Session 42 Hans Boysen

KTH Railway Group Center for research and education in railway technology

Hans E. Boysen

Department of Transport Science

Royal Institute of Technology

2012-01-12

More Efficient Freight Transportation Through Longer

Trains


Purpose

• To identify opportunities, challenges and logistic effects of operating longer freight trains in Scandinavia.


Outline

• NEEDS

• PROPULSION PERFORMANCE

• BRAKING PERFORMANCE

• INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS

• CONCLUSIONS


• Independent of train size: overhead, crew, shunting

• Incremental: locomotive(s)

• Less than proportional to train size: infrastructure

• Approx. proportional to train size: electricity, wagons, loading

High-cost scenario

Overhead

Crew

Shunting

Locomotive

Infrastructure

Electricity

Wagons

Loading

Rail Freight Costs (Flodén 2011)

Medium-cost scenario

Big trains, utilizing each locomotive fully, minimize cost per load unit.

fixed or ”stiff” costs

fixed o

r ”s

tiff

” co

sts

Medium terminal


Capacity

shortage

Congested

17 ‰ grades

Capacity

shortage

Capacity

shortage

Congested

12.5 ‰ grades

Congested

Capacity

shortage

25 ‰ grade

17 ‰ grades

14 ‰ grades

17 ‰ grades

Map: KTH

Major Freight Flows and Constraints


Capacity Utilization Forecasts

• Network capacity utilization forecast for 2021, see map.

• Continued long-term growth is forecast to 2050.

• How to raise capacity effectively and efficiently?

Map: TRV


• Fewer trains, fewer meets, consuming less capacity

• Shorter transit time

• Lower sensitivity to secondary delays

Lower Capacity Consumption

Shorter freight trains

Time (min.) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Longer ( 2) freight trains

Dis

tanc

e

Time (min.) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Dis

tanc

e


• Mass transport capacity (high density goods)

• Volume transport capacity (low density goods)

Train length

Trains/day

Meter load

Useful cross section

Train length

Trains/day

Fill rate (back hauls)

Length utilization

General Model of Transport Capacity

Train gross wagon mass

Payload/ gross mass

Fill rate (back hauls)

(utilization)

Longer trains increase transport capacity.


Outline

• NEEDS




• CONCLUSIONS


Propulsion power rating (MW)

Locomotive Propulsion Trends

Developments

• Induction motors higher tractive power

• GTO, IGBT inverters less reactive power

Modern locomotives capable of higher propulsion power.

1960 1970 2000 2010 1980 1990

Production year

EG: 13

Rc: 360

BR 185: 800+

Ma: 41

El 14: 31

El 16: 17 IORE: 26+8

6

4

5

3

2

1

0


Performance of Prevalent Locomotives

Rc4

• Tractive power 3.6 MW

• Starting tractive effort 290 kN

• Adhesion mass 78 t

• Length 15.52 m

BR 185

• Tractive power 5.6 MW

• Starting tractive effort 300 kN

• Adhesion mass ≈84 t

• Length 18.90 m


Tractive Effort vs. Coupler Strength

Locomotive starting tractive effort

• 2 Rc4 580 kN

• 2 BR 185 600 kN

Screw coupler tensile strength (EN 15566:2009)

• ”1 MN” 850 kN

• ”1.2 MN” 1020 kN

• ”1.5 MN” 1350 kN

Risk of coupler breakage in case of 3 coupled locomotives.


Coupler Types

• Screw coupler

• Automatic coupler (SA3)

Metal Studénka

Кременчуг


Vertical Gradient

• Prevalent in Sweden: 10 ‰ and 16.7 ‰

• Definition: rise per unit length of track

• 10 ‰ means 5 m rise per 500 m length

• 16.7 ‰ means 8.35 m rise per 500 m length

rise


Locomotive Tonnage Ratings

Locomotives Track Gradient

10 ‰ 16.7 ‰

Rc4 1600 t 1000 t

BR 185 2500 t 1600 t

2 Rc4 3200 t 2000 t

2 BR 185 5000 t 3200 t

Six tonnage scenarios to be analyzed: 1000 t to 5000 t Note: Tonnage ratings are approximate, depending on: - vertical gradient - horizontal curvature - required speed - electrical power supply and feeding capacity.


Propulsion Power Draw

Locomotive maximum power draw (active)

• 2 Rc4 2 3.6 MW = 7.2 MW

• 2 BR 185 2 5.6 MW = 11.2 MW

Electrical power supply and distribution capacity to be adapted.


