) shall be
another challenge in the new system.
The results of the comparative calculation clearly show that a project implementation in the present form cannot
be considered as advisable from an economic point of view.
The Consultant suggests undertaking additional research on measures for cost reduction and for increasing
economic attractiveness of the project.
page 46 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex
Annex 1a F-V-diagrams locomotion VL 10
page 47 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
page 48 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 1b Data locomotion VL 10
Passenger trains
Loco
No. of
locos
Total
mass of
train (t)
Mass of
locomotive
No. of
trailers
Max.
speed
(kph)
Max.
acceleration
(m/s²)
Decelaeration
(m/s²)
Contingency
for
headwind
(kph)
1
622
184
8
80
1
0,5
10
1
840
184
12
80
1
0,5
10
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
Freight trains
Loco
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
VL 10
(11)
No. of
locos
Mass of
locomotive
Mass of
wagons
(t)
Max.
speed
(kph)
Max.
acceleration
(m/s²)
Decelaeration
(m/s²)
Contingency
for
headwind
(kph)
3
552
4000
80
1
0,5
10
2
368
4000
80
1
0,5
10
2
368
3500
80
1
0,5
10
2
368
3000
80
1
0,5
10
2
368
2220
80
1
0,5
10
1
184
4000
80
1
0,5
10
1
184
3500
80
1
0,5
10
1
184
3000
80
1
0,5
10
1
184
2220
80
1
0,5
10
page 49 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 2a F-V-diagrams EMU
Annex 2b Data EMU
Loco
No. of
locos
Total
mass of
train (t)
Mass of
unit
No. of
units
Max.
speed
(kph)
Max.
acceleration
(m/s²)
Decelaeration
(m/s²)
EMU*
AeR-2*
0
0
300
314
75
104,6
4
3
130
130
1
1
0,6
0,6
Contingency
for
headwind
(kph)
10
10
* ER2 technical configuration will be the basis for all time calculations, which defines an average of the 3 different
types of EMUs used at Georgian Railways.
page 50 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 3a Existing Line passenger train EMU without stop, Vmax = 80 km/h
page 51 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 3b Existing Line passenger train EMU without stop, Vmax = 100 km/h
page 52 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 4a Existing Line passenger train EMU with 8 stops, Vmax = 80 km/h
page 53 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 4b Existing Line passenger train EMU with 8 stops, Vmax = 100 km/h
page 54 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
page 55 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 5 Existing Line passenger train long 1 locomotive without stop
page 56 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 6 Existing Line passenger train long 1 locomotive 8 stops
page 57 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
page 58 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 7 Existing Line passenger train short 1 locomotive with 8 stops
page 59 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 8 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 1200 t one stop
page 60 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 9 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 1800 t one stop
Annex 10 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 2200 t one stop
page 61 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 11 Existing Line freight train 1 locomotive 3000 t one stop
Annex 12 Existing Line freight train 2 locomotives 3500 t one stop
page 62 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 13 Existing Line freight train 2 locomotives 4000 t one stop
Annex 14 Bypass Line passenger train EMU without 2 stops
page 63 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
page 64 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 15 Bypass Line passenger train 1 locomotive long without stop
page 65 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 16 Bypass Line freight train 1 locomotive 1200 t with one stop
page 66 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 17 Bypass Line freight train 1 locomotive 1800 t with one stop
Annex 18 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 2200 t with two stops
page 67 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 19 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 3000 t with two stops
Annex 20 Bypass Line freight train 2 locomotives 3500 t with two stops
page 68 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 21 Bypass Line freight train 2 and 3 locomotives 4000 t with two stops
page 69 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 22 Running time and energy consumption existing line
Kind
No
Traintype
stops
11a
EMU
4W
Vmax = 80 kph
0
11b
EMU
4W
Vmax = 100 kph
0
EMU
4W
Vmax = 80 kph
8
12b
EMU
4W
Vmax = 100 kph
8
14a
VL 10
long
12 trailers
Vmax = 80 kph
VL 10
long
12 trailers
Vmax = 80 kph
VL 10
short
8 trailers
Vmax = 80 kph
8
Passenger 12a
trains
14b
15
0
8
start/end
Zahesi speed [kph] Tiblisi Marshalling Yard
direction
length [km]
24,0
delta elevation [m]
-10,21
-->
running time [s]
80
1075
energy consuption [kWh]
105
<-running time [s]
1078
energy consuption [kWh]
138
-->
running time [s]
100
853
energy consuption [kWh]
120
<-running time [s]
853
energy consuption [kWh]
174
-->
running time [s]
0
1350
energy consuption [kWh]
261
<-running time [s]
1351
energy consuption [kWh]
318
-->
running time [s]
0
1231
energy consuption [kWh]
351
<-running time [s]
1235
energy consuption [kWh]
408
-->
running time [s]
0
1403
energy consuption [kWh]
724
<-running time [s]
1404
energy consuption [kWh]
868
-->
running time [s]
80
1066
energy consuption [kWh]
237
<-running time [s]
1066
energy consuption [kWh]
365
-->
running time [s]
0
1358
energy consuption [kWh]
549
<-running time [s]
1359
energy consuption [kWh]
661
page 70 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Kind
Traintype
1 x VL 10
1200 t
stops
direction
length [km]
delta elevation [m]
1
-->
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
<-Freight
trains
1 x VL 10
1800 t
1
-->
<--
1 x VL 10
2220 t
1
-->
<--
1 x VL 10
3000 t
1
-->
<--
2 x VL 10
3500 t
2
-->
<--
2 x VL 10
4000 t
start/end
start/end Mckheta speed [kph] speed [kph] Tiblisi Marshalling Yard
32
-10,21
1
-->
<--
80
0
60
0
80
0
60
0
80
0
60
0
80
0
60
0
80
0
60
0
80
0
60
0
1468
646
1921
863
1473
958
1936
1280
1481
1167
1948
1570
1505
1531
1984
2099
1472
1837
1934
2469
1477
2088
1941
2816
page 71 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 23 Passenger trains existing line in detail
Kind
No
Traintype
stops
EMU
4W
Vmax = 80 kph
8
12b
EMU
4W
Vmax = 100 kph
8
14a
VL 10
long
12 trailers
Vmax = 80 kph
VL 10
short
8 trailers
Vmax = 80 kph
8
Passenger 12a
trains
15
8
start/end
Zahesi - Achwala Didube Tiblisi Central - Platform 6 Platform 8 Tiblisi Rail Junction start/end Zahesi speed [kph] Awchala
Didube Tiblisi Central
Platform 6
Platform 8 Tiblisi Rail Junction Tiblisi Marshalling Yard speed [kph] Tiblisi Marshalling Yard
direction
length [km]
3
6
4
3
2
1
5
24,0
delta elevation [m]
-14
-12
3
12
2
-11
3
-10,21
-->
running time [s]
0
174
374
174
97
204
106
221
0
1350
energy consuption [kWh]
30
48
45
36
51
24
27
261
<-running time [s]
175
374
174
95
204
107
222
1351
energy consuption [kWh]
51
69
30
24
48
39
57
318
-->
running time [s]
0
161
322
164
97
194
103
190
0
1231
energy consuption [kWh]
45
66
60
36
66
33
45
351
<-running time [s]
166
320
161
94
193
107
194
1235
energy consuption [kWh]
66
93
48
27
60
39
75
408
-->
running time [s]
0
182
381
182
103
214
112
229
0
1403
energy consuption [kWh]
81
128
122
106
140
66
81
724
<-running time [s]
182
381
182
103
214
113
229
1404
energy consuption [kWh]
140
184
82
68
131
105
158
868
-->
running time [s]
0
176
375
175
96
205
108
223
0
1358
energy consuption [kWh]
61
99
92
80
105
51
61
549
<-running time [s]
175
375
176
98
205
107
223
1359
energy consuption [kWh]
106
143
62
53
98
79
120
661
page 72 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 24 Running time and energy consumption bypass line
Kind
Passenger
trains
Kind
No
Traintype
stops
31
EMU (4W)
2
32
1 x VL 10 / VL 11
long
12 trailers
0
start/end
Awchala speed [kph] Kvirike
direction
length [km]
20
delta elevation [m]
254
-->
running time [s]
0
944
energy consuption [kWh]
366
<-running time [s]
0
942
energy consuption [kWh]
12
-->
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
<--
No
Traintype
stops
direction
41
1 x VL 10 / VL 11
1200 t
1
-->
<--
Freight
trains
42
1 x VL 10 / VL 11
1800 t
1
-->
<--
43
2 x VL 10 / VL 11
2220 t
2
-->
<--
44
2 x VL 10 / VL 11
3000 t
2
-->
<--
45
2 x VL 10 / VL 11
3500 t
2
-->
<--
46
3 x VL 10 / VL 11
4000 t
2 x VL 10 / VL 11
2
-->
2
<--
length [km]
delta elevation [m]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
running time [s]
energy consuption [kWh]
Kvirike Tiblisi
Mckheta Marshalling
start/end
Mckheta / Awchala Kvirike
Yard
speed [kph] Tiblisi Marshalling Yard
25
23
48
226
-283
-57
1238
0
2182
45
411
1235
0
2177
447
459
80
1080
871
1080
128
80
start/end
Mckheta speed [kph] Kvirike
25
45
50
45
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
226
1912
1257
1739
203
1912
1871
1739
299
1929
2380
1765
359
1934
3206
1766
484
1939
3730
1766
561
1932
4276
1765
638
1209
134
1210
1130
80
80
2289
1005
2290
1258
Kvirike Tiblisi
Marshalling
start/end
Mckheta / Awchala Yard
speed [kph] Tiblisi Marshalling Yard
23
48
-283
-57
1837
0
3749
51
1308
2023
0
3762
1523
1726
1838
0
3750
72
1943
2034
0
3773
2268
2567
1837
0
3766
94
2474
2022
0
3787
2807
3166
1839
0
3773
121
3327
2028
0
3794
3781
4265
1838
0
3777
138
3868
2033
0
3799
4401
4962
1838
0
3770
162
4438
2038
0
3803
5022
5660
page 73 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 26 Calculation Model
Annex 26a General Assumptions
General Assumptions
unit
Working days/year
days
Salaries/year
Exchange rate 1 USD - GEL (April 2013)Exchange rate 1 EUR - USD (April 2013)
Exchange rate 1 EUR - GEL (April 2013)Exchange rate 1 CHF - GEL (April 2013)Exchange rate 1 CHF - USD (April 2013)
Indexation (General)
%
Indexation (Energy)
%
Indexation (Personnel)
%
Energy Tariff
GEL/kwH
value
Reference
260
12
1,6514
1,30215
2,1444
1,7653
1,07737
6,40%
4,75%
6,40%
0,087
MC
MC
www.oanda.com [8.4.13]
www.oanda.com [24.4.13]
www.oanda.com [8.4.13]
www.oanda.com [8.4.13]
www.oanda.com [15.4.13]
National Statistics Office of Georgia (CPI - 2006-2012 - Annual Average)
Georgian railways (weighted energy price 2008-2012)
National Statistics Office of Georgia (CPI - 2006-2012 - Annual Average)
Georgien Railways
Annex 26b Train operations/maintenance comparison (TOMC)
Overview - Train Operations Comparison on daily operation basis
km
freight
passenger
Total
km
km
km
Existing
line
1,280
638
1,918
Travel times
freight
passenger
Total
min
min
min
1,302
773
2,076
3,242
594
3,836
149%
-23%
85%
Electricity (Traction)
freight
passenger
Total
USD
USD
USD
3,242
395
3,636
6,674
404
7,078
106%
2%
95%
USD
297
593
100%
USD
USD
USD
2,584
868
3,452
4,599
954
5,553
78%
10%
61%
tonnes
trains
trains
locos
1,134,000
324
217
68
868,839
248
163
86
-23%
-23%
-25%
26%
Description
Unit
Personnel costs for shunting
Maintenance
freight
passenger
Total
Theoretical capacity (based on 3500 tonnes trains)
Theoretical capacity (without station restriction)
Practical capacity (without station restrictions)
Necessary locos at full practical capacity
By-pass
line
1,920
646
2,566
In/Decrea
se (%)
50%
1%
34%
page 74 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Time Comparison
Direction
E-W
Description
Freight trains
Freight
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
weight
(tonnes)
no of
trains/
day
Average
Average
shuntin
travel
g/stoppi
time
ng time
