Environmental analysis Energy consumption Norwegian High ... · The energy consumption calculations incorporate a model of a stateof-the- -art high-speed train, infrastructure models

Environmental analysis Energy consumption

Norwegian High Speed Railway Project Phase 3

Final report

Environmental Analysis Energy Consumption – Norwegian High Speed Railway Project Phase 3 1

JERNBANEVERKET VWI Stuttgart Asplan Viak AS



PREFACE

Asplan Viak AS with partners Miljøsystemanalyse AS (MiSA AS), Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut Stuttgart Gmbh (VWI Stuttgart), Brekke & Strand Akustikk AS and Asplan Viak Internett AS (Avinett) have been engaged by the Norwegian Rail Administration (Jernbaneverket) to carry out the project “Environmental analysis” as part of the Phase 3 of the High Speed Rail Assessment in Norway.

The assessment methodology for the environmental analysis was developed by Asplan Viak and partners in Phase 2 of the project.

Asplan Viak AS has been the lead partner in the project with responsibility for the project management, coordination of different environmental subjects within this specific assignment and assisting implementation of the methodology within the corridor specific projects.

Asplan Viak As and Avinett have assisted the implementation of the methodology for assessment of the landscape analyses and environmental intervention effects in the corridor specific projects.

Brekke & Strand Akustikk AS represented by Dr.ing Arild Brekke has developed noise profiles as basis for estimations of the noise levels for the high speed rail corridors. MiSA, represented by PhD Håvard Bergsdal, has developed models for assessment of climate related environmental effects of high speed rail infrastructure and transportation, and alternative transportation by rail, road or air.

VWI Stuttgart, represented by Prof. Dr.- Ing Harry Dobeschinsky, Dipl.-Kfm. techn. Jan Hinrich Diestel and B.Sc Jana Komaritsa, have carried out calculations of energy consumption for the rolling stock in the high speed rail corridors. The results of the calculations are given in this report “Energy consumption”, conducted by VWI Stuttgart. Making use of the methods laid out in Phase II of the project, these calculations take into account both the railway infrastructure planned by the railway engineering teams and operational constraints, i. e. stopping patterns, defined by the project’s market consultants. For each full economic appraisal alignment in each of the corridors, the energy consumption of a state-of-the-art high-speed passenger train was calculated for both core and peak-time service train cycles. The energy consumption values were in turn passed along to MISA, to serve as input for the assessment’s climate model.

Sandvika Norway, 21th of December 2011 Siv.ing Randi Birgitte Svånå Project Manager





Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7

2 Prerequisites ...................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Technical train data .............................................................................................. 8 2.1.1 Choice of Train model .......................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 High-speed train model performance ................................................................... 9

2.2 Efficieny degree and regenerative braking ......................................................... 11

2.3 Infrastructure model ........................................................................................... 11

2.4 Operational constraints and parameters ............................................................. 13

2.5 Interpretation of results tables and figures .......................................................... 13

3 Energy consumption for full appraisal alternatives....................................... 14

3.1 Corridor North .................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Ø2:P – 330 Alternative North.............................................................................. 14 3.1.2 G3:Y – 330 Alternative North.............................................................................. 16

3.2 Corridor East ...................................................................................................... 18 3.2.1 ST5:U – 250 Alternative East (Stockholm) ......................................................... 18 3.2.2 ST3:R – 330 Alternative East (Stockholm) ......................................................... 20 3.2.3 GO3:Q – 250 Alternative East (Göteborg) .......................................................... 22 3.2.4 GO1:S – 330 Alternative East (Göteborg) .......................................................... 24

3.3 Corridor South .................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 S8:Q – 250 Alternative South ............................................................................. 26

3.4 S2:P – 330 Alternative South ............................................................................. 28

3.5 Corridor West ..................................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 N1:Q – 330 Alternative West (Bergen-Oslo) ....................................................... 30 3.5.2 N1:U – 330 Alternative West (Numedal) ............................................................. 32 3.5.3 Ha2:P – 330 Alternative West (Hallingdal).......................................................... 34 3.5.4 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Oslo—Bergen) ....................................... 36 3.5.5 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Oslo—Stavanger) .................................. 38 3.5.6 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Bergen—Stavanger) .............................. 40 3.5.7 BS1:P – 330 Alternative West (Bergen-Stavanger) ............................................ 42

4 Energy Consumption Summary ...................................................................... 44

5 References ........................................................................................................ 44



List of Figures

Figure 1: Tractive/braking effort and running resistance at 0 mm/m gradient of the HSTM ................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Specific energy consumption of the HSTM [Wh/seat-km], 67 % passengers ..... 10

Figure 3: Acceleration Profile of the HSTM with respect to track gradient, at 67 % passenger load ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 4: Aerodynamic resistance factor in tunnels .......................................................... 12

Figure 5: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ø2:P – core service ..................... 15

