1. DB Engineering
1.1. different forms of operation concepts
1.1.1. 1. Dedicated passenger lines – uniform operation patter
1.1.2. 2. Dedicated passenger lines – different stopping patterns
1.1.3. 3. Dedicated passenger lines – different train types and speeds
1.1.4. 4. Mixed passenger and freight lines
1.1.4.1. There are several challenges connected with Mixed Traffic.
1.1.4.1.1. The gradient has a severe impact on the performance of freight trains
1.1.4.1.2. The Mixed Traffic concept has major influence on the system specification and on the costs.
1.1.4.2. Conclusion
1.1.4.2.1. Construction and operation of mixed traffic High Speed Lines show advantages but also disadvantages compared to passenger dedicated lines: + Higher capacity and shorter transport time for freight trains, + Better utilization of expensive infrastructure (higher revenues), - Reduction of line capacity without segregation of fast and slow trains, - Higher infrastructure cost in mountainous areas, - Less time slots for maintenance.
1.1.4.2.2. The optimal mode of operation has to be evaluated individually for each application.
1.2. Location of Stations
1.2.1. City center station Normally using existing city center stations
1.2.1.1. Advantages
1.2.1.1.1. Economic growth HSR will help in economic growth around the station, other factors must be included
1.2.1.1.2. Public transport Better served by public transport as it is already a intermodal hub
1.2.1.1.3. Conventional rail Will be connected to the conventional rail network for connections to regional trains.
1.2.1.2. Disadvantages
1.2.1.2.1. Expensive More expensive to build due to city center location and effect on conventional services during construction
1.2.1.2.2. Capacity Does the existing station have enough capacity to take the extra HSR trains? If not, station will need to expand onto un/under- used industrial/railway lan
1.2.2. Periphery stations: Suburban in or immediately next to the urban fabric of the city Greenfield far from urban fabric
1.2.2.1. Suburban Station
1.2.2.1.1. Advantages
1.2.2.1.2. Disadvantages
1.2.2.2. Greenfield
1.2.2.2.1. Advantages
1.2.2.2.2. Disadvantages
1.2.3. Urban Development Near HSR Stations
1.2.3.1. What to build next to the station
1.2.3.2. Why build Transit Oriented Development
1.2.3.3. How to Build the urban area : Transit Oriented Development
1.3. Traffic Demand Modelling
1.3.1. 1- General Procedure (1)
1.3.1.1. 1. Determination of the Investigation Area (Corridor or wider coverage?)
1.3.1.2. 2. Analysis/Evaluation of Current Public Transport Systems
1.3.1.2.1. a. Existing Railway Network/-Operation (maps and timetables required) b. Existing Regional Busline Network/-Operation (maps and timetables required) c. Existing Regional Road Network (maps required) d. Existing Regional Air Transport Network (maps and timetables required)
1.3.1.3. 3. Analysis of Current Traffic Demand
1.3.1.3.1. a. Railway Passengers (workday/weekend data available or surveys required?) b. Bus Passengers (workday/weekend data available or surveys required?) c. Air-Traffic Passengers (workday/weekend data available or surveys required?) d. Private Motorized Traffic (workday/weekend data available or surveys required?)
1.3.1.4. 4. Analysis of Current Demographic/Economic Data
1.3.1.4.1. a. Population (actual data available?) b. Commuters (actual data available?) c. Employees (actual data available?) d. Students (actual data available?) e. Work Places / College Places (actual data available?)
1.3.2. General Procedure (2)
1.3.2.1. 5. Traffic Model (VISUM based, TransTools, Trimode…) Development
1.3.2.2. 6. Traffic Demand Forecast
1.3.2.2.1. a. Population Development (sources?) b. Employment Development (sources?) c. GDP-Development (sources?) d. Transport Network/Operation Development (mode specific) (sources?) e. Fare Policy and Cost Development (sources?) f. Traffic Behaviour Development (sources?)
