Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
III
SUPPLEMENTARY TRANSPORT MODE-SPECIFIC
EXPLANATIONS
A
TRANSPORT MODE: RAIL
1
Operations simulation
1.1
Transport infrastructure networks
The analysis of the impacts of rail infrastructure investments is done by comparing a
"with" scenario, where the network includes the infrastructure investment to be
examined, with the "without" scenario that excludes this project. Each "with"
scenario is compared to the same "without" scenario [28].
The network in the "without" scenario corresponds to the one for those sections of
the optimised rail network 2015 that are relevant for federal transport infrastructure
planning plus the upgraded and new sections in the current investment plan that will
have been finished by that time. These are projects that are either well-advanced or
are not being examined for other reasons. Thus, when defining the network in the
"without" scenario,
•
the 2003 to 2007 anti-congestion programme,
•
the ERDF national transport infrastructure programme 2000 to 2006,
•
the “Zukunftspaket Schiene”1 (Future Rail Project) and
•
DB Netz AG's current scheme to increase the capacities of sections by
improving cabling and safety technology
were taken into account. Figure 32 shows this route network.
The junctions between the sections of routes were – as in the FTIP '92 – presumed to
be of unlimited capacity2. Where options to branch off from junctions were either
problematic or non-existent, they were taken into account according to the difficulty
of the branching and using various branching resistors in the network. Changes of
traction type between electric and diesel were also taken into account by employing a
time penalty.
1
Within the framework of the Zukunftspaket Schiene (Future Rail investment project), the German
Bundestag (parliament) decided in 2000 to invest part of the interest gained from UMTS licences
in improving and maintaining the existing rail network. This was to take place over the following
ten to fifteen years.
2
Junctions with existing bottlenecks were examined in detail in separate junction research studies.
100
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Vergleichsfall
FTIP
BVWP
“without”
scenario
Flensburg
Traktion
Traction
Elektrifiziert
Electrified
Diesel
Diesel
Rostock
Hamburg
Bremen
Berlin
Hannover Hbf
Magdeburg
Dortmund
Leipzig
Kassel
Köln
Dresden
Erfurt
Frankfurt(M)
Mannheim
Karlsruhe
Nürnberg
Stuttgart
München
Basel SBB
Figure 32:
Network in the "without" scenario
101
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
DB Netz AG provided the following relevant characteristics for the apportionment to
passenger and freight traffic for the routes:
•
the length of route (kilometres),
•
the type of traction (electrified, non-electrified),
•
the top permitted speed Vmax (km/h),
•
the journey time in minutes for the local and long-distance passenger traffic,
•
the restrictions (no restriction, exclusively freight traffic routes, exclusively
passenger traffic routes, freight traffic priority routes),
•
the number of tracks,
•
the length of the passing track (metres),
•
the route category,
•
the reference mixture ratio 3,
•
the reference capacity L04.
Subdividing by time slices5 allowed the mixture ratio between passenger and freight
trains, which fluctuates hugely during the course of the day, to be taken into account
when determining the route capacity [29].
The route capacity Lm6 which is significant for the apportionment is determined by
•
the dependence of capacity on the mixture ratio on a typical standard route
•
the predetermined reference capacity L0 and
•
the reference mixture ratio.
3
The proportion of long-distance rail passenger traffic (SPFV), local rail passenger traffic (SPNV)
and rail freight traffic trains (SGV) as a percentage of the route volume.
4
Route capacity in trains per day and direction in line with the route standard and a predetermined
(reference) mixture ratio (e.g. 30% long-distance passenger traffic, 35% local passenger traffic,
35% freight traffic).
5
Time slice 1: 05.00 – 8.59; Time slice 2: 09.00 – 15.59; Time slice 3: 16.00 – 19.59; Time slice 4:
20.00 – 04.59.
6
Route capacity in trains per day and direction for a route with the mixture ratio actually applicable
after apportionment.
102
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
For example, Figure 33 shows for the route types P 300 (fast long-distance passenger
traffic) and M 230 (fast mixed traffic route) how the capacity of the route type differs
depending on the mixture ratio.
It immediately becomes clear that the route types have different capacities with the
same mixture ratio and respond with varying degrees of sensitivity to changes in the
mixture ratio.
Link standard P 300
250
Capacity trains per day and direction
200
150
100
Capacity at 00% local traffic
Capacity at 10% local traffic
50
Capacity at 20% local traffic
Capacity at 30% local traffic
Capacity at 40% local traffic
Capacity at 50% local traffic
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Share long-distance passenger traffic [%]
Link standard M 230
400
Capacity trains per day and direction
350
300
250
200
150
Capacity at 00% local traffic
100
Capacity at 10% local traffic
Capacity at 20% local traffic
Capacity at 30% local traffic
50
Capacity at 40% local traffic
Capacity at 50% local traffic
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Share long-distance passenger traffic [%]
Figure 33:
Capacity for standard routes P 300 and M 230
103
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
1.2
Range of services from rail passenger transport
1.2.1
Local rail passenger transport
The requests of the federal states in terms of the range of services on offer from
regional rail passenger transport (RegionalExpress, StadtExpress and Regionalbahn)
and the S-Bahn transit, as taken from a Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Housing survey, were systematically captured. Where the requests showed capacity
bottlenecks and inconsistencies between the federal states involved, in connection
with cross-border lines, experts made suitable adjustments to the range of services on
offer and these were presented to the states in a second, coordination phase. The
result was a nationwide operations strategy for local passenger rail transport which
was used as the basis for the "without" scenario in the FTIP.
1.2.2
Long-distance rail passenger transport
Starting from the upgrading of infrastructure and from the services strategy in the
2015 integration scenario developed for the transport forecast, and taking into
account
•
the "German Unity Transport Projecta", projects 8.1 and 8.2 (NurembergErfurt, Erfurt–Halle/Leipzig),
•
the newly-built route Stuttgart–Ulm with Stuttgart 21 and the Stuttgart airport
link and New Ulm 21,
•
the "Market-Oriented Services for Passenger Transport" scheme drawn up by
the DB Reise&Touristik AG,
•
the planned investments in cabling and safety technology for the rail network
the range of long-distance rail passenger transport services on offer was completely
re-worked. In the process, the range of available trains was adjusted in some cases to
suit the available capacities.
In agreement with DB AG, the following train types were defined that are to be
available for long-distance rail passenger transport in 2015:
Train type 1:
Electric ICE (InterCityExpress) with a top speed of 300 km/h,
900 seats in the full train, 450 seats in the half train
Train type 2:
Electric ICE with tilting technology and a top speed of 230
km/h (ICE T), 900 seats in the full train, 450 seats in the half
train
Train type 3:
Diesel-ICE with tilting technology (ICE V), 378 seats in the
full train, 189 seats in the half train.
104
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
On important axes that, as a result of implementing the "Market-Oriented Services
for Passenger Transport" scheme are no longer served by the DB Reise&Touristik
AG's long-distance services, another train type was added with the working title
"LongDistanceExpress". The aims here are to ensure that the main locations on these
axes are properly served and to provide a quick connection between these areas and
the long-distance rail passenger transport network.
The regularly transited night train lines and the motorail trains with a minimum
service of 53 trains per year were also taken into account. The assumption was made
here that the current range of trains would also be available in 2015 and that these
trains will not run on the newly-built sections.
Figure 34 shows the long-distance rail passenger transport (SPFV)scheme with the
supplementary LongDistanceExpress lines.
105
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Train type 1
Train type 2 (tilting, Vmax=230 km/h)
Train type 3
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Line with its number
and the number of trains
per day and direction
LongDistanceExpress (electric)
LongDistanceExpress (diesel)
LongDistanceExpress (loco)
Figure 34:
106
Stations where ICE-lines
are separated
Long-distance rail passenger transport line scheme with the
supplementary LongDistanceExpress lines in the "without" scenario
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
1.3
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Range of services from freight transport
With freight transport, a distinction is made between the two train types 'block trains'
and 'waggonload services', which differ both in terms of their capacity utilisation and
the way they are operated.