Figure 6: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ø2:P – peak service .................... 15

Figure 7: Energy consumption diagram for alternative G3:Y – core service ..................... 17

Figure 8: Energy consumption diagram for alternative G3:Y – peak service .................... 17

Figure 9: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST5:U – core service ................... 19

Figure 10: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST5:U – peak service................ 19

Figure 11: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST3:R – core service ................. 21

Figure 12: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST3:R – peak service ................ 21

Figure 13: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO3:Q – core service ................ 23

Figure 14: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO3:Q – peak service ............... 23

Figure 15: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO1:S – core service ................ 25

Figure 16: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO1:S – peak service ................ 25

Figure 17: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S8:Q – core service ................... 27

Figure 18: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S8:Q – peak service .................. 27

Figure 19: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S2:P – core service .................... 29

Figure 20: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S2:P – peak service ................... 29

Figure 21: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:Q – core service ................... 31

Figure 22: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:Q – peak service .................. 31

Figure 23: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:U – core service ................... 33

Figure 24: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:U – peak service .................. 33

Figure 25: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ha2:P – core service ................. 35

Figure 26: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ha2:P – peak service ................. 35

Figure 27: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen) – core service .................................................................................................. 37

Figure 28: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen) – peak service .................................................................................................. 37

Figure 29: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger) – core service .................................................................................................. 39



Figure 30: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger) – peak service .................................................................................................. 39

Figure 31: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger) – core service .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 32: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger) – peak service ......................................................................................... 41

Figure 33: Energy consumption diagram for alternative BS1:P – core service ................. 43

Figure 34: Energy consumption diagram for alternative BS1:P – peak service ................ 43

List of Tables

Table 1: High-speed train model data sheet ....................................................................... 9

Table 2: Results table for alternative Ø2:P ....................................................................... 14

Table 3: Results table for alternative G3:Y ....................................................................... 16

Table 4: Results table for alternative ST5:U ..................................................................... 18

Table 5: Results table for alternative ST3:R ..................................................................... 20

Table 6: Results table for alternative GO3:Q .................................................................... 22

Table 7: Results table for alternative GO1:S .................................................................... 24

Table 8: Results table for alternative S8:Q ....................................................................... 26

Table 9: Results table for alternative S2:P ....................................................................... 28

Table 10: Results table for alternative N1:Q ..................................................................... 30

Table 11: Results table for alternative N1:U ..................................................................... 32

Table 12: Results table for alternative Ha2:P ................................................................... 34

Table 13: Results table for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen) .............................................. 36

Table 14: Results table for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger) ......................................... 38

Table 15: Results table for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger) ..................................... 40

Table 16: Results table for alternative BS1:P ................................................................... 42



1 Introduction The energy study covers the energy consumption of high-speed railway services on possible high-speed railway alignments as constructed by the technical planning teams and proposed for full economic appraisal.

The calculations were carried out according to the methods laid out in the Environmental Analysis report of Phase 2 of the high-speed railway project, cf. [2], pp. 54-94. To this end, infrastructure models were created based on data supplied by the technical planning teams. The data delivered to VWI encompasses horizontal and vertical profiles as well as information on tunnels, speed restrictions (other than resulting from the horizontal profile) and stopping patterns for core and peak services.

The energy consumption calculations incorporate a model of a state-of-the-art high-speed train, infrastructure models and operational characteristics and constraints. Section 2.1 gives information on the high-speed train modelled for the purposes of this study. The infrastructure model is explained in section 2.3, while section 2.4 covers operational constraints and other calculation parameters.

From the equilibrium state of vehicle dynamics, forces exerted on the train can be calculated at any moment. In VWI’s software PULZUFA, this is done in a discrete speed-step model. Knowing the resistances encountered by the train, as well as its speed and the distance travelled between speed-steps, the mechanical energy consumption (measured at the wheel) is calculated. Given the efficiency degree of the tractive system as a function of speed and tractive force (cf. [2], pp. 71-72), the electric energy drawn from the catenary is calculated (measured at the pantograph). The calculations do not cover any transmission losses suffered between power plant and train.

The results of the calculations are given in section 3. Besides the main result – the electric energy drawn from the catenary by a high-speed train on a complete train cycle and an energy consumption breakdown – technical running times are given.



2 Prerequisites

2.1 Technical train data

2.1.1 Choice of Train model For the purpose of calculating the typical energy consumption of high speed trains, a representative train model was found in the Alstom AGV. The AGV is a state-of-the-art high-speed train that has already gone into production, but as of November 2011 yet has to be put to operation. As such, the train represents near-future developments in the field of high-speed trains rather well, while enough information has been made known by the manufacturer to keep the list of assumptions short.

Commercial service featuring the AGV is planned to begin late 2011, and it will fully comply with the European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI). The AGV represents a class of high-speed electric motor units (EMU), and can reach a maximum speed of 360 km/h.