1.3.2.3. 7. Calculation of Future Traffic Network Loads
1.3.2.3.1. a. Railway Passengers (modelling VISUM) b. Bus Passengers (modelling VISUM) c. Air-Traffic Passengers (modelling VISUM) d. Private Motorized Traffic (modelling VISUM)
1.3.3. 2- Principles of Traffic Modellin
1.3.3.1. Principles of Traffic Modelling (I)
1.3.3.1.1. Trip Generation Trip Distribution Mode Choice Assignment
1.3.3.2. Principles of Traffic Modelling (II)
1.3.3.2.1. see the note
1.3.3.3. Principles of Traffic Modelling (III)
1.3.3.3.1. Modelling Process Study Area Definition ↓ Breakdown into Traffic Analysis Zones ↓ Entry of Structural Data (Residents, People in Employment, Students…) ↓ Assignment of O-D Activity Pairs (Home-Work/Study, Home/Work – Business, Home – Private Errands…) ↓ Attraction and Generation Model ↓ Calculation of Trip Generation ↓ Digital Network Encryption (Length, Speed, Capacity, Timetable…) ↓ Calculation of the Resistance Matrix (Time, Costs, Fares, …) ↓ Calculation of Traffic Distribution (Residents, People in Employment, Students…) ↓ Calculation of Choice of Mode of Transport ↓ Assignment: Iterative Model and Network Calibration ↓ Entry of Forecast Structural Data (Residents, People in Employment, Students…) for Different Scenarios ↓ Digital Network Encryption (Design Cases) ↓ Assignment: Calculation of Network Traffic Loads (Bus, Car, Rail, Bike…) regarding Different Scenarios
1.3.4. 3- Scope of Work
1.3.4.1. 1. Collection and Evaluation of essential existing Data
1.3.4.2. 2. Determination of the Investigation Area
1.3.4.3. 3. Preparation, Execution and Evaluation of Surveys
1.3.4.4. 4. Adjustment and Recalibration of an applicable Traffic Demand Model
1.3.4.5. 5. Collection and Evaluation of Input Data for the Traffic Forecast
1.3.4.6. 6. Demand Forecast Modelling
1.3.4.7. 7. Evaluation and Discussion of the Results and Recommendations
1.4. Maintenance of High Speed Lines
1.4.1. Maintenance according to DIN 31051
1.4.1.1. Infrastructure maintenance shall ensure the functionality and availability of infrastructure components
1.4.1.1.1. see the note
1.4.1.2. The optimization of Infrastructure Maintenance Processes is based on the analysis of current operational procedures and maintenance activities
1.4.1.2.1. Methodology see the note
1.4.1.2.2. Description
1.4.1.2.3. DB Netz is performing maintenance according to DIN 31051 The aim is to find the optimum of inspection or maintenance and repair effort and system performance
1.4.1.3. Notice: DB Netz is the operator of the most of the railway infrastructure in Germany
1.4.2. Maintenance Organisation
1.4.2.1. Do it yourself or outsource it. see the note 1-outsourcing based on job specifications outsourcing of defined maintenance work (type of work, time, section) 2- outsourcing of the entire maintenance regime for a track section and a defined period
1.4.2.1.1. Outsourcing of Maintenance is often used to minimize operational costs or where special machines and high skilled staff are required. Outsourcing principles ▪ Strategic functions are to be kept in-house ▪ Infrastructure and maintenance can only be partially outsourced, specific activities need to be retained ▪ Construction and station operations are key areas for outsourcing
1.4.3. Asset monitoring and predictive maintenance
1.4.3.1. The use of a unified platform for the whole asset management system is beneficial for vehicle and infrastructure maintenance
1.4.3.1.1. .
