california high-speed rail corridor · pdf filedecember 2000 c010333. ... ballasted track...

California High-Speed Rail Authority

California High-Speed RailCorridor Evaluation

German Peer Review

Report

Phase I

submittedby

DE-Consult Deutsche Eisenbahn-Consulting GmbHFrankfurt am Main, Germany

December 2000

C010333

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationJ

Table of Contents

Chapter No. Chapter Title Pa.qe

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Objective 1-1

1.2 Reports and Data Used for the Review 1-1

1.3 Structure of the Peer Review Process 1-1

1.4 Structure of the Report 1-3

1.5 Comments Received from Parsons Brinckerhoff 1-3

2. ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT WAY DESIGN CRITERIA 2-1

2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Alignment Design Parameters 2-12.2.1 Design Speed 2-12.2.2 Horizontal Alignment 2-22.2.3 Vertical Alignment 2-42.2.4 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters 2-5

2.3 Gauges and Clearances 2-72.3.1 Kinematic Envelope 2-72.3.2 Structure Clearances 2-72.3.3 Overhead Catenary System 2-72.3.4 Track Centerline Spacing 2-72.3.5 Cross Sections 2-82.3.6 Permanent Way 2-92.3.7 Ballast versus Slab Track 2-9

2.4 Summary 2-10

3. ROLLING STOCK ISSUES 3-1

3.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2 Current ICE Train Types in Operation 3-13.2.1 ICE 1 3-13.2.2 ICE 2 3-13.2.3 ICE 3 3-3

Phase 1 Report PageC010334

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J

3.2.4 ICE-T 3-5

3.3 Future ICE Developments 3-53.3.1 Future Maximum Speeds in Germany 3-53.3.2 ICE 4 3-63.3.3 HTE 3-63.3.4 DPT 400 3-6

3.4 Comparison of CPT-type ICE 2 with DPT-type ICE 3 3-73.4.1 Technical Comparison 3-73.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison 3-93.4.3 Summary of Relevant Technical Characteristics of ICE Trainsets 3-9

3.5 Acceleration Rates 3-10

3.6 High-Speed Freight Rolling Stock 3-103.6.1 Locomotives 3-103.6.2 Wagons 3-11

3.7 Summary 3-11

4. OPERATIONS ISSUES 4-1

4.1 General 4-1

4.2 Track Layout 4-2

4.3 Train Running Times 4-3

4.4 Operations Aspects 4-64.4.1 Timetable 4-64.4.2 Rolling Stock Requirements 4-74.4.3 Comparison with German High Speed Operations 4-8

4.5 Commuter Traffic 4-10

4.6 Freight Services 4-104.6.1 Freight Services in Europe 4-104.6.2 Freight Services on the California HSR System 4-114.6.3 Freight Compatibility Issues 4-12

4.7 O & M Cost Estimates 4-134.7.1 Energy Costs 4-134.7.2 Other O & M Costs 4-14

4.8 Summary 4-15

[ Phase 1 Report Page iiC010335


5. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS AND SCHEDULES 5-1

5.1 Unit Costs 5-15,1.1 Track and Guideway Items 5-15,1.2 Earthwork and Related Items 5-25.1.3 Structures, Tunnels and Walls 5-35,1.4 Grade Separations 5-45.1.5 Building Items 5-55.1.6 Rail and Utility Relocation 5-65,1.7 Right-of-Way 5-75.1,8 Environmental Impact Mitigation 5-75.1.9 Signaling and Communications 5-85.1.10 Electrification 5-8

5.2 Completeness of Cost Items 5-8

5,3 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Costs 5-10

5.4 Comparison of Typical Cross-Sections 5-10

5,5 Schedules 5-11

5,6 Summary 5-13

6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1

Phase 1 Report Page iii }C010336


List of Tables

Table No. Table Title Pa.qe

1-1 List of Basic Questions to be Answered by the Peer Review 1-4

2-1 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters 2-6

3-1 Summary of Technical Performance Characteristics of ICE Trainsets 3-103-2 Acceleration Rates of High-Speed Trainsets 3-10

4-1 Comparison of Running Times Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-64-2 Train Numbers by Type of Train on the German High Speed

Line Hanover - WQrzburg 1996 / 1997 4-94-3 Approximate Running Time of Non-Stop Freight Trains,

San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (6% Schedule RecoveryTime Included) 4-12

5-1 Alignment Unit Costs 5-13*5-2 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Construction Costs 5-13*5-3 Comparison of Line Profiles 5-13*5-4 Percentage Cost Distribution of Authority Option A by Line Section 5-13"

* Follows th~s page

[ Phase 1 Report Page ivC010337


List of Figures

Fi,qure No. Fi.qure Title Pa.qe

2-1 Structure Clearance GC for r greater 250 m 2-112-2 Cross Section at Grade

Ballasted Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-122-3 Cross Section at Grade

Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-132-4 Trench Section

Slab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-142-5 Provisions for Right of Way

(German Railway DS 800.0130) 2-152-6 Typical Cross-Section of Slab Track

System Rheda 2-16

3-1 Configuration of an ICE 2 385-m Version 3-23-2 ICE 2 Trainset on the New High Speed Line Berlin - Hanover 3-23-3 ICE 3 Trainset 3-43-4 Tractive Effort Curve and Resistances in Gradients 3-43-5 Configuration of ICE 3 400-m Trainset 3-53-6 Distributed Power Concept of the iCE 3 3-73-7 Train Speed Decreases on 3.5% Sustained Gradient 3-83-8 Train Speed Decreases on 5.0% Sustained Gradient 3-93-9 Class 101 Locomotive 3-11

4-1 Standard Track Layouts for Intermediate Stations 4-34.2 Schematic Diagram of the Cologne - Frankfurt / Main High-Speed Line 4-34-3 Typical Acceleration-Versus-Speed Diagram 4-44-4 Maximum Speed Profile Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-5

Phase 1 Report Page v jC010338

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor EvaluationI

List of Annexes

Annex No. Annex Title Pa_qe

4-1 ICE - Services (1998 / 1999) 4-16

4-2 Speed-Versus-Distance DiagramsLos Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-17

4-3 Comparison of Speed-versus-DistanceDiagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A 4-18

4-4 Speed Profile San Diego- San Francisco, Option B 4-19

4-5 Approximate Longitudinal Profile San Diego -San Francisco, Option B 4-19

4-6 Page 1 Simulation Results for the Direction San Diego -San Francisco, Option B (12 Hours) 4-20

4-6 Page 2 4-21

4-7 Page 1 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. 4-224-7 Page 2 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 8 a.m. to 12 noon 4-234-7 Page 3 Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 12 noon to 4 p.m. 4-24

4-8 Page 1 Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown inExhibit 5-4 and Appendix C (Option B) 4-25

4-8 Page 2 4-26

4-9 Running Performance of the Trains, Option B 4-27

4-10 Maximum Speed of Freight Trains in Gradients,Initial Speed 200 km/h 4-28

4-11 Approximate Calculation of Energy Consumption 4-29

I Phase 1 Report Page vi JC010339


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective

The objective of this Phase I peer review is focused on a critical assessment of the currentassumptions and parameters for planning, design and operation of a statewide high-speed railsystem in California. As one of three peer review groups, the German experts have furthermorebeen requested to contribute to this review the special ICE experience with "mixed-use"operations.

More specifically, the Authority has provided the Consultant with a list of 14 basic questions (aspresented in Table 1-1 ) the answers to which constitute the bulk of this assessment.

1.2 Reports and Data Used for the Review

The basis of this evaluation are the following documents and data compilations:

¯ Final Report, California High-Speed Corridor Evaluation, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff,December 30,1999

¯ Draft Business Plan "Building a High-Speed Train System for California", prepared by theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Authority, January 2000

¯ Maps of the alignment alternatives, and cost, travel time and alignment data supplied byParsons Brinckerhoff

In addition, specific data and information as requested by the Consultant during this assignmentwere utilized.

1.3 Structure of the Peer Review Process

In order to facilitate a structured review process, the wide range of issues and specific questionswere assigned to four task groups as shown below:

"Alignment and Permanent Way Design Criteria

¯ Design speed/horizontal curve radii¯ Superelevation (equilibrium and unbalanced)¯ Vertical curves¯ Transition curves¯ Minimum tangent length¯ Maximum gradients (3.5% and 5.0%)¯ Dynamic clearance envelope¯ Minimum clearances to fixed objects (horizontal and vertical)¯ Track centerline spacing

Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 1C010340


¯ Minimum right-of-way requirements¯ Special requirements for sub-standard curve radii¯ Permanent way dimensions (ballasted and direct fixation trackways)¯ German experience with ballasted versus direct fixation trackways¯ Overhead catenary system

Rolling Stock Issues

¯ Future ICE generations and operational speeds¯ Maximum sustained gradients for ICE¯ ICE acceleration and deceleration rates¯ ICE clearance and right-of-way requirements¯ Weight of ICE trainsets, axle loads¯ Comparison of ICE 1/2 (locomotive-hauled type) with ICE 3 (EMU type) trainsets¯ High-speed freight rolling stock (locomotives and wagons)¯ Rolling stock unit costs

Operations Issues

¯ Review of train running times and running time calculations for the section LA (UnionStation) - Fresno (including energy consumption per train run)

¯ Review of operations and comparison with similar operations in Germany (includingdwell times and schedule recovery times)

¯ Use of ICE trains by commuters; need for specialized commuter trains¯ Description and critical assessment of freight services on ICE lines¯ Assessment of freight compatibility of the California HSR system¯ Assessment of O&M cost estimates

Construction Unit Costs and Schedules

¯ Review of capital cost assumptions and comparison with ICE lines¯ Review of unit cost assumptions for appropriateness and completeness in view of

ICE experience¯ Planning and construction times for ICE lines in different terrain¯ Critical assessment of planning and construction times assumed for the California

HSR system

Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 2 JC010341


1.4 Structure of the Report

Following this introduction, the findings of our peer review are presented in four chapterscovering the above subjects.

The last chapter summarizes our key findings and conclusions.

1.5 Comments Received from Parsons Brinckerhoff

A draft of this report was reviewed by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), the firm responsible for thepreparation of the Corridor Evaluation Report. Their comments and our responses are includedin this final version at the appropriate sections; they are printed in italics.

[ Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 3 ]C010342


Table 1-1: List of Basic Questions to be Answered by the Peer Review

Each of these questions relates to the Parsons Brinckerhoff "Corridor Evaluation Final Report",December 1999. The most critical portion of your initial review would be Chapter I1: Assumptionsand Parameters.

1. It is anticipated that trains will travel at maximum operating speeds near 220 mph (350km/h). Is this a reasonable assumption for future versions of the ICE? Our constructionschedule assumes that the entire system would be operational by 2016, however segmentsmay be operating by 2010. When is it expected that the operational speeds of the ICE willexceed 200 mph (322 km/h)? When are ICE trains expected to operate at speeds of 220mph (350 km/h)?

2. Are the acceleration and deceleration design speeds shown for "VHS" on Exhibit 2-6consistent with those used for the ICE?

3. Are the horizontal and vertical alignment criteria shown (Exhibits 2-7 and 2-8) for "VHS"consistent with those used for the ICE?

4. What are the maximum gradients currently used for ICE trains? Is it appropriate to designfor maximum sustained gradients of 3.5% for ICE trains? Can ICE trains sustain gradientsup to 5.0% or higher?

5. Are the clearances and right-of-way requirements assumed (exhibit 2-9 and 2-10) consistentwith those used for the ICE?

6. Do the capital cost assumptions include all the appropriate elements used to construct ICElines?

7. Is the basic operating plan similar to the types of different services run on ICE lines? Whatsort of track configuration is needed to provide the ICE’s high-level of service (frequentservice, express, skip-stop, and local services)? How many tracks are needed at stations(intermediate and terminus stations)?

8. What are the dwell times at ICE stations? Does the ICE include "schedule recovery time"when estimating trip times (see page 11-17)?

9. What is the weight of the ICE trainsets? Is it possible to run ICE trainsets over the sametracks as conventional U.S. trains at reduced speeds? (see "Compatibility Issues" on pages11-19 - 11-21. This issue will be important over the next few years and should be discussed atour meeting on June 19th)

10. Are any freight services run over the ICE lines? If yes, then what types of freight and howmuch? If no, why isn’t freight run on ICE lines? Are the assumptions made for potentialfreight services consistent with the design and maintenance of the ICE (see "PotentialFreight Service" pages 11-22 and 11-23)?

11. Is the Example Operating Scenario (page V-5) consistent with ICE experience? What is theJapanese experience with commuters using the ICE service? Do commuters use regularICE trains or do separate specialized commuter trains run for short distances on the ICElines?

12. How long does it typically take to plan and construct an ICE line?13. Are the typical sections in Appendix "A" consistent with ICE design?14. Based on ICE experience, do the unit costs listed in Appendix "B" seem appropriate?

Source: Cafifornia High-Speed Rail Authority

[ Phase 1 Report Page 1 - 4C010343

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

2. ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT WAY DESIGN CRITERIA

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses and reviews the design parameters for the horizontal and verticalalignment as well as the clearances and standard cross sections used for the design of theCalifornia "VHS" system as presented in Chapter 2.2 - Design Parameters, and in Appendix A -Typical Cross Sections. The evaluation also took into account the following rules/regulations andrecommendations of:

¯ German Railway standard DS 800.0110 - Alignment¯ German Railway standard DS 800.0130 - Standard Cross Sections¯ UIC Leaflet 703 - Layout characteristics for lines used by fast passenger trains¯ UIC Leaflet 505 series - Definition and application of the kinematic gauges.

(UIC = International Union of Railways)

The values recommended in these documents are related to modern track design and the recentexperience on European railways. Furthermore, the California design parameters werecompared with those of HSR lines presently under construction and where DE-Consult staff isinvolved in various functions; these lines include:

¯ Cologne- Frankfurt/Main (Germany)¯ Taipei - Kaohsiung (Taiwan)¯ Seoul- Pusan (Korea).

Since conventional, heavy freight traffic is not planned for the California HSR system, thecompliance of the design parameters with the relevant FRA standards has not been considered.Many parameters in the Corridor Evaluation Report were indicated in Imperial units and had tobe converted to metric units which in some instances resulted in slight differences due torounding.

2.2 Alignment Design Parameters

2.2.1 Design Speed

The design speed is the determining parameter for the alignment and affects the costs for theconstruction as well as for the operation of the system. The chosen 200 mph (350 km/h)corresponds with the design speed for most HSR lines presently under construction or plannedfor the near future in Europe and Asia.

Due to the restricted conditions and due to environmental considerations in urban areas, thedesign speed in these route sections has been limited to 125 mph (200 km/h) which alsocorresponds to prevailing practices in most HSR countries.

Phase 1 Report Page 2- 1 ]C010344


2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment

Actual Superelevation

Basically, the horizontal alignment consist of tangents and curves. A vehicle running in a curveundergoes a lateral acceleration which results in:

¯ passenger discomfort¯ wear of rails and wheel flanges¯ lateral forces on track and substructure.

Superelevation of the outside rail in curves limits these effects and compensates entirely orpartly the lateral acceleration by the force of gravity. The maximum, actual superelevationproposed for this California project is 7" (178 mm). If applied to ballasted tracks, this value israther high when compared with other systems. For example, the German regulation DS800.0110 allows only 180 mm under exceptional conditions and only for slab tracks. Forballasted tracks, the actual superelevation should be limited to 160 mm.

