Developments in Railway Freight Transportation Between Scandinavia and Germany Hans E. Boysen Department of Transport Science Royal Institute of Technology 2011-02-03
Main Topics Traffic trends Capacity bottlenecks Infrastructure investment plans Technical standards Recommended best practice
Rail Freight Corridors 2011 Narvik Scandria corridor Rail ferry link Marshalling yard Luleå Skellefteå Oulu Trondheim Östersund Örnsköldsvik Umeå Rail Freight Corridors 2011 Bergen Stavanger Taulov Drammen Århus Oslo Göteborg Odense Trollhättan Ålborg Halmstad Helsingborg Køben - havn Skövde Varberg Jönköping Sundsvall Falun Gävle Borlänge Uppsala Västerås Örebro Hallsberg Ånge Nässjö Älmhult Lund Malmö Trelleborg Katrineholm Norrköping Linköping Tampere Turku Stockholm Kouvola S:t Petersburg Helsinki Tallinn Riga Hamburg Rostock Sassnitz Berlin
Rail transport corridors and production systems Key routes for Intermodal Sweden-Germany Stockholm - Malmö - Trelleborg - Rostock Stockholm - Malmö - Trelleborg - Travemünde Stockholm - Malmö - Höje Taastrup - Taulov Stockholm-Malmö-Hannover Norway-Germany Oslo - Malmö - Trelleborg - Rostock Oslo - Malmö - Trelleborg - Travemünde Oslo - Malmö - Höje Taastrup - Taulov Oslo - Malmö - Hannover Key routes for Wagonload Sweden-Germany Hallsberg - Malmö - Trelleborg - Sassnitz - Seddin Hallsberg - Malmö - Copenhagen -Padborg - Maschen Hallsberg - Malmö - Ystad - Swinoujscie Hallsberg - Malmö - Copenhagen -Padborg - Maschen Norway-Germany Gothenburg - Malmö - Trelleborg - Sassnitz - Seddin Gothenburg - Malmö - Copenhagen -Padborg - Maschen Gothenburg - Malmö - Ystad - Swinoujscie
Swedish Cross-border Rail Freight Tonnage excluding iron ore (1000 tons) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 By land By ferry 2007
Swedish Cross-border Rail Freight Tonnage excluding iron ore (1000 tons) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 Intermodal Wagonload/Unit train 2000 1000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rail Freight Trends & Forecasts Germany: 2004-2025 +65 % (intermodal +129 %) Denmark: 1998-2008 +150%, 2005-2015 +60 % Øresund: 2004-2008 +40 % Sweden: 2004-2008 +14 %, 2005-2020 +25 % or +50 % Norway: 2005-2020 +100 %, 2005-2030 +200 %
Strategic Infrastructure Plans Germany: Federal Trafficway Plan 2003, Immediate Program Ocean Harbour Hinterland Traffic 2008, Growth Program 2009-2017 Fehmarnbelt: Treaty on a Fixed Link Across Femern Bælt 2008 Denmark: Political Agreement on a Fixed Link Across Femern Bælt 2008, Agreements for a Green Transport Policy 2009, Traffic Investment Plan 2009-2020 Sweden: National Plan for the Transport System 2010-2021 Norway: National Transport Plan 2010-2019, Action Program 2010-2019 Finland: Transport Policy Guidelines and Transport Network Investment and Finance Programme Until 2020
Germany: Capacity Bottlenecks in 2006 Map: BMVBS
Germany: Capacity Expansions Rendsburg 22.5 tons, 8 tons/m 2013 Ahrensburg- Hamburg TT Hamburg shorter blocks Stelle-Lüneburg TT 2015 Puttgarden- (Fehmarnsund)- Bad Schwartau E 2020, DT 2027 Rostock-Berlin 25 tons 2013 Uelzen-Stendal DT 2017 Reichenbach- Hof- Regensburg E 2017 E =electrification DT =double track TT =triple track Map: DB Netze
Denmark: Capacity Bottlenecks in 2009 Snoghøj-Odense DT Ringsted-Roskilde-København-Øresund DT, QT Vamdrup- Vojens ST Tinglev- Padborg ST ST =single track DT =double track QT =quadruple track Map: BD
Denmark: Capacity Expansions Ringsted-Køge-København new line, DT+E 2018 Vamdrup- Vojens DT 2015 DT =double track E =electrification Fehmarnbelt new line, DT+E 2020 Rødby-Storstrøm DT+E 2020 Ringsted- Storstrøm E 2020 Map: TM
Sweden: Capacity Bottlenecks in 2009 and Expansions Stockholm QT 2017 Trollhättan-Göteborg DT 2012 Varberg DT 2021 Hallsberg-Degerön DT 2021+ Motala-Mjölby DT 2012 Hallandsåsen tunnel, DT 2015 DT =double track QT =quadruple track Lund-Malmö QT extended 2019 Map: BV
Norway: Capacity Bottlenecks in 2008 and Expansions Oslo-Ski QT 2019 Moss DT 2017 DT =double track QT =quadruple track Map: JBV
Corridor Improvement Plans 2010-2020 Double track (DT) ERTMS New fixed link: Fehmarnbelt Electrification Speed Length of sidings Axle load Loading gauge
Rail Freight Corridors 2011 Narvik Scandria corridor Rail ferry link Marshalling yard Luleå Skellefteå Oulu Trondheim Östersund Örnsköldsvik Umeå Rail Freight Corridors 2011 Bergen Stavanger Taulov Drammen Århus Oslo Göteborg Odense Trollhättan Ålborg Halmstad Helsingborg Køben - havn Skövde Varberg Jönköping Sundsvall Falun Gävle Borlänge Uppsala Västerås Örebro Hallsberg Ånge Nässjö Älmhult Lund Malmö Trelleborg Katrineholm Norrköping Linköping Tampere Turku Stockholm Kouvola S:t Petersburg Helsinki Tallinn Riga Hamburg Rostock Sassnitz Berlin