The conversion of the freight flows derived in the integration scenario for the 2015
freight traffic forecast into traffic flows (trains) involves two steps:
1. Conversion of freight flows into waggon flows,
2. Conversion of waggon flows into train flows.
The degree of capacity utilisation of the waggons (tonnes/loaded waggon) differs
according to the type of train and the sort of freight. Firstly, the block train
proportions are separated out from the overall traffic flows for each link and freight
area, and then the number of waggon's arriving per day is calculated for the amounts
in block trains and single waggon trains for each junction station and link.
An empty waggon model is used to determine the empty waggons for the
waggonload traffic for each link. Across the network, the proportion of empty
waggons in the overall waggonload traffic is around 30 %. For the block train traffic
it was assumed that, for every block train in the load direction, there is an (empty)
block train in the opposite direction.
A train generation model was used to generate trains from the waggons arriving each
day at a given junction station. With the single waggon traffic, train generation rules
as in
Train type
Minimum capacity utilisation (Percentage of the
train's length)
JS-JS
60 %
OriginJS-DestinationSY
70 %
OriginSY-DestinationJS
70 %
SY-SY
75 %
JS-own SY
At least 1 local freight train per day
Own SY-JS
At least 1 local freight train per day
Figure 35:
Train generation rules
107
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
The possible number of waggons on a link at maximum capacity utilisation is
determined via the shortest passing track length (significant passing track length) on
the route, the average waggon length and the length of the traction unit:
N rel =
z min rel − Lt
Lw
Where:
N
zmin
Lt
Lw
rel
Number of waggons
Minimum passing track length per link (significant passing track length)
Length of the traction unit
Average waggon length (15.5 m)
Link index
Determining the route7
The model grading to determine the routes consists of these steps:
•
route search in the initial network for shunting yards
•
train generation in shunting yards
•
train operation in the route network
•
build a train line network
•
route search in the train line network.
The freight waggon flows not included in the block train traffic or transported
directly between junction stations were related to shunting yards when determining
routes. Within this scheme, the shunting yards constitute the key cells, and thus the
supply points in the network. The freight waggon flows generated during the
modelling process constitute annual values in the first instance. To this extent, the
annual values first usually needed to be converted to daily values for the purposes of
the apportionment. An average of 256 operating days per year was assumed here.
In the first stage, the route search is done firstly only on the basis of the route
resistances (transport times on the route), while the junction resistances (turnaround
times in the shunting yards) are then gradually introduced into the rest of the process.
The total transport times on the routes transited comes from the quotients between
the total route lengths and the average route speed. This is 75 km/h on electrified
routes and 60 km/h on non-electrified routes.
7
Route = best route; the quickest route in a given network without taking restrictions into account
108
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
The starting point for train generation in the shunting yards are the so-called 'route
trees', that hold all the best routes of the junction in question to all the other shunting
yards in the network. The sequence of priorities when converting incoming or
waiting waggons and waggon groups into departing trains begins with the destination
shunting yard for which the longest transport time is required.
There is always an option to transfer a waggon from a train arriving in a shunting
yard to a departing train where the time between arrival and departure is as long as or
longer than the specific turnaround time.
These specifications were laid down to calculate the turnaround times:
•
The transfer time for all shunting yards is at least two hours.
•
The capabilities of the operating equipment were included in the determination
of turnaround times as criteria specific to each shunting yard. The turnaround
time (Ur) for an interval I is then determined according to the waggon's volume
Ur
=
WI
L
Where:
WI
Number of waggons in the shunting yard in the interval I
L
Capability of the operating equipment in a shunting yard
The trains departing from a shunting yard determined for the train generation
processes are "set in motion" during the model simulation's train operating phase.
Here, the departure time of the trains is calculated from the arrival time and the
transfer time of waggon flows in a shunting yard. At the destination station, each
train is then stored with all the data required for the train generation process
occurring in the next interval. The duration selected for the interval here, an hour, is
less than or at least the same as the minimum transport duration between shunting
stations in the network. This ensures that, for the train generation process in the
interval n + 1, all the necessary data is available on all the trains that have departed in
the previous intervals and those that have arrived in the interval n + 1, and that
therefore the train generation process can run correctly.
As more trains go into operation between shunting yards, the so-called train line
network, which now no longer consists of the physical route sections of the initial
network, but is defined by train connections between shunting yards, gets more
packed. The route search process in the train line network becomes a stringing
together of timetabled connections between shunting yards. This process determines
the best routes for each particular time slot. Various best routes, in the form of a train
chain or a direct train between two shunting yards is found for each time slot and
depending on the structure of the timetable. However, fixed line routes apply in the
109
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
train generation, as they do in actual practice, so that once a route has been found it
is only changed if the new route found is quicker than the best route up to that point.
Train generation, train operation and route searching in the train line network are resimulated in each time interval. The iteration process continues until the best routes
found are no longer changing. Because of the constellation and the transport
distances involved in the German rail network, this requires at least 40 to 50 onehour intervals in order to be sure to capture the reciprocal effects of the shunting
yards located furthest apart from one another.
The optimising of the route structure creates the foundation for identifying network
bottlenecks that occur when respecting the best possible routes for the trains. The
routes determined for the initial network are used unchanged for all the planning
variants, while adjustments to each of the route capacities available is achieved
purely by rerouting measures.
1.4
Determining the traffic volume in rail passenger transport
The demand for passenger transport in the "without" scenario and in the "with"
scenarios that are to be evaluated was calculated using the FTIP passenger transport
model. This is explained in detail in the concluding report of the "2015 Transport
Forecast for Federal Transport Infrastructure Planning" study. The FTIP passenger
transport model was extended by a module to take into account the effects of
capacity bottlenecks on the demand for transport. Please refer to the concluding
report of the "Consideration of Non-Discriminatory Network Access in Federal
Transport Infrastructure Planning" [30] study for a more detailed explanation of this
new module.
The parameters that determine demand are broken down into individual variables
and processed step-by-step when applying the FTIP passenger transport model. This
process involves mapping the effects of the parameters on the individual components
of the transport demand, i.e. mobility ("traffic generation"), choice of destination
("traffic distribution") and choice of transport ("modal split").
The forecast trends for volume and structures are factored into each step of the
forecast by means of changes ("∆-matrices") in the initial matrix. This "marginal
approach" has the advantage that the structures for the actual status quo in the
forecast, which were largely determined through empirical means, are not lost.
110
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
When forecasting the demand for transport, the model components described below
were used:
Induced traffic
With this model component, on the hypothesis that the budget for generalised costs
for transport users' travel activities is stable (a common approach in the transport
sector), changes in generalised costs in the forecast year over the base year lead to
changes in journey volumes. The induced and (where the availability or the journey
deteriorates) deduced traffic is calculated based on the journeys that are not affected
by modal shift.
Here, for each travel purpose, an estimated average proportion of generalised costs
for the travel in relation to the overall generalised costs of the activity for which the
travel is intended is taken into account. This accommodates the fact that, for
example, a minor improvement in travelling time does not necessarily lead to a
corresponding increase in holiday travel, since the holiday as a whole lasts much
longer than the journey to and from the holiday location.
Rind =
GK a − GK p
max(GK p ; GK a )
× min( R p ; Ra ) × AR
Where:
Rind
GKp
Induced traffic, per transport mode, travel purpose and link ij
Generalised costs forecast
GKa
Rp
Generalised costs at the moment of the analysis or in the previous forecast
step
Forecast of journeys
Ra
Journeys in the analysis or the previous forecast step
AR
Proportion of generalised costs within the total costs for the journey,
differing for each travel purpose
Destination choice model
The destination choice model is used to calculate the effects of changed (generalised)
costs on the spatial distribution of journeys. This model component plays a
particularly significant role with air traffic (shifts e.g. from domestic to foreign
travel, also cross-mode). With the relationship functions that differ according to
travel purpose, the (empirically demonstrable) border resistance is also taken into
account, and even broken down further into national borders and linguistic borders.