Unbalanced Superelevation

The remaining (uncompensated) lateral acceleration experienced by passengers should notexceed 1.0 - 1.5 m/s2. Under consideration of the inclination of the car body, the lateralacceleration at track level should be 20 - 25 % lower. The resulting 0.8 - 1.2 m/s2 are equivalentto an unbalanced superelevation of 120 - 180 mm. The value indicated under the Californiadesign parameters for maximum unbalanced superelevation is 5" (127 mm) and is close to thelower limit of this recommendation as well as to the German regulation DS 800.0110 (130 mm).

Curve Radius

On the basis of the values for the actual and unbalanced superelevations and the design speed,the minimum radius can be determined as follows:

Rmin = 11.8 * V~/(Ea + Eu) where: Rmin [m] - minimum radiusV [km/h] - design speedEa [mm] - actual superelevationEu [mm] - unbalanced superelevation

This results in:Rmin --- 4,740 m @ 350 km/hRmin = 1,550 m @ 200 km/h

The absolute minimum radius as indicated in the Corridor Evaluation Report is given with 200 m.That value is determined by the rolling stock used. At the German Railway, all vehicle must beable to run at a radius of 150 m in revenue operations and 120 m in yards and shops (non-revenue operations). The manufacturers of the German ICE have stated that a further, slightreduction of these radii may be possible through special modifications of the rolling stock. Theminimum radius will determine the type of turnouts and the track layout in depots and yards. It is

~phase 1 Report Page 2 - 2C010345


recommended to cross check these values with the requirements of the rolling stock underconsideration.

Transition Curves

Transition curves are used between curves and tangents or between two adjacent curves toallow gradual changes in:

¯ curvature,¯ superelevation, and¯ uncompensated lateral acceleration.

Although not specified in the California study, it is assumed that transition curves with a linearchange of curvature (clothoide) will be applied. The length of the transition curve is determinedby the superelevation, the uncompensated lateral acceleration or by the absolute minimumlength due to the characteristics of the rolling stock. The value which indicates the greatestlength has be used.

The rate of change for lateral acceleration experienced by passengers should not exceed 0.5 -0.8 m/s3. As mentioned above, the rate of change at track level should be 20 - 25 % lower due tothe inclination of the car body. The resulting 0.4 - 0.6 m/s3 are equivalent to a rate of change forunbalanced superelevation of 60 - 90 mm/s. With regard to the rate of change for unbalancedsuperelevation, the required minimum length of the transition curve as presented in the CorridorEvaluation Report is determined by the following design parameters

Lmin = 0.98 * V * Eu where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transitionV [mph] - design speedEu [inch] - unbalanced superelevation

This corresponds to a rate of change is 38 mm/s. This value is quiet below the permitted limitsand thus should not have any negative effects on passenger comfort.

The in- or decrease of superelevation in transition curves causes a rotation of the vehicle andshould be limited to 35 - 50 mm/s. The required minimum length of the transition curve due tothe superelevation (as indicated in the California study) was calculated under consideration ofthe following design parameters:

Lmin = 1.38 * V * Ea where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transitionV [mph] - design speedEa [inch] - actual superelevation

The equivalent change of superelevation is 27 mm/s, which is below the permitted limits.

The absolute minimum length is dictated by the rate of change for the superelevation asrestricted by the maximum, acceptable value for vehicle suspension:


[ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]

Lmin : 62 * Ea where: Lmin [feet] - required length of transitionEa [inch] - superelevation

This is equivalent to a rate of change of 1 mm at 744 mm. This value will be relevant only atspeeds below 100 km/h. The corresponding value for the German Railway is 1/600.

Length of Tangents and Curves

Passengers experience different lateral accelerations while the vehicle is running through curvesand tangents. In order to minimize passenger discomfort, the lateral acceleration should notchange for a certain time. Recommended is a running time of at least 1.5 s per element. Theminimum lengths for curves and tangents indicated in the Corridor Evaluation Report areidentical with this value.

It should be noticed that this criterion is not relevant for the safety of operations (except for tiltingtrains, which - to our knowledge - have not been considered for the California system) and maybe increased due to economic or topographic reasons, if justified.

2.2.3 Vertical Alignment

Maximum Gradients

The California design parameters indicate an absolute maximum gradient of 5 % and 3.5 % asdesirable maximum. In the Corridor Evaluation Report, alternative alignments with 3.5 % havebeen developed for all 5 % sections. Most operational HSR systems in Europe and Asia havemaximum gradients between 3.5 and 4.0 %; nevertheless, a gradient of 5 % is technicallyfeasible. In the subsequent chapters "Rolling Stock Issues" and "Operations Issues", this matteris being discussed in more detail. The maximum gradient of 0.25 % for stations is inconformance with international practice. For safety reasons, yards, depots and workshopsshould be designed on flat terrain, i.e., 0 %.

Vertical Curves

The change in gradients is accommodated by vertical curves. While running through the verticalcurve the vehicle undergoes a vertical acceleration which influences passenger comfort. Inaddition, in crests the vertical acceleration reduces the vertical load on the wheels, which mayhave influence on the wheel-rail contact. The recommended limit for vertical acceleration isbetween 0.2 m/s2 and 0.4 m/s2. The values used in the Corridor Evaluation Report areequivalent to 0.2 m/s~ for crests and 0.3 m/s~ for sags. The absolute minimum radius for verticalcurves irrespective of the design speed should not be less than 2000 m.

As mentioned under the section on the horizontal alignment, the vehicle should run for a certaintime between different alignment elements. The indicated minimum and desirable lengths areequivalent to 1.5 and 3.0 seconds. At a change of gradient less than 0.3 %, the requiredminimum length would result in large radii. Under consideration of the difficulty to build and



maintain vertical curves with large radii, the requirement to provide the above minimum lengthbetween different alignment elements can be waived.

2.2.4 Summary of Alignment Design Parameters

Table 2 - 1 presents a summary of the key alignment design parameters included in theCalifornia Corridor Evaluation Report as well as a direct comparison with the correspondingvalues (where available) of the German standards, the recommendations of the UIC, and newHSR lines presently under construction or in the final design stage in Germany, Korea andTaiwan.


C010349

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]

2.3 Gauges and Clearances

2.3.1 Kinematic Envelope

The kinematic envelope is related to the track alignment and covers the most outside position ofthe various parts of a train running at design speed under normal operating conditions. Thekinematic envelope has to take into account the maximum admissible tolerances forconstruction, maintenance and wear of the rolling stock as well as of the track.

New HSR lines should consider the kinematic envelope "GC" as defined by the UIC. Thisenvelope covers mixed traffic operation up to 300 km/h and dedicated passenger train operationof 350 km/h. It is also suitable for double deck coaches.

In the Corridor Evaluation Report it is not explicitly indicated which envelope was used. but fromthe typical cross sections of the Report, it can be derived that these comply with therequirements of the envelope "GC".

2.3.2 Structure Clearances

Whereas the kinematic envelope defines the most outside position of parts of the train, thestructure clearance defines the limit into which no part of any structures or fixed equipment maypenetrate. In addition to the requirements of the kinematic envelope, the effects fromunbalanced superelevation (positive or negative) greater than 50 mm as well as a safetytolerance must be considered. This safety tolerance is not defined by the UIC and must be fixedunder consideration of the specific operating conditions as well as the construction andmaintenance standards of the project. Special provisions must be allowed for platform edges,screen doors at platform edges (if any) and any guard rails.

At the end of this chapter, the structure clearances related to the kinematic envelope "GC" asused by the German Railway for new lines, are shown graphically (see Figure 2-1). It is obviousthat these clearances were also considered in the California HSR study.

2.3.3 Overhead Catenary System

The needs of the pantograph and electrical danger zone need to be added to the kinematicenvelope. The dimension of the required space depends on the type of catenary used. ForGerman HSR lines, the height of contact wire is stipulated with 5.30 m above top of rail. Theclearance height required for the catenary system is between 7.40 - 7.90 m above track level. Itmay be reduced for tunnels and underpasses to 6.70 - 7.40 m. In the cross sections of theCorridor Evaluation Report, these requirements are adhered to.

2.3.4 Track Centerline Spacing

Basically, the distance between two adjacent tracks is determined by the addition of the relevantenvelopes. Following UIC, the distance may be reduced assuming that any rolling stock andtrack failures may not happen at the same time in both tracks. On the other hand, provisionsmust be made for the aerodynamic effects caused by high speed traffic.

[ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 7 IC010350


The first HSR lines built in the 80s by the German Railway had a track centerline distance of4.70 m. The experience with these lines, actually operated with a maximum speed of 280 km/hand mixed traffic, have led to a reduction to 4.50 m for the new HSR lines. For new HSR linesdedicated for passenger traffic with 350 km/h, the French Railway uses a track spacing of4.50 m. The HSR line in Korea has a track centerline distance of 5.0 m. The track spacing of4.70 m for the California HSR system may thus be assumed to be on the conservative (safe)side. It should be investigated if a reduction of the track distance in urban areas where thedesign speed does not exceed 200 km/h has a significant influence on the construction costs. Instations, yards and generally in turnout areas, the track spacing should not be less than 4.50 m.

2.3.5 Cross Sections

The width of the track way is determined by the track spacing, the danger zone and the width ofthe lateral walkway. Furthermore, space needs to be provided for signals, power supply, cableducts and drainage. Typical cross sections of the German Railway Standard DS 600.0130 areattached (see Figures 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4). Compared with the previous German standard crosssections, the total width was reduced slightly due to the placement of the catenary poles outsidethe track way on the slopes of cuts and fills.

Bridges

As for the at-grade sections, the minimum width for bridges is determined by the track spacing,the danger zone and the width of the lateral walkway. Additional provisions must be made forcatenary poles, cable ducts, any noise barriers and for bridge inspection installations. The crosssection shown in the Corridor Evaluation Report is very similar to the cross section used forGerman HSR lines.

Tunnels

The tunnel cross section depends, as far as the width is concerned, on the requirements ofstructure gauge, track spacing, safety space, and lateral walkways. In addition, spaceallowances must be made for cable ducts, catenary, and drainage. The tunnel net cross sectionsmust be checked for the aerodynamic requirements related to the maximum operating speed.For new double-track tunnels for 300 km/h traffic, the German Railway provides a net crosssection above rail level of 92 - 100 m2. For 350 km/h traffic, the French Railway provides 110 m2and the HSR line in Korea 100 m2. The cross sections indicated in the California report have anet cross section of 90 - 100 m2. With regard to the more favorable construction costs, usuallydouble-track tunnels will be preferred instead of two single-track tunnels. However, geologicalproblems as well as safety considerations may favor single-track tunnels.

Right-of-Way

In addition to the track way, the right-of-way width has to include space required for drainage,any slopes for cuts and fills, any noise barrier, facilities for signaling and power supply, serviceroads and fences (see Figure 2-5). In sections where the HSR line is located adjacent to existingroads or railway lines, protective installations must be considered. Where required, provisions

[ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 8 }C010351


should be made for space for maintenance work and machines, and utility lines. At the entranceof tunnels and at abutments of longer bridges or viaducts, additional space for maintenance andevacuation requirements has to be considered.

2.3.6 Permanent Way

The minimum height of the ballasted track at the rail should be 0.76 m resulting from:

¯ Rail UIC 60 (17cm),¯ Concrete sleeper with resilient pad (24 cm), and¯ 35 cm ballast.

The thickness of the sub-ballast layer depends on the specific subsoil conditions. For gooddrainage of rain water, the sub-ballast should have an inclination of at least 5 %. Where theballast is placed directly on structures, e.g., bridges and tunnels, the total height should be0.39 m resulting in a total height of 0.80 m. The width of the ballast shoulder should be 0.50 mwith 2.60-m sleepers and 0.45 m with 2.80-m sleepers. The height of the slab track depends onthe type used and varies between 0.50 - 0.70 m.

2.3.7 Ballast versus Slab Track

On the first HSR lines built in the 80s by the German Railway, ballasted track was used almostentirely. Only some tunnel sections and bridges were provided with slab track. After severalyears of high-speed operation on these lines, the ballast in sections with rigid underground(especially tunnels and bridges) is partly crushed and has caused significant maintenance workto reestablish the original track geometry. Based on this experience, longer sleepers withreduced pressure on the ballast and softer resilient pads were developed and are now beingused. The HSR line Cologne - Frankfurt/Main, which passes through a mountainous region witha high percentage of tunnels and bridges, will be provided with slab track except on sectionswhere settlements have to be expected. The higher noise level, caused by the more rigidwheel/rail system and the concrete track bed, will be reduced by lateral noise barriers and coverplates.

The main problem of the slab track is the construction of a precise track geometry. Differenttypes of slab track designs with sleepers or with direct fastenings were developed. At present,the most favorabte design with regard to the construction process and the track geometry is amodified version of the type "Rheda". However, recent advances of the direct-fixationconstruction type are very promising.

Figure 2 - 6 shows a typical slab track cross-section. This type is used for the HSR line Hanover- Berlin which is designed for 300 km/h, but presently operated at 280 km/h only. It is also thebasic type of slab track design for the 300-km/h HSR line Cologne - Frankfurt/Main, scheduled tocommence operations in 2002.

Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 9C010352


2.4 Summary

The key purpose of the California HSR Corridor Evaluation study is the evaluation of differentline alternatives based on technically feasible solution and on a realistic cost calculation. Withregard to this aim, the design parameters used are suitable and comply with the requirementsfor an HSR system for a design speed of 350 km/h.

Not specified are the relevant dimensions for station platforms and platform access, specialrequirements and protective measures for line sections parallel to existing roads or railways, andrescue/evacuation provisions in tunnels and on long bridges. Since these requirements are verysimilar to the various alternatives under investigation, they may not influence the relative meritsof these options, but could very well affect the overall costs of the alignment alternatives.

In selecting the final design parameters during the up-coming project phase, the pro’s and con’sof opting for minimum versus more generous alignment and permanent way design parametersshould be carefully weighed, particularly with regard to their impacts on:

¯ Wear of permanent way and rolling stock¯ Maintenance requirements and costs¯ Passenger discomfort¯ Options for future improvements.

At the outset of the project phase, the alignment design parameters and cross sections shouldbe reviewed under consideration of the operationions, safety and rescue concept.

[ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 10C010353


Figure 2 - 1 : Structure Clearance GC for r ¯ 250 m(German Railway DS 800.0130)

Continuous Main Line TracksI All other Tracks

4 900

3 050

= ; 2 500I1

~ 1 200

760 I

1 275 1 275 so

May be used between main tracks for installations for signaling,powersupply and lighting

(~) May be used for platforms, ramps, shunting - and signaling installatIons



Figure 2-2: Cross Section at GradeBallasted Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)

I

ClearanceCable Duct Lateral Walkway

Danger Space)---Zone 3.0 m

Top of

~"

3°25---------- ,.~ 2.80 ~ 1)~" 0,50


German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation1

Figure 2 - 3: Cross Section at GradeSlab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)

IStructuie ~ Lateral WalkwayNoise I Clearance ~(Safety Space)Absorber "--~

~_.} ~

~oanneg~i0 m l~y~ i CoverCable Duct

"~-~" ,,’ E~--.. -~--- ~,s~, .~ t- . , ,_,- .y~,s,S~ -. -.~ L

0,05 \ Fleece (Geo Textile)------------ 3,65 ---

3,80 ~ 4.50 _~t~ 3,00 ~-~

12,10

HGT - Hydraulicly stabilized LayerFSS - Sub-Ballast

1) - In Cut Sect=ons, it may be suitable to raise the Walkway2) - Construction He=ght (h,) 0.50 - 0.70 m, depends on selected Type

[ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 13 ]C010356


Figure 2 - 4 Trench SectionSlab Track (German Railway DS 800.0130)

Lateral Walkway(Safety Space)

Cable Duct

3,00 4,50 ,-,’, 3,00 - - ,i

~ f,55 = ! 9,00 ---,~- t,55--,-

-- 12,10 ,-

1 ) - Construction Height (hk) 0.50 - 0.70 m, depends on selected Type

[ Phase 1 Draft Report Page 2 - 14C010357


Figure 2 - 5: Provisions for Right of Way(German Railway DS 800.0130)

In Cut Sections: In Cut-and-Fill Sections:

aK, 3.0 m for non cohesive material ho2.0m: t=1.5 *ho 0.2maK * 5.0 m for cohesive material h >2.0 m: t = 3.0 m



Figure 2 - 6 Typical Cross-Section of Slab Track(System Rheda)

3200

2800

Drainage .... Sleeper W301-60¯ Longitudinal Reinforcement Bitumen;~-~ Transverse Reinforcement f- Asphalt Concrete

Ballast --~’k\ Filling (Concrete)t:,;;~7.~. J ...... Filling (Gravel)

Transverse Reinforcement

--- Longitudin’al Reinforce~m{nt

3800

HGT - Hydrauhcly stabihzed Layer


I German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

3. ROLLING STOCK ISSUES

3.1 Introduction

As part of this peer review, the Authority has requested to respond to a series of questionsrelated to the performance characteristics of the German "lnterCityExpress" (ICE) trains, such asdimensions, weight/axle loads, maximum speed, acceleration/deceleration rates, maximumgradients and unit costs. Furthermore, a comparison of the different power distribution concepts(distributed versus concentrated) has been called for.