(min)/train
(min)
Existing line
(min)
Average
Average
shunting By-pass line In/Decrease
travel time
time
(min)
(%)
(min)/train
(min)
40
375
42000
0
3600
7200
36000
3600
7200
3,242
149%
*
3500
12
32
14
549
63
33
1,156
0
33
0
0
63
33
0
2
32
0
65
63
0
126
6
32
0
192
63
0
376
301
63
28
1,085
125
E-W
Freight
3000
E-W
Freight
1800
E-W
Freight
1200
W-E
Freight
3000
12
25
0
W-E
Freight
1800
2
25
0
49
63
0
W-E
Freight
1200
6
24
0
147
62
0
2490
Total Freight
Transported tonnes/year (incl. Tara)
1,302
25,896,000
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains) 56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
18
0
18
38
0
38
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
12
9
64
9
6
46
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
12
9
63
9
6
46
E-W
14
12
9
295
9
6
212
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
18
0
18
38
0
38
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
12
46
4
3
14
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
12
45
4
3
13
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
10
12
225
4
3
20
6
Total Passenger
773
Total s/year
2,076
120
*
67
594
3,836
-23%
85%
page 75 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Traction km comparison
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
travel
no of
km
trains/ (km)/trai
day
n
Freight trains
trains
Existing line
(km)
Average
travel
km
(km)/trai
n
By-pass line In/Decrease
(km)
(%)
40
E-W
Freight
3500
12
32
384
48
E-W
Freight
3000
0
32
0
48
0
E-W
Freight
1800
2
32
64
48
96
E-W
Freight
1200
6
32
192
48
288
W-E
Freight
3000
12
32
384
48
576
W-E
Freight
1800
2
32
64
48
96
W-E
Freight
1200
6
32
192
48
288
Total Freight
1.280
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
576
1.920
50%
56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
32
48
48
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
63
17
51
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
63
17
51
E-W
14
21
294
17
238
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
W-E
20
20
7
140
1
32
32
48
48
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
22
5
10
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
22
5
10
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
11
110
5
14
Total Passenger
Total Passenger+Freight
Total km/year
50
638
646
1%
1.918
2.566
34%
498.680
667.160
34%
page 76 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Assumptions:
traction
Shunt
ing
times
(min) % of trains
Stopping
times
No of
tonnes stopps
stopping time for passenger trains
3
Reference
100%
Georgian Railw ays
27
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
50%
Georgian Railw ays
27
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
27
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
50%
Georgian Railw ays
27
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
Georgian Railw ays
existing line
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
4000
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
3500
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
2220
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
3000
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
1800
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
1200
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
4000
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
3500
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
2220
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
3000
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
1800
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
1200
VL 10/VL11
4000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
100%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
14
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
14
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
14
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
14
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
25
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
25
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
25
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
25
50%
Georgian Railw ays
41
50%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
100%
Georgian Railw ays
0
0
By-Pass
Freight (W à E)
Georgian Railw ays
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
3500
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
3000
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
2220
VL 10/VL11
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
1800
Freight (W à E)
VL 10/VL11
1200
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
4000
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
3500
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
3000
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
2220
VL 10/VL11
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
1800
Freight (E à W)
VL 10/VL11
1200
0
0
0
0
0
0
page 77 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Electricity cost comparison
Direction
Description
Weight
(tonnes)
Average
electricity
no of
consumpt
trains/d
price
ion/train Existing line
ay
USD/kwh
(kwh)
(USD)
Freight trains
Average
electricity
consumptio
n/train
By-pass line In/Decrease
(kwh)
(USD)
(%)
40
E-W
Freight
3.500
12
0,053
2.469
1.561
4.962
E-W
Freight
3.000
0
0,053
1.984
0
4.265
0
E-W
Freight
1.800
2
0,053
1.280
135
2.567
270
E-W
Freight
1.200
6
0,053
863
273
1.726
546
W-E
Freight
3.000
12
0,053
1.531
968
3.327
2.103
W-E
Freight
1.800
2
0,053
958
101
1.943
205
W-E
Total
Freight
Freight
1.200
6
0,053
646
204
1.308
413
3.242
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
3.137
6.674
106%
56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
0,053
365
19
1.258
66
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
0,053
369
58
267
42
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
0,053
282
44
205
32
E-W
14
0,053
137
101
99
73
20
0,053
83
87
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
0,053
237
12
1.005
53
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
0,053
428
45
184
19
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
0,053
324
34
80
8
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
10
0,053
153
81
42
22
Total Passenger
Total Passenger+Freight
Total Costs for traction energy in USD/year
Yearly Energy
Consumtion
Energy Consumtion freight
Energy Consumtion passenger
Total Energy Consumtion
395
404
2%
3.636
7.078
95%
945.468
1.840.282
95%
Existing
By-pass
line (MWh) line (MWh)
15.998
1.949
17.947
32.940
1.992
34.932
page 78 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Personnel&Shunting (Freight)
Weight
(tonnes)
no of
trains/day
40.00
Additional
shunting
Existing
line (USD)
Additional
shunting
Freight
3500
12
2
296.75
2
296.75
Freight
3000
0
0.00
2
0.00
Freight
1800
2
0.00
E-W
Freight
1200
6
0.00
W-E
Freight
3000
12
0.00
W-E
Freight
1800
2
0.00
0.00
W-E
Freight
Total Freight
1200
6
0.00
0.00
Direction
Description
Freight trains
E-W
E-W
E-W
0.00
0.00
2
297
Staff
296.75
593
77,155
Total USD/year
By-pass In/Decrease
line (USD)
(%)
100%
154,310
total
working
costs/loco
Salary in
working preparation time per coupling/un
No. Of staff
USD
time (min) time (min)
loco
coupling
coupling/un
(USD)
coupling
810
1
34
20
4.56
54
Category
Train driver
659
1
34
Marshaling hill on duty
9
486
1
15
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
9
454
1
15
Specialist in cargo services
10
324
1
3
15
Train Checker-compiler
9
486
1
10
20
324
1
15
Train driver assistant
Station assistant
54
15
15
18
30
15
20
3.71
0.76
0.71
0.61
1.52
0.51
12.36
Total
Traction maintenance comparison
DirectDescription Weight (tonnes)
ion
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
Freight trains
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
W-E
Freight
Total Freight
Average
Mainten
no of travel
ance
trains
km
cost/km
/day (km)/trai
(USD)
n
Unit
No. Of Existing
tractio
line
n units (USD)
3500
3000
1800
1200
3000
1800
40
12
0
2
6
12
2
32
32
32
32
32
32
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
1,55
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
2
1
1
1
1
1
1200
6
32
1,55
USD
1
Passenger trains (34/day + 2 Erevan Trains)
Add
AverNo.
ups
age
Add
ByOf
In/Decr
gradie
travel ups
pass
ease
n-ts tracti
km utilisaline
on
(%)
and
(km)/t tion
(km)
curves units
rain
(USD)
1.192
0
99
298
596
99
48
48
48
48
48
48
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
0,78
2
2
1
1
2
1
298
48
0,07
0,78
1
USD
2.584
1.380
0
230
690
1.380
230
690
4.599
78%
56
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
1,55
USD
50
48
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
1,55
USD
98
17
E-W
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops / 2 stops
3
21
1,55
USD
98
17
79
E-W
14
21
1,25
USD
368
17
298
20
0
1,25
USD
W-E
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
add. maintenance runs for services in
Avchala
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop
1
32
1,55
USD
50
48
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
1,55
USD
34
5
16
W-E
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops / 1 stop
2
11
1,55
USD
34
5
16
10
11
1,25
USD
138
5
USD
868
954
10%
USD
3.452
5.553
61%
W-E
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
Total Passenger
Total
0,07
0,78
1
115
79
7
175
0,07
0,78
115
63
page 79 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Utilisation comparison
Theoretical Utilisation calculation VL10/11
locos
Unit
Total theoretically operation hours (working
traction)/day
Existing
line:
In/Decr
By-pass ease
line:
(%)
h
620
620
average round trip duration existing line (Border -->
Kashuri --> Border), incl. Empty operation times
h
11,08
12,22
additional Shunting times train
h
0
1,25
Push/pull operation time roundtrip
h
0
4,19
26
26
369,888
Total train roundtrips/day (average)
Total Operation hours/day
h
288,132
Utilisation
%
46,47%
59,66% 28,37%
Assumptions:
unit
value
current maintenance cost per year and VL 10 traction unit
GEL
200.000
Georgian Railw ays
current maintenance cost per year and VL 10 traction unit
USD
121.109
Georgian Railw ays
Current average km/day
km
300
Georgian Railw ays
Working days per year
days
260
MC
Average km/VL 10 traction unit year
km
78.000
MC (calculated)
Maintenance cost VL 10 traction unit/km
USD
1,55
MC (calculated - based on GR input)
Maintenance cost EMU unit/km
USD
1,25
ÖBB PV AG - Siemens Talent ( -40% for Georgian salary structure)
Maintenance in respect to utilisation (Every 10% of utisation
improvment reflects 1,5% of additional maintenance cost)
%
1,5%
Maintenance in respect to tight curves and gradients
Factor
1,50
MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and severl implemented projects around the
w orld)
Georgian Railw ays (experience of ÖBB Production GmbH on Semmering line - 23
‰, 9 tight curves 190 m radius --> maintenance factor 2,5 times higher than flat
w est line)
price/traction unit
USD
1.400.000
Assement report by Booz Allen Hamilton (2005)
ratio price traction unit/yearly maintenance cost
%
8,65%
number of traction units
piece
41
Georgian Railw ays
number of traction units - out of order
piece
10
Georgian Railw ays
operations time/day
h
20,0
Georgian Railw ays
maintenance time/day
h
4,0
Georgian Railw ays
average km/day
km
300
Georgian Railw ays
Travel time border-marshalling yard
h
1,0
Georgian Railw ays
Travel time marshalling yard - Zahes (Existing line)
h
0,4
Georgian Railw ays
Travel time marshalling yard - Zahes (By-pass line)
h
0,8
Georgian Railw ays
Travel time Zahes - Khashuri
h
2,0
Georgian Railw ays
Border handling time (customes, etc.)