Suitable hypotheses can be applied in the model to develop these border resistances
and to change them in line with the model. An "availability quota" is used to express
the fact that, where the spatial and economic structures are largely stable, only a
111
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
portion of the destinations are "available" – i.e. can be displaced - over a given time
period (inaction effect).
Rijp = Rija +
α
S pj × GK ijp
× Qip
∑
J
α
S pj × GK ijp
×β −
α
× Qip
S pj × GK ija
∑
j
S pj GK ija
α
×β
Where:
Rijp
Rija
Qip
GKijp
GKija
α
β
Spj
Journeys between i and j forecast
Journeys between i and j analysis or in the previous forecast step
Origin traffic from i Qi = in the forecast
Generalised costs forecast
Generalised costs analysis or the previous forecast step
Exponent of generalised costs (negative)
Availability quota (proportion of journeys that "can be redistributed" in the
time period that can be examined) (depends on the forecast time period and
the travel purpose)
Significant structure feature forecast region j
Modal split
The competition between the different modes of transport can be mapped using a
modal split model. This model component plays a role in relation to economic
growth, to the extent that a shift can occur from, for example, the "cheap" (user cost
low, time cost high) land-based mode of transport to the "expensive" air mode (user
cost high, time cost low). This is calculated using the functions below:
Firstly, a resistance function (per transport mode and travel purpose) in the form
W = a × GK × eb×GK
c
Where:
W
GK
a, b, c
Resistance value
Generalised costs
Calibrating weights (vary according to travel purpose and transport mode)
Secondly, the logit itself, in a form appropriate to determine the market share (P) for
each transport mode,
112
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
PLuft =
1
WLuft
1
WBahn
+
1
WMIV
1
1
+
+
WLuft WBus
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
;
PBahn, PMIV and PBus accordingly.
The change in journeys (R) determined using the modal split model is applied to the
demand in the analysis (Ra) which is derived and forecast from empirical research, as
it is not unusual that the modal split in the theoretical model differs from the actual
modal split. This so-called marginal approach avoids the model calculation losing the
transport mode usage features that relate to specific spaces and links.
RVM,p = RVM,a + ( PVM,p – PVM,a ) × RGes
Where:
RVM,p
RVM,a
PVM,p
PVM,a
RGes
Demand transport mode VM in the forecast
Demand transport mode VM in the analysis or the previous forecast step
Modelled market share VM in the forecast
Modelled market share VM in the analysis or the previous forecast step
Demand over all transport modes
Induced traffic, destination choice effects and modal split changes are calculated as
∆-matrices and the effects added or balanced.
Route choice and capacity reconciliation
The route choice model is used within the framework of the available microforecasts, based on the network model road, rail and air,
•
to determine the suitable transport links with the corresponding characteristics
of the services on offer, for every origin-destination link,
•
to determine the distribution of transport demand on the available routes and
transport links (the route split),
•
while calculating the effects of capacity bottlenecks on the characteristics of
the services on offer and the distribution of transport demand.
The road network model comprises the entire network of federal trunk roads,
important regional roads and the network in neighbouring countries that affects
Germany. With rail and air traffic, alongside the infrastructure, the transport service
on offer is captured as a line network model – with rail the train systems are coded
(ICE, IC, IR, RE etc.), while with air the airlines and alliances are coded.
113
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
The route choice model takes into account the intermodality between the road and
rail network and the road, rail and air network by generating appropriate route
chains.
The quality of the services on offer is shown via generalised costs as the total of the
monetarised service offering parameters. The generalised costs of the link are made
up as follows:
GK FZ ,k = t k × ZK FZ + u k × UK FZ + p k × TFFZ
Where:
GKFZ,k
tk
uk
pk
ZKFZ
UKFZ
TFFZ
Generalised costs of route k for travel purpose FZ
Travel time calculated with discomfort factors for the whole route k
Number of changes on route k (rail, air)
Transport price (incl. costs for getting to and from the route) on route k
Time costs for travel purpose FZ
Monetarised discomfort for changes for travel purpose FZ (rail, air)
Tariff factor for travel purpose FZ
At any given time of the day there are, for rail and air, additional costs due to the
"adjustment time", the difference between the desired departure time and the actual
departure time possible as per the timetable and thus dependent on frequency.
The usage probability p on the individual route k is determined via a function of the
generalised costs GKijk and the frequency-dependent waiting time ta.
Pk = f (GK ij ,k , t a )
The usage probability is used to also determine the total resistance over all routes per
link:
k
GK ij = ∑ GK ij ,k × Pk
At first, the questions were overlooked as to whether the planned capacity
expansions in the infrastructure will keep pace with the forecast transport trend, and
which effects future capacity bottlenecks might have and, conversely, which effects
any possible resolution of those bottlenecks could have on the demand for transport.
This capacity reconciliation was carried out in a second forecast step.
114
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
1.5
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Determining the traffic volume in rail freight transport
Train journeys on local and long-distance passenger lines are apportioned per line
according to the sequence of stops in the network. The volume-dependent
apportionment of freight trains is done on the network which is pre-loaded with
passenger trains by using the WIZUG algorithm. The range of train services on offer
in rail passenger transport is thus given priority treatment, as is largely the case in
actual operating circumstances, so that the capacity of any route section is reduced
accordingly. The remaining available capacity then represents the leeway for the
most cost-effective freight transport operation possible.8
Unlike the best route search, which does not fix the specific route but only the
necessary turnaround points (shunting yards), apportioning freight trains to routes
needs to be done according to the individual characteristics of each network case.
With rail freight transport in particular, considerable delays can occur where the
degree of capacity utilisation on routes exceeds a given critical limit. Therefore the
actual processes that occur in rail transportation are depicted realistically, i.e.
increases in capacity utilisation on a route are characterised by increasing
interference with operating processes and lengthening journey times. Such delays
damage the image of Deutsche Bahn AG's performance, which ultimately has
consequences for demand. In principle, this process is continuing and ongoing, but it
only has a dramatic effect when approaching capacity limits.
As the example in Figure 36 shows, the threshold journey time of a train arriving to
be added to a route increases where the degree of the route's capacity utilisation
reaches around 80 % of the nominal capacity. Journey times increase progressively
as capacity utilisation grows, and they asymptotically approach the technical
capacity limit. The operation monitoring already mentioned now enables the delays
that occur to be distributed across all freight trains. The deterioration in the image of
rail freight transport's service offering that occurs in the marketplace when capacity
utilisation increases on routes is well approximated using the average delay function
for freight trains Figure 37.
8
If the system is expanded there will also be support for giving priority to putting on special quality
freight trains.
115
INCREASE IN TRANSPORT DURATION (%)
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
DEGREE OF CAPACITY UTILISATION (%)
INCREASE IN TRANSPORT DURATION (%)
Figure 36:
Limit delay of freight trains depending on route volume
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
DEGREE OF CAPACITY UTILISATION (%)
Figure 37:
Average delay of all freight trains depending on route volume
As the network volume grows it leads, because of delays, to an increase in the freight
trains' transport time. Starting from the route capacity that is still available for freight
trains in the various time slices after apportioning passenger trains, freight trains are
apportioned by delay, rerouting and rerouting times, taking into account the best
routes and the route restrictions, so that, once the trains have been sorted according
to their profit margin, those that have a large profit margin are apportioned first and
those with a small profit margin are apportioned last. In this way, an optimal network
apportionment of the entire network for the upgrading status in the "without"
scenario is achieved for each time slice.
116
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
For rail, where the infrastructure remains constant, this means optimising operations
according to the available opportunities, i.e. where necessary, rerouting trains to
reduce income lost through reaction in the marketplace. If the tight resources of the
rail network infrastructure are to be used optimally, the basic question arises, which
trains should mostly reach their destination via their optimal route, which should be
rerouted and how the speed of freight trains in general should be slowed (via passing
procedures). Here, three different trends need to be taken into account. Passing
procedures lead to delays and thus to a deterioration in the service offering and thus
to a fall in demand and income, and an increase in the time-dependent operating
costs. Passing procedures can, of course, be avoided by rerouting, but longer routes
lead to an increase in train running costs.