Since the first test runs of the ICE/V (ICE Experimental) in 1985, the ICE train system hasundergone continuous improvement and further development of new models. As of today, thethird generation of the ICE technology is in operation and the next generation is already in thedesign phase.

Because the various trainset models are distinguished by different design and performancecharacteristics, a brief description of the relevant features of these train types is presented first,followed by a comparison of the two power distribution concepts. This chapter also includes anoverview of available high-speed freight rolling stock.

3.2 Current ICE Train Types in Operation

3.2.1 ICE 1

The ICE 1 which entered revenue service in 1991 is a trainset with two powered end cars and upto 14 trailer cars. 60 units of this "locomotive"-hauled train type (also referred to as CPT -Concentrated Power Train) with a maximum operational speed of 280 km/h (maximum designspeed = 310 km/h) were ordered by the German Railway.

The unit investment costs per trainset were about 57 (13 coaches) to 60 (14 coaches) millionDM in the year 1991.

3.2.2 ICE 2

Studies of the traffic density in the expanded high-speed railway network in Germany hadrevealed that shorter trainsets can improve load factors on certain routes as well as reduce therequired number of vehicles. This has led to the development of a half-train with couplingcapabilities, consisting of 1 power car + 6 trailer cars + 1 driving trailer, capable of forming anextended train configuration with two coupled half trains or with 1 power car + maximum 13trailer cars + 1 power car as shown in concept in Figure 3 - 1.

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-1 JC010360


Figure 3 - 1: Configuration of an ICE 2 385-m Version

+11+

The styling of the ICE 2 (see Figure 3 - 2) is virtually identical with the ICE 1.

Figure 3 - 2: ICE 2 Trainset on the New High Speed Line Berlin - Hanover

The total length of an ICE 2 in the 13-car version is 385 meters, of which the two power cars,each with a length of 20.3 m, make up 11 percent of the total train length. The ICE 2 longversion can accommodate a maximum of 927 seats, 255 of which, or 28%, are located in fivefirst class coaches.

The design speed of this CPT-type train is 310 km/h and the maximum operational speed is setat 280 km/h. The train is operating on high-speed lines with a maximum gradient of 1.25 % andon existing lines with gradients up to 2.8 % at lower speeds.

One pair of power cars of the fleet has been equipped with modified gearboxes for use in a testtrain with a maximum speed of 400 km/h.

Forty-four ICE 2 200-m half trains are in operation since 1997. The unit investment cost per 7-coach trainset amounted to about 35 million DM in that year.

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-2 ]C010361


3.2.3 ICE 3

The further development of the ICE trains was based on design requirements which stemmedfrom the expansion of the German high-speed system and the European HSR network. Thedemands which had the greatest influence on the ICE design were:

¯ More traction power for a maximum running speed of 330 km/h and a maximum grade of4.0 %, and

¯ Maximum static axle load of 17 t.

Despite the ~imitation of axle loads to 17 t, a simuffaneous increase in traction power for a topspeed of 330 km/h and continued successes in the field of lightweight vehicle construction, theconcept of a power car-hauled train which concentrates its tractive effort among a few drivingaxles soon came under technical scrutiny.

A comparison of power car-hauled and multiple-unit (distributed power) train formations drewattention to the following advantages, which tipped the scales in favor of the multiple-unitconcept:

¯ Greater seating capacity at the same length of train,¯ More uniform distribution of weight in the train,¯ Lower weight per seat,¯ Better traction response with lower adhesion stress,¯ Higher proportion of dynamically braked axles and¯ Lower static axle load.

All of these design factors culminated in a further model - the ICE 3 multiple-unit train (alsoreferred to as DPT - Distributed Power Train) as shown in Figure 3 - 3.

The design speed of the ~CE 3 train is 365 km/h at level track and 330 km/h is the maximumoperational speed. The train is specially designed for use on the new high-speed line Cologne -Frankfurt/Main with gradients of up to 4%. Figure 3 - 4 shows the ability of the train to start andrun even on a 5-% gradient.

Thirty-seven such trainsets were taken into revenue service on the German Railway network in2000 with the start of the EXPO World Exhibition.

The seat capacity per 8-coach unit is 418 seats including the dining car seats and theinvestment costs per trainset were about 37 million DM in 1999.

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-3 IC010362


Figure 3 - 3: ICE 3 Trainset

Figure 3 - 4: Tractive Effort Curve and Resistances in Gradients

ICE 3 - 400 m Trainset

700

5O0

[ Resistance300 ~ in 3.5 % Grade ~

200

100

o I0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 300 350

S~d [km~]

Phase 1 Report Page 3-4 JC010363


A 400-m long ICE 3 trainset can be formed from two half train sets or by assembling 14 coachesplus the end cars. The main advantages of a long trainset compared with two coupled half-trainsets are:

¯ Increased seat capacity - only two driver cabins instead four ~n case of the half trains,¯ Reduced noise emission - current collection with only one pantograph,¯ Reduced aerodynamic resistance - no gap in the middle of the train and only one pantograph

active.

The long train consists of 16 cars with a total length of 398 meters (see also Figure 3 - 5). Thelength of both driver cabs amounts to only about 9 meters or 2% of the total train length.Maximum seating capacity would be 1,124, of which 300 (27%) would be located in 6 first-classcars.

Figure 3 - 5: Configuration of ICE 3 400-m Trainset

+12+ ................

3.2.4 ICE-T

The current fleet of conventional InterCity (IC) trains will be due for replacement in the next fewyears and the German Railway intends to take the opportunity to enhance the appeal of thismarket segment. Market surveys revealed that only vehicles with tilting technology and highertractive effort could stimulate the desired increase in ridership. Thus, the technical choice hasfallen on an electric multiple unit (EMU) with an active body tilting mechanism - the ICE-T withdistributed power. That train operates predominantly on existing routes in hilly terrain with amaximum operational speed of 230 km/h. 32 7-car and 11 5-car tilting EMUs were put intorevenue service starting in 1999.

3.3 Future ICE Developments

3.3.1 Future Maximum Speeds in Germany

Due to mainly economic reasons, an increase of maximum operational speeds beyond 300 -320 km/h is not planned in Germany. The average distance between stations is around 90 kmdue to the typical polycentric urbanization pattern of the country. Under this condition, anincrease in top speeds beyond the above maximum is not considered to be economicallywarranted nor effective to increase ridership measurably. Higher operational speeds would:

¯ require longer acceleration distances to reach top speed and longer deceleration distancesrespectively. For example, an ICE 3 needs 18.1 km to reach 300 km/h; a DPT400(presented in Chapter 3.3.4) has been calculated to require 17.3 km to reach 300 km/h and

Phase 1 Report Page 3-5C010364

[German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

35.8 km to attain 350 km/h on level track; the corresponding braking distances of thesetrains are 7.1 km from 300 km/h and 8.2 km from 350 km/h

¯ result in higher energy consumption due to increased aerodynamic resistance at higherspeeds

¯ result in higher rolling stock investment costs due to higher installed traction power

¯ necessitate higher infrastructure costs due to a more generous alignment design (largercurve radii) and power supply

¯ lead to higher noise emissions and related higher costs for mitigating measures.

3.3.2 ICE 4

German Railways tries to increase the passenger capacity in several relations and hasinvestigated the technical feasibility of introducing DPT-type units with wider coaches foroperation on selected lines (with an additional seat in each row: 2 by 2 in the first class and 3 by2 in the second one, resulting in a 20-% capacity increase compared to the ICE 3) or CPT-typedouble-deck trainsets. In both cases, the maximum speed would not be increased comparedwith those of the ICE 2 or ICE 3 trainsets. As of today, no decision has been reached on whetherthis train will be ordered or not.

3.3.3 HTE

In 2000, the French and German Railways entered into an agreement to build an innovative,future-oriented trainset, the "High-speed Train of Europe" (HTE), incorporating the different linesof development of the ICE and TGV technologies. Other railways will be invited to join theproject at a later time. At present, it is envisioned that the top operational speed of that train willbe around 320 km/h, with a total installed power of about 13 MW. The train is intended tooperate on gradients of up to 4%. A production date has not been set yet.

3.3.4 DPT 400

Although the ICE fleet in Germany is not intended to operate commercially at speeds above300 km/h in the foreseeable future, the German ICE manufacturers are offering modifiedversions with top operational speeds of 350 km/h in other countries. Tests of speeds up to400 km/h are already being performed in Germany. To achieve a design speed of 385 km/h(which corresponds to a maximum operational speed of 350 km/h), only minor modifications ofthe ICE 3 are required. This increase of speed necessitates an increase of the tractive power byabout 10% and a change of the gear ratio. In order to stay within the same weight anddimensions of the traction motors, the maximum tractive effort is reduced by about 10%.



The performance characteristics of this DPT-type trainset have been used for running timecalculations of the California HSR system as presented in Chapter 4.

3.4 Comparison of CPT-type ICE 2 with DPT-type ICE 3

3.4.1 Technical Comparison

To allow a direct comparison of these train types, the 400-m long versions have been used forthis analysis.

The locomotive-type ICE 2 consists of two power heads (concentrated power system train -CPT) and 13 passenger coaches as described before. Each power head has a length of around20 m. Therefore, about 40 m or 11% of the length of the train cannot be used for passengeraccommodation. In case of the EMU-type ICE 3 (distributed power system train - DPT), thepower system is distributed throughout the trainset underneath the passenger compartments.Here, only 9 m of the total length (2% of train length) are used for the two driver cabs of the train.This equals an increase in capacity of 60 to 70 seats or approx. 8%.

A second advantage of the EMU-type train is the higher number of driven axles. This results in alower necessary friction coefficient between wheel and rail which in turn maintains trainacceleration performance and climbing capability at very high speed and under adverse weatherconditions.

The distribution of driven axles of the DPT-type ICE 3 is shown in Figure 3 - 6.

Figure 3 - 6: Distributed Power Concept of the ICE 3

End car Transformer car CorNerter car Traik~" car

O0 ~00©© ~ ©©00 ~-~ 00©© ©©

2 wheel-mounted brake discs pe~ axle

2 brake discs per axle,2 linear eddy-current brake magnets per bogie

Traction ~3~v~rtef

Tra,’~formar

An other important factor to be considered is the ratio of 8 to 32 driven axles (CPT- versus DPT-type). In case of failure of one drive unit, the loss of tractive power is four times less on the ICE 3in comparison with the ICE 2.



The maximum gradient a train can operate on depends on the transmittable, tractive effortinstalled in the train. The maximum achievable speed in steep and long gradients dependsmostly on the total power output. Figure 3 - 7 shows the maximum speed in a 3.5-% gradient.The initial speed is the individual maximum speed of each train.

Especially in the very steep gradient of 5.0% (see Figure 3 - 8), the high tractive effort of theICE 3 results in the highest constant speed, not the higher power output of the DPT 400 trainset.

These two charts clearly demonstrate the superior climbing capability of the DPT-technology.

Concerning maintenance of the power units, the locomotive-type trainset is easier to work onbecause of fewer drive units and their more accessible, concentrated location.

In view of the spatial limitations, it is not feasible to design a double-deck train of the EMU type.

Figure 3 - 7: Train Speed Decreases on 3.5-% Sustained Gradient

Maximum Speed of High Speed Trains in a 3.5 % GradeInitial Speed equal to Maximum Train Speeds

35O

300

25O

72oo DPT 400

ICE 1

100

5O

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Chainage [km]

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-8 JC010367


Figure 3 - 8: Train Speed Decreases on 5.0-% Sustained Gradient

Maximum Speed of High Speed Trains in a 5 % GradeInitial Speed equal to Maximum Train Speeds

350

300

250

~ 200

~150

ICE 3

100-~ DPT 400,

0 ,0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Chainage [km]

3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison

The absolute investment share of life cycle costs (LCC) is about the same for the 400-m longversions of the ICE 2 and ICE 3 trainsets. The investments for both types of trains underconsideration only make up slightly more than 20% of the total life cycle costs. The absolutepeak for the ICE 3 lies at 1.18 times of the comparable ICE 2 trainset. However, the specific lifecycle costs per seat are about 8% ~ower for the EMU-type train. The prevailing conditions in theGerman long-distance rail network with its high percentage of existing lines was the basis for theannual operating performance of the trains.

For the planned high-speed rail network in California, one must assume a higher mean speedand consequently a greater annual operating performance with a comparable number ofoperating hours. Higher absolute life cycle costs would result for both trains, but they definitelywould be lower when related to running kilometers.

3.4.3 Summary of Relevant Technical Characteristics of ICE Trainsets

The following Table 3 - 1 presents a summary of the most relevant design and performancecharacteristics of the various German ICE types in operation.

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-9C010368


Table 3 - 1: Summary of Technical Performance Characteristics of ICE Trainsets

Un=t Price Max.- I Weight Length W~dth Height Axle Load Power Seats Cars perSpeed (tons) Tra=nset

Name Type Year M=II km/h loaded m max m max. m max t avg t kW 1st 2nd TotalIDM

ICE 1 Loco 1991 60 280 952 411 3.07 3.84 19.5 14.8 9600 192 567 759 16ICE 2 Loco 1997 35 280 445 231 3.07 3.84 19.0 13.9 4800 108 362 470 8ICE 3 EMU 1998 31 330 455 200 2.95 3.84 15.0 14.2 8000 146 255 401 8ICE T(7) EMU 1998 25 230 390 185 2.85 3.84 16.0 16.0 4000 63 309 372 7ICE T(5) EMU 1998 18 230 300 132 2.85 3.84 16.0 16.0 3000 41 212 253 5

3.5 Acceleration Rates

In Table 3 - 2, the acceleration rates stipulated for VHS trains in Exhibit 2-6 of the CorridorEvaluation Report have been compared with the accelerations of the ICE 1, ICE 3 and DPT 400.For reference, the acceleration rates of the TGV trains for the Korean high-speed line areincluded in the comparison, too. The comparison shows very clearly that the values of Exhibit 2-6 are in a reasonable order in the lower speed range, but are considerably too high in the speedrange from 200 km/h to 350 km/h. It is also physically impossible to have the same accelerationrates in the speed ranges 200-300 km/h and 300-350 km/h.