h
2,5
Georgian Railw ays
Average Shunting double traction
h
1,25
Georgian Railw ays
Additional traction units for by-pass operation (including buffer)
3
Georgian Railw ays
VL 10/11freight trains + passenger E-W/day
27
Georgian Railw ays
VL 10/11 freight trains + passenger W-E/day
25
Georgian Railw ays
factor of coupling/uncoupling)
0,3
MC
20
MC
empty operation times line traction
%
Reference
page 80 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
By-pass capacity
Direction
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
Weight
(tonnes)
Description
Average
weight
(tonnes)
no of
trains/day
Freight
3500
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 3 stops 0/ 2 stops
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 3 stops0/ 2 stops
EMU (3 stops / 2 stops)
0
12
0
2
6
1
3
3
14
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Passenger (VL10 - long) - 4 stops 0/ 1 stop
Passenger (VL10 - short) - 4 stops0/ 1 stop
EMU (4 stops / 1 stop)
0
12
2
6
1
2
2
10
Average Influence average
Average
shunting
on byspeed in
travel time
time
pass
slowest
(min)/train
(min)
capacity
block
63
33
x
40
63
33
x
40
63
0
x
40
63
0
x
40
18
0
x
60
12
9
12
9
12
9
63
63
62
18
11
11
10
Slowest
throuput
throuput
Block operation
time
time
passing s/safety
cummulated
time
time
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
126.0
0.0
21.0
63.0
7.0
126.0
147.0
210.0
217.0
ratio
5.5
theoritical capacity (trains/day)
practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day) - E-W
116
x
x
x
x
28
0
0
0
12
12
12
40
40
40
60
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.5
78
126.0
21.0
63.0
7.0
147.0
210.0
217.0
ratio
theoritical capacity (trains/day)
practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day) - W-E
5.5
127
Total theoritical capacity (trains/day)
Total practical capacity without shunting/siding
restriction (trains/day)
243
Total Theoretical capacity (existing line)
Total Practical capacity (existing line)
324
217
85
163
By pass system necessary traction units
Direction
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
E-W
W-E
W-E
W-E
W-E
Weight
(tonnes)
Description
no of
trains/day
Freight
3500
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
Freight
3000
Freight
1800
Freight
1200
Passenger (VL10 - long) - no stop 0
12
0
2
6
1
12
2
6
1
max.
Additiona max.
necessar
Locos based
Locos
No. Of
necessary
roundtrip
l locos for roundtri y no. Of total no.
on
based on
traction
no. Of
s/traction
mountain ps/tracti additonal Of locos theoretical practical
locomotive
locos
unit
traction on unit
locos
capacity
capacity
1
2.00
6
1
2.00
0
1
2.00
1
1
2.00
3
1
2.00
0
1
2.00
6
1
2.00
1
1
2.00
3
1
2.00
0
Locomotives
20
Locomotives Buffer
13%
Total Locomotives by-pass line
1
1
11
11
2
0
1
9
2
4
unit
value
Practical capacity - Double Track
% - 3 Train Categories
67%
(Speed)
max. block length
m
3500
operations hours/day
h
20
total locomotives existing line
68
Theoretical Capacity existing line (W-E)
117
Theoretical Capacity existing line (E-W)
100
114.0
15.0
129.0
76.0
10.0
86.0
68.00
18.00
Total Locomotives existing line
Increase/Decrease in total figures
Assumptions:
24
Reference
Sapienza -Universität Di Roma - (RFI 2004 - Italian Railway basis) - Evangelia Kontaxi presented at
Rail Zurich 2009
Georgian Railways (Design)
MC
Georgian Railways
Georgian Railways
Georgian Railways
Note:
Analytical Methods UIC 405 Formula - 1996 (L=T/(tfm+tr+tzu)
Analytical Methods: These are very simple models aimed at determining a preliminary solution. These methods can also be used for reference or comparison. They are
designed to model the railway environment by means of mathematical formulae or algebraic expressions. They usually obtain theoretical capacities and determine
practical capacities either as a percentage of the theoretical capacity or by including regularity margins when they calculate the theoretical capacity.
page 81 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 26c Infrastructure operations/maintenance comparison (IOC, IMC)
Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison (Basis Year)
Existing
line
Description
By-pass
line
In/Decrease
(%)
Power (non-traction)
USD
148,488
324,382
Staff (Power department)
USD
246,609
374,682
Staff (Track department)
USD
375,136
383,493
Staff (Signalling department)
USD
125,348
92,649
Material (Power department)
Fuel (Power department)
USD
USD
23,969
4,087
26,788
6,463
Other expenses - Signalling department
USD
7,738
9,286
USD
25,062
18,303
118%
52%
2%
-26%
12%
58%
20%
-27%
USD
956,438
1,236,045
29%
Other expenses - Power department
Total
Existing
line
Description
By-pass
line
In/Decrease
(%)
USD
443,707
621,090
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade for stations)
USD
157,576
525,252
Track maintenance/anno
USD
689,434
1,474,812
Electricity system maintenance/a
USD
1,538,524
3,115,965
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a USD
Total
USD
386,385
881,366
#DIV/0!
40%
233%
114%
103%
128%
3,215,626
6,859,455
113%
Tunnel maintenance/anno
USD
0
240,969
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
Infrastructure Operations Cost (Basis Year)
Existing
line
Description
By-pass
line
Power (non-traction)
USD
148,488
324,382
Staff (Power department)
USD
246,609
374,682
Staff (Track department)
USD
375,136
383,493
Staff (Signalling department)
USD
125,348
92,649
Material (Power department)
USD
23,969
26,788
Fuel (Power department)
Other expenses (electricity, supply) - Signalling
department)
USD
4,087
6,463
USD
7,738
9,286
USD
25,062
18,303
USD
956,438
1,236,045
Other expenses (electricity, utilities, diagnostics) Power department)
Total
Assumptions:
unit
value
Reference
Infrastructure comparision only include the structures beween Marshalling yard and Zahes (station buildings and line between
Zahes & Mecketa is to be assumed equal or not comparible due to system change)
Input data based on estimations of respective departments (electricity, signalling, track, etc.)
page 82 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
IOC-Energy Input (based on estimations and figures of power department)
Current line
Salary/m
onth
(GEL)
Operations cost current line
(based on 2012 figure)
STAFF
Contact
Network
Region
Tbilisi
Junction
STAFF
Contact
Network
Region
ZAHESI
STAFF
Traction
substation
DIDUBE
STAFF
Traction
substation
ZAHESI
STAFF
Traction
substation
Tbilisi is
Keyword
TOTAL
Services %
100%
50%
100%
100%
50%
No. Of staff
22
10,5
7
6
3,5
49
Head of Electric Center
1.500
1
0,5
0
0
0
1,5
Senior Electrician
2,5
1.000
1
0
0
1
0,5
Electrician 6 category
750
4
3
1
0
1
9
Electrician 5 category
625
5
1,5
1
1
1
9,5
Electrician 4 category
500
3
1,5
1
1
1
7,5
Avtodrezin driver
750
4
2
0
0
0
6
Electrician on duty (4 category)
500
4
2
0
0
0
6
Electrician on duty (6 category)
750
0
0
4
3
0
7
Salary
GEL
181.500
86.250
58.500
52.500
28.500
407.250
Material
GEL
18.562
25.376
1.477
1.750
10.209
39.582
Fuel
GEL
2.580
8.341
0
0
0
6.750
Other expenses (electricity,
utilities, diagnostics)
GEL
9.850
13.493
11.307
8.400
10.166
41.387
TOTAL
GEL
30.992
47.210
12.784
10.150
20.375
87.719
Elect
ricity
tariff
Current Transform.
Substation power
production
N-14
N-15
N-215
128.276
11.160
134.264
11.681
N-925
N-980
N-1006
N-1019
N-1572
Total
(GEL/
KW/h)
Annual Consumption (KW/h)
Annual power costs
0,09
523.370
45.533
1.015.763
88.371
728.892
63.414
212.090
18.452
51.136
4.449
24.759
2.154
2.818.550
245.214
STAFF
Traction
substation
Tbilisi
marshaling
(new)
STAFF Network
Region (new)
By-pass line
Operations cost by-pass line
(estimated by electrical
department)
Salaries
(GEL)
Services %
STAFF
Contact
Network
Region
Tbilisi
Junction
STAFF
Contact
Network
Region
ZAHESI
STAFF
Traction
substation
ZAHESI
STAFF
Traction
substation
KVIRIKE
(new)
TOTAL
100%
50%
100%
1
1
1
Power (non-traction)
Staff unit
23
11.5
7
7
7
18
73.5
Senior Center
1,500
1
0.5
0
0
0
0
1.5
Chief Electrician
1,000
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
5.5
Electrician 6 category
750
5
2.5
0
0
0
5
12.5
Electrician 5 category
625
5
2.5
1
1
1
5
15.5
Electrician 4 category
500
3
1.5
1
1
1
3
10.5
Avtodrezin driver
750
4
2
0
0
0
0
6
Electrician on duty (4 category)
500
4
2
0
0
0
0
6
Electrician on duty (6 category)
750
0
0
4
4
4
4
16
Salary
GEL
190,500
95,250
61,500
61,500
61,500
148,500
618,750
Material
GEL
18,562
25,376
1,750
-484
-484
-484
44,237
Fuel
Other expenses (electricity,
utilities, diagnostics)
TOTAL
GEL
2,580
8,341
0
-83
-83
-83
10,673
9,850
13,493
8,400
-506
-506
-506
30,226
30,992
47,210
10,150
-1,072
-1,072
-1,072
85,136
GEL
GEL
page 83 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Tbilisi Junction
Elect
ricity
tariff Wagons
By-pass line Transform.
Substation power
production
SCB Technical
Building
(GEL/ more
KW/h) District
Tbilisi marshaling
Lighting
passenger
platforms
Station
Lighting
Material Track lighting technical
supply base
Technical
Building
Freight Yard
Repair Depot
Required Power (KW)
10
30
35
10
10
40
120
80
500
Average working hours (h)
Monthly Consumption installed
capacity (KW/h)
The annual Consumption installed
60%
capacity 60% (KW/h)
Annual power costs
0.087
24
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
10
7,200
7,200
8,400
2,400
2,400
12,000
28,800
19,200
150,000
51,840
51,840
60,480
17,280
17,280
86,400
207,360
138,240
1,080,000
4,510
4,510
5,262
1,503
1,503
7,517
18,040
12,027
93,960
Didube
Passenger
electric
East track locomotive
Building depot (only
30% annual
consumtion
Lighting
Track
passenger
lighting
platforms
Didube Station
Lighting
Lighting for bridges and tunnels, and ventilatsis 10 and 6 kV
lines connected to the complex additional transformer
Avchala
Wagons
more
District
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-25/60.4 kva (8
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-25/100.4 kva (4
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-10/60.4 kva (6
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-10/100.4 kva (2
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-40/60.4 kva (1
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts-63/100.4 kva (4
pcs)
Compl.