An optimal operations strategy must, therefore, take into account both the possible
loss of income and the associated cost increases. A transport mode choice model is
used to estimate reactions in the transport market to a deterioration in the quality of
rail transport services on offer. Finally, as the last component, an efficient algorithm
is required to search for the generalised shortest routes in the network. The various
model components required have already been outlined above in the listing of the
different impact elements. The initial value for this process is the change in journey
time as a consequence of differing route capacity utilisation.
The economic success resulting from each individual train stems from the income
minus the running- and time-related costs and minus the cost of the waggons in other
trains. This train indicator9 is a comprehensive economic criterion for appraising
each individual train.
In order to properly take into account transport time and cost resistances in the route
search procedure, generalised transport costs were introduced as a network resistance
criterion. Here, the transport time is valued using a time cost unit rate, the transport
distance is valued using a distance cost unit rate and the branching procedures
(changing traction and direction) are valued using a piece cost unit rate. The total of
all three cost components constitutes the generalised network resistance. Thus this
network resistance is minimal on the train's optimal route. This train is then allocated
to the network and the capacity and journey time situation is updated. When all the
trains in one train type group have been worked through, the procedure described is
repeated for the trains in the next group. When the process is over, the average
journey time of all freight trains depending on the network capacity is determined
and the demand response, in the sense of the modal impact, is estimated.
9
In business literature, the difference between revenue and variable costs is usually known as the
profit margin. In this sense, the train indicator is the profit margin that accrues from managing the
train. In order to avoid any confusion between the terms employed by the Deutsche Bahn AG, the
term "train indicator" has been coined.
117
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
In freight transport, a provider's market success is determined by a large number of
individual customer decisions. As Figure 38 shows, the result of these decisions
regarding the choice of transport mode depends not only on the individual
preferences of the decision-maker, but also on the characteristics of the freight to be
transported and the regulatory framework that exists in the transport market. The
most significant determinant, however, is the specific quality of the service offering
in the different competing transport modes, in all their guises.
INDIVIDUAL
PREFERENCES
DECISIONDECISIONMAKING
MAKING
PROCESSES
PROCESSES
CHARACTERISTICS OF
OF THE
THE
CHARACTERISTICS
TRANSPORT CASES
CASES
TRANSPORT
QUALITY OF
OF THE
THE SERVICE
SERVICE
QUALITY
OFFERING OF
OF THE
THE COMPETITORS
COMPETITORS
OFFERING
REGULATORY
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
FRAMEWORK
CHOSEN
CHOSEN TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT MODE
MODE
Figure 38:
Transport mode choice decision-making model
Such relationships between the characteristics of the service offering in the transport
mode, on the one hand, and the transport mode selected, on the other hand, can be
identified and quantified using suitable, mathematical and statistical methods. The
relationship components that are relevant here, in the form of direct time elasticities,
naturally differ amongst a large number of segments, e.g. type of freight, and
categories of distance and weight. Figure 39 shows an example of this type of basic
relationship. As all the segmentation values are known from the train generation for
each waggon relation, the corresponding elasticity can be determined, in detail, for
each individual waggon number and used as a basis for the model's calculation.
118
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
COMMERCIAL ROAD FREIGHT TRAFFIC
Shares (%)
80
60
40
RAIL
LONG-DISTANCE INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC
20
0
-50
Loader‘s
modal
reaction
Figure 39:
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Change in duration of rail transport (%)
Time elasticity in transport demand
Figure 40 shows the effect of a growth in route volume on the transport demand in
rail freight transport. In this way, the lengthening of journey times when there is
increased volume on routes can be estimated via the load-dependent resistance
function, and from this the demand reaction can be quantified using the elasticity
function. Falling demand now leads to poorer train capacity utilisation and thus to
the loss of train journeys and corresponding savings in terms of train running costs.
However, the loss of train journeys then relieves the route network, the journey time
situation improves and this causes modal reactions in the opposite direction.
To the extent that – because of significant network bottlenecks – the system suffers
lasting destabilisation in the way described, the procedure needs to be repeated
iteratively in a feedback loop until there is a renewed equilibrium.
119
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
EFFECT ON JOURNEY TIMES
70
MODAL EFFECT
CHANGE IN JOURNEY TIME (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
25
20
15
10
DEMAND SHARE (%)
Reduced demand
Figure 40:
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
DEGREE OF CAPACITY UTILISATION (%)
Increased capacity utilisation
Modal effect of changes in capacity utilisation
The resulting network usage is characterised by the fact that direct, qualitatively
well-developed rail routes are loaded either to a great degree or beyond the
applicable capacity because the weighted cost of losses through delays, rerouting
journeys, rerouting times, lost income and lost volume due to longer transport times
are lower here than on rail routes that are distant from the main direction of the
freight flows and/or are poorly developed. The latter, therefore, are loaded to a lesser
degree and partly still have available capacity.
The apportionment thus satisfies the evaluation procedure's requirement to optimise
the "without" scenario, and at the same time reflects the actual situation whereby, in
the technical sense, available rail capacity cannot be marketed given the level of
service demanded by customers. This becomes particularly clear if the network load
in the main load period (05.00 to 08.59) is compared with the load in the time slice
with the lowest load (20.00 to 04.59). While the network is heavily loaded or
overloaded almost everywhere during the main load period, there are, with a few
exceptions, usually only moderate network volumes during the night. Shifting trains
from daytime slices to the nighttime slice cannot be done for passenger traffic and is
only possible to a limited degree with freight traffic due to the associated loss in
quality (longer transport times) and the resulting drop in demand.
Figure 41 shows the network load with all trains for the entire day. The bottlenecks
shown in red (more than 110 % capacity utilisation) mostly lie on routes that are
120
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
being directly upgraded in the projects announced by the federal states and the DB
Netz AG, or that are indirectly influenced by (wide-ranging) changes to train
schedules as a result of infrastructure projects in other locations, so that the
bottleneck effect is to be removed or greatly reduced in the "with" scenarios.
FTIP
„without“ scenario
Flensburg
Sassnitz/Mukran
All trains
200 trains/day
Average capacity utilisation
< 80 %
< 110%
>= 110%
Rostock
Hamburg
Leer (Ostfr.)
Bremen
Berlin
Hannover
Magdeburg
Leipzig
Dortmund
Kassel
Dresden
Erfurt
Köln
Frankfurt (M)
Nürnberg
Mannheim
Saarbrücken
Karlsruhe
Stuttgart
München
Basel
Figure 41:
Network load in the German network with all trains and the resulting
route capacity utilisation in the "without" scenario
121
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
2
Benefit elements
2.1
Reduction of transportation costs (NB)
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
The rail transportation costs used in the FTIP 2003 were derived on the basis of
existing research, information provided by the DB AG, and of first-hand experience.
2.1.1
Determining link-specific cost unit rates
The link-specific costs – e.g. a Hamburg-Mannheim link – consist of the costs of the
trains that use different routes on this link, thus e.g. via the upgrade route/new
construction route Hanover–Frankfurt to Mannheim, via the parallel old route, or via
the Hanover–Giessen–Frankfurt route to Mannheim. The costs here differ according
both to the different route lengths and journey times involved, and to the differing
levels of capacity utilisation on these routes. Apportioning in line with cost-effective
train management ensures that each route is used to the extent that, overall, there is a
network load which optimises the relationship between revenue and costs in a sound
economic way.
The level of the link-specific costs therefore differs according to
•
which freight groups are being transported
•
which proportions of the waggonload traffic are being transported in block
trains or in individual waggons/waggon groups
•
how often the waggons are turned around between the origin and destination
•
which proportion the individual route categories have on the transport route
between the origin and the destination
•
how heavily the individual route sections are loaded.
Therefore the link-specific cost unit rates depend on a number of parameters that are
calculated during the operating simulation to generate the quantity structure. The
simulation differentiates according to 240 junction and border crossing stations, so
that link-specific transportation costs can be shown for a 240 x 240 matrix.