Table 3 - 2: Acceleration Rates of High-Speed Trainsets

Speed range Acceleration rates

Values VHS ICE 1 (ICE 2) ICE 3 DPT 400 TGV Korea[km/h] [mph]in Exhibit 2-6 max. 280 km/h max 330 km/h max 350 km/h max 300 km/h

from to from to [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s] [km/h/s]0 100 0 62 2,1 1,3 2,1 1,6 1,5

100 200 62 124 1,6 0,7 1,3 1,3 1,2200 300 124 186 1,0 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,4300 350 186 218 1,0 0,1 0,2 0,1

3.6 High-Speed Freight Rolling Stock

At present, German Railway provides a special, high-speed freight service in collaboration withthe Parcel Services of German Mail. The trains are operating during night time betweenHamburg and Munich via Nuremberg covering a one-way distance of about 800 km at a topspeed of 160 km/h. Locomotives and wagons which are in use for high-speed freight operationsin Germany are presented below.

3.6.1 Locomotives

For high-speed freight trains, the German Railway uses the Class 101 locomotive which canachieve a maximum speed of 220 km/h, with 6.6 MW power output, 21 metric tons axle load and300 kN starting tractive effort.

I Phase 1 Report Page 3-10C010369


The locomotives are used during day time for hauling conventional, long-distance passengertrains of German Railway’s InterCity service.

The unit cost of one engine is about 6.5 million DM.

The Class 101 locomotive is shown in Figure 3 - 9.

Figure 3 - 9: Class 101 Locomotive

3.6.2 Wagons

The cars used are the standard container cars of the type Sgss-y 703. They are equipped with amodified and improved disc brake system and yaw dampers to increase the speed from 120km/h of regular freight trains to 160 km/h.

One unit costs about 170,000 DM.

3.7 Summary

The Corridor Evaluation Report does not include a general technical description of candidatetechnologies. Some of the train data are in part inconsistent; for example, the acceleration ratesshown for higher speeds are far too high.

Alignments with sustained gradients of 3.5% and even 5.0% are possible, but require thedeployment of EMU-type trainsets (with distributed power) with high power output and tractiveeffort.



It may be prudent to re-assess the requirement to design the California HSR system for a topspeed of 350 km/h under consideration of the economics of operations and maintenance, traveltime savings, environmental impacts, and investment costs for infrastructure and rolling stock.



4. OPERATIONS ISSUES

4.1 General

This chapter reviews and discusses the operational issues, such as track plans, running times,timetables, commuter service, freight services, and operations and maintenance cost estimatesaddressed in the Corridor Evaluation report in Chapter 2 "Assumptions and Parameters",Chapter 5 "Operating Strategy Development" and the relevant Appendices C, F, I and J1.

At first glance, the operational issues addressed in the report seem complete and there are nomajor issues missing except the operational infrastructure layout, i.e., number and location oftracks and turnouts in the stations. The lack of this information, however, is compensated for bya 15 % surcharge on the track costs, which can be considered to be an adequate value.

However, some of the information contained in the report is somewhat inconsistent or notplausible:

¯ The high-speed train is not completely described; neither traction performance norpassenger capacity nor train length are clearly defined. On page 11-8, a 400-m train with 10cars is mentioned which implies 40-m cars, which is simply impossible.2

¯ The spare ratio for the trainsets is given with 10 % on Page 11-12 and 20% on page V-12.Parsons Brinckerhoff pointed out that the first va/ue refers to the HSR system, the secondone to the commuter services. However, there is no reason to provide this higher spare ratiofor the commuter trains. Commuter trains are less sophisticated in design and constructionthan high-speed trains and their wear during service is lower. Therefore, no higher spareratio is required.The speed-versus-distance graph in Exhibit 2-12 shows apparently not the present corridor.The station distances shown differ substantially from the actual ones in some cases3 and thetypical speed drop on the steep grades of the Tehachapi Mountains between Santa Claritaand Bakersfield are missing. (However, it is understood that this exhibit was not prepared bythe authors of the Corridor Evaluation Report and was not used in subsequent analyses.)

¯ There is a general inconsistency of chainage in the available information (report, plans andalignment data files). According to Exhibit 4-19 and Appendix I, the distance between SanDiego and San Francisco is 949 km for Option A and 850 km for option B; the correspondingdistances are 955 and 878 km in Appendix F and 958 and 894 km according to the plansand alignment data files supplied to us.

¯ The Revised Conceptual Service Plans in Appendix C represent different scenarios for thenorthbound and southbound directions. For example, there are 48 northbound departures inSan Diego and 18 arrivals in Sacramento, whereas there are 36 departures in Sacramentoand 53 arrivals in San Diego. The service patterns shown in these plans are somewhatdifferent to those of the Example Weekday Train Schedule in Exhibit 5-4 and Appendix C.

1 In this peer review chapter, the words "Appendix" and "Exhibit" always refer to the Corridor Evaluation report.

2 Width restrictions in curves would lead to a car width near zero. Usual car lengths are around 20 rn for the TGV type

and around 25 rn for the Shinkansen, ICE and Acela type resulting in 16 to 20 cars for a 400-m train.3 For instance 134 krn, 172 km and 70 km for Burbank - Sta. Clarita - Bakersfield - Fresno instead of 26 km, 202 km

and 173 km for Option A or 26 km, 125 km and 173 km in Option B (Appendix F).

[ Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 1 JC010372

German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation ]

¯ The running times used in the Example Weekday Train Schedule in Exhibit 5-4 andAppendix C do not correspond to the running times calculated in Appendix F. Thesedifferences, however, are not more than 6 minutes and can be neglected.

¯ Complete alignment data are not available. The horizontal alignment is nearly complete(except the curve from Merced to Los Banos), but the vertical alignment is available for themost critical sections only representing about 1/3 of the total length.

¯ Exhibit 5-1 assumes a 3 minutes average headway and a load factor of 100 %. Threeminutes is a usual minimum headway for high-speed systems, but can be achieved asavera.qe headway only if all trains have the same operational characteristics. In the case ofthe California HSR system with a large number of different types of express, semi express,regional and local trains, an average headway of three minutes is simply impossible and avalue of about 4 to 5 minutes would be a more realistic average headway. A 100% loadfactor is desirable, but under real conditions even 80 % would be a very good value. Thus,the values indicated in Exhibit 5-1 are about 50 % too high and are not suitable forcomparison with the realistic highway capacity estimates of Exhibit 5-2. Parsons Brinckerhoffcommented that the load factor of 100 % and the headways listed in Exhibit 5-1 wereassumed at the maximum levels to illustrate a point regarding maximum capacity of the HSRsystem and does not reflect the load factor of 65 % assumed in the operational and ridershipanalysis. Train separation of 3 minutes is assumed as a minimum criterion for the system,but Parsons Brinckerhoff recognizes that operations could not practically average thatheadway over any period of time.

4.2 Track Layout

At the time of the peer review, no track plans or sketches were available. The chosen platformlength of 400 m corresponds to UIC4 regulations and is also used for high-speed projects inother parts of the world.

The track layout for terminal stations and important intermediate stations is determined by thespecific local conditions and the operations program to be coped with. For that reason, astandardized station layout cannot be given. Stations of this type in Europe in general areexisting ones as the high-speed systems are fully integrated into the existing railway network.The German Intercity Express (ICE) network is a good example for this integration of high-speedlines in the existing infrastructure as shown in Annex 4- 1; even the stations indicated in thehigh-speed sections are existing ones and part of the conventional railway network.

For the standard intermediate stations, there are two basic designs as shown in Figure 4- 1.More commonly used is Layout 1, which permits a through train to pass a train stopping at thestation. This layout also separates the platform area from the through tracks, thus protectingpassengers on the platform against air turbulences caused by trains passing through with highspeed. Layout 2 features a very simple design, which however requires special protection ofpassengers on the platform against air turbulences. This can be accomplished either by platformscreen doors or by a stringent platform access control permitting passengers on the platformonly if no through train is expected. For the timetable assessment in Chapter 4.4, Layout 1 hasbeen assumed.

4 UIC = Umon Internationale de Chemins de Fer = International Railway Union

Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 2 ]C010373


Figure 4 - 1: Standard Track Layouts for Intermediate Stations

Layout 1 Layout 2

2 2

The schematic layout of the future German Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line5 shown in Figure 4 - 2can serve as an example for a typical high-speed line layout representing present Germaninfrastructure standards. The three new intermediate stations located in the high-speed linesection are designed according to Layout 1. Only the Frankfurt Airport station, located in a low-speed section and without through trains, has platforms at the through tracks. Double crossoversare installed at each station and at intervals of about 30 km between stations.

Figure 4 - 2: Schematic Diagram of the Cologne - Frankfurt/Main High-SpeedLine

S~egburg Montabaur L~m burg Frankfurt A~rportStatton Station Station Station km 171km 25 kin92 km 113 (160 km/h section)

Double crossovers are ~nstalled ~n each station and at about 30 km intervals between stations

As the station spacing strongly depends on local traffic demand at the various locations, thereare no standard station distances. For example, in the German ICE network, the average stationdistance is 99 km with a minimum of 23 km and a maximum of 194 km.

4.3 Train Running Times

Train running times are presented in Appendix F of the Corridor Evaluation Report. In contrast tothe staggered acceleration rates listed in Exhibit 2-6, a flat acceleration rate of 1.56 km/h/s hasbeen used for the calculation for the entire speed range from 0 to 350 km/h. Independent of thegrades encountered, a constant maximum speed has been set for each line section betweenstations. This is methodically incorrect and may lead to wrong results. In general, accelerationrates are quite high at low speed levels and diminish considerably with increasing speed asshown in Figure 4 - 3. In addition, the train speed is not always constant and drops considerablyin long steep grades.

Commissioning of this line is scheduled for 2002.



Figure 4- 3: Typical Acceleration-Versus-Speed Diagram

2,0

1,2

1,0

13,8-o 0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0 .....0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Speed km/h

In order to check if the running times of Appendix F reflect real train running, we have madeexact running time calculations with the DECrun program for the Los Angeles-Bakersfieldsection, the only line section for which a complete set of alignment data - horizontal and vertical -was available. The trainset DPT 400 as described in Chapter 3 has been taken as the basis forthe calculation.

Parsons Brinckerhoff pointed out that different assumptions may have been used; e.g., PBassumed speed restrictions in some cases, particularly in heavily urbanized sections of theroutes. This information had not been made available to DE-Consult. Since we did not receiveany specific information on speed restrictions at individual points on the line, but only average"maximum" speeds between pairs of stations, we derived the maximum speeds for the differentline sections from the horizontal curve radii by means of the formula given in Exhibit 2-7 and bycutting off peaks, which cannot reasonably be used in real operation. The resulting speed profileis presented in Figure 4 - 4.

[ Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 4 IC010375


Figure 4 - 4: Speed Profile Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A

400

350

250

200

150 ¯

100 --

50. --

/

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250

Chainage [kin]

~maximum possible speed ~selected maximum speed I

The results of the running time calculations are shown in Table 4- 1 which also includes acomparison with the values given in Appendix F of the Corridor Evaluation Report. The speed-versus-distance diagrams of the train runs calculated by the DECrun program are displayed inAnnex 4 - 2. The diagrams show clearly the fading of train speeds in the steep gradients of theTehachapi Mountain crossing. The times in Appendix F differ from the calculated values byabout 2 to 4 minutes for the express trains and by about 1 to 4 minutes for the local trains. Thecomparison shows that the travel times of Appendix F are almost identical in both directions anddo not consider any influence of the grades on running times. The maximum speeds listed inAppendix F are not real maximum speeds, but approximate more closely an average maximumspeed in the respective sections. In any case, the travel time calculations of Appendix F do notreflect the real running behavior of the trains. This becomes evident when comparing the realspeed-versus-distance diagrams with the diagram resulting from the calculations in Appendix F(Annex 4 - 3).



Table 4 - 1: Comparison of Running Times Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A

Travel Time Calculation Append=x F* DE-Consult Calculahon*Type of L=ne Section Sechon Max V Ta Tv Td Tt* Length I CalculatedTrain

Len~lth [km] (km/h) (MinI /Mini IMin/ (Min/ [kmI** I Time Im~nlExpress Union Stat=on Burbank 17,91 150 1,6 6,4 0,0 8,4

Burbank Santa Clanta 25,74 200 0,0 7,7 0,0 8,2Santa Clarita Palmdale 59,14 300 0,0 11,8 0,0 12,5

Palmdale Bakersfield 142,11 325 0,0 26,2 0,0 27,8Total: 244,9 1,6 52,1 0,0 57,0 241,8 53,2

Express Bakersfield Palmdale 142,11 325 0,0 26,2 0,0 27,8Palmdale Santa Clar=ta 59,14 300 0,0 11,8 0,0 12,5

Santa Clanta Burbank 25,74 200 0,0 7,7 0,0 8,2Burbank Un~on Stahon 17,91 150 0,0 6,5 1,3 8,3

Total: 244,9 0,0 52,3 1,3 56,8 241,8 55,0

Local Un~on Stahon Burbank 17,91 150 1,6 5,7 1,3 9,1 21,0 8,2Local Burbank Santa Clanta 25,74 200 2,1 5,8 1,8 10,2 26,2 9,8Loca~ Santa Clar~ta Pa mda e 59,14 300 3,2 8,9 2,6 15,6 51,0 15,6Local Palmdale Bakersfield 142,11 325 3,5 23,1 2,9 31,2 143,5 32,2

Total: 244,9 10,4 43,5 8,6 66,2 241,8 65,8Local Bakersfield Palmdale 142,11 325 3,5 23,1 2,9 31,2 143,5 35,2Local Palmdale Santa Clarita 59,14 300 3,2 8,9 2,6 15,6 51,0 14,9Local Santa Clanta Burbank 25,74 200 2,1 5,8 1,8 10,2 26,2 9,3Local Burbank Un=on Station 17,91 150 1,6 5,7 1,3 9,1 21,0 8,1

Total: 244,9 10,4 43,5 8,6 66,2 241,8 67,6~ Ta = acceleration t~me * Dwell t~mes not ~ncluded

Tv = travel time w~th max V "* According to key maps and honzontal ahgnment data fileTd = deceleration t=meTt = total travel t=me

4.4 Operations Aspects

4.4.1 Timetable

As already mentioned, the timetable presented in Appendix C of the Corridor Evaluation Reportis based on the travel times calculated in Appendix F with some small differences. The timetablecomprises a great variety of trains6 with different stopping patterns and is a mixture of very fastnon-stop trains with various medium fast trains and slow local trains. Due to the travel timedifferences between the different train categories, the density of the timetable and the length ofthe line, overtaking of slower trains by faster trains cannot be avoided. Apparently, suchovertaking of trains is not considered in the timetable of Appendix C as all trains of a certain traincategory have identical running times.

In order to assess the influence of overtaking of trains on travel times, we have performed asimulation of train operations in the northbound direction from the early morning to 4 p.m. for theSan Diego - San Francisco line. The software applied for the simulation is the STRESI programof the German Railway (DB AG) which utilized the following input data:

¯ Departure times as indicated in the tabular timetable of Appendix C;¯ The DPT 400 trainset as mentioned above;¯ The horizontal alignment according to the data file received;

In the northbound direction alone, there are 63 trains with 24 different stopping patterns in the 12- hour period untilp.m.



¯ The maximum speeds derived from the horizontal alignment by means of the formula givenin Exhibit 2-7 and by cutting off peaks, which cannot reasonably be used in real operation(Annex 4 - 4);

¯ An approximate longitudinal profile consisting of the incomplete vertical alignment accordingto the data file received and completed by more or less reasonable assumptions (Annex 4 -4).