1.4.3.1.2. Vehicles monitor Infrastructure
1.4.3.1.3. Infrastructure monitors vehicles
1.4.3.1.4. Vehicle self-monitoring
1.4.3.1.5. More detail in the Maintenance pdf. see the note
1.5. International Markets / Global Project Delivery Management
1.5.1. DB E&C International Markets
1.5.2. Global Project Delivery Management
1.5.3. Rail Systems – Feasibility Studies
1.5.3.1. Feasibility Studies and System Lifecycle
1.5.3.1.1. The concept is the first of three lifecycle phases of a feasibility study • Investigate scope, context and intended purpose of the system • Investigate the environment and feasibility of the system forecast and operational concept technical developments and maturity physical and environmental issues system interfaces and stakeholders legislative and socio-economic issues option selection and financing • RAMS (safety, performance, quality) RAMS policy and targets of the railway duty holders RAMS requirements and RAMS performance current systems safety legislation
1.5.3.1.2. 1. concept 2.system definition and operational context 3. risk analysis and evaluation 4.specification of systemrequirements 5.architecture and appointment of systemrequirements 6.design and implementation 7.manufacture 8.integration 9.system validation 10.system acceptance 11.operation, maintenance, performance menetoring 12. decommissioning
1.5.4. Rail Subsystems (CCS, COM and ENE) – Feasibility Studies for Subsystems
1.5.4.1. Site surveys
1.5.4.1.1. • Condition survey existing CCS, COM and ENE CCS: interlocking, level crossings, train control and protection COM: communication network and systems ENE: traction power supply [TPS] and overhead contact line systems [OCS] existing technical rooms and buildings existing measures for EMC/EMI and EMF compatibility legacy systems with new technologies e.g. 5G, ETCS and AC 25 kV
1.5.4.1.2. • Condition survey existing OCC and ECC extendibility OCC train operation systems extendibility ECC supervisory control systems
1.5.4.2. System definition and operational context (second lifecycle phase)
1.5.4.2.1. • Transform operational and stakeholder needs into requirements • Investigation available technologies and maturity level CCS, COM and ENE - Analysis expected implementation schedule vs. maturity level
1.5.4.2.2. • Develop a system architecture to fulfil the requirements: -core layer ( rail transport backbone network) -Aggregation layer ( station, network management center) -Access layer (passenger wifi access, ticket system,dispatching system, emergency command system, video conferencing system, video surveillance system)
1.5.4.2.3. • Compliance check operational and stakeholder requirements of CCS, COM and ENE - operability study different CCS and COM technologies on proposed track alignments - power study to define feeding diagram for ENE (interconnections TPS with power grids)
1.5.4.2.4. • Determination OPEX different options • Compliance check local codes CCS, COM and ENE - compatibility study CCS, COM (EN 50238) - compatibility study ENE (EN 50388)
1.5.4.2.5. • Determination CAPEX different options • Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) different options • Preferred option selection technologies for CCS, COM and ENE
1.5.4.3. Risk Analysis and Evaluation (third lifecycle phase)
1.5.4.3.1. • Based on the System Definition prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis • Perform risk evaluation according Regulation (EU) 2018/761 – Common Safety Method (CSM) • The costs for mitigations and residual risk are to be part of CAPEX and OPEX • The resulting Hazard Log shall be kept up to date through all further lifecycle phases • The three risk acceptance principles acc. CSM are: - use of code of practice (CoP); - comparison with a similar system as a reference - explicit risk estimation (ERE) (qualitative or quantitative)
1.6. .
1.6.1. different forms of operation concepts
1.6.1.1. 1. Dedicated passenger lines – uniform operation patter
1.6.1.2. 2. Dedicated passenger lines – different stopping patterns
1.6.1.3. 3. Dedicated passenger lines – different train types and speeds
1.6.1.4. 4. Mixed passenger and freight lines
1.6.1.4.1. There are several challenges connected with Mixed Traffic.
1.6.1.4.2. Conclusion
2. advantages
2.1. The impact of freight transport on environment and society is massive, but often underestimated: the freight sector emits an estimated 275 million tons of CO2 per annum, representing 30% of total transport sector emissions, while passenger traffic (mainly private cars) accounts for the remaining 70%)4. Road freight contributes substantially to the prevailing road congestion in European urban centres. In France, Great Britain and Germany, each driver wastes about 120 hours in traffic on average per annum.5 More importantly, analyses show that freight transport is responsible for a significant societal cost due to premature deaths, 90% caused by pollution and 10% by accidents, mainly on roads.
2.2. Impact on environment and society: * Global warming 275 mio. tons CO2 emitted p.a. (~ 30% of ETS transport sector) * Congestion 120 hours lost in traffic per driver2 p.a. * Premature deaths Pollution: ~ 45,000 p.a. Road accidents: ~ 5,000 p.a.