Rail Freight Corridors 2020 Narvik Scandria corridor Rail ferry link Marshalling yard Luleå Skellefteå Oulu Trondheim Östersund Örnsköldsvik Umeå Rail Freight Corridors 2020 Bergen Stavanger Taulov Drammen Århus Oslo Göteborg Odense Trollhättan Ålborg Halmstad Helsingborg Køben - havn Skövde Varberg Jönköping Sundsvall Falun Gävle Borlänge Uppsala Västerås Örebro Hallsberg Ånge Nässjö Älmhult Lund Malmö Trelleborg Katrineholm Norrköping Linköping Tampere Turku Stockholm Kouvola S:t Petersburg Helsinki Tallinn Riga Hamburg Rostock Sassnitz Berlin
Rail Freight Corridors in 2011 Freight train paths/day in each direction: Via Taulov 48
Rail Freight Corridors in 2020 Freight train paths/day in each direction: Via Taulov 48 Via Fehmarnbelt also 48 Shortest routes, electrification needed: Lübeck-Lüneburg Lübeck-Bad Kleinen Connection needed: Bad Kleinen
Shippers Priorities Elasticity of demand indexed by cost 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Elasticity of demand
Present Corridor Standards Train length (m) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Train length (m) Ferry 1, track (m) Ferry 2, track (m) Development: Train length Padborg-Hamburg 835 m planned for 2011.
Present Corridor Standards Freight train speed vs. length (Denmark) Speed (km/h) Train length (m) 100 835 120 600 Limited by braking performance and signal distance.
Distance The Role of Speed Mixed traffic consumes available capacity Time Time while homogenous traffic at uniform speed can run at high frequency.
Present Corridor Standards Train wagon mass limit (tons) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Train wagon mass limit (tons) Note: Limits for screw couplers. Higher values for automatic couplers.
Highway Clearance Vehicle Height Vision: P/C 450 rail corridor >4.5 m 4.2 m 4.65 m >4.95 m 4.0 m >4.5 m
UIC Intermodal Gauge P/C 450 Trailer width Trailer height 450 cm Total height 483 cm Pocket height 33 cm
Present Corridor Standards Loading gauges / reference profile Finland KU P/C 497 Norway M, U P/C 410 P/C 407 Sweden A, C P/C 450 P/C 432 P/C 422 P/C 410 Øresund UIC GC P/C 432 Denmark Germany G2 P/C 410 P/C 400
Desired Loading Gauges OHL 5.30 m Clearance 0.40 m (25 kv) P/C 450 2.60 m 4.83 m SE-C 3.60 m 4.83 m P/C 400 2.60 m 4.33 m Proposed 3.40 m 4.83 m Floor 0.33 m TOR 0.00 m
Opportunities of a Large Gauge Kockums Industrier Frederik Tellerup 133 m 3 volume, Hiqqrrs-vw wagon 5 seats across, X53 unit
Cost Effectiveness Transport cost index vs. loading gauge 120 100 80 100 72 Capital cost Operating cost Maintenance cost 60 40 20 0 Loading gauge G1 Loading gauge C
Present Corridor Standards Meter load (tons/m) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 tons/m 7.2 tons/m 6.4 tons/m Development: New/upgraded lines in Sweden are planned for 10 tons/m.
Present Corridor Standards Axle load (tons) 30 25 20 15 10 5 25 tons 22.5 tons 0 Development: New/upgraded lines in Sweden are planned for 30 tons.
Cost Effectiveness Transport cost index vs. axle load Capital cost Operating cost Maintenance cost
Present Corridor Standards Gradients ( ) 30 25 20 15 10 5 Normal Maximum 0
Migration Strategy to Higher Standards Short term: Establish best-practice standards that meet or surpass the highest corridor standard. Eliminate worst bottlenecks and weakest links. Medium term: Patchwork, follow best practice when replacing or building new. Long term: Connect islands of best practice.
Recommended Best Practice Train speed Train length -Head end loco -Rear end brake -Distributed locos Wagon mass-head end loco -Distributed locos Distant signals Loading gauges Intermodal gauges Meter load Axle load Gradient Wagon brake ratio Coupler strengths 120 km/h (day), 100 km/h (night) 730 m (P), 835 m (5GP), 880 m (G) 1440 m (P), 1650 m (5GP), 1740 m (G) 1440 m+730 m (P), 1740 m+880 m (G) 4000 tons (screw couplers) 4000 tons+4000 tons (screw couplers) 1200 m 3.40 m 4.83 m, 3.60 m 4.83 m flat top 2.60 m 4.33 m, 2.60 m 4.83 m (P/C 450) 8.3 tons/m (100 tons/12 m) 25 tons 12.5 80 % ( SS) 0.85 MN, 1.02 MN, 1.35 MN
Main Points Traffic demand is increasing. New links and capacity improvements are planned. The shippers main priority is cost. High technical standards can improve efficiency and lower cost. When upgrading or building new, use recommended best practice.
Future Work Map the distribution of various levels of standards for each corridor. Simulate future traffic scenarios to identify future bottlenecks. Assess possible measures to find most effective fixes of future bottlenecks.
Thank you!