All together, 63 train runs have been simulated. The results are shown in tabular form in Annex4 - 5 and in form of train graphs in Annex 4 - 6. Almost half of the trains are overtaken by fastertrains, some of them 2 or 3 times, and the passed trains encounter delays between 1 and 31minutes, the average being 8.4 minutes. This means that the travel times of Appendix C do notreflect the real timetable conditions.

In some cases, the timetable of Appendix C is arranged in a confusing manner. Slow trainsleaving San Diego are immediately followed by a faster Express train, with the result that theslow train is overtaken at one of the next stations, Mira Mesa or Escondido. This is the case fortrain no. 8 leaving at 5:00, train no. 30 at 10:00, train no. 32 at 10:50 and others (cf. Annex 4 -6). Such a timetable arrangement creates unnecessary delays and should be avoided.

In the tabular timetable of Appendix C, there are also some timetable situations where 2 trains ofthe same direction leave a station at the same time, which is simply impossible. This is the casefor trains from San Francisco to San Diego and Sacramento at 6:50, 7:35 and 16:00, trains fromSacramento to San Diego and San Francisco at 15:00 and others.

Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that the example train schedule in the Corridor EvaluationReport was intended as en example only to illustrate a possible scenario of how the systemcould operate once implemented. There was no operations analysis or simulation modelingperformed in creating that schedule. PB considers the service plan to be valid in concept eventhough there are practical operating and scheduling issues to be worked out as operations willbe analyzed in more detail in the current phase of project development.

4.4.2 Rolling Stock Requirements

The Corridor Evaluation Report indicates that 38 trainsets were assumed for the cost estimatesof Appendix E. The total vehicle costs of 1,178 million $ as listed result in a unit price of 31million $ per trainset, which seems to be an adequate order-of-magnitude estimate for a high-speed train. It is not plausible, however, that the number of trainsets is the same for Options Aand B, as there is a difference of 7.5% in the running performances of these options and thenumber of trainsets should vary accordingly. Comparing this number of 38 trainsets with thedaily running performances indicated in Appendix I gives a running performance of about 3,000km per day, which appears to be highly unrealistic.

In order to verify this, a train turnround roster for a weekday has been established on the basisof the tabular timetable of Appendix C. As determined through this process, 56 trainsets7 arerequired to cover all trains according to this schedule (Annex 4 - 78). Including a 10 % spare ratio

~ This number may be further increased if realistic travel times including times for overtaking are used. On the otherhand, a more skilful timetable arrangement may slightly reduce the rolling stock requirements.8 The train numbers of the trains San Diego - San Francisco/Sacramento are the same as in Appendix C. The train

numbers of the trains Sacramento - San Francisco and vice versa are augmented by 100 in order to avoid confusion(i,e. train no. 1 of Appendix C becomes train no. 101 etc.). The turnround of trainset no. 7 is highlighted for illustration.



would require 62 trainsets in total. This results in an average running performance of 1,859 kmper day and trainset, which is still very high, but can be explained by the extraordinary length ofhigh-speed sections in the California corridor. Reference values of other high-speed systemsvary between 1,000 and 1,700 km per day (see Annex 4 - 8).

In view of the substantially higher number of required trainsets, the vehicle investment costshave to be increased by 744 million $ to 1.922 billion $.

Parsons Brinckerhoff questions our determination of the number of required trainsets by pointingout that PB had assumed approximately two roundtrips per trainset per day which correspondsto the 3,000 km mentioned above.

In response to this, we would like to point out that, on the basis of the tabular timetable ofAppendix C of the Corridor Evaluation Report, it is impossible to have trainsets perform tworoundtrips per day on averaqe. A more detailed assessment of our trainset roster (Annex 4 - 8)reveals that only 17 of the 56 trainsets (=30%) can complete two roundtrips per day. Themajority (30 = 54%) covers only three one-way trips; two trainsets can complete one roundtripand one trainset is limited to one one-way trip only.

4.4.3 Comparison with German High Speed Operations

The operating parameters of the California HSR system are in general not comparable with theoperating conditions of the German high-speed network because of the following fundamentaldifferences of the systems:¯ The California HSR system is a dedicated high-speed system, which can be operated

independently of the conventional rail network in the region. On the other hand, the Germanhigh-speed lines are an integral part of the German rail network and cannot be operatedindependently of the conventional lines. Accordingly, the ICE trains run long distances onconventional lines of the existing network in mixed operation with other passenger andfreight trains.

¯ The ICE traffic is organized in lines serving the different areas of Germany. At certain busyroute sections, several of these ICE lines are superimposed. All trains of a given route havethe same travel times and the same stopping pattern and are running in a lat timetable withconstant intervals of 1 or 2 hours per line between the trains. This results even for busy routesections with several ICE lines in a quite homogenous timetable. In contrast, the CaliforniaHSR system is characterized by a multitude of different stopping patterns and differentrunning times on the same route.

¯ The existing German high-speed lines are designed to accommodate the operation ofconventional freight trains and the number of freight trains on the high-speed routes is quitehigh as illustrated in Table 4 - 2.

¯ There are no compatibility problems between high-speed trains and freight rolling stockneither on the high-speed sections nor on the conventional lines as both types of rollingstock comply with UIC regulations.

[Phase 1Repo~ Page 4-8 C010379


Table 4 - 2: Train Numbers by Type of Train on the German High Speed LineHanover - WLirzburg 1996/1997

Number of Trains perTrain

WeightOperating Da~, and Direction

Type including Days per Hanover KasselYear -

Loco [t] Kassel Fulda

ICE 800 365 55 55In* 500 365 9Z: Passenger Trains per Direction 64 55

Freight 900 250 30 347. Freight Trains per Direction 30 34

T_, All Trains per Direction 94 89* locomotive hauled train wiht 200 km/h maximum speed

Some general aspects, however, are independent of these differences and may serve asreferences.

Dwell Times

In the German ICE network, the dwell times average 2.7 minutes. In normal cases, the stationstop time is 2 minutes. In some very busy stations, in dead-end stations or in stations withpassenger transfers between different ICE lines, dwell times are increased up to a maximumvalue of 7 minutes. On the other hand, there are a few stations with low passenger volumes,where the dwell time is 1 minute only.

Compared with the German experience, the dwell time of 2 minutes chosen for the CaliforniaHSR system seems to be adequate. We recommend, however, to reconsider the dwell timesaccording to the individual passenger volumes to be handled at each station in further stages ofthe project.

Schedule Recovery Times

Schedule recovery times have been used for decades at German Railway. There are twodifferent types of schedule recovery times:

Regular recovery times are determined as a percentage of the theoretical running timevarying from 3 % to 6 % according to train weight and maximum train speedg;

¯ Special recovery times individually allocated to selected line sections, which are especiallyprone to train delays because of temporary speed restrictions or high train volume/linecapacity ratios. These special recovery times vary from year to year and are usually between1 and 3 minutes; they are added to the running times and regular recovery times at the endof a section ahead of major junction stations.

The 6 % schedule recovery time assumed for the California HSR system corresponds to thevalue applied for ICE trains in Germany. For the time being, there is no apparent reason tointroduce special recovery times on the California HSR system.

9 For higher speed and train weight, higher schedule recovery time percentages are being used.



Station Spacing

The distances between stations in any transportation system depend mainly on the regionalgeographic structure of the area served. Therefore, any comparison of systems in different areasis only of limited value. In the German ICE network, the average station spacing is 99 km, theminimum is 23 km and the maximum at 194 km. The German values are somewhat greater thanthe California HSR values (51, 16 and 142 km respectively) and reflect the different regionalstructure of the German ICE network.

4.5 Commuter Traffic

Commuter traffic in high-speed trains is nothing extraordinary in high-speed rail systemsbecause not the distance to be covered is decisive for commuters but the time needed to arriveat their destination. As high-speed trains offer considerable time advantages compared toconventional trains, commuters will use these trains to the highest possible extent.

In Germany, there is basically a clear distinction between commuter trains and high-speedtrains. Commuter trains are operated on the conventional network only and there are no specialcommuter trains on the high-speed lines. On the other hand, in the ICE network there are manyroute sections of high-speed lines or conventional lines near conurbations where travel times arein the range of Y2 hours to 1 hour, which is typical for the commuter time budget. In 1997, theaverage share of commuter travelers in the ICE network was about 19 % of the passengers and7 to 8 % of the passenger-kilometers reflecting the shorter traveling distances of commuterscompared to long-distance passengers. The share of commuters near population centers is ofcourse greater than this average and can attain easily twice that value.

The basic concept of the California HSR system to use spare capacities in the high-speed trainsfor commuter transport (Integrated Scenario) instead of running special commuter trains on theHSR system (Separate Vehicles Scenario) seems to be reasonable. However, it must beassured for such a concept to work that the commuter traffic is fully controlled by the operator inorder to prevent low-paying commuters from using up the seat capacity for high-paying, long-distance passengers. This can be achieved by a compulsory seat reservation system for long-distance passengers or by providing entirely separate cars for commuters and long-distancetravelers.

The assumptions in the Corridor Evaluation Report concerning the rolling stock for the SeparateVehicles Scenario seem to be reasonable. The operating concept, however, is somewhatambiguous. The peak-hour frequency of 4 trains is not specified (in one or in both directions?)and there is no indication on how these trains will be integrated into the high-speed trainoperating program nor which program is provided in off-peak hours. Also the Express CommuteAnalysis in Appendix J is ambiguous as the analysis is made for the total of both directions,which seems not to be adequate. In general, commuter traffic during peak hours has a verypronounced peak in one direction and a comparably low demand in the other one. Thus, ananalysis for only the total of both directions is not very meaningful.

4.6 Freight Services

4.6.1 Freight Services in Europe

There are two different, basic design concepts of high speed-lines in Europe; one type isdesignated for passenger traffic only and the other for mixed operation of passenger and freight

Phase 1 Report Page 4- 10C010381


trains, with each one subject to different design parameters to conform to the requirements ofthe different train types.

The French TGV lines are representative for the "passenger only" design concept and aredesigned with maximum gradients of 3.5 %. Nevertheless, freight has been operated on thelines almost from the beginning. One year after the complete inauguration of the first TGV line,the TVG Postal service was put into operation using TGV trainsets, which were especiallyadapted to the transport of parcels for the French post office. These trains have the samerunning behavior as the TGV trains for passenger traffic. Since 1997, a few conventionallocomotive-hauled freight trains for less-than carload (LCL) freight are operated with 160 km/hmaximum speed on some short TGV line sections, and in 1999, the maximum speed of somefreight trains was increased to 200 km/h.

The German high-speed lines are representative for the "mixed operation" concept and -accordingly - have been designed with maximum gradients of 1.25 %10. With the commissioningof the first high-speed lines Hanover - W0rzburg and Mannheim - Stuttgart, freight services wererun at a large scale, the majority of the trains running with 120 km/h maximum speed and 1,200 ttypical train weight. These trains are not dedicated to special types of cargo but the prevailingcommodities are perishables and other time-sensitive goods. The freight trains do not run duringthe same time period as the high-speed trains as the great differences of train speeds on thesame line at the same time would have a very negative effect on line capacity. Thus, the freighttrains are timewise separated from the passenger trains, with the passenger trains running atdaytime and the freight trains at night.

During the initial years, some fast freight services for LCL freight and containers were operatedwith 160 km/h maximum speed; however, they were not successful commercially anddiscontinued after some years. Since January 2000, a freight system with 160 km/h trains wascreated again in co-operation with the German post office serving for the time being 7 majorfreight centers in Germany. In the next year, the extension to a total of 15 freight centers isenvisaged. This train system is basically designed according to the post office requirements, butis also open for containerized freight or swap bodies of third parties. High-speed freight servicessimilar to the TGV Postal have also been considered, but were never realized in Germany foreconomic reasons.

The newer Spanish and Italian high-speed lines are also designed for mixed operation of high-speed passenger trains and light freight trains.

4.6.2 Freight Services on the California HSR System

Two different types of freight services are considered in the Corridor Evaluation Report:¯ Small Package/Light Container services in especially adapted high-speed rolling stock.¯ Special Medium-Weight Freight with locomotive-hauled freight trains, which are adapted to

the special conditions of the high-speed line (especially the axle load of 19 metric tons orless).

The Small Package/Light Container services are similar to the French TGV Postal. They userolling stock with the same characteristics as the high-speed passenger stock and do not createany operational problems. Loading and unloading of freight is envisaged at the passenger

10 An exception ~s the Cologne - Frankfurt/Main high-speed line, which is designed for passenger trains only and has

maximum gradients of 4.0 %.



platforms of the stations. This is possible in case that these freight services are operated at nightand do not interfere with passenger services. Otherwise, separate light freight platforms at ornear the passenger stations are necessary. The travel times are more or less the same as forthe high-speed passenger trains

The Special Medium-Weight Freight services are similar to the freight services on German high-speed lines. The California HSR system, however, is designed according to the "passengeronly" design concept with maximum gradients of 3.5 %, which impedes operation of freighttrains. In Chapter II of the Corridor Evaluation Report, even a 5 % grade is addressed. In orderto show the implications of these gradients on the maximum train loads, we have simulatedfreight train runs with both maximum gradients; the locomotive used was a 5600 kWEurosprinter electric locomotive able to run with a maximum speed of 200 km/h. The maximumtrainload per locomotive is about 700 t on 3.5 % grades and about 400 t on 5 % gradesaccording to the simulations (Annex 4 - 9).

The travel times for the Special Medium-Weight Freight trains have been approximatelycalculated for different train loads per locomotive with about 5 hours for a non-stop run SanDiego - San Francisco on the Option B alignment (Table 4 - 3).

Table 4 - 3: Approximate Running Time of non-stop Freight Trains, San Diego -San Francisco, Option B (6 % Schedule Recovery Time included)

Train Weight [tons Approximate time San Diego - Sanper locomotive] Francisco and vice versa Ihrsl

200 4:51300 4:53400 4:56500 4:59600 5:03700 5:07

Basis: Electric locomotive of 5600 kW rated power,maximum train speed 200 kin/h,6 % schedule recovery time

4.6.3 Freight Compatibility Issues

The high-speed rolling stock, which is presently available on the world market, is produced byAsian or European manufacturers and does not comply with the severe buff strengthrequirements of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The intention of these requirementsis to protect the passengers or staff inside a train in case of collision.

As long as the California HSR system is a dedicated system without connections to otherrailroads in the region, the system could be designed according to construction standards, whichdiffer from the FRA regulations. A problem arises, however, in case it is intended to run high-speed freight trains on other railroad lines11 or in case that standard freight trains coming fromthose lines are running on the California HSR system.

There are two approaches to solve this compatibility problem. The simple approach is to designall rolling stock according to FRA regulations. This would result in a complete change of the

11 At reduced speed of course, depending on alignment, track condition and signaling system of these lines.

[ Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 12 ]C010383


vehicle construction increasing the weight of trains, the requirements of traction power andaccordingly increasing the investment and operation costs.

The second approach would be to permit the use of rolling stock which is not in compliance withFRA regulations under certain conditions, which guarantee the same level of safety in a differentway. An example for such an approach is the permission of running light-rail vehicles in mixedoperation with fast passenger trains and freight trains on main lines of the German Railway,which was granted by the German Federal Railway Administration "Eisenbahnbundesamt"(EBA) in several cases. The buff strength of these light rail vehicles is considerably lower thanthat required by UIC standards12, which have been adopted by German railway legislation.