2.3. Outstanding energy efficiency of rail freight in comparison to road: Rail has a 6x lower specific energy consumption than road due to physical advantages such as wheel-on-rail and electrification
2.4. Significantly lower external costs of rail freight in comparison to road: six-times lower external costs17 of rail freight (7.9 EUR per 1,000 ton-km) versus road freight (50.5 EUR per 1,000 ton-km) . This advantage increases to a factor of 12 if the impact of prior/ later steps in the transport value chain (the trucking part) is ignored. In terms of external costs related to traffic accidents, rail is even 85 times better than road. With regard to CO2 emissions, rail freight is 9 times better than road. Even for noise, the most debated negative environmental impact of rail freight, rail still fares about three times better than road due to the fact that a much larger share of the European population is exposed to noise by road than to noise by rail
2.5. Modal shift towards 30% rail freight by 2030 to prevent the negative effects of growth: This modal shift would result in doubling the transport volume on rail and lead to an economic gain of 100 billion EUR due to lower external costs19, 290 million tons of avoided CO2 emissions and 45,000 fewer premature deaths and fatalities
3. challenges
3.1. freight
3.1.1. the relative cost competitiveness of road transport versus rail transport is likely to increase, driven by fast innovation cycles of the trucking original equipment manufacturers (0EMs). Capacity increase (Gigaliners), platooning and autonomous driving are expected to reduce the specific cost of road transport by substantial double-digit percentages by 2030.
3.2. Passengers
3.3. General
3.3.1. In rail, asset replacement cycles are up to 10 times longer, which naturally limits the rate of innovation upptake, in the context of a relatively small rail freight supply market. Hence, its customers, the rail freight undertakings, need to drive innovation through their own programmes, while only a few are currently earning enough to be able to reinvest in their fleets. Providing sustainable financing models for rail freight undertakings is currently not a priority for many national policy makers since they do not see rail as a backbone or important part of mobility.
4. Modal Shift
4.1. Factors Influencing
4.1.1. travel time
4.1.2. ticket fares
4.1.3. number of passengers in the travel group
4.1.4. environmental preferences
4.1.5. comfort and flexibility
4.1.6. It found that convenience and safety are insignificant
4.2. Notes
4.2.1. It found that HSR impacts automobile and bus use less than air travel
5. Passengers
5.1. Travel characteristics of intercity passenger
5.1.1. Travel purpose: almost one-fifth reported their general HSR usage was for the business purpose. another 20% used mostly for educational trips (mostly students to travel between school/university and their hometowns). Only 18.1% of the participants stated that they preferred HSR for tourism trips. 13.1% for other trips, such as family visits, etc.
5.1.2. gender and Age: More than 60% of the participants were male, and 75% of them were in the age group of 13−35.
5.1.3. income level: 53% of the participants were working 47% were not working (students and retired people)
5.1.4. Car ownership: About 70% of the participants had a private car owned by themselves or their families
5.1.5. usage frequency: 23.3% of the participants were the first time users. one-third of the participants (31.4%) used HSR a few times in a year. another third used it once or a few times in a month. 12.1% used HSR weekly
5.1.6. service class preference: Most of the participants (67%) stated that they preferred economy class. 28.3% of them did not have any preference. only 4.8% stated a specific preference of business clas
5.2. Travel characteristics of HSR users
5.2.1. General intercity travel patterns
5.2.1.1. mode choice for work related intercity trips in general: almost one-third (31.3%) of participants stated bus transportation. 28.7% preferred private car. Railway choice (including HSR) was 21.6%. 18.3% of the travelers stated the air choice.
5.2.1.2. for tourism trips (which included vacation trips and not family/relative visits, etc.): the private car share increased to 42.2%. while the shares of railway significantly dropped to 9.6%. airway remarkably decreased to 10.4%.
5.2.1.3. For all other trip purposes: bus was preferred by the 40.3% of the participants followed by a railway choice by 28.3%.
5.2.1.4. Note: Road transportation (private car and bus) was the dominant transportation system in the intercity trips for all trip purposes in Turkey. people preferred using private cars more when traveling for tourism/vacation purpose. which can be explained by: a) the lack or difficulties of accessibility with public transit services in the touristic regions, b) larger size of travel groups in these trips.