Transform
. station
cts100/100.4 kva (4
pcs)
TOTAL
30
10
10
30
3,500
200
200
200
60
20
10
252
400
8
8
8
10
5
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7,200
2,400
2,400
9,000
525,000
60,000
48,000
48,000
14,400
4,800
2,400
60,480
96,000
1,117,680
51,840
17,280
17,280
432,000
345,600
345,600
103,680
34,560
17,280
435,456
691,200
6,157,296
1,503
1,503
64,800
5637.6
1,890,000
4,510
164,430
37,584
30,067
30,067
9,020
3,007
1,503
37,885
60,134
535,685
Assumptions:
unit
value
5,757
Reference
General Input Data
Georgien Railw ays
Energy Tariff
GEL/kw H
0,087
Utilisation based on installed capacity
Georgien Railw ays
%
60%
Georgien Railw ays
Material add up for by-pass
%
-3,67%
MC (based on additional staff for energy production)
Fuel add up for by-pass
%
-3,67%
MC (based on additional staff for energy production)
Other expenses add up for by-pass
%
-3,67%
MC (based on additional staff for energy production)
page 84 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Infrastructure Maintenance Cost (Basis Year)
Tunnel maintenance/anno
Tunnel current line
Tunnels by-pass
Tunnel by-pass 1
Tunnel by-pass 2
Tunnel by-pass 3
Tunnel by-pass 4
0
3.591
1.050
902
415
1.224
Maintenance/a Existing line
0,50%
USD
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
0,50%
0,50%
0,50%
0,50%
Total
Bridge and Culverts
maintenance/anno
Bridges current line
Main Bridges
Medium Bridges
Small Bridges
Bridges upgrades
Culverts current line
Bridges by-pass
Main Bridges
Medium Bridges
Small Bridges
Bridges upgrades
Bridges current line (city)
Culverts by-pass
Culverts by-pass
Culverts current line (city)
Maintenance/a
731
101
102
528
7.990
1.525
794
292
258
181
69%
1.825
1.825
69%
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
%
m
%
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl.
Subgrade for stations)
Subgrade current line
31.515.148 USD
Subgrade bypass
105.050.494 USD
0
Existing line
70.459
60.528
27.848
82.135
240.969
By-pass line
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
1,00%
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
161.496
27.122
20.122
22.228
49.014
1,00%
1,00%
USD
USD
USD
85.074
256.034
621.090
Total
Total
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
By-pass line
20.634
9.460
41.200
0
372.414
443.707
Maintenance/a Existing line
0,50%
USD
157.576
0,50%
USD
USD
157.576
By-pass line
525.252
525.252
page 85 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Track maintenance/anno
Maintenance/a
Existing line
By-pass line
Track current line
63,35 km
Track bed structure Tbilisi Main
station
Track bed structure Tbilisi Rail
Junction - Didube
Track bed structure Marshalling
yard - Tbilis Rail Junction, incl.
Stations tracks
Track bed structure Zahes Didube incl. Station tracks
Track bed structure Zahes Mecketa
10 km
2,40% USD
96.627
16 km
2,40% USD
154.603
8 km
2,40% USD
77.302
29,35 km
2,40% USD
283.601
8 km
2,40% USD
77.302
Track by-pass line
144,505 km
New double-track railw ay trunk
line
Track bed structure at Kvirike
station
Track bed structure at Lilo-1
station
Track bed structure of
reconstructed Kakhetin
railway line
Track bed structure of
second track of Kakhetin
railway line
Track bed structure of siding
track of Kakhetin railway
line
Track superstructure at TbilisiSortirovochny station
Track superstructure at
Samtrediya-2 station
Track superstructure at Avchala
station
Track bed structure Marshalling
yard - Tbilis Rail Junction, incl.
Stations tracks
Track bed structure Zahes Didube incl. Station tracks
Track bed structure Zahes Mecketa
Total
51,8 km
2,40% USD
500.528
5,36 km
2,40% USD
55.084
4,6 km
2,40% USD
51.102
8,5 km
2,40% USD
94.101
9,6 km
2,40% USD
102.828
5,45 km
2,40% USD
39.922
7,1 km
2,40% USD
60.844
3,485 km
2,40% USD
30.067
11,26 km
2,40% USD
102.132
8 km
2,40% USD
77.302
29,35 km
2,40% USD
283.601
8 km
2,40% USD
USD
689.434
77.302
1.474.812
page 86 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Location
no. Of tracks
km
km
total
track
lengh lengh
Tibilis Rail Junction - Tibilis station
2
2509
2503
6
12
Tibilisi station
5
2503
2501
2
10
Tibilisi station - Didube
2
2501
2499
2
4
10
26
Total
Location
no. Of tracks
km
km
total
track
lengh lengh
Marshalling yard
2
2513
2513
0
0
Marshalling yard - Tibilis Rail junction
2
2513
2509
4
8
Tibilis Rail junction
2
2509
2509
0
0
4
8
Total
Location
no. Of tracks
km
km
total
track
lengh lengh
Didube station
3 24985 24990
0,5
1,5
didube - avchala
2 24938 24985
4,7
9,4
Avchala station
5 24917 24938
2,15
10,75
Avchala - Zahes
2 24906 24917
1,05
2,1
3,5 24890 24906
1,6
5,6
10
29,35
Zahes station
Total
page 87 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Electricity system maintenance/a
Maintenance/a
Existing line
By-pass line
Electricity and Catenery
system current line
Traction substations
Catenary, VL-10kV, automatic
block signalling, longitudinal
electric pow er supply lines and
w ave guide
3 item
64 km
2,00% USD
2,00%
499.112
1.039.412
Electricity and Catenery
system by-pass line
Traction substations
Catenary, VL-10kV, automatic
block signalling, longitudinal
electric pow er supply lines and
w ave guide
traction substations + catenary
current line elements
3 item
2,00% USD
499.112
96,1 km
2,00% USD
1.559.118
69% %
2,00% USD
USD
1.057.735
3.115.965
Total
Signaling and Communication
system maintenance/a
Signaling and
Telecommunication
system current line
Signaling and
Telecommunication
system by-pass line
Total
Maintenance/a
Existing line
63 km
6,00% USD
386.385
145 km
6,00% USD
USD
386.385
Stations and Depots maintenance/a*
(only buildings)
Total
1.538.524
Maintenance/a Existing line
USD
0
By-pass line
881.366
881.366
By-pass line
0
page 88 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Assumptions:
unit
value
Reference
Yearly maintenance costs (based on initial investment) and Economic Live
Earthworks
% / years
0,50%
60 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
tunnels
% / years
0,50% 100 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
steel bridges
% / years
1,50%
50 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
concrete bridges
% / years
1,00%
50 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
underpasses / overpasses
% / years
1,00%
50 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Permanent way/Track
% / years
2,40%
25 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Catenary, Electricity system
% / years
2,00%
40 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Traction substations
% / years
2,00%
60 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Signalling & Telecommunication
% / years
6,00%
30 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Stations
% / years
1,50%
40 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Buildings, platforms, ramps
% / years
1,00%
50 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Locomotives Depot and Light Service Facilities
% / years
2,50%
40 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Wagon Depot and Light Service Facilities % / years
2,50%
40 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
IT
% / years
10,00%
4 MC (experience from DB AG, ÖBB, and
Tunnels
Tunnel lengh by-pass
m
4.037
Allignment
Construction Tunnels
Bridges
Main Bridges by-pass
Medium Bridges by-pass
Small Bridges by-pass
Bridge upgrades Kakheti
USD/m
m
m
m
m
13.421
794
292
258
181
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
implemented projects around the w orld)
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Excavation, supporting, lining, portal w orks,
typical buildings, treatment of desposal area)
Allignment
Allignment
Allignment
Allignment
Construction Main Bridges (>100m)
USD/m
20.347
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
Construction Medium Bridges (50-100m)
USD/m
9.288
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
Construction Small Bridges (<50m)
USD/m
7.807
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
Bridge upgrade (Kakheti line)
USD/m
12.257
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
Culverts
USD/m
Subgrade
Subgrade current line based on by-pass line %
Track
1、Installation of track bed
structure of new doubletrack railway trunk line
USD/km
2、Installation of track bed
structure at Kvirike station
USD/km
3、Installation of track bed
structure at Lilo-1 station
USD/km
4、Installation of track bed
structure of reconstructed
Kakhetin railway line
USD/km
5、Installation of track bed
structure of second track of
Kakhetin railway line
USD/km
6、Installation of track bed
structure of siding track of
Kakhetin railway line
USD/km
7、Arrangement of track
superstructure at TbilisiSortirovochny station
USD/km
8、Arrangement of track
superstructure at
Samtrediya-2 station
USD/km
9、Arrangement of track
superstructure at Avchala
station
USD/km
4.661
30
Contract price breakdow n
MC estimation due to gradients, aligment, etc
402.613
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
428.202
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
462.885
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
461.280
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
446.303
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
305.211
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
357.068
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
359.476
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
377.929
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Bridge foundation, pile foundatioin, substructure,
superstructure and etc.)
