WP3: Rail Passenger Transport - TOSCA Project

Note that technology ‘Modular short train’ (PE) or ‘Electrification of non-electrified lines’ (PI)
is not explicitly part of the scenarios, since it is not possible within the scope of this study to
estimate their future feasibility and implementation. PE and PI are therefore also nonquantified
options for additional improvement.
Note also that ‘Bio fuels’ (PH) is not either part of the scenarios at this stage, because the
potential of this option is dependent on uncertain variables being assessed in Stage 2 of
TOSCA. The same is e.g. the case for ‘Low-GHG electric power’ (PJ) but a tentative
improvement is anyhow studied in Scenario 8 above, just to understand the possible impact of
low-GHG electric power.
Scenarios 1 to 5 with single measures are comparatively easy to estimate. The combined scenarios
are, however, much more complicated since there are considerable interactions and
dependences between the different measures, if combined. In this context a thorough and
validated simulation software (STEC) is used, taking all factors into consideration in the same
run. In the simulations with STEC the full estimated potential of improvement until year 2050
is used.
As it is very hard to find qualified estimates on rail technology for 2050, the total time 2009-
2050 is divided in two periods. Due to the current lack of future estimates for the railway
sector, the following procedure is being applied:
Period 1 The techno-economic potential for in-service introduction during the next 10–15
years (i.e. until 2025) is estimated according to the earlier mentioned sources.
Period 2
Development is assumed to continue after 2025. For most technologies it is
assumed that 2/3 of the first period achievement can be achieved in the second
period, i.e. 2025–2050, provided there are no obvious physical or economic
obstacles. The exception is technology PB (Low-mass train) that requires more
substantial research before technology readiness (see Table 3-1), which will
delay most to its possible introduction to Period 2.
This means that, for most technologies, 60 % of the total achievement until 2050 is what today
is known or assumed as appropriate technologies, possible to introduce in regular service
during the Period 1, while 40 % is assumed to be achieved during Period 2. As the latter period
is longer than the first one, the annual rate of improvement is assumed to be slower in the
second period. This assumption is justified as the first steps are considered as technically and
economically quite well-founded, while the following steps would likely require more
advanced technologies, also being closer to the physical and economic limits.
If – for example - the total combined improvement is 50 % reduction of specific energy in the
total period (41 years), then the energy will be reduced by 30 % under the first period and by a
further 20 % (of the original amount) in the second of 25 years. This ends up with 2.2 %
average reduction per year until 2025 and 1.4 % reduction per year during 2025–2050. With
the same percentage annual rate the assumed 50 % reduction until 2050 is equivalent to an
annual reduction by 1.7 % per year.
Table 3-1 presents examples of changes for improvement in the first period (until 2025). These
changes have been judged as possible with reference to (mainly) UIC Energy efficiency
strategies for rolling stock and train operation as well as (Railenergy, 2009) and (Diedrichs,
2010), i.e. essentially the same as in Section 3.3. They are included in the earlier mentioned 9
scenarios and are investigated both as individual technologeis and in combination. Results are
presented in Section 5.
Deliverable D4 – WP3 passenger 14