The special permission is granted by the EBA for each non-compliant vehicle type for exactlydefined lines or line sections after a thorough safety analysis of each individual case. The safetyanalysis is based on an overall risk assessment comprising the probability of an accident andthe extent of damage and harm due to the accident. As the extent of damage and harm isassumed to be greater for light-rail vehicles, the approach is to bring the risk to the initial level byreducing the probability of an accident. The two key issues for this are:¯ Exclusion and reduction as far as possible of errors of the operating staff by means of

technical installations.¯ Prevention of conflicting train runs by increased requirements on flank protection.

Accordingly, each EBA permission is bound to special conditions concerning the signalinginstallations on the line and in the vehicles13, flank protection measures, and concerning theprohibition of potentially dangerous operating procedures without technical support by thesignaling system.

In case that such approach is accepted in principle, the running of freight trains on the CaliforniaHSR system may be possible. The freight rolling stock intended to run on the HSR system mustcomply to the HSR standards anyway. The signaling and track installations required for the safeoperation of high-speed trains guarantee a completely controlled operating environment, whichprevents staff errors and assures the best possible flank protection. Thus in this case, therequired safety is easily assured.

The situation is somewhat different in the case that high-speed rolling stock is running onconventional lines. Whereas the high speed trains are designed according to the highest safetystandards and would not need any major modification, it might be necessary to improve thesignaling installations and the track layout on those lines to achieve the required safety level.

4.7 O&M Cost Estimates

4.7.1 Energy Costs

At first glance, the energy costs of 2.99 $ per train mile given in the Corridor Evaluation Reportappeared to be too low for a high-speed operation; these costs correspond to an energy

12 The UIC regulations require a minimum buff strength of 2000 kN for all rolling stock, which is suitable for integration

into freight trains. This means that all stock, including passenger stock, have the regular coupling device according toUIC regulations. All stock, which is not suitable to be conveyed by freight trains because of its coupling devices, isallowed to have a lower buff strength of 1500 kN only. Light-rail vehicles actually in operation with EBA permissionhave 600 kN buff strength only.13 Signaling equipment w~thout track vacancy detection and without automatic block is prohibited. Automatic train

protection systems are usually required.



consumption of about 27 kWh per train mile. We have calculated the energy consumption fortraction14 on several line sections for the already mentioned DPT 400 train with 68.4 kWh pertrain mile. In addition, we considered the energy necessary for passenger comfort (lighting, air-conditioning) with 500 kWh per train hour equivalent to 5.8 kWh per train mile1S. The totalconsumption of 74.2 kWh per train mile corresponds to costs of 8,16 $ per train mile assumingspecific energy costs of 0.11 $ per kWh (Annex 4 - 10).

Accordingly, the energy costs per weekday increase almost 3 times by 412,987 $ correspondingto 136.9 million $ per year. Thus, the energy bill will increase from 79 million $ to 216 million $.

The energy consumption of 74.2 kWh per train mile has been questioned by ParsonsBrinckerhoff by pointing out that simulations prepared by DE-Consult in 1993/94 resulted in49 kWh per train mile for the Los Angeles - Bakersfield line section. In response to this it shouldbe mentioned that the simulation performed seven years ago assumed a CPT-type train with twopowered end cars and only six coaches and a total train length of about 200 m; however, thetrain running time and energy consumption simulations of this peer review were based on therecently developed DPT 400 trainset with a total length of about 400 m.

In Appendix J, the energy costs of the special commuter trains are set at 3.74 $, i.e., 25 % moreas for the high-speed trains. These higher costs are not at all plausible because the commutertrains operate at lower speeds than the high-speed trains; the energy consumption at highspeeds is - to the major part - due to the air resistance. Thus, the energy consumption of thecommuter trains is in any case not greater than the consumption of the high-speed trains, but isvery probably even lower.

4.7.2 Other O&M Costs

The Corridor Evaluation Report does not contain any specification of quantities or unit pricesused for the calculation of the other O&M costs and it was not possible to get any more detailedinformation. Thus, the calculations cannot be checked in detail. We followed two differentapproaches to assess the adequacy of the costs of 19.70 $ per train mile used in Appendices Iand J of the report.¯ We used the O&M costs estimated for a life cycle cost study last year and converted them in

$ per train mile;¯ We made a more detailed calculation based on the operating performances of the California

HSR system, on California labor costs of 1996 increased with a rate of 3 % per year to actualcosts, and on certain assumptions of staffing.

Both approaches resulted in costs in the order of 19 to 20 $ per train mile. Thus, the costs of19.70 $ seem to be realistic.

Not plausible, however, are some O&M costs used in Appendix J for commuter trains. There, thetrain operation costs (mainly personnel costs) are the same for intercity and commuter trains.The travelling speed of commuter trains is lower than the speed of intercity trains; thus, the trainhours per train mile are higher for commuter trains. On the other hand, the staffing of commutertrains is considerably lower than for intercity trains. Therefore, lower train operating costs can beexpected for commuter trains.

Energy recovery for generative braking has been considered with 50 % of the maximal possible value.

Based on an average turnround speed of 87 mph resulting from the turnround roster in Annex 4 - 7.



According to the Corridor Evaluation Report, the equipment maintenance costs used forcommuter trains are 3 times greater than the corresponding value for intercity trains (21.39 $instead of 7.13 $). This is not reasonable as commuter trains are less sophisticated in designand construction than intercity trains and their wear during service is lower. According toGerman experience, maintenance costs for commuter trains are considerably lower than forintercity trains and are not higher under any circumstances.

4.8 Summary

The operational data contained in the Corridor Evaluation Report are in some parts inconsistentand not plausible. Up to now, a conceptual station layout plan does not exist.

The travel time calculations are made in a simplified manner with questionable results. Thetimetables shown in the report do not reflect real operating conditions with overtaking of slowertrains by faster ones. The number of required trainsets is considerably underestimated.

The same applies to the energy costs. The other operation and maintenance costs of the high-speed trains seem to be in the right order-of-magnitude. The operation and maintenance costsof the commuter trains, however, are considerably overestimated.

Freight operation on the California HSR system seems to be possible and will not create anyproblems if the HSR system is operated as an independent system. In case of an integration ofthe HSR system with the existing railroad network and running of high speed trains in theconventional network and running conventional freight trains on the high-speed lines, anexemption of the FRA regulations for these cases seems to be necessary.



Annex 4- 1

ICE-Services (1998/99)

Phase 1 Report Page 4- 16 [C010387


Annex 4- 2

Speed - versus - Distance Diagrams Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A

Speed-Distance Diagrams for Express Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield,Option A

400 I I 3 200’ I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240Chainage [km]

Speed-Distance Diagrams for Local Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield,Option A

400 3 200

350~~

2 800

300 f -~ - -~"~ /~/~

~

2 400

250

~1~~~ i

-- 2 000 ~

iJ <: ~: X ~1~°°

50 100 150 200 250Chainage [km]

Ir’--’l Elevation --LA- BAK ~BAK- LA]

Phase 1 Report Page 4 - 17 IC010388


Annex 4 - 3

Comparison of Speed - versus - Distance Diagrams Los Angeles -Bakersfield, Option A

Comparison of Speed - Distance DiagramsExpress Trains Los Angeles - Bakersfield, Option A

400 I

100 -

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250

Chalnage [krn]

I-- DE-Consult LA- BAK ~DE-Consult BAK - LA ~ Appendix F]

Comparison of Speed - Distance DiagramsLocal Train from Los Angeles to Bakersfield, Option A

400 l

35O

300

250

200

~5~

100

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250

Chainage [km]

I-- DE-Consult LA - BAK ~DE-Consult BAK - LA --Appendix

Phase 1 Report Page 4- 18 IC010389


Annex 4 - 4

Speed Profile San Diego - San Francisco, Option B

4O0

35O

250

~ 50

50

0 50 1~ 150 2~ 250 3~ 350 4~ 450 5~ 550 6~ 650 7~ 750 8~ 850 9~ 950 1 000C~ina~

Annex 4 - 5

Approximate Longitudinal Profile San Diego - San Francisco,Option B

1200

000

8O0

600

400

~oo

0 ~

0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 $00 350 400 450 500 550 ~00 650 700 750 800 850

~hainago [~m]

Phase 1 Report Page 4- 19 IC010390

Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

Annex 4 - 6Page 1

Results for the Direction San Diego - San Francisco, Option B (12 hours)

Train Departure "13mes Wa=tlng T~mes

Departure Departure Departure Stations[h:min] [h:min] [mini [min]

1 R FRO SF 5:50 5"50

2 R FRO SF 6:35 6:46 11,6

3 L LA SF 5:10 5:10

4 SUB LA SF 5.45 5:45 1,7

5 SUB LA SF 6.00 6:00 13,0

6 E SD SF 5:05 5:05

7 SUB SD SAC 4:50 4:50 30,8

8 SL SD SF 5:00 5:00 3,6

9 Sc SD SAC 5:15 5:15

10 EL SD SF 5:25 5:25 2,6

11 SUB SD SF 5:35 5:35

12 L SD SAC 5:45 5:45 3,0

13 EL SD SAC 6:00 6:00

14 SUB SD SF 6:15 6:15 1,4

15 SUB SD SAC 6:25 6.25 3,2

16 EL SD SF 6:35 6.35

17 L SD SF 6:45 6:45 26,3

18 EL SD SAC 7:00 7:00

19 SUB SD SF 7:10 7:10 15,3

20 Sc SD SF 7:20 7:20

21 EL SD SF 7:30 7:30 6,6

22 L SD SF 7:40 7:40 2,7

23 E LA SF 9:30 9:30

24 S SD SAC 8:35 8.35

25 SUB SD SF 8:15 8:15 4,9

26 E SD SF 9.05 9:05

27 L SD SAC 8:40 8:40 3,0

28 SUB SD SF 9:15 9:15

29 S SD SF 10:10 10:10

30 SUB SD SAC 10:00 10:00 4,5

31 E SD SF 11:00 11.00

32 L SD SF 10:50 10’50 22,3

33 E LA SAC 12.30 12.30

34 S SD SF 11:40 11:40

Page 4 - 20C010391

Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

Annex 4 - 6Page 2

Train Departure T~mes Waitin.(i Times

I I Scheduled I Real

atthe atWayNo. Type From To Departure Departure Departure Stations

[h:mln] [h:min] [mini [min]35 SUB SD SF 11:20 11:20 4,4

36 E LA SF 13:05 13:05

37 S SD SF 12:20 12:20

38 SUB SD SAC 12:00 12:00 1,9

39 SUB SD SF 12:10 12:10 11,1

40 E SD SF 13:00 13:00

41 L SD SF 12:40 12:40 6,1

42 SUB SD SF 13:10 13:10 4,4

43 E LA SF 14:55 14:55

44 S SD SF 14:10 14:10

45 L SD SAC 13:45 13:45 3,0

47 SUB SD SAC 14:45 14:45

48 S SD SF 15:25 15:25

49 SUB SD SF 15:00 15:00 3,5

50 S SD SAC 15:45 15:45

51 SUB SD SF 15:20 15:20 7,0

53 R SD BAK 15:55 15:55

101 L* SAC SF 6:24* 6:24*

102 L* SAC SF 7:09* 7:09* 7,9

103 S* SAC SF 7:42* 7:42*

104 L* SAC SF 8:59* 8:59* 12,7

105 S* SAC SF 9:57* 9:57*

106 S* SAC SF 10:42" 10:42"

107 L* SAC SF 11:05" 11:05" 20,9

108 L* SAC SF 11:45" 11:45"

109 S* SAC SF 11:42* 11:42*

----110I S* SAC SF 13:02* 13:02*

111 L* SAC SF 14:59" 14:59" 4,0

112 S* SAC SF 15:42" 15:42"

63 Total number of trains Total of delays 243,3 min

29 Number of delayed trains Average delay 8,4 mm

Maximum Delay 30,8 min* Trains are coming from Sacramento Departure t~mes refer to San Joaqu~n River lunct~on

Report Page 4 - 21C010392


Annex 4- 7Page 1

Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m.

I I I I I .............

////////

I’III I II Ill f

If I l l

f f f ff| | l J J



Annex 4- 7Page 2

Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 8 a.m. to 12 noon



Annex 4- 7Page 3

Timetable Graph for the Simulation from 12 noon to 4 p.m.



Annex 4 - 8Page 1

Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown in Exhibit 5-4 andAppendix C (Option B)

Trains Direction SD - SF/SAC Trains Direction SF/SAC - SD

train SD LA 8AK FRO SAC SAC SF trmnset turnback tram SF SAC SAC FRO BAK LA SD tra~nset tumback

no. 53dep 13dep 2arr 2dep 18dep 18arr 66arr no t~me no 66dep 18dep 18arr 2arr 2dep 14arr 52arr no. t~me1 5"50 7 28 1 0"37 1 5:00 7-28 24 0 472 6 35 8"13 2 0.37 2 6 00 8 28 25 0"373 5"10 8 29 3 0:31 3 5"10 9 59 26 0’814 5 45 8.43 4 1 02 4 5,20 9.14 27 0 465 6"00 9"04 5 1 ’06 5 5 40 10"08 28 0"526 5:05 8 37 6 1,03 6 5"50 9’22 29 0:487 4:S0 8:44 7 1:!6, 7 6.40 9 25 30 3 058.... 5 00 9.1’7 8 1.23 8 6"45 10"45 31 0 859 5:15 9.17 9 0"53 9 6.50 11 24 32 0:3610 5 25 9"27 10 1.33 10 7.00 9.30 33 3 3511 535 1003 11 1.27 11 7 10 11 33 34 03712 545 10.08 12 1 37 12 7 25 11 53 35 0:4713 6:00 9’41 13 1.04 13 7"30 10:41 36 0 39~4 6 15 10’43 14 1"27 14 7.35 1224 37 1 21~ 6 25 10"26 15 1,54 15 7’45 12.13 38 0 5716 6 35 10’37 16 1.18 16 7 55 10.27 39 4:2817 6,45 11 36 17 1.14 17 8’05 11-37 1 0"4318 700 1041 18 1 49 18 820 12"07 42 08319 7 10 11 5~ 19 1:2~ 1~--- 8’~ .... 10.39 47 5"2120 720 11.40 20 1 20 20 8.40 11 15 40 55521 730 11 32 21 1.13 21 8.50 13’24 2 1"2122 7 40 12.29 22 1 ’46 22 9 00 11.30 3 6 00

~-- 930 ---- 120~ 2~ 1 3~-- 23 9.10 13’59 43 1"0124 8"35 12 07 41 1 ’53 24 9’30 13.04 49 1.062~5C8 15 12:49 24 2 3~6 2~5 9.4~00 ____ 14:14 6 1’1126 9"05 12 37 25 2:03 26 9"55 12,25 44 6 1527 840 13,03 51 157 27 1010 1433 9 1:1228 9.15 13.43 52 2 07 28 10,10 14:44 8 1.1129 10.10 13 57 29 2"03 29 11 00 13:45 10 5 2030 10:00 1401 27 2’09 30 11 30 16:19 11 0.4131 11 00 14’32 28 1:53 31 11.45 15:46 12 0.3432 10.50 15:39 26 1,21 32 11,55 1527 16 04333 12 30 -- ---- 14 3~--- 30 2’2~ 3~- 12:1~ 15,57 14 0:3334 11 40 1527 31 1"08 34 12.30 1409 18 1 1135 11.20 15"54 36 1 16 35 12 30 16:35 46 0 4036 13’05 15’35 33 1"20 36 12"50 17’24 17 1 4637 12 20 16:07 1 1 08 37 1300 17 00 20* 2.1538 12:00 16’01 32 1 24 ~, 1~:10 1~’.-44 7 ~

~9 12 10 16 44 34 0 46 39 13.25 18.14 19 s40 13.00 17 05 42 0 55 40 13"5~ 17:56 4 s