For this analysis, the AGV11 with 11 wagons and a length of 200 m was assumed for creating the high-speed train model (HSTM). The deadweight of this train is 410 metric tons and it has a passenger seating capacity of 460 seats.

Maximum speed 360 km/h

Maximum acceleration 1.0 m/s²

Maximum deceleration 1.0 m/s²

Power 8,400 kW

Starting trative effort 274 kN

Length 200 m

Total mass (deadweight) 410 t

Total mass (307 passengers = 67 % SLF) 435 t

Mass on driven axles 217.5 t

Train-specific constant resistance factor (A) 6.5426050 kN

Train-specific linear resistance factor (B) 0.0106356 kNh/km

Train-specific quadratic resistance factor (C) 0.0004717 kNh²/km²

Constant resistance coefficient (at deadweight) 1.6266 N/kN

Linear resistance coefficient (at deadweight) 0.0000026442 kNh/kNkm

Quadratic resistance coefficient (at deadweight) 0.0001150571 Nh²/(km²*m²*t)

Constant resistance coefficient (at 67 % SLF) 1.5331

Linear resistance coefficient (at 67 % SLF) 0.0000024923



Quadratic resistance coefficient (at 67 % SLF) 0.0001084446

Mass factor ρ 1.05

Wheelbase 2.5 m

Energy recovery from braking Yes

Power for auxiliary needs 585 kW

Passenger seats 460

Table 1: High-speed train model data sheet

2.1.2 High-speed train model performance Tractive and braking effort available at all speeds below 330 km/h are shown in Figure 1. On flat terrain, with a gradient of 0 mm/m, the available tractive force allows the train to accelerate up to 360 km/h, until no more surplus tractive force is available to counter the running resistance. The resistance coefficients (given in Table 1) were derived from [1], p. 14, and put to use in the high-speed train model.

From Phase 2 of the Norwegian high-speed railway project, average values for energy consumption of the HSTM are known (cf. [2], p. 204). As Figure 2 depicts, the average energy consumption ranges between 28 Wh/seat-km and 44 Wh/seat-km on a 0-mm/m-gradient, depending on the permitted maximum speed. With a passenger capacity of 460 seats, this equals an average energy consumption between 12.9 kWh/km and 20.1 kWh/km. For higher track gradients, the differences in average energy consumption diminish, as the maximum permitted speed on the track cannot be reached by the train

Figure 3 compares the acceleration profile of the HSTM for different track gradients.



Figure 1: Tractive/braking effort and running resistance at 0 mm/m gradient of the HSTM

Figure 2: Specific energy consumption of the HSTM [Wh/seat-km], 67 % passengers

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

[kN]

Speed [km/h]

Braking effort Running resistance Tractive effort

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Spec

ific

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[Wh/

seat

-km

]

Track gradient (‰)

330 300 280 250 220



Figure 3: Acceleration Profile of the HSTM with respect to track gradient, at 67 % passenger load

2.2 Efficieny degree and regenerative braking Following the AGV’s example, the HSTM is equipped with IGBT (insulated-gate bipolar transistor) power converters, as are most electric locomotives and EMU’s put to service today. Compared to common GTO (gate turn-off thyristor) power converters, these allow for a better efficiency degree of the train’s tractive system, i. e. for a reduction of energy losses. The efficiency degree is modelled as a function of the train’s speed and the current tractive power exerted, cf. [2] p. 72.

By taking into account the efficiency degree of the tractive system, the electric energy drawn from the catenary line can be calculated from the mechanical energy needed to counter all resistances on the train run. While a positive tractive force is exerted, less energy than drawn from the catenary can be converted into kinetic energy due to energy losses in the tractive system.

A negative force is exerted while train is braking. In addition to the total resistance, this leads to a deceleration of the train. While mechanical brakes and others, such as eddy current and magnetic brakes, may be employed, most of the braking is done by reversing the train’s electric motors and using them as generators. Thus, the train’s kinetic energy is converted back into electric energy, and by way of the train’s tractive system it may be fed back into the overhead catenary line.

2.3 Infrastructure model Infrastructure data for the studied alignments was handed over by the planning teams from corridors North, South, West and East. The infrastructure data included:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Spee

d m

/s

Distance, m

0 % Gradient 1 % Gradient 2 % Gradient 3 % Gradient



- Horizontal profiles: Curves and transitional curves - Vertical profile: Gradients and elevations - Track cant - Stop positions - Tunnel positions and lengths

Where no information on track cant could be obtained, assumptions were made based on the formula for balanced superelevation

𝑐0 =11,8 × 𝑉𝑑2

𝑅

where c0 is the balanced superelevation (in mm), Vd is the design speed and R the curve radius. The track cant was set at a regular value of 60 % of the balanced superelevation, with a maximum of 150 mm.