122
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
2.1.2
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Decreased vehicle standby costs (NB1)
The vehicle standby costs are based on the calculations in the following
specification:
•
•
Waggonload traffic
Traction unit standby
Waggon standby
€/traction unit hour
€/waggon hour
Long-distance passenger transport
Standby for the three ICE traction unit
categories, each for full and half train
Standby for long-distance express
waggon trains
Standby for other long-distance
passenger trains
€/multiple unit train hour
€/long-distance express
waggon train hour
€/train hour other long-distance
passenger traffic
Positive (and negative) changes in standby costs come from the difference between
the journey times required to handle the transport volume on all part-routes of the
part-network relevant in each case in the "with" and "without" scenarios. To
calculate the NB1, the differences in journey time for each multiple unit train and
waggon train hour over all the part-routes were added up and multiplied by the
corresponding standby cost unit rates.
NB1
=
∑∑ d × (Q
vg
TW
× t vg − Q pl × t pl ) × VHK [€/year]
ij
Where:
TW
ij
d
Qvg
tvg
Qpl
tpl
VHK
Index for multiple unit train, traction unit or waggon category
Index for part-routes
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
Daily number of multiple unit trains, traction units and waggons on the partroute in the "without" scenario
Journey time for the part-route in the "without" scenario (hours)
Daily number of multiple unit trains, traction units and waggons on the partroute in the "with" scenario
Journey time for the part-route in the "with" scenario (hours)
Vehicle standby cost unit rate (€/hour)
The journey times for the part-routes depend on the capacity utilisation of the partroutes – they are determined depending on the capacity utilisation in the simulation.
123
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
2.1.3
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Decreased vehicle operation costs (NB2)
Operating costs include the mileage-dependent material costs and the time-dependent
personnel costs required to operate. The operating costs are divided into the costs –
dependent on the volume of passengers and freight – of despatching passengers and
freight, the costs of train generation which depend on the waggons to be handled, and
the costs of moving the trains which depend on the distance and the characteristics of
the route.
For long-distance passenger traffic, the despatch costs are calculated from the
change in volume and the despatch cost unit rate (€/traveller) and for freight traffic
from the shifted traffic volume and the despatch cost unit rate (€/t).
Positive (and negative) savings from despatch costs in passenger transport (NB2AP)
are determined by:
NB 2 AP =
Where:
d
Pvg
Ppl
AKp
AP
d × (Pvg − Ppl ) × AK P
[€/year]
Conversion factor for daily to annual mileages (d = 365)
Number of travellers per day in "without" scenario
Number of travellers per day in "with" scenario
Cost unit rate for despatch in long-distance passenger transport (€/P)
Passenger transport despatch
As well as the despatch costs related to operating the railways, with freight transport
transaction costs need to be calculated for the quantities transported additionally in
rail transport. By adding these costs, the costs are taken into account that accrue for
transshipping when displacing from road to rail transport which always accrue with
all transport that cannot be done using sidings at both ends. Thus the despatch and
transaction costs in freight traffic come out as
NB 2 AG =
d × (Nt vg − Nt pl ) × ( AK G + TK G ) [€/year]
Where:
d
vg
pl
Nt
AKG
TKG
AG
124
Conversion factor from daily to annual values (d = 250)
"Without" scenario index
"With" scenario index
Daily transport quantity (net tonnes)
Cost unit rate for despatch in freight transport (€/t)
Transaction cost unit rate in freight transport (€/t)
Despatch freight transport
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
The train generation costs in passenger train transport are calculated on the basis of
the train mileage differentiated by train type. Positive (and negative) savings from
train generation costs in passenger transport (NB2,ZP) are determined by:
NB 2 ZP =
∑∑ d × (Zugkm
NF
vg
− Zugkm pl )× ZK P
[€/year]
ij
Where:
NF
ij
d
Zugkmvg
Zugkmpl
ZKP
ZP
Index for train types (ICE type, long distance express or other longdistance passenger vehicle)
Index for part-routes of the relevant part-network
Conversion factor for daily to annual mileages (d = 365)
Number of train kilometres in "without" scenario
Number of train kilometres in "with" scenario
Train generation cost unit rate (€/Zugkm)
Train generation passenger transport
The train generation costs in freight transport are calculated from the number of
waggons to be used and the cost unit rate (€/waggon). Changes to train generation
costs in freight transport are determined by:
NB 2 ZG
=
d × (Wvg − W pl ) × ZK G
[€/year]
Where:
d
Wvg
Wpl
ZKG
ZG
Conversion factor from daily to annual values (d = 250)
Freight waggons to be used in "without" scenario
Freight waggons to be used in "with" scenario
Train generation cost unit rate (€/waggon)
Train generation freight transport
In long-distance passenger traffic, the train moving costs were also calculated
broken down into the ICE train types, the long-distance express trains and the trains
on other long-distance passenger traffic, and in freight traffic for each traction type
(diesel / electrical traction) in the dimension €/Zugkm. After these differentiations,
the train mileages were captured during the apportionment simulation.
Positive (and negative) changes in train moving costs come from the difference
between the mileages (Zugkm) in passenger and freight traffic on all part-routes of
the part-network relevant in each case in the "with" and "without" scenarios. To
calculate the cost changes (NB2,F), the train kilometres for each train category over
all part-routes in the "without" and "with" scenarios were multiplied by the
corresponding train moving cost unit rates and the difference formed from this:
125
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
∑ d × [ (Zugkm
NB2 F =
ICE
vg
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
− Zugkm plICE ) × FK ICE + (ZugkmvgFE − Zugkm plFE ) × FK FE
ij
(
)
(
)
G
+ ZugkmvgSPFV − Zugkm SPFV
× FK SPFV + Zugkmvg
− Zugkm Gpl × FK G
pl
]
Where:
ij
d
vg
pl
ZugkmICE
ICE
Index for part-routes
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
"Without" scenario index
"With" scenario index
Daily mileage (ICE km) on the part-route by ICE train type
Train moving cost unit rate by ICE train type (€/ICE km)
FK
FE
Zugkm
Daily mileage (Zugkm) on the part-route in long-distance express traffic
FE
Train moving cost unit rate for long-distance express trains (€/Zugkm)
FK
SPFV
Daily mileage (Zugkm) on the part-route in other long-distance
Zugkm
passenger traffic
Train moving cost unit rate in other long-distance passenger traffic
FKSPFV
(€/Zugkm)
Daily mileage (Zugkm) on the part-route in freight traffic
ZugkmG
G
Train generation cost unit rate freight traffic (€/Zugkm)
FK
F
Train moving
2.1.4
Changes in transport costs due to modal shifts (NB3)
In long-distance passenger transport, the rail investment projects to be evaluated lead
to increased demands that are very largely at the expense of long-distance road
passenger transport. With some investment projects, and for particular links,
competition with air transport is also possible. Part of the additional transport
demand is also induced by the new traffic caused by the project. The database
available for passenger transport differentiates according to the origin of the
additional demand from road and air transport. The demand that is shifted from road
transport to rail transport is further differentiated according to its origin from bus
transport and motorised private transport. The costs accrued from modal shifts are
determined for these providing transport modes.
In freight transport, the investment projects lead to changes in block train and
individual waggon traffic, where the greater part of the additional departing transport
volume accounts for individual waggon and waggon group traffic. In the area of
individual waggon and waggon group traffic, rail competes primarily or exclusively
with road freight transport. Moreover, as only a few of the new or upgrade routes to
126
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
be evaluated lie fully or partly on "wet links" (links with parallel waterways), any
possible competition with waterways in part-areas was disregarded.
For the quantities shifted between transport modes, the differences between the
transportation costs in the 'giving' and 'taking' transport modes is calculated. In
freight transport, more than 90 % of the shifted quantities stem from capital goods
and consumer goods and are primarily (almost two-thirds) transported in inland
traffic. For these goods, the average vehicle capacity utilisation is substantially lower
and the macroeconomic costs (€/Tkm) therefore higher than for the average of all
goods transported by road. That was taken into account when calculating the cost
unit rate to be used in the calculation.