~ 1240 1729 35 0-51 41 1405 17:39 48 2’01~ 1310 17"38 ~38 --04~ 4~ 14,1~ ........ 18.30 22 s43 ~ 17 25 39 0"40 43 14 40 19:08 25 s44- 1410~__ ---- 175~49 033 44 15’00 1852 51 s45 13:45 1808 37 1:27 45 1525 19:12 24 s



Annex 4 - 8Page 2

Trainset Roster according to the Timetable shown in Exhibit 5-4 andAppendix C (Option B)

Trains Direction SD - SF/SAC Trains Direction SF/SAC - SD

tra=n SD LA BAK FRO SAC SAC SF tramset turnback train SF SAC SAC FRO BAK LA SD tramset turnback

no. 53dep 13dep 2arr 2dep 18de13 18arr 66arr no t~me no 66dep 18dep 18art 2arr 2dep 14arr 52arr no. t=me46 16 00 ’ 18 30 47 1:30 46 15 50 19:50 52 s47 1445 1839 2 2’21 47 16:00 17.38 15 s48 15.25 19.12 6 4.48 48 16:10 20:33 27 s49 15:00 19.26 43 2"14 49 16’25 19 57 28 s50 1545 19.17 9 s 50 16:35 21:03 31 s51 15,20 19.48 18 s 51 -16:50 20:24 21 s52 17 10 19’40 40 s 52 17.00 21’49 26 s53 15 55 18:23 5 s 53 17 05 19 14 30 s54 17 30 ~ 19:39 3 s 54 17’10 18:48 36 s55 16 10 20.38 16 s 55 17 20 19.50 41 s56 16.45 20 17 54 s 56 17.25 20.59 32 s57 16:20 21 09 12 s 57 17 30 21:58 34 s58 16 30 20:58 14 s 58 17.40 22.14 8 s59 16 40 21 ’29 53 s 59 18"00 22 28 42 s60 17:15 20 47 46 s 60 18.05 20.14 50 s61 17.00 19.28 11 s 61 18.05 21.54 39 s62 18’40 20 49 44 s 62 18 20 22"48 38 s63 17.20 21:48 55 s 63 18.30 23 19 49 s64 19.05 21 ’35 10 s 64 18’40 22:40 56 s65 19.15 22:00 20* s 65 19’30 23’17 45 s66 19:10 23 59 17 s 66 20:45 0:04 23 s67 19:40 0 03 48 s 67 21"00 23.53 ’ 2 sN i~ :1 68 21.30 000 6 s101 5:25 7:45 42 0.35 101 5.30 7.50 46 1.25102 6:10 8.30 43 0:40 102 6:00 7:45 47 0 45103 7’00 8’45 44 1’10 103 6 25 8’45 48 1’20104 8:00 10’20 45 1:20 104 6.50 8.35 49 0.55105 9 15 11:00 / 46 1:30 105 7:35 9:55 50 1.05

107 10’05 12:25 48 1:40 107 10 40 12.25 8 2.35108 10:45 13:05 13 235 108 11:40 1400 45 2"00109 11:00 12:45 50 2.15 109 1245 1430 21 2.20110 12:20 14:05 15 1 55 110 13.40 16.00 23 1 25111 1400 16’20 41 1.00 111 15:00 16.45 50 1 20112 15.00 16.45 8 0"55 112 15 40 17 25 13 0 50113 16:00 18.20 45 1 10 113 16"00 18"20 29 200114 17 25 19.10 23 1:35 114 16’55 18:40 33 2:50115 18:15 20:00 13 S 115 17.15 19:35 1 S

~ 1935 21 55 37 S 116 1820 2005 35 S~ 20 20 22:05 29 S 117 20’00 22:20 47 S~ 21 30 2350 33 S 118 21 40 000 43 S

M=n=mum turn back t~me 30 m~nutes * empty running from San D~ego to Los AngelesRoster of tramset 7 h~ghhghted s = stabhng overn=ght

Total number required for operat=on. 56 tra~nsets w~thout any spares



Annex 4 - 9

Running performance of the Trains, Option B

Trains per Train Miles Train kmFrom To Miles Day (bothDirections/ per Day per Day

San Diego Mira Mesa 9,99 106 1.059 1.704Mira Mesa Escondido 14,73 106 1.561 2.512Escondido Temecula 29,27 106 3.103 4.992Temecula Riverside 37,56 106 3.981 6.406Riverside Ontario 17,92 106 1.900 3.056Ontario East San Gabriel 16,09 106 1.706 2.744East San Gabriel LA Union Station 25,22 106 2.673 4.301LA Union Station Burbank 11,13 132 1.469 2.364Burbank Santa Clarita 15,99 132 2.111 3.396Santa Clarita Palmdale 36,75 132 4.851 7.805Palmdale ,Bakersfield 88,31 132 11.657 18.756Bakersfield Tulare County 69,56 128 8.904 14.326Tulare Count,/ I Fresno 38,04 128 4.869 7.834Fresno Pacheco Junction 27,24 98 2.670 4.295Pacheco Junction Los Banos 41,88 132 5.528 8.895Los Banos Gilroy 36,97 132 4.880 7.852Gilro)/ San Jose 29,91 132 3.948 6.353San Jose Redwood City 21,44 132 2.830 4.554Redwood City SF Airport 11,68 132 1.542 2.481SF Airport SF Downtown 13,70 132 1.808 2.910Fresno Merced 52,91 36 1.905 3.065Me rced Modesto 37,52 36 1.351 2.173Modesto Stockton 21,54 36 775 1.248Stockton Sacramento 50,71 36 1.826 2.937Mdes and tram numbers according to Appendix I Total 78.906 126.959

Trains required according to the Corridor Evaluation Report: 38 trainsets *Corresponding train running performance: 3.033 km / day **

Total investment costs: 1.178 million $Costs per trainset: 31 million $

Trains required according to turnround schedule: 62 trainsets *Corresponding train running performance: 1.859 km / day **

Total investment costs: 1.922 million $¯ 10 % spares included¯ * Number of trains dur=ng For reference:weekend days and holidays is Maglev Berlin - Hamburg: 2.800 km / dayequal to 70% of the weekday Taipei - Kaohsiung: 1.700 km / daynumber of trains. Assumed 253 ICE 1 : 1.500 km/ dayweekdays and 112 weekend days Shinkansen 200: 1.400 km / dayincluding holidays in a year. Shinkansen El: 1.100 km / day

TGV A: 1.100 km / dayTGV R and TGV SE: 1.000 km / day



Annex 4- 10

Maximum Speed of Freight Trains in Gradients, Initial Speed 200 km/h

Grade 3.5 %

2~°I I ---

00,0 ],0 2,0 a,O 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 ]1,0 12,0 ]a,O ]4,0 ~5,0 ]6,0 ]7,0 ]g,O ]9,0 20,0

Chainage [km]

Grade 5.0 %

250

20O

150

100

50

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0 14,0 15,0 16,0 17,0 18,0 19,0 20,0Chainage [km]



Annex 4- 11

Approximate Calculation of Energy Consumption

Calculation of Specific Energy Consumption

Traction max. max. Energy Traction Comfort Comfort ComfortLengthType of Direction Gradients Energy E-back E-back Cons. kWh per kWh per Energy kWh perTrain [km] [kWh] [kWh] [%] [kWh] Train Mde Train Hourl [kWh] Train

Express LA - BAK 241,8 profile 11.792 1.568 13% 11.008 73,3 500 868 5,8Express SD - LA 244,7 0 %0 10.658 1.951 18% 9.683 63,7 500 879 5,8Express LA- SF 713,6 0%0 31.8.34 2.047 6% 30.811 69,5 500 2.562 5,8Express BAK- LA 241,8 profile 10.205 1.804 18% 9.303 61,9 500 868 5,8Express SF - LA 713,6 0 %0 31.696 2.022 6% 30.685 69,2 500 2.562 5,8Express LA- SD 244,7 0 %0 10.657 1.940 18% 9.687 63,7 500 879 5,8Local LA- BUR 21,0 profile 1.354 347 26% 1.181 90,4 500 75 5,8Local BUR - SC 26,2 profile 1.952 493 25% 1.706 104,6 500 94 5,8Local SC - PLM 51,0 profile 3.456 799 23% 3.057 96,4 500 183 5,8Local PLM - BAK 143,5 profile 5.999 1.631 31% 5.084 57,0 500 515 5,8Local BAK - PLM 143,5 profile 8.011 884 11% 7 569 84,9 500 515 5,8Local PLM - SC 51,0 profile 2.081 1.112 53% 1.525 48,1 500 163 5,8Local SC - BUR 26,2 profile 1.255 852 68% 829 50,8 500 94 5,8Lm,o~,.alBUR - LA 21,0 profile 803 560 70% 523 40,1 500 75 5,8Total 2883,7 131.753 18.210 14% 122.648 10.354

400 m trazn length average consumption for tract=on 68,4 kWh ~er tra=n87 mph average tumround speed O, 11 $ per kWh results =n 7,53 $ )er tram

average consumption for comfort 5,8 kWh )ertrain mile0,11 $ per kWh results zn 0,64 $ ~er tram mile

55,00 $ ~er train houraverage total energy consumption 74,2 kWh )er tra=n m=le

0,11 $ per kWh results ~n 8,16 $ ~er train mile

Comparison of Energy Consumption and Costs

Calculated Values per Weekday Values Append=xper Weekday

Tra=n Tra=n Tract=on

]

Comfort I Total Energy Costs TotalEnergy DifferenceTrains Miles pel hours Energy

IEnergyI Energy par Train M~e [$ Costs I$1 [$]

From To Miles per DayDay per day Costs [$] Costs [$] Costs

San D=ego M~ra Mesa 9,99 106 1 059 12 7 97"~ 673 8 644 2,99 3 166 -5 478M~ra Mesa Escond~do 14,73 106 1 561 18 11 754 992 12 746 2,99 4 669 -8 077Escond.do Temecula 29,27 106 3 103 36 23 356 1 972 25 327 2.99 9 277 -16 050Temecula R~vers~de 37,56 106 3 981 46 29 971 2 530 32 501 2,99 11 904 -20 596R=verslde Ontar=o 17,92 106 1 900 22 14 299 1 207 15 506 2,99 5 680 -9 827Ontario East San Gabriel 16,09 106 1 706 20 12 839 1 084 13 923 2,99 5 100 -8 823East San Gabnel LA Un=on Stat=on 25,22 106 2 673 31 20 124 1 699 21 823 2,99 7 993 -13 830LA Unton Station Burbank 11,13 132 1 469 17 11 059 934 11 993 2,99 4 393 -7 600Burbank Santa Clarda 15,99 132 2 111 24 15 889 1 341 17 230 2,99 6 311 -10 919Santa Clarda Palmdale 36,75 132 4 851 56 36 517 3 083 39 600 2,99 14 504 -25 095Palmdale Bakersf=eld 88,31 132 11 657 135 87 750 7 408 95 158 2,99 34 854 -60 304Bakersfield ]’ulare County 69,56 128 8 904 103 67 025 5 658 72 683 2,99 26 622 -46 061Tulare Count}, Fresno 38,04 128 4 869 56 36 653 3 094 39 748 2,99 14 559 -25 189Fresno LOS Banos 69,12 132 9 124 105 68 682 5 798 74 480 2.99 27 280 -47 199LOS Banos G=lroy 36,97 132 4 880 56 36 736 3 101 39 837 2,99 14 591 -25 245G=lro}, San Jose 29,91 132 3 948 46 29 720 2 509 32 229 2,99 11 805 -20 424San Jose Redwood C~ty 21,44 132 2 830 33 21 304 1 798 23 103 2,99 8 462 -14 641Redwood C~ty SF A~rport 11,68 132 I 542 18 11 606 980 12 586 2,99 4 610 -7 976SF Atrport ;F Downtown f3.70 132 1 808 21 13 613 1 149 14 762 2,99 5 407 -9 355Fresno r,,/lerced 52,91 36 1 905 22 14 339 1 210 15 549 2,99 5 695 -9 854Merced Modesto 37,52 36 1 351 16 10 168 858 11 026 2,99 4 039 -6 988Modesto ;tockton 21,54 36 775 9 5 837 493 6 330 2,99 2 319 -4 012Stockton Sacramento 50,71 36 1 826 21 13 742 1 160 14 902 2,99 5 458 -9 444Total 79.832 922 600.954 50.730 651.685 238.698 -412.987

Bas=$ 87 mph average turnround speed



5. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS AND SCHEDULES

5.1 Unit Costs

The unit costs of the California High-Speed Rail Study (HSR) have been compared withcomparable unit prices of German Railway construction projects. The unit prices used originatepartly from standard catalogs for costing preliminary planning and from empirical values forconstruction projects already completed (see Table 5-1). In particular, the figures for newGerman high-speed lines (InterCityExpress - ICE) with a speed of up to 300 km/h have beenconsidered.

All unit costs for the German system are shown in DM (Deutsche Mark). During the year 2000,the average exchange rate amounted to about 1 DM = 0.5 US$.

Most California unit costs are given on a per-km basis, whereas in Germany unit costs generallyare presented on a per-m basis. In order to permit a direct comparison, the California values aregiven also on the meter basis in the subsequent report sections.

5.1.1 Track and Guideway Items

Ballasted and Direct Fixation Track

The costs apply to a two-track line in each case.

HSR:Contents of ballasted track: ballast, substructure, rail, sleeper, fixing aidsCost of ballasted track: 781 $/m

Cost of direct fixation: 1,477 $/m

New ICE line:Contents of ballasted track: rail, sleeper, ballast, fixing aidsCost of ballasted track: 1,500 DM/m

Cost of direct fixation: 3,400 DM/m

The unit price for ballasted track of the California HSR system appears to be too low consideringthat the substructure (sub-ballast and frost proofing) are supposed to be included in this price.For a new ICE line, a layer of 0.3 m sub-ballast with approx. 3.75 m3/m would cause additionalcosts of approx. 225 DM/m. The total price would then be 1,725 DM/m; this total would go up to1,950 DM/m if the costs for frost proofing (0.6 m) are added.

The California unit price without sub-ballast would correspond approximately to the usual level inGermany and the unit price with sub-ballast is approx. 25 % too low.

I Phase 1 Report Page 5- 1C010401


Cost ratio of direct fixation/ballasted track ICE 3,400/1,500 = 2.27HSR 1,477/781 = 1.89

The unit price for direct fixation appears to be too low on the basis of the deviation from theGerman unit prices.

Special Trackwork

This item covers mainly bypass and parking tracks in stations and crossovers on the open line.On the basis of experience with new German lines, a flat-rate surcharge of 15 % of the cost forthe regular trackwork is adequate for this item.

5.1.2 Earthwork and Related Items

Site Preparation

The California Corridor Evaluation Report shows 0.95 $/m2 (equivalent to 9,500 S/hectare) forthis item.

A figure of 5 DM/m2 is usually calculated for site preparation in Germany, i.e., more than twicethe price estimated for the California HSR system.

Earthwork

In California, 7 $/m3 are assumed for earthwork; the corresponding costs in Germany amount to20 - 25 DM/m3.

The unit price is approx. 30 % lower than the comparable German price.

Imported Borrow

A comparable unit price for Germany is not readily available.

Landscaping/Erosion Control

The HSR report indicates 0.635 $/m~ (= 6,350 S/hectare) for this item; the unit cost forlandscaping / planting / seeding and planting slopes averages 50 DM/m~ in Germany. This majordiscrepancy cannot be explained.