Tunnels affect a train’s energy consumption by way of an increased aerodynamic resistance. As Gackenholz, [4], explains, both a smaller tunnel cross section and a greater tunnel length lead to an increase in aerodynamic resistance. For more information, refer to [2], pp. 78-80. For the purposes of this study, single track tunnels (with a smaller cross-section than double track tunnels) were assumed for all alignments and confirmed by the technical planners. Varying tunnel lengths are reflected in an aerodynamic resistance factore brought into the infrastructure model for tunnel elements, as shown in Figure 4. By multiplying the train’s quadratic resistance coefficient with this factor, the aerodynamic resistance in tunnels is calculated.

Figure 4: Aerodynamic resistance factor in tunnels

0

1

2

3

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Aero

dyna

mic

res

ista

nce

fact

or

Tunnel length [km]



2.4 Operational constraints and parameters Train runs are subject to a number of operational constraints. Instead of being determined by technical characteristics of rolling stock and infrastructure, for example stopping patterns and driving modes (e. g. lowest running time, economical driving, ecological driving etc.) are constrained by strategic and economic decisions.

In the energy consumption calculations, the 30-second-rule was imposed. With this rule applied, a train must be able to keep a certain speed for at least 30 seconds before being allowed to accelerate to that speed. Apart from this, no further energy-saving procedures such as coasting are implemented.

For passenger comfort, both acceleration and deceleration are limited to 1 m/s², and the maximum lateral acceleration is 0.85 m/s².

Stopping patterns were provided by the market analysts and are given for each alignment alternative in the respective results section. On core services, the train stops at a larger number of stations, while in peak times only prioritized stations are served.

In regard of weather conditions, a wind allowance of 15 km/h is taken into account.

2.5 Interpretation of results tables and figures For each of the alignments studied, section 3 holds a results table and two figures. For both core and peak services, all values are shown for a complete train cycle from one end of the line to the other and back again. Besides the distance travelled on a cycle and the number of stations stopped at, the results table holds the technical running time and the energy consumption for the cycle. The technical running time does not include dwell time at stations. From the energy consumed throughout the cycle, the energy fed back into the catenary is substracted to yield the energy consumption total.

Energy consumption diagrams provide a visual breakdown of energy consumption along the train run. Each of the diagrams presented in the results sections shows both directions travelled on the alignment alternative. Stops are named and highlighted with vertical lines. Before stops, energy recovery by regenerative braking may clearly be discerned in the figures.



3 Energy consumption for full appraisal alternatives

3.1 Corridor North

3.1.1 Ø2:P – 330 Alternative North

Core service Peak service

Distance [km] 965.4 936.4

Number of stops 12 6

Tec. Running time [min] 254 220

Energy Consumption [kWh] 22,696 20,240

Energy recovery [kWh] 2,856 1,384

Recovery share 12.6% 6.8%

Energy total [kWh] 19,840 18,856

Table 2: Results table for alternative Ø2:P

Core service on Alignment Ø2:P starts in Oslo and passes through Gardermoen, Elverum Parkway, Tynset and Trondheim/Lerkendal. It continues to Værnes, covering the whole distance of 482.7 km.

The peak service does not service the stations in Elverum Parway andTynset. In Trondheim, the last stop of peak services is reached. Therefore, the distance travelled on peak services is lower than on core services. This is reflected in the energy consumption total for complete train cycles, being 19,840 kWh for the core service, and 18,856 kWh for the peak service.

Energy consumption averages 20.5 kWh/km on core service and 20.1 kWh/km on peak service.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For northbound trains, the figures are read from left to right, and for southbound trains from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 5: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ø2:P – core service

Figure 6: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ø2:P – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Oslo-Vaernes Vaernes-Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Oslo Gardermoen Elverum Parkway Tynset Trondheim/ Lerkendal

Værnes Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Oslo-Trondheim Trondheim-Oslo

Oslo Gardermoen Trondheim/Lerkendal

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.1.2 G3:Y – 330 Alternative North


Distance [km] 1,050.6 1,021.6





Recovery share 12.9 % 8.3 %


Table 3: Results table for alternative G3:Y

Core service on Alignment G3:Y starts in Oslo and passes through Gardermoen, Hamar, Lillehammer, Otta, Opdal and Trondheim/Lerkendal. It continues to Værnes, covering the whole distance of 525.3 km.

The peak service does not service the stations in Otta and Opdal. In Trondheim, the last stop of peak services is reached. Therefore, the distance travelled on peak services is lower than on core services. This is reflected in the energy consumption total for complete train cycles, being 24,012 kWh for the core service, and 23,299 kWh for the peak service.