page 89 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Electricity and Catenary system
Traction Substations
Catenary
Catenary system current
line (% of by-pass-line)
Electricity and Catenary system
Signalling
Telecommunication
add
up for &
current
infrastructure components
which will be further used
(city line)
USD/item
USD/km
%
USD/km
%
8.318.532
811.195
44%
101.654
69%
Contract price breakdow n (incl. installation)
Contract price breakdow n (Catenary, VL-10kV, automatic block signalling,
longitudinal electric pow er supply lines and w ave guide; construction,
MC (based on by-pass mainline system (40+14 km) compared to currents
mainline system km - 24 km)
Contract price breakdow n (incl. Installation based on total tracks)
MC
Infrastructure comparision only include the structures beween Marshalling yard and Zahes for signaling, catenery and subgrade, bridges and
culverts (station buildings and line between Zahes & Mecketa is to be assumed equal or not comparible due to system change)
page 90 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 26d Base Scenario
Base Scenario
year
0
Train Operations
Electricity (Traction)
Staff direct
Maintenance
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
842.805
102.663
332.452
671.753
225.772
1.613.176
1.735.360
104.923
543.996
1.195.639
248.140
1.301.938
1
Existing
By-pass line
line
882.839
1.817.789
107.539
109.906
353.729
578.812
714.745
1.272.160
240.221
264.021
1.716.419
1.385.262
Mio tonnes
25,90
0%
3.788.621
25,90
0%
5.129.996
25,90
0%
4.015.492
Indexation
Freight
Passenger
Freight
Passenger
Staff indirect
4,75%
4,75%
6,40%
6,40%
6,40%
6,40%
Freight volume
Increase of freigth volume in %
Total operation
Existing line By-pass line
USD
year
Infrastructure
0
Indexation
Add-up/downs
Maintenance intensity old vs. new
Maintenance due to tight curves and gradients
26
0%
4.262.911
1
Existing line By-pass line
Operation
Power (non-traction)
4,75%
USD
Staff (Power department)
6,40%
USD
Staff (Track department)
6,40%
USD
Staff (Signalling department)
6,40%
USD
Material (Power department)
6,40%
USD
Fuel (Power department)
6,40%
USD
Other expenses (electricity, supply) - Signalling department)
6,40%
USD
Other expenses (electricity, utilities, diagnostics) -6,40%
Power department)
USD
Maintenance
Tunnel maintenance/anno
6,40%
USD
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
6,40%
USD
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade for stations)
6,40%
USD
Track maintenance/anno
6,40%
USD
Electricity system maintenance/a
6,40%
USD
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a
6,40%
USD
25,90
0%
5.427.951
2
3
4
5
Existing
By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line
line
928.487
1.911.781
1.009.998
2.079.614
1.097.157
2.259.077
1.190.317
2.450.897
112.647
115.127
117.998
120.596
123.603
126.324
129.474
132.324
376.367
615.856
400.455
655.270
426.084
697.208
453.353
741.829
763.543
1.359.015
843.657
1.501.607
930.897
1.656.884
1.025.849
1.825.886
255.596
280.919
271.954
298.897
289.359
318.027
307.878
338.380
1.826.270
1.473.919
1.943.151
1.568.250
2.067.513
1.668.618
2.199.834
1.775.410
Existing
line
26
0%
5.756.616
27
4%
4.587.212
2
By-pass line
Existing
line
27
4%
6.224.234
28
8%
4.934.612
3
By-pass line Existing line
28
8%
6.726.137
29
12%
5.306.705
4
By-pass line Existing line
29
12%
7.264.726
5
By-pass line Existing line
By-pass line
148.488
246.609
375.136
125.348
23.969
4.087
7.738
25.062
324.382
374.682
383.493
92.649
26.788
6.463
9.286
18.303
155.542
262.392
399.145
133.370
25.503
4.349
8.234
26.666
339.790
398.662
408.036
98.578
28.502
6.876
9.880
19.474
162.930
279.185
424.690
141.906
27.135
4.627
8.760
28.372
355.930
424.176
434.151
104.887
30.326
7.317
10.513
20.721
170.669
297.053
451.870
150.988
28.872
4.923
9.321
30.188
372.837
451.323
461.936
111.600
32.267
7.785
11.185
22.047
178.776
316.064
480.790
160.651
30.719
5.239
9.918
32.120
390.547
480.208
491.500
118.742
34.332
8.283
11.901
23.458
187.268
336.292
511.561
170.933
32.685
5.574
10.552
34.176
409.098
510.941
522.956
126.342
36.529
8.813
12.663
24.959
465.893
165.455
723.906
1.615.450
405.704
204.824
527.927
446.465
1.253.590
2.648.570
749.161
495.710
176.044
770.236
1.718.839
431.669
217.933
561.714
475.038
1.333.820
2.818.079
797.108
527.435
187.310
819.531
1.828.844
459.296
245.520
632.821
535.173
1.502.666
3.174.814
898.012
561.191
199.298
871.981
1.945.890
488.691
261.234
673.321
569.424
1.598.836
3.378.002
955.485
597.108
212.053
927.788
2.070.427
519.967
277.953
716.414
605.867
1.701.162
3.594.194
1.016.636
635.322
225.625
987.166
2.202.935
553.245
312.172
804.612
680.456
1.910.594
4.036.680
1.141.795
5%
0%
-20%
5%
5%
0%
-20%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-15%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
Total Infrastructure
USD
4.332.846
7.066.582
4.607.698
7.513.491
4.900.024
8.377.026
5.210.937
8.907.283
5.541.621
9.471.197
5.893.335
10.538.610
TOTAL Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance
USD
8.121.467
12.196.578
8.623.190
12.941.442
9.162.935
14.133.642
9.798.149
15.131.517
10.476.234
16.197.334
11.200.040
17.803.336
In/Decrease in %
50%
50%
54%
54%
55%
59%
page 91 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Base Scenario
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1.289.852
135.624
482.368
1.129.141
327.582
2.340.623
2.655.842
138.610
789.306
2.009.734
360.037
1.889.036
1.396.158
142.066
513.240
1.241.453
348.547
2.490.423
2.874.728
145.194
839.822
2.209.635
383.079
2.009.934
1.509.652
148.814
546.087
1.363.516
370.854
2.649.810
3.108.415
152.090
893.570
2.426.892
407.596
2.138.570
1.630.778
155.883
581.036
1.496.117
394.589
2.819.398
3.357.817
159.315
950.759
2.662.908
433.682
2.275.438
1.760.005
163.287
618.223
1.640.107
419.843
2.999.840
3.623.899
166.882
1.011.607
2.919.192
461.438
2.421.066
13.538.047
1.439.597
5.083.394
11.820.778
3.452.194
24.666.458
27.875.219
1.471.289
8.318.034
21.039.552
3.794.217
19.907.441
In/Decrease
in %
106%
2%
64%
78%
10%
-19%
30
16%
5.705.190
30
16%
7.842.564
31
20%
6.131.886
31
20%
8.462.392
32
24%
6.588.733
32
24%
9.127.134
33
27%
7.077.801
33
27%
9.839.919
34
31%
7.601.304
34
31%
10.604.085
60.000.468
82.405.754
37%
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
6
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
7
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
8
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
9
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Existing line
10
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
Total
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
In/Decrease
in %
196.163
357.815
544.301
181.873
34.777
5.931
11.228
36.363
428.530
543.642
556.425
134.428
38.867
9.377
13.473
26.557
205.481
380.715
579.136
193.513
37.003
6.310
11.946
38.691
448.885
578.435
592.037
143.031
41.355
9.977
14.336
28.256
215.241
405.081
616.201
205.898
39.371
6.714
12.711
41.167
470.207
615.455
629.927
152.185
44.001
10.616
15.253
30.065
225.465
431.006
655.637
219.075
41.891
7.144
13.524
43.801
492.542
654.844
670.242
161.925
46.818
11.295
16.229
31.989
236.175
458.591
697.598
233.096
44.572
7.601
14.390
46.605
515.938
696.754
713.138
172.288
49.814
12.018
17.268
34.036
2.082.197
3.770.803
5.736.065
1.916.651
366.496
62.499
118.323
383.212
4.548.687
5.729.121
5.863.842
1.416.655
409.599
98.821
141.988
279.865
118%
52%
2%
-26%
12%
58%
20%
-27%
675.983
240.065
1.050.345
2.343.923
588.653
332.151
856.107
724.005
2.032.872
4.295.027
1.214.870
719.246
255.429
1.117.567
2.493.934
626.327
353.408
910.898
770.341
2.162.976
4.569.909
1.292.622
765.278
271.776
1.189.091
2.653.545
666.412
376.026
969.196
819.643
2.301.406
4.862.383
1.375.350
814.255
289.170
1.265.193
2.823.372
709.062
400.092
1.031.224
872.100
2.448.696
5.173.575
1.463.372
866.368
307.677
1.346.166
3.004.068
754.442
425.698
1.097.222
927.915
2.605.413
5.504.684
1.557.028
7.123.790
2.529.902
11.068.972
24.701.228
6.203.468
3.407.010
8.781.456
7.426.425
20.852.031
44.055.917
12.461.439
#DIV/0!
23%
194%
88%
78%
101%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
5%
0%
-10%
5%
6.267.419
11.206.331
6.665.297
11.916.466
7.088.485
12.671.713
7.538.597
13.474.944
8.017.347
14.329.214
66.063.606
115.472.857
75%
11.972.609
19.048.895
12.797.183
20.378.857
13.677.218
21.798.847
14.616.398
23.314.863
15.618.651
24.933.298
126.064.074
59%
59%
59%
60%
60%
197.878.611
57%
page 92 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
BS-Staff
Current line
typ Staff
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Head of the Electric Center
Senior Electrician
Electrician
Avtodrezin driver
Electrician on duty
i
i
i
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
6
5
4
4
6
Train dispatcher
i
i
i
i
i
Category
Line inspection a. maintanence
Signalling
Train driver
Train driver assistant
Accountant
Assistant of Station Manager
Assistant of the Director
Assistant of Train Compiler
Chief Accountant
Chief Engineer
Cleaner
Customer service operator
Deputy Station Manager
Diesel Locomotive Driver
Diesel Locomotive Driver's Assistant
Engineer
Maneuver dispatcher
od Marshaling hill on duty
Track
Stations
in/out
Stations a.
o. tracks
turnouts
Bridges
Viaducts
Water
system
Tunnels
9
9
9
10
9
6
8
11
11
10
10
0
0
9
8
5
0
0
9
8
9
9
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
Indexa Salaries/
tion (in month no. Of
%)
(in USD) staff
6,4%
908
1,5
6,4%
606
2,5
6,4%
454
9,0
6,4%
378
9,5
6,4%
303
7,5
6,4%
454
6,0
6,4%
303
6,0
6,4%
454
7,0
6,4%
908
4,0
6,4%
378
10,0
0
1
2
3
4
5
salary/a
16.350
18.166
49.049
43.145
27.250
32.700
21.800
38.149
43.599
45.416
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
17.396
19.329
52.188
45.907
28.994
34.792
23.195
40.591
46.390
48.323
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
18.510
20.566
55.529
48.845
30.849
37.019
24.679
43.189
49.359
51.415
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
19.694
21.882
59.082
51.971
32.824
39.388
26.259
45.953
52.518
54.706
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
20.955
23.283
62.864
55.297
34.924
41.909
27.939
48.894
55.879
58.207
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
22.296
24.773
66.887
58.836
37.159
44.591
29.727
52.023
59.455
61.932
USD
6,4%
378
3,0
13.625
3,0
14.497
3,0
15.425
3,0
16.412
3,0
17.462
3,0
18.580
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
378
378
394
394
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
81.749
163.498
37.786
18.893
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
86.981
173.961
40.204
20.102
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
92.548
185.095
42.778
21.389