In passenger transport, the (positive or negative) benefits from cost changes caused
by volume shifts between rail and road are calculated as follows:
NB3 P =
(
S
d × [ VPkmIVS × (BKS IV − BKE P ) + VPkmBUS
× BKS BUS − BKE P
+VPkm L × (BKS L − BKE P )
)
]
Where:
d
VPkmSIV
VPkmSBus
VPkmL
BKSIV
BKSBus
BKSL
BKEP
Conversion factor from daily to annual values (d = 365)
Passenger mileage (Pkm/year) in the "with" compared to the "without"
scenarios shifted from motorised private transport on the road to rail
Passenger mileage (Pkm/year) in the "with" compared to the "without"
scenarios shifted from bus on the road to rail
Passenger mileage (Pkm/year) in the "with" compared to the "without"
scenarios shifted from air transport to rail
Specific transportation costs in motorised private transport on the road
(€/Pkm)
Specific transportation costs in bus transport on the road (€/Pkm)
Specific transportation costs in passenger transport in the air (€/Pkm)
Specific transportation costs in passenger transport by rail (€/Pkm)
In freight transport, the (positive or negative) benefits from cost changes caused by
volume shift between the rail and road modes are calculated as follows:
127
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
NB3G
=
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
d × VTkm × (BKS G − BKEG )
Where:
d
Conversion factor from daily to annual values (d = 250 GV)
VTkm Freight mileage (Tkm/year) in the "with" compared to the "without"
scenarios shifted from road to rail
BKSG Specific transportation costs in freight transport on the road (€/Tkm)
BKEG Specific transportation costs in freight transport by rail (€/Tkm)
2.2
Transport infrastructure maintenance (NW2)
With the rail transport mode, maintenance costs are calculated on the basis of the
procurement costs for the investment components using maintenance cost factors:
KI
=
∑
K g × ig
g
Where:
KI
Kg
ig
g
Maintenance costs for infrastructure (€/year)
Procurement costs of asset components (€)
Maintenance cost factor
Index for subject area group
The maintenance cost factors to be used are subdivided by the investment's subject
area groups and represent average costs that were calculated by the DB Netz AG
using extremely finely differentiated cost data.
128
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
10
Investment component
Maintenance cost unit rate
Roadbeds
0.0035
Supporting walls
0.0035
Tunnels
0.0014
Viaducts
0.0042
Crossings
0.0042
Soundproofing
0.0007
Track superstructure
0.0308
Buildings and structures
0.0280
Signalling systems
0.0210
Communication systems
0.0350
Traction power supplies
0.0280
Contact lines
0.0210
Figure 42:
Maintenance costs for the rail mode (proportion of investment costs)
The benefit from the route maintenance costs (NW2) is calculated as follows:
NW 2 =
∑ (KI
vg
− KI pl )
[€/year]
M
Where:
M
KIvg
KIpl
Investment projects
Total maintenance costs in the "without" scenario (€/year)
Total maintenance costs in the "with" scenario (€/year)
2.3
Increased traffic safety (NS)
The level of accident costs related to mileage differs according to the different
transport modes. Therefore the shifts in mileage between modes that is caused by the
investment projects to be evaluated lead to changes in the macroeconomic accident
costs. The accident costs per mileage unit are calculated from the accident rates for
each type of damage (accidents per billion person or net tonne kilometres) and from
the costs per type of damage (deaths, seriously injured, slightly injured, material
damages). When calculating the accident rates, the travellers affected by injury to the
10
Exemplary assumptions
129
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
person were assigned to the passenger transport accident rates, and injuries occurring
during shunting were assigned to the freight transport accident rates. The damage to
persons and materials that could not be divided in this way were allocated to
passenger and freight traffic in proportion to the distribution of train kilometres (63.3
% passenger traffic and 36.7 % freight traffic).
This produces the following accident rates:
Passenger transport
Freight transport
Accidents per 1 billion
Pkm
Accidents per 1 billion
Ntkm
Dead
1.5
0.4
Seriously injured
3.2
0.9
Slightly injured
4.0
1.1
Material damage
56.9
15.7
Accidents with …
Figure 43: Accident rates by type of damage in the rail area
Monetary accident cost rates were calculated from the accident rates plus the value
of personal and material damages.
Passenger transport
Freight transport
(€ / million Pkm)
(€ / million Ntkm)
2,116.74
587.99
Seriously injured
384.49
106.35
Slightly injured
21.11
5.73
Material damage
3,262.04
899.87
Accidents with …
Dead
Figure 44: Accident cost rates in the rail area
The accident costs in the rail area are determined as follows:
UK B
=
∑ d × (( Pkm
E
vg
− Pkm plE ) ×UKR E , P + ( NtkmvgE − Ntkm Epl ) × UKR E ,G )
ij
Where:
UKB
ij
130
Accident costs per year in the rail area
Index for route sections
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
d
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
Daily rail passenger mileage (Pkm) on all part-routes of the relevant partnetwork
Daily rail freight mileage (Tkm) on all part-routes of the relevant partnetwork
Accident cost rate for rail passenger transport
Accident cost rate for rail freight transport
Index for "without" scenario
Index for "with" scenario
PkmE
NtkmE
UKRE,P
UKRE,G
vg
pl
Where a project will lead to traffic shift from road to rail, the accident costs in the
rail area in the "without" scenario are to be supplemented by the accident costs of the
proportion of traffic that moves from road to rail in the "with" scenario. The accident
costs on the road here are determined by:
UK S
=
∑ Fkm
S
BAB
S
S
S
S
S
×UKRBAB
+ Fkm AO
×UKR AO
+ Fkm IO
×UKRIO
ij
Where:
UKS
ij
FkmS
UKRS
Accident costs of the mileage shifted from road to rail (€/year)
Index part-routes of the relevant road network
In the "with" scenario, mileage shifted from federal motorways (BAB),
other rural roads (AO) and roads in built-up areas (IO) to rail
Accident cost rates for traffic on:
federal motorways (BAB) = 0.02829 €/vkm;
other rural roads (AO) = 0.06765 €/vkm; and
roads in built-up areas (IO) = 0.10228 €/vkm
The benefit contribution to traffic safety (NS) is then, in all:
NS
=
UK S − UK B
Where:
UKS
UKB
Accident costs in the road sector (€/year)
Accident costs in the rail sector (€/year)
131
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
2.4
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Improved accessibility of destinations (NE)
The benefit contributions for improving accessibility come from changes to journey
times in the "with" compared to the "without" scenario. They arise through projectrelated shorter journey times in rail passenger transport and through the shift of
passenger transport volume between road and air, on the one hand, and rail on the
other. Journey times in the rail area are determined in the same way for the "without"
and "with" scenarios. Because there are different monetary approaches to calculating
commercial (business) travel and non-commercial (other) travel, there needs to be a
corresponding distinction when determining journey times.
TB g ,ng =
 Fg ×l Fng ×l 

+
v
v
b

 b
∑ d × 
ij
Where:
TB
g
ng
ij
d
F
l
vb
Total journey times in rail passenger travel (hours/year)
Index of commercial passenger travel
Index of non-commercial passenger travel
Index of part-routes
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport
Daily number of journeys on the part-route
Length of part-route in km
Train speed (km/h) on the part-route
When projects lead to traffic shifts from air to road, the journey times of the railassociated passenger traffic in the "without" scenario needs to be supplemented by
the journey times of the 'giving' mode.