Energy consumption averages 22.9 kWh/km on core services and 22.8 kWh/km on peak services.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For northbound trains, the figures are read from left to right, and for southbound trains from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 7: Energy consumption diagram for alternative G3:Y – core service

Figure 8: Energy consumption diagram for alternative G3:Y – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Oslo-Vaernes Vaernes-Oslo

Oslo Gardermoen Hamar Lillehammer Otta Oppdal Trondheim/ Lerkendal

Værnes

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Oslo-Trondheim Trondheim-Oslo

Oslo Gardermoen Hamar Lillehammer Trondheim/Lerkendal

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.2 Corridor East

3.2.1 ST5:U – 250 Alternative East (Stockholm)


Distance [km] 1,020.2 1,020.2


Tec. Running time [min] 103 (Oslo—Karlstad) 101 (Oslo—Karlstad)

Energy Consumption [kWh] 8,823 (Oslo—Karlstad) 8,666 (Oslo—Karlstad)

Energy recovery [kWh] 1,470 (Oslo—Karlstad) 1,392 (Oslo—Karlstad)



Table 4: Results table for alternative ST5:U

Infrastructure data for the section between Oslo and Karlstad for the alternative ST3:R was delivered by the technical planners for Corridor East. For the section between Karlstad and Stockholm, no infrastructure data was available with exception of the alignment length (313 km) and the maximum permitted speed (250 km/h). Therefore, average values of energy consumption were assumed for the remainder of the alignment east of Karlstad, building on the Phase 2 findings regarding high-speed trains’ energy consumption.

The elevation difference between Karlstad and Stockholm is neglectible. On tracks with a gradient of 0 ‰ and a permitted speed of 250 km/h the average energy consumption of the HSTM is 31.36 Wh/seat-km which equals 14.43 kWh/km, cf. [2], p. 204.

This number is multiplied with a stop quantity factor introduced in [2], p. 82. For the three stops on 313 km, this yields a stop quantity factor of 1.015, i. e. an increase of energy consumption of 1.5 %.

Adiitionally, curves and eventual elevation differences are accounted for with an allowance of another 10 %. Thus, for the section between Karlstad and Stockholm, the average energy consumption is estimated at 35.01 Wh/Seat-km, equalling 16.1 kWh/km.

Accordingly, Figure 9 and Figure 10 both show the linear estimate of energy consumption for the section between Karlstad and Stockholm.

Energy consumption averages 17.1 kW/km on core and 17.0 kWh/km on peak services.



Figure 9: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST5:U – core service

Figure 10: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST5:U – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Oslo-Stockholm Stockholm-Oslo

Oslo Ski (Stockholm) (Örebro) Karlstad (Västerås)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


Oslo Stockholm (Örebro) Karlstad (Västerås)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.2.2 ST3:R – 330 Alternative East (Stockholm)




Tec. Running time [min] 94 (Oslo—Karlstad) 90 (Oslo—Karlstad)

Energy Consumption [kWh] 7,842 (Oslo—Karlstad) 7,587 (Oslo—Karlstad)

Energy recovery [kWh] 1,195 (Oslo—Karlstad) 1,026 (Oslo—Karlstad)


Energy total [kW/h] 16,735 16,648

Table 5: Results table for alternative ST3:R

Infrastructure data for the section between Oslo and Karlstad for the alternative ST3:R was delivered by the technical planners for Corridor East. For the section between Karlstad and Stockholm, no infrastructure data was available with the exception of alignment length (313 km) and maximum permitted speed (250 km/h). Therefore, average values of energy consumption were assumed for the remainder of the alignment east of Karlstad, building on the Phase 2 findings regarding high-speed trains’ energy consumption.

The elevation difference between Karlstad and Stockholm is neglectible. On tracks with a gradient of 0 ‰ and a permitted speed of 250 km/h the average energy consumption of the HSTM is 31.36 Wh/seat-km which equals 14.43 kWh/km, cf. [2], p. 204.

This number is multiplied with a stop quantity factor introduced in [2], p. 82. For the three stops on 313 km, this yields a stop quantity factor of 1.015, i. e. an increase of energy consumption of 1.5 %.

Adiitionally, curves and eventual elevation differences are accounted for with an allowance of another 10 %. Thus, for the section between Karlstad and Stockholm, the average energy consumption is estimated at 35.01 Wh/Seat-km, equalling 16.1 kWh/km.

Accordingly, Figure 11 and Figure 12 both show the linear estimate of energy consumption for the section between Karlstad and Stockholm.