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
98.471
196.941
45.515
22.758
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
104.773
209.545
48.428
24.214
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
111.478
222.956
51.528
25.764
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
394
394
454
810
659
454
454
454
324
454
545
757
182
121
303
324
333
356
454
545
908
606
484
454
583
454
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
14.170
125.348
87.504
71.154
27.250
5.450
5.450
15.550
5.450
6.540
27.250
13.080
2.907
25.433
31.100
3.997
17.105
5.450
13.080
65.399
29.066
23.253
32.700
27.990
5.450
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
15.077
133.370
93.104
75.708
28.994
5.799
5.799
16.545
5.799
6.958
28.994
13.917
3.093
27.061
33.090
4.252
18.200
5.799
13.917
69.585
30.926
24.741
34.792
29.781
5.799
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
16.042
141.906
99.063
80.553
30.849
6.170
6.170
17.604
6.170
7.404
30.849
14.808
3.291
28.793
35.208
4.525
19.365
6.170
14.808
74.038
32.906
26.325
37.019
31.687
6.170
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
17.068
150.988
105.403
85.709
32.824
6.565
6.565
18.731
6.565
7.878
32.824
15.755
3.501
30.635
37.462
4.814
20.604
6.565
15.755
78.776
35.012
28.009
39.388
33.715
6.565
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
18.161
160.651
112.149
91.194
34.924
6.985
6.985
19.930
6.985
8.382
34.924
16.764
3.725
32.596
39.859
5.122
21.923
6.985
16.764
83.818
37.253
29.802
41.909
35.873
6.985
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
19.323
170.933
119.326
97.031
37.159
7.432
7.432
21.205
7.432
8.918
37.159
17.836
3.964
34.682
42.410
5.450
23.326
7.432
17.836
89.182
39.637
31.709
44.591
38.169
7.432
USD
6,4%
486
4,0
23.325
4,0
24.818
4,0
26.406
4,0
28.096
4,0
29.894
4,0
31.808
page 93 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
6
7
8
9
10
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
23.723
26.358
71.168
62.601
39.538
47.445
31.630
55.353
63.260
65.896
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
25.241
28.045
75.722
66.608
42.068
50.482
33.654
58.895
67.309
70.113
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
26.856
29.840
80.569
70.871
44.760
53.712
35.808
62.664
71.617
74.601
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
28.575
31.750
85.725
75.406
47.625
57.150
38.100
66.675
76.200
79.375
no. Of
staff
1,5
2,5
9,0
9,5
7,5
6,0
6,0
7,0
4,0
10,0
salary/a
30.404
33.782
91.211
80.232
50.673
60.808
40.538
70.942
81.077
84.455
3,0
19.769
3,0
21.034
3,0
22.380
3,0
23.812
3,0
25.336
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
118.613
237.225
54.825
27.413
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
126.204
252.408
58.334
29.167
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
134.281
268.562
62.068
31.034
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
142.875
285.750
66.040
33.020
18,0
36,0
8,0
4,0
152.019
304.038
70.267
35.133
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
20.560
181.873
126.963
103.241
39.538
7.908
7.908
22.562
7.908
9.489
39.538
18.978
4.217
36.902
45.124
5.799
24.818
7.908
18.978
94.890
42.173
33.739
47.445
40.612
7.908
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
21.875
193.513
135.089
109.848
42.068
8.414
8.414
24.006
8.414
10.096
42.068
20.193
4.487
39.263
48.012
6.170
26.407
8.414
20.193
100.963
44.873
35.898
50.482
43.211
8.414
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
23.275
205.898
143.734
116.878
44.760
8.952
8.952
25.543
8.952
10.742
44.760
21.485
4.774
41.776
51.085
6.565
28.097
8.952
21.485
107.425
47.744
38.195
53.712
45.977
8.952
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
24.765
219.075
152.933
124.358
47.625
9.525
9.525
27.177
9.525
11.430
47.625
22.860
5.080
44.450
54.355
6.985
29.895
9.525
22.860
114.300
50.800
40.640
57.150
48.919
9.525
3,0
0,0
23,0
9,0
9,0
5,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
1,0
3,0
6,0
2,0
7,0
8,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
6,0
4,0
4,0
6,0
4,0
1,0
26.350
233.096
162.721
132.317
50.673
10.135
10.135
28.917
10.135
12.162
50.673
24.323
5.405
47.295
57.833
7.432
31.808
10.135
24.323
121.615
54.051
43.241
60.808
52.050
10.135
4,0
33.843
4,0
36.009
4,0
38.314
4,0
40.766
4,0
43.375
page 94 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
9
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
Office Manager
Operator
Post Duty
Reserve Maneuver dispatcher
Reserve Station Assistant
Senior Customer service operator
Senior Operator
Senior Operator of Technical Registry
Senior Specialist of freight services
Specialist in cargo services
Specialist of Comercial assessment
Specialist of freight services
Station Assistant
Station Assistant's operator
Station Directors Assistant
Station Manager
Station operator
Storekeeper
technical Operator
Technical Registry Operator
Train Checker-compiler
Train Compiler
Turnout Post Duty
TOTAL
9
0
10
0
0
0
8
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
9
8
0
10
10
0
9
7
4
3
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
0
9
9
10
10
9
9
10
0
0
USD
6,4%
454
1,0
5.450
1,0
5.799
1,0
6.170
1,0
6.565
1,0
6.985
1,0
7.432
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
486
333
324
356
333
356
545
454
486
545
454
486
454
454
324
486
303
324
486
583
454
303
324
356
454
606
1.090
1.514
333
356
333
303
324
303
324
356
454
486
303
324
454
486
324
333
356
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
23.325
11.990
19.438
38.486
3.997
17.105
6.540
16.350
5.831
19.620
43.599
29.156
10.900
10.900
11.663
58.313
25.433
69.975
116.556
104.900
3.633
31.100
17.105
5.450
21.800
26.160
18.166
3.997
17.105
3.997
10.900
19.438
3.633
69.975
59.868
5.450
99.131
3.633
15.550
16.350
180.769
15.550
7.993
68.420
2.736.321
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
24.818
12.757
20.682
40.949
4.252
18.200
6.958
17.396
6.204
20.875
46.390
31.022
11.597
11.597
12.409
62.045
27.061
74.453
124.015
111.614
3.866
33.090
18.200
5.799
23.195
27.834
19.329
4.252
18.200
4.252
11.597
20.682
3.866
74.453
63.699
5.799
105.476
3.866
16.545
17.396
192.338
16.545
8.505
72.799
2.911.445
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
26.406
13.574
22.005
43.570
4.525
19.365
7.404
18.510
6.602
22.211
49.359
33.008
12.340
12.340
13.203
66.015
28.793
79.219
131.952
118.757
4.113
35.208
19.365
6.170
24.679
29.615
20.566
4.525
19.365
4.525
12.340
22.005
4.113
79.219
67.776
6.170
112.226
4.113
17.604
18.510
204.648
17.604
9.049
77.458
3.097.778
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
28.096
14.442
23.413
46.359
4.814
20.604
7.878
19.694
7.024
23.633
52.518
35.120
13.129
13.129
14.048
70.240
30.635
84.288
140.397
126.357
4.376
37.462
20.604
6.565
26.259
31.511
21.882
4.814
20.604
4.814
13.129
23.413
4.376
84.288
72.113
6.565
119.409
4.376
18.731
19.694
217.745
18.731
9.628
82.415
3.296.035
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
29.894
15.367
24.912
49.326
5.122
21.923
8.382
20.955
7.474
25.145
55.879
37.368
13.970
13.970
14.947
74.736
32.596
89.683
149.383
134.444
4.657
39.859
21.923
6.985
27.939
33.527
23.283
5.122
21.923
5.122
13.970
24.912
4.657
89.683
76.729
6.985
127.051
4.657
19.930
20.955
231.681
19.930
10.244
87.690
3.506.982
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
31.808
16.350
26.506
52.482
5.450
23.326
8.918
22.296
7.952
26.755
59.455
39.759
14.864
14.864
15.904
79.519
34.682
95.423
158.943
143.049
4.955
42.410
23.326
7.432
29.727
35.673
24.773
5.450
23.326
5.450
14.864
26.506
4.955
95.423
81.639
7.432
135.182
4.955
21.205
22.296
246.509
21.205
10.900
93.302
3.731.428
page 95 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
1,0
7.908
1,0
8.414
1,0
8.952
1,0
9.525
1,0
10.135
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
33.843
17.397
28.203
55.841
5.799
24.818
9.489
23.723
8.461
28.467
63.260
42.304
15.815
15.815
16.922
84.608
36.902
101.530
169.115
152.204
5.272
45.124
24.818
7.908
31.630
37.956
26.358
5.799
24.818
5.799
15.815
28.203
5.272
101.530
86.864
7.908
143.834
5.272
22.562
23.723
262.285
22.562
11.598
99.274
3.970.240
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
36.009
18.510
30.008
59.415
6.170
26.407
10.096
25.241
9.002
30.289
67.309
45.012
16.827
16.827
18.005
90.023
39.263
108.028
179.939
161.945
5.609
48.012
26.407
8.414
33.654
40.385
28.045
6.170
26.407
6.170
16.827
30.008
5.609
108.028
92.424
8.414
153.039
5.609
24.006
25.241
279.071
24.006
12.340
105.627
4.224.335
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
38.314
19.695
31.928
63.218
6.565
28.097
10.742
26.856
9.578
32.227
71.617
47.892
17.904
17.904
19.157
95.784
41.776
114.941
191.455
172.309
5.968
51.085
28.097
8.952
35.808
42.970
29.840
6.565
28.097
6.565
17.904
31.928
5.968
114.941
98.339
8.952
162.834
5.968
25.543
26.856
296.932
25.543
13.130
112.387
4.494.693
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
40.766
20.955
33.972
67.264
6.985
29.895
11.430
28.575
10.191
34.290
76.200
50.957
19.050
19.050
20.383
101.915
44.450
122.298
203.708
183.337
6.350
54.355
29.895
9.525
38.100
45.720
31.750
6.985
29.895
6.985
19.050
33.972
6.350
122.298
104.632
9.525
173.255
6.350
27.177
28.575
315.936
27.177
13.970
119.580
4.782.353
4,0
3,0
5,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
1,0
3,0
8,0
5,0
2,0
2,0
3,0
10,0
7,0
18,0
20,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
8,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
3,0
5,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
3,0
31,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
523
43.375
22.296
36.146
71.569
7.432
31.808
12.162
30.404
10.844
36.485
81.077
54.219
20.269
20.269
21.687
108.437
47.295
130.125
216.745
195.071
6.756
57.833
31.808
10.135
40.538
48.646
33.782
7.432
31.808
7.432
20.269
36.146
6.756
130.125
111.329
10.135
184.343
6.756
28.917
30.404
336.155
28.917
14.864
127.233
5.088.424
page 96 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
by-pass line
typ staff
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Head of the Electric Center
Senior Electrician
Electrician
Avtodrezin driver
Electrician on duty
i
i
i
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
od
6
5
4
4
6
Train dispatcher
i
i
i
i
i
Category
Line inspection a. maintanence
Signalling
Train driver
Train driver assistant
Accountant
Assistant of Station Manager
Assistant of the Director
Assistant of Train Compiler
Chief Accountant
Chief Engineer
Cleaner
Customer service operator
Deputy Station Manager
Diesel Locomotive Driver
Diesel Locomotive Driver's Assistant
Engineer
Maneuver dispatcher
Marshaling hill on duty
Track
Stations
in/out
Stations a.