Unidentifiable goods

Ores

Metal products

Wood, pulp and paper

Agriculture, forestry and fishing products

Secondary materials

Transport equipment, empty containers

Chemical products

Coke and refined oil

Transport equipment, automobiles

Food and beverages

Non-metallic minerals

Coal, crude oil and gas

Machinery

Furniture

Consolidated goods

Textile and leather products

Ton-km share by commodity group

The big 5: intermodal, ores, metal products, forest products, logs.

2010

Data: TA

Commodity Mix – Sweden 2010


Commodity Mix – Sweden 2010

Ton-km by commodity group (106 ton-km)

The big 5 commodities: intermodal, ores, metal products, paper, logs.

Data: TA


Maximum Train Density by Commodity

Commodity Existing wagons Improved

• Intermodal 1.5–2.5 t/m(P/C 400) ≈2.0–3.0 t/m

• Paper 3.87 t/m (G1, G2) 6.56 t/m (C)

• Logs 4.58 t/m (A+) ≈7.2 t/m (C)

• Steel slabs 7.19 t/m (G1) ≈8.0 t/m (G1)

• Steel sheet coils 8.31 t/m (G1) =

• Iron ore 11.65 t/m* (B) 14 t/m** (A/B)

*Ore Line

**Ore load 2010 for bridge design, Ore Line

(Loading gauge)

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 1000 Tons (Rc4 on 16.7 ‰)


• Intermodal 400 m–667 m 333 m–500 m

• Paper 258 m 152 m

• Logs 218 m 139 m

• Steel slabs 139 m 125 m

• Steel sheet coils 120 m =

• (Iron ore 86 m 71 m)

To fully utilize a single Rc4 locomotive on 16.7 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 683 m for intermodal, and 274 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 1600 Tons (Rc4 on 10 ‰ or BR 185 on 16.7 ‰)


• Intermodal 640 m–1067 m 533 m–800 m

• Paper 413 m 271 m

• Logs 349 m 222 m



• (Iron ore 137 m 114 m)

To fully utilize a single Rc4 locomotive on 10 ‰ or BR 185 locomotive on 16.7 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 1086 m for intermodal, or 432 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 2000 Tons (2 Rc4 on 16.7 ‰)


• Intermodal 800 m–1333 m 667 m–1000 m

• Paper 516 m 339 m

• Logs 436 m 278 m



• (Iron ore 172 m 143 m)

To fully utilize double Rc4 locomotives on 16.7 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 1364 m for intermodal, and 547 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 2500 Tons (BR 185 on 10 ‰)


• Intermodal 1000 m–1667 m 833 m–1250 m

• Paper 646 m 423 m

• Logs 546 m 348 m



• (Iron ore 215 m 179 m)

To fully utilize a single BR 185 locomotive on 10 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 1686 m for intermodal, 665 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 3200 Tons (2 Rc4 on 10 ‰ or 2 BR 185 on 16.7 ‰)


• Intermodal 1280 m–2133 m 1067 m–1600 m

• Paper 826 m 542 m

• Logs 698 m 445 m



• (Iron ore 275 m 229 m)

To fully utilize double Rc4 locomotives on 10 ‰ or BR 185 locomotives on 16.7 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 2171 m for intermodal, and 864 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Wagon Length for 5000 Tons (2 BR 185 on 10 ‰)


• Intermodal 2000 m–3333 m 1667 m–2500 m

• Paper 1291 m 847 m

• Logs 1091 m 695 m



• (Iron ore 429 m 357 m)

To fully utilize double BR 185 locomotives on 10 ‰, train lengths need to be up to 3371 m for intermodal, and 1329 m for paper.

lowest meter load


Train Length – Summary (10 ‰)

On 10 ‰ gradient, these scenarios need > 800 m train length to utilize the locomotive(s) fully:

• intermodal service: single or double Rc4 or BR 185 locomotives;

• paper service: double Rc4 or BR 185 locos.

Gradient Commodity Loco(s) Wagon gross mass

Train length

10 ‰ Intermodal Rc4 1600 t 1083 m

10 ‰ Intermodal BR 185 2500 t 1686 m

10 ‰ Intermodal 2 Rc4 3200 t 2164 m

10 ‰ Intermodal 2 BR 185 5000 t 3371 m

10 ‰ Paper Rc4 1600 t 429 m

10 ‰ Paper BR 185 2500 t 665 m

10 ‰ Paper 2 Rc4 3200 t 857 m

10 ‰ Paper 2 BR 185 5000 t 1329 m


Train Length – Summary (16.7 ‰)

On 16.7 ‰ gradient, these scenarios need > 800 m train length to utilize the locomotive(s) fully:

• intermodal service: double Rc4, single or double BR 185 locomotives;

• paper service: double BR 185 locomotives.

