WP3: Rail Passenger Transport - TOSCA Project

- Higher speed could in a narrow sense also be considered as more unsafe than lower speed,
as the consequences of an accident would most likely be more serious. However, highspeed
operations (say from 200 km/h and above) have since their introduction in the 1960´s
shown a superior world-wide statistical record on safety (Grimvall et al, 2010). This is due
to a number of safety measures that are taken when higher speeds are introduced. These are
included in the cost estimations of Section 5.4. Therefore higher speed is expected to be at
least as safe as “slower speed”.
- Noise could in a narrow sense be reduced or increased as a result of the introduction of new
technologies or speeds. However, external noise emissions are regulated by law. Therefore
appropriate measures must be taken to limit noise to the prescribed level, thus maintaining
noise levels at an essentially constant level, independent of technology and speed. The
resulting effect will therefore be more or less countermeasures, which are included in the
cost estimations of Section 5.3.
- Privacy could be negatively affected by a too tight layout of seats in Space-efficient trains.
Passengers’ privacy must, as well as comfort and working-ability issues, be taken into
consideration when space-efficient train interiors are created.
5.6 User acceptability
Acceptability of the different technologies to the end users (passengers) is rated and presented
in Table 5-7. User cost is assumed to reflect costs in Table 5-4, i.e. the rail operators will
transfer changes in the operating cost to the passenger, at least in the long term in a competitive
market situation.
Table 5-7
User acceptability at given user cost.
Ratings are from 0 (no adoption) to 5 (full adoption).
User acceptability
at given
user cost
PA Low drag 5
PB Low mass 4
PC Energy recovery 5
PD Space efficient 3
PE Modular short train 5
PF Eco driving 5
PG Dual mode 5
PH Bio fuels 3
PI Electrification 5
PJ Low-GHG electric power
Higher speed 5
a Technologies and acceptability of low-GHG electric power is outside the
railway sector and is therefore outside the scope of this particular study.
a
Deliverable D4 – WP3 passenger 32