o. tracks
turnouts
Bridges
Viaducts
Water
system
Tunnels
9
9
9
10
9
6
8
11
11
10
10
0
0
9
8
5
0
0
9
8
9
9
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
Indexa Salaries/
0
1
2
3
4
5
tion (in month no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in
%)
(in USD) staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
6,4%
908
1,5
16.350
1,5
17.396
1,5
18.510
1,5
19.694
1,5
20.955
1,5
22.296
6,4%
606
5,5
39.966
5,5
42.524
5,5
45.245
5,5
48.141
5,5
51.222
5,5
54.500
6,4%
454
12,5
68.124
12,5
72.484
12,5
77.123
12,5
82.059
12,5
87.311
12,5
92.898
6,4%
378
15,5
70.395
15,5
74.900
15,5
79.694
15,5
84.794
15,5
90.221
15,5
95.995
6,4%
303
10,5
38.149
10,5
40.591
10,5
43.189
10,5
45.953
10,5
48.894
10,5
52.023
6,4%
454
6,0
32.700
6,0
34.792
6,0
37.019
6,0
39.388
6,0
41.909
6,0
44.591
6,4%
303
6,0
21.800
6,0
23.195
6,0
24.679
6,0
26.259
6,0
27.939
6,0
29.727
6,4%
454
16,0
87.199
16,0
92.779
16,0
98.717
16,0
105.035
16,0
111.758
16,0
118.910
6,4%
908
4,0
43.599
4,0
46.390
4,0
49.359
4,0
52.518
4,0
55.879
4,0
59.455
6,4%
378
19,0
86.290
19,0
91.813
19,0
97.689
19,0
103.941
19,0
110.593
19,0
117.671
USD
6,4%
378
2,0
9.083
2,0
9.665
2,0
10.283
2,0
10.941
2,0
11.641
2,0
12.386
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
378
378
394
394
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
36.333
81.749
51.956
42.509
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
38.658
86.981
55.281
45.230
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
41.132
92.548
58.819
48.125
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
43.765
98.471
62.584
51.205
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
46.566
104.773
66.589
54.482
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
49.546
111.478
70.851
57.969
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
394
394
454
810
659
454
454
454
324
454
545
757
182
121
303
324
333
356
454
545
908
606
484
454
583
454
486
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4
1
0
4
1
0
2
5
1
7
4
1
4
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
1
4
56.679
18.893
92.649
204.176
166.026
21.800
5.450
15.550
5.450
18.166
10.900
1.453
25.433
15.550
3.997
17.105
5.450
13.080
43.599
29.066
23.253
16.350
27.990
5.450
23.325
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
60.307
20.102
98.578
217.243
176.652
23.195
5.799
16.545
5.799
19.329
11.597
1.546
27.061
16.545
4.252
18.200
5.799
13.917
46.390
30.926
24.741
17.396
29.781
5.799
24.818
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
64.166
21.389
104.887
231.147
187.958
24.679
6.170
17.604
6.170
20.566
12.340
1.645
28.793
17.604
4.525
19.365
6.170
14.808
49.359
32.906
26.325
18.510
31.687
6.170
26.406
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
68.273
22.758
111.600
245.940
199.987
26.259
6.565
18.731
6.565
21.882
13.129
1.751
30.635
18.731
4.814
20.604
6.565
15.755
52.518
35.012
28.009
19.694
33.715
6.565
28.096
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
72.642
24.214
118.742
261.680
212.786
27.939
6.985
19.930
6.985
23.283
13.970
1.863
32.596
19.930
5.122
21.923
6.985
16.764
55.879
37.253
29.802
20.955
35.873
6.985
29.894
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
77.291
25.764
126.342
278.428
226.405
29.727
7.432
21.205
7.432
24.773
14.864
1.982
34.682
21.205
5.450
23.326
7.432
17.836
59.455
39.637
31.709
22.296
38.169
7.432
31.808
page 97 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
6
7
8
9
10
no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in no. Of salary/a (in
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
staff
USD)
1,5
23.723
1,5
25.241
1,5
26.856
1,5
28.575
1,5
30.404
5,5
57.988
5,5
61.700
5,5
65.648
5,5
69.850
5,5
74.320
12,5
98.844
12,5
105.170
12,5
111.901
12,5
119.062
12,5
126.682
15,5
102.139
15,5
108.676
15,5
115.631
15,5
123.031
15,5
130.905
10,5
55.353
10,5
58.895
10,5
62.664
10,5
66.675
10,5
70.942
6,0
47.445
6,0
50.482
6,0
53.712
6,0
57.150
6,0
60.808
6,0
31.630
6,0
33.654
6,0
35.808
6,0
38.100
6,0
40.538
16,0
126.520
16,0
134.618
16,0
143.233
16,0
152.400
16,0
162.154
4,0
63.260
4,0
67.309
4,0
71.617
4,0
76.200
4,0
81.077
19,0
125.202
19,0
133.215
19,0
141.741
19,0
150.812
19,0
160.464
2,0
13.179
2,0
14.023
2,0
14.920
2,0
15.875
2,0
16.891
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
52.717
118.613
75.385
61.679
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
56.091
126.204
80.210
65.626
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
59.680
134.281
85.343
69.826
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
63.500
142.875
90.805
74.295
8,0
18,0
11,0
9,0
67.564
152.019
96.616
79.050
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
82.238
27.413
134.428
296.247
240.895
31.630
7.908
22.562
7.908
26.358
15.815
2.109
36.902
22.562
5.799
24.818
7.908
18.978
63.260
42.173
33.739
23.723
40.612
7.908
33.843
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
87.501
29.167
143.031
315.207
256.312
33.654
8.414
24.006
8.414
28.045
16.827
2.244
39.263
24.006
6.170
26.407
8.414
20.193
67.309
44.873
35.898
25.241
43.211
8.414
36.009
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
93.101
31.034
152.185
335.380
272.716
35.808
8.952
25.543
8.952
29.840
17.904
2.387
41.776
25.543
6.565
28.097
8.952
21.485
71.617
47.744
38.195
26.856
45.977
8.952
38.314
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
99.060
33.020
161.925
356.845
290.170
38.100
9.525
27.177
9.525
31.750
19.050
2.540
44.450
27.177
6.985
29.895
9.525
22.860
76.200
50.800
40.640
28.575
48.919
9.525
40.766
12,0
4,0
17,0
21,0
21,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
4,0
1,0
0,0
2,0
5,0
1,0
7,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
105.400
35.133
172.288
379.683
308.740
40.538
10.135
28.917
10.135
33.782
20.269
2.703
47.295
28.917
7.432
31.808
10.135
24.323
81.077
54.051
43.241
30.404
52.050
10.135
43.375
page 98 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
od
od
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
oi
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
Office Manager
Operator
Post Duty
Reserve Maneuver dispatcher
Reserve Station Assistant
Senior Customer service operator
Senior Operator
Senior Operator of Technical Registry
Senior Specialist of freight services
Specialist in cargo services
Specialist of Comercial assessment
Specialist of freight services
Station Assistant
Station Assistant's operator
Station Directors Assistant
Station Manager
Station operator
Storekeeper
technical Operator
Technical Registry Operator
Train Checker-compiler
Train Compiler
Turnout Post Duty
Total
9
9
0
10
0
0
0
8
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
9
8
0
10
10
0
9
7
4
3
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
0
9
9
10
10
9
9
10
0
0
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
6,4%
454
486
333
324
356
333
356
545
454
486
545
454
486
454
454
324
486
303
324
486
583
454
303
324
356
454
606
1.090
1.514
333
356
333
303
324
303
324
356
454
486
303
324
454
486
324
333
356
1
4
2
4
9
1
4
1
4
1
2
7
5
2
1
3
10
4
8
12
10
8
0
4
0
1
2
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
1
18
14
1
17
1
4
2
27
4
2
16
505
5.450
23.325
7.993
15.550
38.486
3.997
17.105
6.540
21.800
5.831
13.080
38.149
29.156
10.900
5.450
11.663
58.313
14.533
31.100
69.933
69.933
43.599
15.550
5.450
14.533
13.080
18.166
3.997
17.105
3.633
69.975
59.868
5.450
99.131
3.633
15.550
10.900
157.444
15.550
7.993
68.420
2.740.357
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
5.799
24.818
8.505
16.545
40.949
4.252
18.200
6.958
23.195
6.204
13.917
40.591
31.022
11.597
5.799
12.409
62.045
15.463
33.090
74.409
74.409
46.390
16.545
5.799
15.463
13.917
19.329
4.252
18.200
3.866
74.453
63.699
5.799
105.476
3.866
16.545
11.597
167.520
16.545
8.505
72.799
2.915.740
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
6.170
26.406
9.049
17.604
43.570
4.525
19.365
7.404
24.679
6.602
14.808
43.189
33.008
12.340
6.170
13.203
66.015
16.453
35.208
79.171
79.171
49.359
17.604
6.170
16.453
14.808
20.566
4.525
19.365
4.113
79.219
67.776
6.170
112.226
4.113
17.604
12.340
178.242
17.604
9.049
77.458
3.102.347
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
6.565
28.096
9.628
18.731
46.359
4.814
20.604
7.878
26.259
7.024
15.755
45.953
35.120
13.129
6.565
14.048
70.240
17.506
37.462
84.238
84.238
52.518
18.731
6.565
17.506
15.755
21.882
4.814
20.604
4.376
84.288
72.113
6.565
119.409
4.376
18.731
13.129
189.649
18.731
9.628
82.415
3.300.898
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
6.985
29.894
10.244
19.930
49.326
5.122
21.923
8.382
27.939
7.474
16.764
48.894
37.368
13.970
6.985
14.947
74.736
18.626
39.859
89.630
89.630
55.879
19.930
6.985
18.626
16.764
23.283
5.122
21.923
4.657
89.683
76.729
6.985
127.051
4.657
19.930
13.970
201.787
19.930
10.244
87.690
3.512.155
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
7.432
31.808
10.900
21.205
52.482
5.450
23.326
8.918
29.727
7.952
17.836
52.023
39.759
14.864
7.432
15.904
79.519
19.818
42.410
95.366
95.366
59.455
21.205
7.432
19.818
17.836
24.773
5.450
23.326
4.955
95.423
81.639
7.432
135.182
4.955
21.205
14.864
214.701
21.205
10.900
93.302
3.736.933
page 99 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
7.908
33.843
11.598
22.562
55.841
5.799
24.818
9.489
31.630
8.461
18.978
55.353
42.304
15.815
7.908
16.922
84.608
21.087
45.124
101.469
101.469
63.260
22.562
7.908
21.087
18.978
26.358
5.799
24.818
5.272
101.530
86.864
7.908
143.834
5.272
22.562
15.815
228.442
22.562
11.598
99.274
3.976.097
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
8.414
36.009
12.340
24.006
59.415
6.170
26.407
10.096
33.654
9.002
20.193
58.895
45.012
16.827
8.414
18.005
90.023
22.436
48.012
107.963
107.963
67.309
24.006
8.414
22.436
20.193
28.045
6.170
26.407
5.609
108.028
92.424
8.414
153.039
5.609
24.006
16.827
243.062
24.006
12.340
105.627
4.230.567
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
8.952
38.314
13.130
25.543
63.218
6.565
28.097
10.742
35.808
9.578
21.485
62.664
47.892
17.904
8.952
19.157
95.784
23.872
51.085
114.873
114.873
71.617
25.543
8.952
23.872
21.485
29.840
6.565
28.097
5.968
114.941
98.339
8.952
162.834
5.968
25.543
17.904
258.618
25.543
13.130
112.387
4.501.323
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
9.525
40.766
13.970
27.177
67.264
6.985
29.895
11.430
38.100
10.191
22.860
66.675
50.957
19.050
9.525
20.383
101.915
25.400
54.355
122.225
122.225
76.200
27.177
9.525
25.400
22.860
31.750
6.985
29.895
6.350
122.298
104.632
9.525
173.255
6.350
27.177
19.050
275.170
27.177
13.970
119.580
4.789.408
1,0
4,0
2,0
4,0
9,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
4,0
1,0
2,0
7,0
5,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
10,0
4,0
8,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
0,0
4,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
4,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
18,0
14,0
1,0
17,0
1,0
4,0
2,0
27,0
4,0
2,0
16,0
505
10.135
43.375
14.864
28.917
71.569
7.432
31.808
12.162
40.538
10.844
24.323
70.942
54.219
20.269
10.135
21.687
108.437
27.026
57.833
130.047
130.047
81.077
28.917
10.135
27.026
24.323
33.782
7.432
31.808
6.756
130.125
111.329
10.135
184.343
6.756
28.917
20.269
292.781
28.917
14.864
127.233
5.095.930
page 100 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass
line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
BS-Staff
Staff
Salaries/
Category month (in
USD)
Accountant
Assistant of Station Manager
Assistant of the Director
Assistant of Train Compiler
Chief Accountant
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Cleaner
Cleaner
Customer service operator
Customer service operator
Customer service operator
Customer service operator
Deputy Station Manager
Deputy Station Manager
Deputy Station Manager
Diesel Locomotive Driver
Diesel Locomotive Driver's Assistant
Engineer
Maneuver dispatcher
Marshaling hill on duty
Marshaling hill on duty
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
Marshaling hill on duty's assistant
Office Manager
Operator
Operator
Post Duty
Post Duty
Reserve Maneuver dispatcher
Reserve Station Assistant
Reserve Station Assistant
Reserve Station Assistant
Senior Customer service operator
Senior Operator
Senior Operator of Technical Registry
Senior Specialist of freight services
Specialist in cargo services
Specialist of Comercial assessment
Specialist of freight services
Specialist of freight services
Station Assistant
Station Assistant
Station Assistant
Station Assistant's operator
Station Assistant's operator
Station Assistant's operator
Station Directors Assistant
Station Manager
Station Manager
Station Manager
Station operator
Station operator
Storekeeper
technical Operator
technical Operator
Technical Registry Operator
Technical Registry Operator
Technical Registry Operator
Train Checker-compiler
Train Checker-compiler
Train Compiler
Train Compiler
Train Compiler
Train Compiler
Turnout Post Duty
Turnout Post Duty
Turnout Post Duty
9
9
9
10
9
6
8
11
11
10
10
9
8
5
9
8
9
9
9
9
10
8
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
9
8
10
10
9
7
4
3
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
9
9
10
Salaries/
month (in
GEL)
Current by-pass
line no. Of line no.
