WP3: Rail Passenger Transport - TOSCA Project

Combination of measures
The combination of all measures produces very significant reductions in energy use. Even if
we exclude ‘Low-GHG electric power’, the estimations and simulations end up with a
reduction of energy use and GHG by about 56 % on average, with the largest reduction for
stopping ‘Local city trains’ at 60 %. This is a result of both less intake of energy and increased
energy recovery, so that the resulting net energy is heavily reduced. Note that train speeds are
assumed to be constant at this first stage of estimation.
Estimated overall energy use and GHG reduction,
excluding effect of higher speed and ‘Low-GHG electric power’: 56 %
impact on operation cost, excluding energy: –10 %
end user average willingness to pay: –3 %
Higher speeds and combinations
With all other conditions being equal higher speeds will increase energy consumption and the
resulting GHG emissions. These negative effects are however expected to be essentially
compensated by adapting technologies to increased speed. Shorter travel time will reduce
operating cost due to higher productivity of trains and train crew. Most important, shorter
travel time will increase willingness to pay. In all, trains will be more competitive. Also, from
a socio-economic perspective shortened travel time will in many cases have benefits.
The major drawback is the need for a high-performing rail infrastructure, which in certain
cases would trigger a negative public opinion and usually require public funding. It should
however be noted that higher speed and improved infrastructure does not only apply to veryhigh-speed
rail (top speed 250 km/h and above), but also upgrading of conventional railways
for top speeds lower than 250 km/h.
Estimated overall GHG reduction, excluding effect of ‘Low-GHG electricity’ 46 %.
impact on operation cost, excluding energy: –11 %
end user average willingness to pay: +12 %
Incentives needed
The used interest rate for increased vehicle investment is chosen from a long-term perspective
and is not including profit margins in profit-making operating companies. This fact indicates
that further incentives – subsidies or penalties – in addition to energy cost savings, may be
required for some technologies, in particular for ‘low-drag’ and ‘low-mass’.
6.2 Conclusions
In the present analysis it is estimated that a number of efficient technologies, individually and
in combination, are available in order to significantly reduce energy use and the resulting GHG
emissions on the rail passenger market until 2050.
The analysis has considered different technologies and means
– reduced air drag
– reduced train mass
– energy recovery
– eco-driving, including traffic flow management
– space efficiency in trains
– incremental improvements in energy efficiency, in particular reduced losses.
Deliverable D4 – WP3 passenger 37