Figure 11: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST3:R – core service

Figure 12: Energy consumption diagram for alternative ST3:R – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


Oslo (Stockholm) (Örebro) Karlstad (Västerås) Lillestrøm

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


Oslo (Stockholm) (Örebro) Karlstad (Västerås)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.2.3 GO3:Q – 250 Alternative East (Göteborg)




Tec. Running time [min] 153 (Oslo-Öxnered) 144 (Oslo-Öxnered)

Energy Consumption [kWh] 11,584 (Oslo-Öxnered) 10,893 (Oslo-Öxnered)

Energy recovery [kWh] 2,966 (Oslo-Öxnered) 2,592 (Oslo-Öxnered)



Table 6: Results table for alternative GO3:Q

Infrastructure data for the section between Oslo and Öxnered (km 244.8) for the alternative GO3:Q was delivered by the technical planners for Corridor East. For the section between Öxnered and Göteborg, no infrastructure data was available with the exception of alignment length (93 km) and maximum permitted speed (250 km/h). Therefore, average values of energy consumption were assumed for the remainder of the alignment east of Karlstad, building on the Phase 2 findings regarding high-speed trains’ energy consumption.

The elevation difference between Öxnered and Göteborg is neglectible. On tracks with a gradient of 0 ‰ and a permitted speed of 250 km/h the average energy consumption of the HSTM is 31.36 Wh/seat-km which equals 14.43 kWh/km, cf. [2], p. 204.

This number is multiplied with a stop quantity factor introduced in [2], p. 82. For the section between Öxnered and Göteborg this yields a stop quantity factor of 1.027, i. e. an increase of energy consumption of 2.7 %.

Adiitionally, curves and eventual elevation differences are accounted for with an allowance of another 10 %. Thus, between Öxnered and Göteborg, the average energy consumption is estimated at 35.43 Wh/Seat-km, equalling 16.3 kWh/km.

Accordingly, Figure 13 and Figure 14 both show the linear estimate of energy consumption for the section between Öxnered, located at km 244.8, and Göteborg. Although Öxnered station is not serviced, electric energy can be recovered in advance of Öxnered because of a curve limiting the speed to 120 km/h. Also, rather small curve radii at the stations between Oslo and Halden enforce a speed limit, and result in energy recovery on a peak service run, even though these stations are not serviced.




Figure 13: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO3:Q – core service

Figure 14: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO3:Q – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Oslo-Göteborg Göteborg-Oslo

Oslo (Göteborg) Ski Moss Frederikstad

Sarpsborg Halden (Trolhättan)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Oslo (Göteborg) Sarpsborg (Trolhättan)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.2.4 GO1:S – 330 Alternative East (Göteborg)



Number of stops 8 8

Tec. Running time [min] 108 (Oslo-Öxnered) 108 (Oslo-Öxnered)

Energy Consumption [kWh] 10,136 (Oslo-Öxnered) 10,136 (Oslo-Öxnered)

Energy recovery [kWh] 1,220 (Oslo-Öxnered) 1,220 (Oslo-Öxnered)



Table 7: Results table for alternative GO1:S

Infrastructure data for the section between Oslo and Öxnered (km 214.7) for the alternative GO1:S was delivered by the technical planners for Corridor East. For the section between Öxnered and Göteborg, no infrastructure data was available with the exception of alignment length (93 km) and maximum permitted speed (250 km/h). Therefore, average values of energy consumption were assumed for the remainder of the alignment east of Karlstad, building on the Phase 2 findings regarding high-speed trains’ energy consumption.

The elevation difference between Öxnered and Göteborg is neglectible. On tracks with a gradient of 0 ‰ and a permitted speed of 250 km/h the average energy consumption of the HSTM is 31.36 Wh/seat-km which equals 14.43 kWh/km, cf. [2], p. 204.

This number is multiplied with a stop quantity factor introduced in [2], p. 82. For the section between Öxnered and Göteborg this yields a stop quantity factor of 1.027, i. e. an increase of energy consumption of 2.7 %.

Adiitionally, curves and eventual elevation differences are accounted for with an allowance of another 10 %. Thus, between Öxnered and Göteborg, the average energy consumption is estimated at 35.43 Wh/Seat-km, equalling 16.3 kWh/km.

Accordingly, Figure 15 and Figure 16 both show the linear estimate of energy consumption for the section between Öxnered, located at km 214.7, and Göteborg. Although Öxnered station is not serviced, electric energy can be recovered in advance of Öxnered because of a curve limiting the speed to 120 km/h.

As core and peak service are identical, the average energy consumption lies at 17.7 kWh/km for both services.



Figure 15: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO1:S – core service

Figure 16: Energy consumption diagram for alternative GO1:S – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Oslo Sarpsborg (Trollhättan) (Göteborg)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Oslo Sarpsborg (Trollhättan) (Göteborg)

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.3 Corridor South

3.3.1 S8:Q – 250 Alternative South


Distance [km] 1,073.2 1,073.2







Table 8: Results table for alternative S8:Q

Core service on Alignment S8:Q starts in Stavanger and covers stops at Sandnes, Egersund, Mandal, Kristiansand, Arendal, Porsgrunn, Torp, Tønsberg and Drammen. It continues to Oslo, covering a one-way distance of 536.1 km.

The peak service does not service the stations Sandnes, Egersund, Mandal and Torp. The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 21,666 kWh for the core service and 21,675 kWh for the peak service, averaging 20.2 kWh/km in both cases.