The journey times on the road here are determined by:
TS g ,ng =
S
 Pkm gS Pkmng

∑ij d ×  v + v
S
 S




The journey times for air traffic are determined as follows:
TL g ,ng =
132
L
 Pkm gL Pkmng

∑ij d ×  v + v
L
 L




Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Where:
TS, TL Total journey times of passenger traffic shifted from road or air to rail
(hours/year)
g
Index of commercial passenger travel
ng
Index of non-commercial passenger travel
ij
Index of part-routes
d
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
Pkm
Daily mileage (Pkm/year) in the "with" compared to the "without" scenarios
shifted from road or air to rail
v
Average speed (km/h) of the shifted traffic
S, L
Index for road and air traffic
The total benefit contribution from improving accessibility (NE) is determined by:
NE = (∆TS g + ∆TL g ) × WPg + (∆TS ng + ∆TLng ) × WPng − (∆TB g × WPg + ∆TBng × WPng )
Where:
∆TB, ∆TS, ∆TL
g
ng
WPg
WPng
2.5
Change in journey time in rail, road and air traffic between
"without" and "with" scenario
Index of commercial passenger travel
Index of non-commercial passenger travel
Monetary valuation in commercial passenger traffic; here 19.94
€/hour
Monetary valuation in non-commercial passenger traffic; here
5.47 €/hour
Spatial advantages (NR)
See Part II, Chapter 5
133
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
2.6
Environmental relief (NU)
2.6.1
Reduction in noise exposure (NU1)
A benefit contribution through a change in noise exposure is only taken into account
where:
1. the average level Lm (the energy equivalent long-term sound level) exceeds the
target level Lz. Here it is only the night that is examined, since observing the
nighttime thresholds usually includes observing daytime thresholds. Lz = 42 dB
(A) is the target level for the nighttime.
2. the difference in noise exposure dLm of a route section between the "with" and
"without" scenarios is at least 2 dB (A):
|dLm| > 2 dB(A)
This means that the route volume in the "with" scenario must be at least 60 % greater
or smaller than in the "without" scenario so that, for the rail mode, usually only
newly constructed routes are considered for a benefit contribution, since on existing
routes and upgrade routes this degree of change in the traffic volume can rarely be
expected. With upgrade sections, this is particularly the case as long as the track axis
is not moved or the number of tracks is not changed.
The benefit through changing the costs from noise exposure in the rail area is
determined by
NU 1E
=
LK vg − LK pl
[€/year]
Where:
NU1E
LKvg
LKpl
Benefit from the difference in costs from noise exposure in a year for the
"with" scenario and the "without" scenario in the rail area (€/year)
Cost of noise in "without" scenario (€/year)
Cost of noise in "with" scenario (€/year)
The noise costs in a section of a route are derived in a similar way for the "with" and
"without" scenarios:
LK
134
=
(E
A
g
)
+ E gI ×W L
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Where:
LK
WL
Costs of noise exposure per year (€/year)
Value of a weighted resident; 54.71 €/resident per year
E gA
Weighted residents in rural area
E gI
Weighted residents in built-up area
Outside built-up areas it is possible to approximately determine the degree to which
specific residents ei are affected on newly constructed routes using ex-post analyses
in the following way:
Eg
=
4
∑g
i
× ei × l a
1
Where:
Eg
gi
ei
la
11
Weighted residents (sone residents)
Noise weighting of isoband i
Specific residents in isoband i (res./km)
Length of the newly constructed route under examination (km)
Isoband
sone-weighting gi
Degree of effect on Ei (residents/km)
Flat terrain
Hills/Mountains
1
82/72 dB (A)
9.51
e1 = 0
e1 = 1
2
72/62 dB (A)
5.66
e2 = 2
e2 = 2
3
62/52 dB (A)
2.83
e3 = 30
e3 = 15
4
52/42 dB (A)
1.41
e4 = 50
e4 = 15
Figure 45:
Degree of effect both sides of newly constructed two-lane routes (rural,
approximately)
If these levels of affectedness are applied, the overall rural exposure then
approximately derives to
E gA
=
167 × l a
(sone res.) for flat terrain
E gA
=
84 × l a
(sone res.) for routes in hilly or mountainous areas
11
sone is a unit used to determine the degree to which human beings are aware of noise levels; 1
sone equates to 40 dB (A) at 1000 Hz, while any increase of 10 dB (A) is experienced as a
doubling of the noise level (50 dB (A) ≅ 2 sone, 60 dB (A) ≅ 4 sone etc.). sone residents are,
therefore, the residents affected by traffic noise in a route under examination.
135
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Where:
E gA
Weighted residents in rural area
la
Length of the newly constructed route under examination in the rural area in
km
In built-up areas, the level of affectedness is derived depending on the distance to
the first row of housing. It was assumed that every building affected on the side near
the roadway is made of urban model components.
In consideration of sound level reductions caused by soundproofing installations, the
distance of the building, vegetation and the building itself, the affected residents
were theoretically determined at full exposure to the newly constructed route for
distances of up to the most favourable situation L = 42 dB (A) at the edge of the
development and with the depth of development affected in each case, and by
multiplying this by the corresponding exposure weightings the weighted residents
were calculated per kilometre of affected residential development.
With this, the residents affected in built-up areas is determined by:
E gI
=
e g × li
eg
=
a - b × log(s)
Where:
E gI
Weighted residents in built-up area
eg
li
Weighted specific residents in the built-up area (residents/km)
Length of residential development that is affected on one side of the route
(km)
Sideways distance of the development from the axis of the track line (m)
Coefficients corresponding to the tables below
s
a, b
Route type
Applicable range
a
b
One-lane
3,000
1,500
10 <
s
< 100
Two-lane
3,803
1,748
14 <
s
< 150
Three-lane
4,425
1,923
18 <
s
< 200
Four-lane
4,461
1,939
22 <
s
< 350
Figure 46:
136
Coefficient
(m)
Coefficients for determining the residents affected in built-up areas
for situations with a soundproofing wall
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Coefficient
Route type
Applicable range
a
b
One-lane
5,602
2,202
10 <
s
< 350
Two-lane
6,809
2,451
14 <
s
< 600
Three-lane
7,987
2,778
18 <
s
< 750
Four-lane
9,954
3,318
22 <
s
< 1.000
Figure 47:
2.6.2
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
(m)
Coefficients for determining the residents affected in built-up areas
for situations without a soundproofing wall
Reduction in exhaust emissions (NU2)
Exposure to exhaust emissions in the rail area is calculated using energy
consumption as the basis. Energy consumption mainly depends on
•
the type of transport (passenger transport, freight transport),
•
the type of traction (diesel or electric traction).
Standard trains corresponding to the rail average were assumed for the following
study.
For these standard trains, the following levels of energy consumption were derived
per train kilometre:
Diesel traction freight transport:
Electric traction freight transport:
Diesel traction passenger transport:
Electric traction passenger transport:
3.748 kg/Zugkm
17.204 kWh/Zugkm
2.889 kg/Zugkm
12.939 kWh/Zugkm
The consumption data per train kilometre plus emission factors (g/kg diesel or
g/kWh) can then be used to determine the pollutant emissions per train kilometre.
Using damage cost unit rates for the individual emissions, the following costs are
derived from the emission of air pollutants in rail transport:
137
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Climate
damage
Vegetation
damage
All
Damage to health
and materials
Diesel traction
2.43
0.09
2.52
1.43 / u
Electric traction
1.70
0.005
1.71
-
Diesel traction
1.88
0.06
1.93
0.84 / u
Electric traction
1.28
0.05
1.28
-
Freight transport
Passenger transport
u: average wind speed at 10m height in metres/sec.