Gradient Commodity Loco(s) Wagon gross mass

Train length

16.7 ‰ Intermodal Rc4 1000 t 683 m

16.7 ‰ Intermodal BR 185 1600 t 1086 m

16.7 ‰ Intermodal 2 Rc4 2000 t 1364 m

16.7 ‰ Intermodal 2 BR 185 3200 t 2171 m

16.7 ‰ Paper Rc4 1000 t 274 m

16.7 ‰ Paper BR 185 1600 t 432 m

16.7 ‰ Paper 2 Rc4 2000 t 547 m

16.7 ‰ Paper 2 BR 185 3200 t 864 m


Outline

• NEEDS




• CONCLUSIONS


International Outlook – Europe

Maximum permissible train length vs. brake setting

• Finland 925 m (G, direct release), 825 m (G), 725 m (P)

• Norway 850 m (G), 700 m (P)

• Sweden 880 m (G), 730 m (P)

• Denmark 835 m (G or P); 1000 m planned

• Germany 740 m (G, 5GP or P); 835 m planned

• France 850 m (5GP) planned

G = slow-acting control P = quick-acting control


Present Corridor Standards

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Train length (m)

Ferry track length (m)

Ferry track lengths, train length limits (m)

Developments: Denmark planning for 1000 m. Germany planning for 835 m Padborg–Hamburg.


The Braking Performance Dilemma

• With automatic air brakes, the longer the train, the longer the brake command propagation time.

• Slow application and release are necessary to limit in-train forces and avoid potential load shift or derailment.

• Slow application results in longer stopping distances, necessitating longer signal distances.

• Practical limits depend on both train length and train mass.


Buffer Types

• Ring spring

• Hydraulic cushioning

Compressive stiffness is important to avoid run-ins.

Ringfeder

Oleo


Freight train speed vs. length (Denmark)

Speed (km/h) Train length (m)

100 835

120 600

Limited by braking performance and signal distance.

Speed Limits vs. Train Length


Braking Performance of 835 m Trains

• Approximate calculations based on German proposed rules and table for 1000 m stopping distance:

• S = 100 km/h design (empty/load valve)

Brake Gross mass/ mass limit

Train length

Vertical gradient

Permissible speed

S 65 % 835 m -10 ‰ 105 km/h

S 71 % 835 m -10 ‰ 100 km/h

S 80 % 835 m -10 ‰ 95 km/h

S 100 % 835 m -10 ‰ 85 km/h

S 65 % 835 m -17 ‰ 98 km/h

S 80 % 835 m -17 ‰ 88 km/h

S 100 % 835 m -17 ‰ 78 km/h



• Approximate calculations based on German proposed rules and table for 1000 m stopping distance:

• SS = 120 km/h design (empty/load valve)

Permissible speeds are within those currently in use.


Train length

Vertical gradient

Permissible speed

SS 80 % 835 m -10 ‰ 105 km/h

SS 87 % 835 m -10 ‰ 100 km/h

SS 100 % 835 m -10 ‰ 94 km/h

SS 80 % 835 m -17 ‰ 98 km/h

SS 100 % 835 m -17 ‰ 87 km/h



• Approximate calculations based on Swedish existing rules and table for 1000 m stopping distance and G-brake:

• G = slow-acting

• S = 100 km/h design (empty/load valve)

Higher speed > 80 km/h may be feasible with lightly loaded wagons.


Train length

Vertical gradient

Permissible speed

S 79 % 880 m -10 ‰ 80 km/h

S 80 % 880 m -10 ‰ 70 km/h

S 100 % 880 m -10 ‰ 70 km/h



• Approximate calculations based on Swedish existing rules and table for 1000 m stopping distance and G-brake:

• G = slow-acting

• SS = 120 km/h design (empty/load valve)

Higher speed > 80 km/h may be feasible with lightly loaded wagons.


Train length

Vertical gradient

Permissible speed

SS 97 % (empty) 880 m -10 ‰ 80 km/h

SS 98 % 880 m -10 ‰ 70 km/h

SS 100 % 880 m -10 ‰ 70 km/h


Outline

• NEEDS




• CONCLUSIONS


Map: KTH

Long Tracks of Railway Freight Yards

Blg 710 m (869 m)

Alb 665 m

Hrbg 890 m

Gäb 773 m

Nr 636 m

Suc 684 m

Vns 645 m (669 m)

Åggb 796 m

Kvla 1008 m Vka 966 m

Hsr 809 m (876 m) Bse 755 m (835 m)

Sär 753 m (855 m)

Am 805 m (1013 m)

Mgb 877 m

Drm 697 m

Wm 800 m Wrss 755 m (1030 m)

Trg 705 m

Note: Track lengths shown are electrified receiving or departure tracks (others).