Infrastructure data for the alignment section between Drammen and Oslo was provided by the planning team for Corridor East. The technical running time calculated for this section is 16 min.

Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Oslo, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Stavanger from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 17: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S8:Q – core service

Figure 18: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S8:Q – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Stavanger-Oslo Oslo-Stavanger

Stavanger Oslo Sandnes Torp Egersund Mandal Kristiansand Arendal Porsgrunn/ Skien

Drammen Tønsberg

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550


Stavanger Oslo Kristiansand Arendal Porsgrunn/ Skien

Drammen Tønsberg

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.4 S2:P – 330 Alternative South









Table 9: Results table for alternative S2:P

Core service on Alignment S2:P starts in Stavanger and covers stops at Sandnes, Egersund, Mandal, Kristiansand, Arendal, Porsgrunn and Drammen. It continues to Oslo, covering a one-way distance of 493.4 km.

The peak service does not service the stations Sandnes, Egersund and Mandal. The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 24,115 kWh for the core service and 24,247 kWh for the peak service, averaging 24.4 kWh/km and 24.6 kWh/km, respectively.


Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Oslo, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Stavanger from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 19: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S2:P – core service

Figure 20: Energy consumption diagram for alternative S2:P – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


Stavanger Sandnes Mandal Kristiansand Arendal Porsgrunn/ Skien

Drammen Oslo Egersund

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


Stavanger Kristiansand Arendal Porsgrunn/ Skien

Drammen Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5 Corridor West

3.5.1 N1:Q – 330 Alternative West (Bergen-Oslo)



Number of stops 7 3






Table 10: Results table for alternative N1:Q

Core service on Alignment N1:Q starts in Bergen and covers stops at Voss, Myrdal, Geilo, Kongsberg, and Drammen. It continues to Oslo covering a one-way distance of 399.2 km.

At peak times, only Drammen is serviced as an intermediate stop. The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 17,618 kWh for the core service and 17,800 kWh for the peak service. Energy consumption averages 22.1 kWh/km on core and 22.3 kWh/km on peak services.


Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Oslo, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Bergen from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable. At Voss, speed is restricted to less than 140 km/h due to a curve radius of 800 m. In advance to this curve, regenerative braking leads to recovery of electric energy on peak services, where the service stop at Voss is omitted.



Figure 21: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:Q – core service

Figure 22: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:Q – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Bergen-Oslo Oslo-Bergen

Bergen Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km] Voss Myrdal Geilo Kongsberg Drammen

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Bergen Oslo Drammen

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.2 N1:U – 330 Alternative West (Numedal)









Table 11: Results table for alternative N1:U

Core service on Alignment N1:U starts in Bergen and covers stops at Voss, Geilo, Kongsberg, and Drammen. It continues to Oslo covering a one-way distance of 385.7 km.

At peak times, only Drammen is serviced as an intermediate stop. The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 19,639 kWh for the core service and 20,196 kWh for the peak service. Energy consumption averages 25.5 kWh/km on core and 26.2 kWh/km on peak services.


Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Oslo, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Bergen from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 23: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:U – core service

Figure 24: Energy consumption diagram for alternative N1:U – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Bergen Voss Geilo Kongsberg Drammen Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Bergen Drammen Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.3 Ha2:P – 330 Alternative West (Hallingdal)









Table 12: Results table for alternative Ha2:P

Core service on Alignment Ha2:P starts in Bergen and covers stops at Voss, Geilo, and Hønefoss. It continues to Oslo, covering a one-way distance of 367.7 km. The peak service does not offer any intermediate stops.

The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 17,768 kWh for the core service and 17,817 kWh for the peak service, both averaging 24.2 kWh/km.

Infrastructure data delivered by the alignment engineers consists of a D1-section between Drammen and Geilo, and a D2-section between Geilo and Bergen. Both sections were taken from complete D1- and D2-alignments between Oslo and Bergen. According to the alignment engineers, these two alignments share no junction at Geilo station – one lies to the north and the other to the south of the town. For the purpose of calculating energy consumption on the combined alignment, a connection between the two separate D1- and D2-alignments was assumed at Geilo.

Infrastructure data for the alignment section between Sandvika and Oslo was provided by the planning team for Corridor East.




Figure 25: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ha2:P – core service

Figure 26: Energy consumption diagram for alternative Ha2:P – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Bergen Oslo Voss Geilo Hönefoss

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Bergen Oslo

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.4 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Oslo—Bergen)









Table 13: Results table for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen)

Alignment H:1 P from Oslo to Bergen is part of the Y-Alignment connecting Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger, with a junction at Røldal.

Core service starts in Bergen and covers stops at Odda, Kongsberg and Drammen. It continues to Oslo, covering a one-way distance of 396.4 km. At peak times, only Drammen is serviced as an intermediate stop.