Figure 48:
Costs from emitting air pollutants in rail transport in € per Zugkm
The benefits from avoiding exposure to exhaust emissions are calculated as follows
for the difference between the "without" and "with" scenarios:
NU 2B =
∑ d × (Zugkm
P
D
× AK DP + Zugkm EP × AK EP + Zugkm DG × AK DG
ij
+ Zugkm EG × AK EG )
Where:
NU2B
ij
d
ZugkmPD
ZugkmPE
AKPD
AKPE
ZugkmGD
ZugkmGE
AKGD
AKGE
Benefit from reducing exhaust emissions in the rail sector
Index for routes
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
"With" scenario difference train kilometres passenger transport diesel
traction
"With" scenario difference train kilometres passenger transport electric
traction
Emission cost unit rate passenger transport diesel traction (€/Zugkm)
Emission cost unit rate passenger transport electric traction (€/Zugkm)
"With" scenario difference train kilometres freight transport diesel
traction
"With" scenario difference train kilometres freight transport electric
traction
Emission cost unit rate freight transport diesel traction (€/Zugkm)
Emission cost unit rate freight transport electric traction (€/Zugkm)
When traffic mileage is shifted between road and rail, the emission costs in the
"without" scenario on the road are:
138
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
∑ d × (Pkwkm × AK
NU 2S =
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
S
Pkw
S
S
)
+ Buskm × AK Bus
+ Lkwkm × AK Lkw
ij
Where:
NU2S
ij
d
Emission costs on the road in the "without" scenario
Index for routes
Conversion factor for daily to annual values (d = 365 with long-distance
passenger transport; d = 250 with freight transport)
Shifted Pkwkm (carkm)
Emissions cost unit rate car (€/Pkwkm)
Shifted bus kilometres
Emissions cost unit rate bus (€/Buskm)
Shifted Lkwkm (lorrykm)
Emissions cost unit rate lorries on the road (€/Lkwkm)
Pkwkm
AKSPkw
Buskm
AKSBus
Lkwkm
AKSLkw
The total benefits from avoiding emissions are derived from the total of the
additional costs (negative benefits) in the rail sector and the saved costs (benefits) in
road transport:
− NU 2 B + NU 2 S
NU 2
=
2.7
Improved links to and from seaports and airports (NH)
See Part II, Chapter 8
3
Costs
3.1
Investment costs
In the evaluation procedure, the benefits described in section 2 are confronted with
the investment costs. The preliminary work on these costs was done by DB Netz AG
for the upgrading and new construction work being examined in the "with" scenarios.
The investment costs provided based on a variety of different prices were converted
into a single, uniform price basis in consultation with DB AG. The extrapolation
factors listed in Figure 49 were used to do this.
139
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Price index series (1995 = 100)
Land acquisition
Roadbeds
Supporting walls
Tunnels
Viaducts
Crossings
Soundproofing
Track superstructure
Buildings and structures
Signalling systems
Communication systems
Traction power supplies
Contact lines
Third-party equipment
Planning costs
Indirect costs
1989
83.9
89.7
81.9
81.7
81.9
81.9
85.8
90.4
78.2
88.0
123.1
92.5
92.5
1990
85.6
93.2
86.9
86.8
86.9
86.9
90.1
94.4
83.0
90.1
122.7
93.4
93.4
1991
89.8
100.2
91.7
92.6
91.7
91.7
96.0
97.0
88.2
92.9
120.9
95.8
95.8
1992
79.6
106.6
95.5
97.3
95.5
95.5
101.1
99.1
92.8
96.1
112.0
97.5
97.5
1993
83.7
104.4
97.5
98.8
97.5
97.5
101.0
99.1
95.8
98.2
103.6
98.3
98.3
1994
92.2
101.4
98.7
99.0
98.7
98.7
100.1
98.3
97.5
99.1
102.9
98.9
98.9
1995
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1996
115.0
96.7
99.4
98.3
99.4
99.4
98.1
100.8
100.3
101.5
97.6
100.5
100.5
1997
108.8
96.0
98.0
96.6
98.0
98.0
97.0
100.0
99.8
103.0
98.8
99.7
99.7
1998
119.7
96.2
97.4
95.7
97.4
97.4
96.8
102.2
99.9
103.8
103.8
103.8
103.8
1999
120.0
96.9
96.6
95.5
96.6
96.6
96.8
102.0
99.6
99.3
95.8
99.6
99.6
2000
121.2
95.9
95.6
94.5
95.6
95.6
95.8
103.0
98.6
98.3
94.8
98.6
98.6
2001
122.4
95.0
94.7
93.6
94.7
94.7
94.8
104.1
97.6
97.3
93.9
97.6
97.6
76.7
76.7
80.2
80.2
84.7
84.7
89.0
89.0
93.1
93.1
95.5
95.5
100.0
100.0
101.3
101.3
103.2
103.2
105.4
105.4
107.2
107.2
108.3
108.3
109.4
109.4
1992
1.5038
0.9024
1.0199
0.9836
1.0199
1.0199
0.9579
1.0313
1.0765
1.0801
0.9268
1.0646
1.0646
1.0586
1.1843
1.1843
1993
1.4301
0.9215
0.9990
0.9686
0.9990
0.9990
0.9589
1.0313
1.0428
1.0570
1.0019
1.0560
1.0560
1.0472
1.1321
1.1321
1994
1.2983
0.9487
0.9868
0.9667
0.9868
0.9868
0.9675
1.0397
1.0246
1.0474
1.0087
1.0495
1.0495
1.0362
1.1037
1.1037
1995
1.1970
0.9620
0.9740
0.9570
0.9740
0.9740
0.9680
1.0220
0.9990
1.0380
1.0380
1.0380
1.0380
1.0191
1.0540
1.0540
1996
1.0409
0.9948
0.9799
0.9736
0.9799
0.9799
0.9873
1.0139
0.9960
1.0227
1.0635
1.0328
1.0328
1.0124
1.0405
1.0405
1997
1.1002
1.0021
0.9939
0.9907
0.9939
0.9939
0.9979
1.0220
1.0010
1.0078
1.0506
1.0411
1.0411
1.0193
1.0213
1.0213
1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1999
0.9975
0.9928
1.0083
1.0021
1.0083
1.0083
1.0005
1.0020
1.0030
1.0453
1.0835
1.0422
1.0422
1.0129
0.9832
0.9832
2000
0.9876
1.0028
1.0185
1.0122
1.0185
1.0185
1.0106
0.9920
1.0131
1.0559
1.0945
1.0527
1.0527
1.0172
0.9735
0.9735
2001
0.9778
1.0129
1.0288
1.0224
1.0288
1.0288
1.0208
0.9822
1.0234
1.0665
1.1055
1.0633
1.0633
1.0214
0.9638
0.9638
Extrapolation factors 1998 for 1989 to 2001 prices
Land acquisition
Roadbeds
Supporting walls
Tunnels
Viaducts
Crossings
Sound proofing
Track superstructure
Buildings and structures
Signalling systems
Communication systems
Traction power supplies
Contact lines
Third-party equipment
Planning costs
Indirect costs
Figure 49:
3.2
1989
1.4267
1.0725
1.1893
1.1714
1.1893
1.1893
1.1282
1.1305
1.2775
1.1795
0.8432
1.1222
1.1222
1.1715
1.3742
1.3742
1990
1.3984
1.0322
1.1208
1.1025
1.1208
1.1208
1.0750
1.0826
1.2036
1.1521
0.8460
1.1113
1.1113
1.1292
1.3142
1.3142
1991
1.3330
0.9601
1.0622
1.0335
1.0622
1.0622
1.0089
1.0536
1.1327
1.1173
0.8586
1.0835
1.0835
1.0814
1.2444
1.2444
Price index series
Present values
In the evaluation, all of the upgrading and new construction works are examined for
a single, uniform time period of 36 years (2000 to 2035). Here, years 2000 to 2004
account for the construction time, while years 2005 to 2035 are for the usage time.
The evaluation is carried out as a capital value calculation. The interest on all
receipts (investments) and payments (annual net benefits) is discounted on the year
2000. Therefore all the amounts shown in the evaluation results are present values as
at 2000.
3.3
Residual values
The service life of the asset components fluctuates between 12 years (communication
systems) and 75 years (roadbeds, supporting walls, tunnels, viaducts). Therefore
when the 31-year usage time is over, in some subject areas replacement investments
will already have been made, while in other areas the original investments will not
yet have been "consumed". For all materials areas, the residual values are calculated
in the last year of use (2035) and treated as payments, i.e. as a reduction in the
140
Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003
Part III A: Explanations Transport Mode Rail
investment costs. As with all the other amounts, the interest on these amounts is
discounted to the year 2000.
Therefore, the investment amount shown in the evaluation calculations is calculated
as follows:
•
The investment costs supplied by DB AG are converted to a uniform base price
level, depending on the subject area.
•
The replacement investments are taken into account in subject areas where the
service life is below 31 years.
•
The residual values remaining when usage is over are taken into account.
•
Interest on all the receipts and payments in the cash flow from 2000 to 2035 is
discounted to the year 2000.
141