Suggested Minimum Length of Terminals

+ Train length

+ Stopping tolerance 35 m ( 17.5 m)

Minimum track length in terminals:

Train length Terminal track length

730 m 765 m

835 m 870 m

880 m 915 m


Single vs. Double-Track Lines

Main lines south of Gävle, Frövi, Öxnered are largely double track.

Map: TRV

FRÖVI

ÖXNERED

TRELLEBORG


Sidings on Single-Track Lines

• Sidings enable trains to meet and pass.

• Long sidings needed for meets of two long trains.

• Siding length = Train length + Stopping tolerance (+ Overlap for simultaneous entry)


Required Minimum Length of Sidings

+ Train length

+ Stopping tolerance 35 m ( 17.5 m)

+ Overlap for simultaneous entry: For existing ATC2: 200 m; for ETCS2: 100 m

Minimum siding lengths for simultaneous entry on single track or for passing on double track:

Note: Additional length helps speed meets and passes.

Train length Siding length

For ATC2 For ETCS2 For passing

730 m 965 m 865 m 765 m

835 m 1070 m 970 m 870 m

880 m 1115 m 1015 m 915 m


Stockholm

S:t Petersburg

Køben - havn

Göteborg

Århus

Uppsala

Turku

Umeå

Oulu

Trondheim

Bergen

Stavanger

Norrköping Linköping

Jönköping

- borg

Odense

Ålborg

Gävle

Sundsvall

Östersund

Falun

Borlänge

Örnsköldsvik

Skellefteå

Luleå

Trollhättan

Halmstad

Varberg

Tallinn

Riga

Skövde

Scandria corridor

Rail ferry link

Marshalling yard

Rail Freight Corridors

2012

Nässjö

Västerås Drammen

Taulov

Berlin

Sassnitz

Malmö Trelleborg

Ånge

Narvik

Älmhult

Hamburg

Tampere Kouvola

Katrineholm

Piteå

Kristiansand

Örebro

Hallsberg

Oslo Helsinki

Riihimäki

Warszawa

Vilnius

Selected Rail

Freight

Corridors

2012 Lund

Rostock

Helsing


Length of Sidings on Single-Track Lines

Göteborg

Sundsvall

Oslo Borlänge

Malmö Kolding

Ställdalen

Ängelholm

Ånge

≈630 m sidings are prevalent, 930 m in Denmark.

Gävle

Motala

Frövi


Vännäs – Storvik: • heavier southbounds along the coast ( 10 ‰ to 14 ‰) • lighter northbounds inland ( 17 ‰)

Storvik – Hallsberg: • heavier southbounds via Avesta ( 10 ‰) • lighter northbounds via Borlänge – Storvik ( 17 ‰)

Directional Operation of Long Trains

Effects • number of meets reduced • transit times reduced • longer trains possible, e.g. 835 m – 1650 m


Other Factors

Particular attention to be paid to:

• Air consumption, especially with many stand-alone (i.e. non-articulated and unmarried) wagons and in cold weather (increased leakage of glad hands).

• Electrical power supply and feeding capacity in the case of heavy trains.

• Limitations of axle counters, where applicable.


Outline

• NEEDS


• BRAKE PERFORMANCE


• CONCLUSIONS


Conclusions

• Longer trains (than 630 m) can add transportation capacity and reduce costs per unit freight.

• Longer trains can improve coordination in cross-border rail corridors and with train ferries.

• Train length 835 m (+33 %) useful for at least: - intermodal trains - paper trains - wagonload trains including empty wagons.

• Train length 880 m is now limited to 80 km/h, but higher speeds feasible with longer stopping distances.


Recommendations

• Establish brake rules and tables for train lengths of 835 m or more with P or 5GP (”long locomotive”) brake.

• Include brake tables for 880 m train length and G brake on -10 ‰ and -17 ‰ gradient in the operating rules.

• Extend terminal tracks to ≈870 m (intermodal and paper) and ≈915 m (iron ore and logs).

• When constructing or extending sidings, extend to ≥1015 m.

• Analyze the logistic effects of directional train operation on parallel lines.

• Expand study to quantify the effects of even longer trains.


Future Work

• Improve wagon designs for higher meter loads.

• Brake calculations for trains longer than 880 m.

• Brake calculations with: - distributed power (DP) - end-of-train (EOT) brake control unit (BCU) - electropneumatic (EP) brakes.


Thank you!