The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 21,032 kWh for the core service and 21,569 kWh for the peak service, averaging 26.5 kWh/km and 27.7 kWh/km, respectively.





Figure 27: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen) – core service

Figure 28: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Bergen) – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Oslo Bergen Odda Kongsberg Drammen

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Oslo Bergen Drammen

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.5 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Oslo—Stavanger)









Table 14: Results table for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger)

Alignment H:1 P from Oslo to Stavanger is part of the Y-Alignment connecting Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger, with a junction at Røldal.

Core service starts in Stavanger and covers stops at Haugesund, Kongsberg and Drammen. It continues to Oslo, covering a one-way distance of 458.5 km. At peak times, the stop at Kongsberg is omitted.



Figure 29 and Figure 30 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Oslo, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Stavanger from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable. At Røldal junction, roughly between km 170 and km 175, speed is restricted to 120 km/h, while the gradient is 12.5 mm/m. On the way from Oslo to Bergen, energy is recovered here, while running down the incline and decelerating down to the speed limit.



Figure 29: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger) – core service

Figure 30: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Oslo-Stavanger) – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450


Stavanger Oslo Haugesund Kongsberg Drammen

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450


Stavanger Oslo Haugesund Drammen

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.6 H1:P – 330 Alternative West (Haukeli, Bergen—Stavanger)



Number of stops 8 6






Table 15: Results table for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger)

Alignment H:1 P from Bergen to Stavanger is part of the Y-Alignment connecting Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger, with a junction at Røldal.

Core service starts in Stavanger and covers stops at Haugesund and Odda. It continues to Bergen, covering a one-way distance of 280.8 km. At peak times, the stop at Odda is left out.


Figure 31 and Figure 32 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For north-bound trains, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed south from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 31: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger) – core service

Figure 32: Energy consumption diagram for alternative H1:P (Bergen-Stavanger) – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Stavanger-Bergen Bergen-Stavanger

Bergen Haugesund Stavanger Odda

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Stavanger-Bergen Bergen-Stavanger

Bergen Haugesund Stavanger

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]



3.5.7 BS1:P – 330 Alternative West (Bergen-Stavanger)



Number of stops 4 3






Table 16: Results table for alternative BS1:P

Core service on Alignment BS1:P starts in Bergen and covers stops at Stord and Haugesund. It continues to Stavanger covering a one-way distance of 229.9 km. At peak times, only Haugesund is serviced as an intermediate stop.

The energy consumption totals for complete train cycles are 11,753 kWh for the core service and 11,680 kWh for the peak service. Energy consumption averages 25.6 kWh/km on core services and 25.4 kWh/km on peak services.

Figure 33 and Figure 34 show the aggregation of total energy consumed on the way between alignment ends for core services, and for peak services, respectively. For trains travelling in the direction of Stavanger, the figures are read from left to right, and for trains headed to Bergen from right to left. Energy recovery from braking in advance of intermediate stops is clearly noticeable.



Figure 33: Energy consumption diagram for alternative BS1:P – core service

Figure 34: Energy consumption diagram for alternative BS1:P – peak service

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Bergen-Stavanger Stavanger-Bergen

Bergen Stord Haugesund Stavanger

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Bergen-Stavanger Stavanger-Bergen

Bergen Stavanger

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h]

Distance [km] Haugesund



4 Energy Consumption Summary For the 15 alignments presented in the previous section, energy consumption by high-speed train operations were calculated for the cases of core and peak services.

The calculated average energy consumption of the high-speed train model ranges between as low as 17 kWh/km and as high as 29.2 kWh/km.

The influence of the permitted maximum speed (e. g. In comparison of the alignments ST5:U and ST3:R) is significantly lower than the effect of topographical characteristics (alignment BS1:P vs. ST3:R).

Normalized to the train’s seating capacity, the minimum average energy consumption is 40 Wh/seat-km, and the maximum is 64 Wh/seat-km. These values compare well to the findings from [2], p. 204 (cf. Figure 2).

5 References [1] Alstom AGV product brochure, 2011

http://www.alstom.com/assetmanagement/DownloadAsset.aspx?ID=4c2955a3-585e-4227-93fd-c2dbf3a0fb7a&version=56bf7c77275f454fb86b33eede8313905.pdf&lang=2057

[2] Asplan Viak, MISA, VWI, Brekke og Strand (2010), A Methodology for Environmental Assessment – Norwegian High Speed Railway Project Phase 2

[3] Gackenholz, L. (1974), Die aerodynamischen Verhältnisse im Tunnel als Kriterium für die Planung und den Bau von Tunneln auf Neubaustrecken, in: ZEV – Glasers Annalen, September 1974, pp. 310-314

Documents

Environmental analysis Energy consumption Norwegian High ... · The energy consumption calculations incorporate a model of a stateof-the- -art high-speed train, infrastructure models