5.2.2. Stated intercity transportation alternatives of HSR users
5.2.2.1. respondents were asked to state their alternative modes, if HSR was not available for the trip they were making Out of 421 travelers, 2.6% stated that they would not have made that trip if HSR was not available. The majority of them (70.5%) stated bus as their alternative private car was the alternative mode of 19.2%. 4.8% for Air 2.9% for conventional rail
5.2.2.2. For medium travel distances, The majority of the respondents, stated that they would choose intercity bus in the absence of HSR service. For shorter services, private car followed bus with a share of 25−26%, while its share was around 12% for the medium distance. Airway was a significant alternative with 18.75% share to HSR for long travel distance, which is the only HSR line with significant air travel competition.
5.2.2.2.1. Note: In the few HSR trips combined with bus or conventional rail, again, bus and private car are the only significant alternative modes.
5.2.3. HSR trip purposes
5.2.3.1. respondents were asked to state their trip purposes both for the trip they were making (realized trip) and general HSR usage.
5.2.4. User perspectives on HSR service attributes
6. Survey
6.1. DATELINE Design and Application of a Travel Survey for Long-distance Trips Based on an International Network of Expertise
6.1.1. Four main objectives: (1) to design a complete survey for European long-distance travel; (2) to implement this survey in all 15 EU Member States; (3) to build up a valid long-distance mobility database; (4) to integrate this database into the EUROSTAT statistical program
6.1.2. four guiding principles guaranteed a survey of high quality: 1) to develop a respondent friendly questionnaire; (2) to devise a flexible methodology; (3) to create a valid database; (4) to harmonize all the collected data.
6.1.2.1. The first principle aimed at the design of a questionnaire that does not inundate the respondent with unnecessary information and confusing definitions. It was made a priority by the consortium to meet the respondent not only half way, but to actively unburden him as much as possible. The second principle related to the fact that the survey involved many different countries with distinctive cultures and needs. Survey traditions differ across Europe, so that precautions had to be taken that would allow the use of survey methods and procedures appropriate to the country or region concerned. The third principle ensured that collected data was checked for consistency, completeness and plausibility. An additional validation survey searching for any travel information that may have been missed was carried out to verify and enhance data quality. And finally the fourth principle; one may say that it formed the pinnacle of the project work in that all collected and analyzed data, regardless of its origin, had to be comparable in order to be of use to future European planning efforts.
6.1.3. Concept and Definitions
6.1.3.1. long-distance travel: all journeys of 100 or more kilometers (one-way) qualified as long-distance travel. (1) A journey is a series of trips starting and ending at home or a temporary location. Journeys that include a destination more than 100 km (crow-fly) away from the reference location are long-distance journeys. Journeys can consist of many trips. (2) A trip connects two activities. Trips can begin and end at any location (home city, overnight location, temporary stop).
6.1.3.2. journey types: (1) Holiday Journey: a journey that lasts for four or more days and is made for holiday purposes. (2) Other Private Journey: a journey made for any reason but holiday or business, the exception being a short holiday lasting for up to three days. (3) Business Journey: a journey made for business purposes. Professional travel undertaken by pilots, truck drivers and the like are excluded. (4) Commuter Journey: a journey regularly made to or from work / school / university. It includes daily and weekend commuters.
6.1.3.3. People behave differently depending on not only the distance of a journey but also its duration. (1) A one-day journey is defined by the trip to and from the farthest destination, including main stops on the way and major changes of transport modes. The return trip may end at any location. (2) With respect to multi-day journeys, a trip begins at a reference location (home city, overnight stay or temporary location) and ends with the next overnight stay. It includes main stops on the way and major changes of transport modes. Each overnight stay of a multi-day journey can mark the beginning of a one-day excursion, which is defined by the trip to the farthest destination from an overnight stay and back, including any intermediate stops on the way.
6.1.4. Survey Design
6.1.4.1. Methodological Considerations
6.1.4.1.1. The first consideration related to “flexibility” three different methods were employed in the survey: postal (“person” as the survey unit) telephone (“person” as the survey unit) face-to-face (“the entire household” as the survey unit)
6.1.4.1.2. The second consideration pertained to the length of time the survey should cover. In order to avoid any seasonal impact, the survey was carried out over a total of twelve consecutive months. This means that for each month a new sample was drawn.