staff
Of staff
454
454
454
324
454
545
757
182
121
303
324
333
356
454
545
908
750
750
750
535
750
900
1.250
300
200
500
535
550
588
750
900
1.500
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
6
2
7
8
1
4
1
2
6
4
1
0
4
1
0
2
5
1
7
4
1
4
1
2
4
606
484
454
583
454
486
454
486
333
324
356
333
356
545
454
486
545
454
486
454
454
324
486
303
324
1.000
800
750
963
750
802
750
802
550
535
588
550
588
900
750
802
900
750
802
750
750
535
802
500
535
4
4
6
4
1
4
1
4
3
5
9
1
4
1
3
1
3
8
5
2
2
3
10
7
18
4
4
3
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
9
1
4
1
4
1
2
7
5
2
1
3
10
4
8
486
583
454
303
324
356
454
606
1090
1514
333
802
962
750
500
535
588
750
1.000
1.800
2.500
550
20
15
0
1
8
4
1
3
2
1
1
12
10
8
0
4
0
1
2
1
1
1
356
333
303
324
303
324
356
454
486
303
324
454
486
324
333
356
588
550
500
535
500
535
588
750
802
500
535
750
802
535
550
588
4
1
3
5
1
18
14
1
17
1
4
3
31
4
2
16
4
0
0
0
1
18
14
1
17
1
4
2
27
4
2
16
page 101 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Annex 26e Scenario 1
Scenario 1
year
Train Operations
Electricity (Traction)
Staff direct
Maintenance
0
Freight
Passenger
Freight
Passenger
Staff indirect
Indexation
3,00%
3,00%
5,00%
5,00%
5,00%
5,00%
Freight volume
Increase of freigth volume in %
Total operation
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
Existing line By-pass line
842.805
1.735.360
102.663
104.923
332.452
543.996
671.753
1.195.639
225.772
248.140
1.613.176
1.301.938
Mio tonnes
USD
year
25,90
0%
3.788.621
25,90
0%
5.129.996
1
Existing
line
By-pass line
868.089
1.787.421
105.742
108.070
349.074
571.196
705.341
1.255.421
237.061
260.547
1.693.835
1.367.035
2
3
4
5
Existing
line
By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line Existing line By-pass line
897.723
1.848.437
960.218
1.977.117
1.025.655
2.111.853
1.094.155
2.252.895
108.915
111.312
112.182
114.652
115.548
118.091
119.014
121.634
366.528
599.756
384.855
629.743
404.097
661.230
424.302
694.292
743.582
1.323.486
810.791
1.443.109
882.861
1.571.386
960.111
1.708.882
248.914
273.575
261.359
287.253
274.427
301.616
288.149
316.697
1.778.527
1.435.387
1.867.453
1.507.156
1.960.826
1.582.514
2.058.867
1.661.640
25,90
0%
3.959.143
26
0%
4.144.188
0
1
Infrastructure
Indexation
Existing line By-pass line
Operation
Power (non-traction)
3,00% USD
148.488
324.382
Staff (Power department)
5,00% USD
246.609
374.682
Staff (Track department)
5,00% USD
375.136
383.493
Staff (Signalling department)
5,00% USD
125.348
92.649
Material (Power department)
5,00% USD
23.969
26.788
Fuel (Power department)
5,00% USD
4.087
6.463
Other expenses (electricity, supply) - Signalling department)
5,00% USD
7.738
9.286
Other expenses (electricity, utilities, diagnostics) - Power
5,00%
department)
USD
25.062
18.303
Maintenance
Tunnel maintenance/anno
5,00% USD
200.004
Bridge and Culverts maintenance/anno
5,00% USD
465.893
515.505
Subgrade maintenance/anno (incl. Subgrade for stations)
5,00% USD
165.455
435.960
Track maintenance/anno
5,00% USD
723.906
1.224.094
Electricity system maintenance/a
5,00% USD
1.615.450
2.586.251
Signaling and Communication system maintenance/a5,00% USD
405.704
731.534
Add-up/downs
Maintenance intensity old vs. new
Maintenance due to tight curves and gradients
25,90
0%
5.349.690
Existing
line
26
0%
5.591.953
27
4%
4.396.858
2
By-pass line
Existing
line
27
4%
5.959.030
28
8%
4.663.414
3
By-pass line Existing line
28
8%
6.346.691
29
12%
4.944.597
4
By-pass line Existing line
29
12%
6.756.039
5
By-pass line Existing line
By-pass line
152.943
258.939
393.893
131.616
25.167
4.292
8.125
26.315
334.114
393.416
402.667
97.281
28.127
6.786
9.750
19.218
157.531
271.886
413.588
138.196
26.425
4.506
8.531
27.631
344.137
413.087
422.801
102.145
29.533
7.125
10.238
20.179
162.257
285.481
434.267
145.106
27.747
4.732
8.958
29.012
354.461
433.741
443.941
107.252
31.010
7.482
10.750
21.188
167.125
299.755
455.980
152.362
29.134
4.968
9.406
30.463
365.095
455.428
466.138
112.615
32.561
7.856
11.287
22.247
172.139
314.742
478.779
159.980
30.591
5.217
9.876
31.986
376.048
478.200
489.445
118.246
34.189
8.248
11.851
23.360
489.187
173.727
760.101
1.696.222
425.989
197.354
508.673
430.182
1.207.871
2.551.975
721.839
513.647
182.414
798.106
1.781.034
447.289
220.505
568.344
480.645
1.349.564
2.851.341
806.516
539.329
191.534
838.012
1.870.085
469.653
231.530
596.761
504.678
1.417.042
2.993.909
846.842
566.296
201.111
879.912
1.963.589
493.136
243.107
626.600
529.912
1.487.894
3.143.604
889.184
594.610
211.167
923.908
2.061.769
517.793
270.639
697.564
589.926
1.656.402
3.499.627
989.887
5%
0%
-20%
3%
5%
0%
-25%
3%
5%
0%
-20%
3%
5%
0%
-20%
3%
5%
0%
-20%
3%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
Total Infrastructure
USD
4.332.846
6.929.393
4.546.518
6.909.254
4.770.785
7.626.162
5.006.174
8.000.587
5.253.237
8.393.527
5.512.557
9.243.631
TOTAL Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance
USD
8.121.467
12.059.389
8.505.661
12.258.944
8.914.974
13.218.114
9.403.032
13.959.617
9.916.652
14.740.218
10.457.154
15.999.671
In/Decrease in %
48%
44%
48%
48%
49%
53%
page 102 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE
Comparative calculation study for the existing and the bypass line Tbilisi – Travel Time Calculation
Scenario 1
6
Existing line
1.165.841
122.584
445.517
1.042.880
302.556
2.161.810
7
By-pass line Existing line
2.400.498
1.240.843
125.283
126.262
729.007
467.793
1.856.199
1.131.524
332.532
317.684
1.744.722
2.269.901
30
16%
5.241.188
30
16%
7.188.241
By-pass line Existing line
2.554.931
1.319.296
129.042
130.050
765.457
491.183
2.013.976
1.226.426
349.158
333.568
1.831.958
2.383.396
31
20%
5.554.007
6
Existing line
8
31
20%
7.644.521
Existing line
By-pass line Existing line
2.716.468
1.401.340
132.913
133.951
803.730
515.742
2.182.890
1.327.990
366.616
350.247
1.923.556
2.502.565
32
24%
5.883.919
7
By-pass line
9
32
24%
8.126.173
Existing line
By-pass line Existing line
2.885.398
1.487.119
136.900
137.970
843.916
541.529
2.363.661
1.436.643
384.947
367.759
2.019.734
2.627.694
33
27%
6.231.835
8
By-pass line
10
33
27%
8.634.556
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
3.062.020
141.007
886.112
2.557.051
404.194
2.120.720
34
31%
6.598.714
9
Total
34
31%
9.171.105
Existing line
12.303.085
1.314.881
4.723.072
10.939.903
3.207.495
22.918.048
By-pass line
25.332.397
1.343.827
7.728.435
19.471.701
3.525.275
18.496.360
In/Decrease
in %
106%
2%
64%
78%
10%
-19%
55.406.484
75.897.996
37%
10
By-pass line
Existing line
Total
By-pass line
Existing line
By-pass line
In/Decrease
in %
177.303
330.480
502.718
167.979
32.120
5.478
10.370
33.585
387.329
502.110
513.917
124.158
35.898
8.661
12.444
24.528
182.622
347.004
527.854
176.377
33.726
5.751
10.889
35.265
398.949
527.215
539.613
130.366
37.693
9.094
13.066
25.754
188.101
364.354
554.247
185.196
35.413
6.039
11.433
37.028
410.918
553.576
566.594
136.884
39.578
9.549
13.720
27.042
193.744
382.571
581.959
194.456
37.183
6.341
12.005
38.879
423.245
581.255
594.923
143.728
41.556
10.026
14.406
28.394
199.556
401.700
611.057
204.179
39.042
6.658
12.605
40.823
435.943
610.318
624.669
150.915
43.634
10.527
15.126
29.814
1.901.810
3.503.521
5.329.481
1.780.795
340.518
58.069
109.936
356.049
4.154.621
5.323.029
5.448.201
1.316.240
380.566
91.817
131.923
260.028
118%
52%
2%
-26%
12%
58%
20%
-27%
624.341
221.725
970.103
2.164.857
543.682
284.171
732.442
619.422
1.739.222
3.674.608
1.039.381
655.558
232.811
1.018.609
2.273.100
570.867
298.380
769.064
650.393
1.826.183
3.858.338
1.091.351
688.336
244.452
1.069.539
2.386.755
599.410
313.299
807.517
682.913
1.917.493
4.051.255
1.145.918
722.753
256.674
1.123.016
2.506.093
629.380
328.964
847.893
717.058
2.013.367
4.253.818
1.203.214
758.890
269.508
1.179.167
2.631.398
660.849
345.412
890.288
752.911
2.114.036
4.466.509
1.263.375
6.618.841
2.350.577
10.284.380
22.950.353
5.763.754
2.933.365
7.560.652
6.393.999
17.953.168
37.931.234
10.729.042
#DIV/0!
14%
172%
75%
65%
86%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
5%
0%
-15%
3%
5.784.742
9.698.292
6.070.433
10.175.460
6.370.302
10.676.254
6.685.055
11.201.848
7.015.433
11.753.476
61.348.083
100.607.883
64%
11.025.930
16.886.533
11.624.440
17.819.981
12.254.221
18.802.427
12.916.890
19.836.404
13.614.147
20.924.581
116.754.567
53%
53%
53%
54%
54%
176.505.879
51%
page 103 of 103
C:\Users\dsadradze\Desktop\130619-MC-Final Report.docx Status: 130916, Editor:DSADRADZE