6.1.4.1.3. Thirdly, a closely defined system of regular motivations and reminders was built into the survey design, bringing a number of advantages. It enabled the field personnel to offer additional advice to the respondent, clarify any misunderstandings that may exist or retrieve missing information. The effect was twofold; first, data quality improved and second, the response rate increased
6.1.4.1.4. Finally, thought had to be given to the appropriate reference frame for journeys. Due to the fact that some journeys tend to be forgotten more easily than others – “recall effect'', the following reporting periods were assigned retrospectively: (1) Holiday Journeys: twelve months (2) Other Private Journeys: three months (3) Business Journeys: three months
6.1.4.2. A Two-Phase-System
6.1.4.2.1. One essential aspect often overlooked in surveys is that the respondent is the “customer” and that he needs to be treated accordingly. This means that the burden placed on him by the survey needs to be kept to a minimum level.
6.1.5. The Questionnaire
6.1.5.1. The questionnaire developed for the two-phase survey system was divided into individual forms (see the note1).
6.1.5.1.1. Note1
6.1.5.2. All forms of the questionnaire were translated into eleven different languages and were used with all three methods. Some minor adjustments had to be made in order to make the questionnaire suitable to the employed method as well as the surveyed country or region.
6.1.6. Survey Implementation
6.1.6.1. The survey was carried out by a number of different institutions. Not only private survey organizations, but also national statistical offices and transport ministries were involved
6.1.6.2. After twelve months of intensive fieldwork in each of the 16 countries, one can say that the implementation of the survey system was successful and led to two conclusions: (1) Respondents were interested in the subject matter; (2) Respondents were receptive to the survey design and the questionnaire
6.1.6.3. The average response rate for Phase 1 across all 16 countries was 66%, which is higher than was expected at the beginning of the project. Even in countries such as Great Britain, where postal surveys are generally regarded as being ineffective, a highly satisfactory rate was reached
6.1.6.3.1. Phase 2 fared even better. With an average response rate of 85%, the positive advantage of using a two-phase-system became more apparent.
6.1.6.4. The overview of response rates in Note2.
6.1.6.4.1. Note2
6.1.7. Conclusion
6.1.7.1. The effectiveness of the survey system proved high as indicated by an overall response rate of 66% across all 16 countries. People showed much interest in the subject matter and were overwhelmingly satisfied with the survey.
6.1.7.2. The project has shown that it is possible to develop and implement a long-distance travel survey standard that satisfies distinct cultural and institutional needs of the different countries in Europe. Predicated on a critical project analysis, the rich reservoir of accumulated experience will allow to establish a permanent European monitoring system for high quality long-distance travel surveys.
6.2. Survey on high-speed rail usage in Germany
6.2.1. Background
6.2.1.1. The survey (n=200) should address high-speed rail users in Germany, and is planned to be carried out on railway platforms of Karlsruhe main station addressing passengers waiting for high-speed trains.
6.2.2. Scope of the offer
6.2.2.1. 1) Preparation of the survey 2) Conduction of the survey 3) Compilation of survey results 4) Bringing in background knowledge on relevant studies
6.2.2.1.1. 1) Preparation of the survey the duration to conduct the survey should not exceed 10 minutes. Conducting the survey on railway platforms of Karlsruhe main station / pedestrian zone in Karlsruhe or station forecourt the first question of the survey needs to be adjusted accordingly to ensure that each interviewee has used high-speed rail services within the last 12 months.
6.2.2.1.2. 2) Conduction of the survey The survey will be conducted during 2-3 days in week 49 and/or week 50.
6.2.2.1.3. 3) Compilation of survey results The survey results will be compiled in Excel format, and, where necessary, translated into English.
6.2.2.1.4. 4) Bringing in background knowledge on relevant studies KIT will bring in expert knowledge on studies or projects relevant for the elaboration of the feasibility study, according to specific requests by Főmterv.
6.3. Our Survey
6.3.1. should
6.3.1.1. * conduct the survey on the platform(s) in Karlsruhe main station before the departure of high-speed trains (ICE, TGV).
6.3.1.2. * A survey should be not too long, allowing its completion in less than 10 minutes