Fencing

California: 80 $/m (both sides)

Germany: Fencing up to a height of 2.50 m: 250-500 DM/m fenceSimple fence up to 1.00 m: 35 DM/m fence



The type of fencing can differ widely: with foundation, simple piles, dug-in posts, type of fence.The cost estimate therefore cannot be finally assessed. However, as the fencing concerns theentire length of the line, it is advisable that the type of fencing and the associated unit price beverified accurately.

Drainage Facilities

HSR: 5% of the costs for earthwork

ICE drainage: Side ditches 80 DM/mDeep drainage 250 DM/m

It is not meaningful to assess the costs of drainage coupled with earthwork.

For example, high drainage costs occur in cut and trough areas and with unfavorable sub-soilconditions and high ground water levels. For embankments with comparably high earthworkcosts, special drainage facilities other than side ditches are not usually required.

The total costs determined for the segment "LA-4" were checked as a random sample. Theequivalent of approx. 4 $/m is estimated for this cost item. This section is located in a denseurban area in which far higher drainage costs will very likely occur.

5.1.3 Structures, Tunnels and Walls

Aerial Structures and Tunnels

Bridges are divided into aerial structures and grade separations. Aerial structures includeelevated tracks, e.g., in urban areas, viaducts with spans larger than 36.6 m and waterwaycrossings. Grade separations include highway and railroad overcrossings/undercrossings (seenext section).

The prices for aerial structures are given in $/km. The comparison of typical cross-sections ofnew German lines and the California HSR shows that the standard width of each of thestructures is approx. 13.00 m, so that comparable constructions can be assumed.

The California unit costs are appreciably less than the comparable values for new German lines.The difference between standard and special aerial structures at 3-times the cost for specialstructures is disproportionately large. This is not very realistic, as high costs for foundations andsuperstructures are also incurred for constructions with shorter spans.

The prices for tunnels vary according to the construction method. This in turn depends on thetopographical and geological conditions.

The relationship between the costs of 2-track tunnels compared with 2 single-track tunnelsagrees closely with German experience.

Phase 1 Report Page 5- 3 ]C010403

[ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

The cost differences between the various construction methods are larger for the HSR than forthe German estimates (HSR factor 2.7; factor for new German lines 1.5).

This means that the choice of the respective construction method for the California system has alarge influence on the construction costs. Detailed studies of the geological conditions shouldtherefore be conducted in advance, in order to obtain a realistic estimate of the actual costs forthe construction of the tunnels.

This particularly applies to the problem of regions with seismic activity. A seismic chamber itemis listed in the unit costs with a unit price corresponding to a tunnel length of approx. 1 to 2 km.This estimate cannot be checked due to the lack of corresponding experience in Germany.

According to the California HSR Report, the seismic chamber will be used when crossing amajor fault line. Special measures are not listed for the remaining tunnel sections in otherregions with seismic activity. Due to the high standards for high-speed lines, increased costs thatare not yet estimated may also occur in these areas.

The comparison of the costs for aerial structures and tunnels shows that the prices for aerialstructures in the HSR study are appreciably lower than the tunnel costs. The comparableGerman figures tend to give higher costs for a bridge kilometer than for the corresponding tunnelline. The unit prices for the bridges therefore appear to have been estimated too low. Thisshould be checked carefully, as this item constitutes a large part of the total costs due to thelarge share of aerial structures on the line (see also Chapter 5.3 - Comparison of PercentageBreakdown of Costs).

Retaining and Crash Walls

The California unit prices are given in $/km: 3.5 million $/km for retaining walls and 1.2million $/km for crash walls.

Retaining walls can, however, vary considerably in height and thus in the actual costs incurred.The German cost estimate assumes approx. 1,000 to 2,500 DM per m2 of visible retaining wall.For a retaining wall height of, for example, 4.00 m, this equates to approx. 8,000 DM/m. If aretaining wall is necessary on both sides of the line, this results in a price of 16,000 DM per linemeter.

Sound Walls

As for the retaining walls, the costs depend on the height of the wall. Comparative figuresamount to 1,900 DM/m (1 m height) to 4,200 DM/m (5 m height). For both sides of the line, theunit price is doubled, so that the $450,000/km estimated for the HSR seems very low.

5.1.4 Grade Separations

The unit costs are given per bridge structure. The difference is shown for the respective regions(urban, suburban, etc.). This breakdown seems to be not very practical, as the construction



costs depend largely on the size of the structure (bridge area and - for a standard cross-sectionwidth - bridge length). For example, the construction costs for the same size of bridge in anurban area and an undeveloped area only differ to a minor extent in spite of different initialconditions.

As a more detailed description of the assumptions made to determine the unit costs is notavailable, an assessment of this aspect is only possible to a limited extent.

The following costs are estimated for standard structures for new German lines:

Rail over freeway: 4,300,000 DM eachRail over highway: 2,700,000 DM eachRail over rural road: 1,200,000 DM each

The slightly higher California costs for undercrossings compared with overcrossings are realisticon the basis of the higher railway loads.

5.1.5 Building Items

The station buildings are all special buildings; the costs are specific to railway or HSR/ICE onlyto a minor extent.

Comparable transport buildings in the USA can be used as a guide, starting with a simplerailway station through to an airport terminal with road, rail/underground railway and busconnections.

A few current projects in Germany are given below:

ICE station at Frankfurt airport:

4 long-distance rail tracksconnections to regional railway, freeway and local roads, air terminallength 700 m, width 63 mlength of railway platforms approx. 400 mconstruction: fish girder (structural steel with cladding), multi-story

costs including finishing: 460 million DM

The Frankfurt/M airport station is a through station; rail vehicle maintenance facilities are notprovided.

Larger commercial areas are not considered; these are contained in the airport building itself.The entire area features an extremely intensive use of the building environment (airport, existingrailway tunnel, motorway, feeder roads to airport).


[ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J

Cologne airport station

4 tracksopen building with glass roof constructioncosts 106 million DM

Limburg station (in rural area)

2 tracksno escalatorsPark & Ride facilitycosts include access and Park & Ride facilities 28.5 million DM

Montabaur station (in rural area)

3 trackslifts, escalatorsfloor space of passenger terminal: 22 x 50 mPark & Ride facilitycosts include access and Park & Ride facilities 38 million DM

5.1.6 Rail and Utility Relocation

The Corridor Evaluation Report assumes 1 million $/km for the relocation of existing railroadtracks; it is not clear whether this refers to permanent or temporary relocations.

A temporary relocation includes the construction of a new temporary track, dismantling ofexisting track, restoration of the old track and dismantling of the temporary track.

Permanent relocation encompasses construction of a new track and dismantling of the existingtrack.

In Germany, this distinction is made to reflect the different unit costs for these works as shownbelow.

¯ Assuming the California unit cost applies to the relocation of one track on a temporary basis,then the California price appears adequate for the construction of the track withoutsubstructure.

¯ In case of a one-track permanent relocation, that price tends to be too high.

¯ Assuming the California unit cost applies to the relocation of two tracks on a temporarybasis, then the price would tend to be too low in comparison with German experience.


[ German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J

In case of a two-track permanent relocation, that price would be adequate.

In all cases, the costs for substructure (sub-ballast, frost proofing) need to be considered extra!(See also Chapter 5.1.1 - Track and Guideway Items)

Utility Relocation

In Germany, these prices are graded according to the type of line to be relocated as follows:

Gas: 1,000- 1,200 DM/mWater: 500 - 700 DM/mSewage: 500- 700 DM/mElectricity (laid underground): 180- 250 DM/mTelecom (laid underground): 200 DM/m

Overall, this gives an average price of approx. 550 DM/m. The prices apply to the railway area,e.g. station, but without expensive crossing of tracks.

In urban areas, the unit costs are to be increased appropriately; the deep location causesincreased earthwork costs, the surface must be restored and traffic must be temporarilyrerouted. The California prices therefore appear reasonable, with the exception of the price for"Suburban" ($215,000/km), which seems to be too low, and for "Undeveloped" ($11,000/km),which is definitely too low. For $11,000/km ("Undeveloped"), only a simple power line ortelephone line spanned between wooden poles can be rerouted. Underground lines cannot bererouted for this price; the cost is higher for just the earthwork alone. Furthermore, the relocationof larger trunk lines for gas or water in undeveloped areas cannot be adequately covered by thisunit cost.

5.1.7 Right-of-Way

The California land/site prices cannot be meaningfully assessed by us. However, it isconspicuous that purchasing land in densely populated areas in Germany is appreciably moreexpensive than in California, but the relationship is reversed for undeveloped areas, i.e.,appreciably more expensive in California than in Germany.

5.1.8 Environmental Impact Mitigation

In Germany, costs of approx. 500 - 1,000 DM/m of line are allowed for environmental impactmitigation measures. Considered over the whole line, a surcharge of 3 % as planned in the HSRstudy corresponds to a unit price of 365 - 375 $ per meter of line. This estimate can therefore beconsidered as adequate. The required extent depends heavily on locally applicable rules andlegal requirements.

I Phase 1 Report Page 5- 7 ]C010407


5.1.9 Signaling and Communications

The costs for signaling are lower for HSR than for new ICE lines and the costs forcommunications are higher for HSR than for ICE. Signaling for the HSR has been estimated at$665,000/km and communications at $550,000/km.

The costs for communications for new ICE lines are usually estimated as approx. 25 % of thecosts for signaling. In a very recent analysis of the new Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line, it wasfound that the share of the costs for signaling is 72 % and the share for communications 28 %percent of the total costs for technical equipment.

Wayside Protection Systems

The costs for the Wayside Protection Systems for ICE lines are normally included in thecommunications costs. However, rail break alarms are not usually installed in Germany.

The total wayside equipment costs for the ICE are 2,200 DM/m of line compared with costs of1,268 $/m of line for the California HSR system. The total equipment costs (signaling,communications and wayside equipment) are 1.47-times the track work costs (rail, sleeper,fastener, ballast) for the ICE and 1.62-times for the HSR system. Therefore, the total Californiaestimate appears to be reasonable.

5.1.10 Electrification

The ratios between traction power supply and traction power distribution are as follows:

HSR: 3405 / 6345 = 0.54ICE: 400 DM / 1,160 DM = 0.34

On the basis of a currency exchange rate of 1 $ = 2 DM, the costs for traction power supply andtraction power distribution for the HSR system are higher than comparable estimates for ICElines. The price for traction power distribution alone appears reasonable, but the price for thetraction power supply seems somewhat excessive. In addition to technical factors, the costs ofthe traction power supply are, however, also dependent on local circumstances in the nationalpower grid, which cannot be assessed from Germany.

5.2 Completeness of Cost Items

The construction cost items that occur in the construction of a high-speed railway have beenincluded in the California estimates to a large degree.

The discussion of the respective unit costs in terms of amount and commensurability has beenpresented in the relevant chapters.

In our opinion, the following items have not yet been adequately considered:



Costs for Temporary Site Facilities

Costs will occur here for the development of the construction sites, i.e., the erection of site roadsand access routes for material and bulk transport, plus the provision of energy (electricity, fuel),water, storage areas for building materials and soil, and accommodation and supplies for theworkforce.

These costs are usually estimated as a percentage surcharge of 6 - 10 % on the constructiontotal.

Safety Concepts for Tunnels

The California unit prices for the tunnels appear to include only the construction costs of thetunnel tubes. Extensive safety and emergency rescue concepts have to be provided for railwaytunnels in Germany.

The rescue of the passengers must be assured in the event of an accident. This is achieved byemergency exit shafts at certain intervals or connecting tunnels in the case of two single-tracktunnels. Rescue areas must be provided for at the exit shafts and tunnel portals, which areconnected to the public highway network by new access roads to be laid.

In addition, smoke extraction shafts, ventilator systems and water pipes for fire fighting may benecessary in case of fire.

Although not explicitly described in the Corridor Evaluation Report, Parsons Brinckerhoffcommented that safety facilities were included in the tunnel costs, including "ventilationequipment, ventilation/evacuation shafts, twin tunnel methods, etc."

Large pressure differences occur during high-speed travel in tunnels. If this is not taken intoaccount in the design of the trains, broader cross-sections or air pressure shafts must beprovided at certain intervals.

The items listed here should be assessed in detail during the subsequent project phase,especially in the areas with increased seismic activity.

Sub-Ballast, Frost Proofing and Drainage

As already mentioned in the chapters above, the costs for the substructure (sub-ballast, frostproofing) appear not to have been estimated and the costs for drainage not meaningfullyestimated.

It would be possible, for example, to estimate the substructure and drainage (750 DM/m of linein Germany) at a flat rate or with separate unit costs for substructure (sub-ballast, frost proofing)and drainage.



5.3 Comparison of Percentage Breakdown of Costs

The California costs of the construction elements are broken down into nine main groups. Thepercentage breakdown of the total construction costs to the individual items can be determinedfrom Appendix E of the Corridor Evaluation Report for the respective line alternative.

The largest share of the costs is attributed to civil engineering works (tunnels, aerial structures,grade separation and walls) with 40.9 to 43.5 % depending on the alternative investigated.Right-of-way would be the second largest cost factor with a share of 11.4 to 12.4 %. Theremaining approx. 45 % is distributed between the rest of the items with shares of 2 to 10 %.

The cost breakdown was compared with the corresponding figures for two high-speed railprojects in Germany (see Table 5-2) and relatively close agreement between the costbreakdown is apparent initially.

Differences result, however, from the considerations of the line profiles. The line alternatives ofthe California HSR run approx. 80 % at grade, whereas the comparable lines in Germany runonly 70 and 54 % at grade due to the highland topography.

In the consideration of the individual line segments, the sections from Los Angeles to Bakersfieldand the San Joaquin Valley to San Francisco are of a comparable mountainous nature (seeTable 5-3). For these two line sections, however, it is mainly the earthwork costs that increase.This means that there is no tendency to expect higher costs for tunnels and aerial constructions.This should be checked carefully, especially for the hilly line sections, as a realisticdetermination of the necessary cost for structures and tunnels is a decisive factor here due tothe large share of these costs.

There is a further difference in the breakdown between tunnels and aerial structures. The shareof tunnels for the California HSR is much lower than the share of aerial structures. Depending online alternative, line shares of 12.7 to 17.5 % result for aerial structures alone.

As seen from the assessment of the California unit cost, the price for aerial structures has beenestimated lower than for tunnels. Comparable German figures tend to show the same order ofmagnitude for the costs per kilometer of tunnels and aerial structures. Because of the largeshares of line costs for aerial structures, a realistic estimate of these unit costs is of crucialimportance.

5.4 Comparison of Typical Cross-Sections

As already discussed in detail in Chapter 2, the California cross sections essentially areadequate with the exceptions noted earlier.

Right-of- Way Width

The minimum R-O-W width of 50 feet, i.e., 15.2 m, should be checked. This corridor is justenough for erecting a pure rail line at grade. However, more space will be required if drainage



facilities are necessary (side ditches). A corridor width of 15.2 m does not allow space for cut orembankment slopes.

5.5 Schedules

The following time periods are planned for the implementation of the California HSR system:

Preliminary planning and approval: 6 yearsConstruction time until operation: 10 years

Appendix K of the Corridor Evaluation Report shows an outline plan of the resources required forthe individual years. This provides the following information:

¯ The main construction work takes place in years 11 to 14, i.e., from the 5th to the 8th year ofthe construction phase.

¯ Transferring this to the complete line shows that a maximum line length of 190 km/year canbe expected for the individual works.

¯ The "Line Construction" block (earthwork and structures) ends one year before the end ofthe total construction time, but like the other items includes the largest amount ofconstruction work in years 11 to 14.

The following comments are offered:

In our opinion, the line construction block should have a longer lead before the railway work andmore line construction work should start at the beginning of the construction period. This isnecessary, as bridges, tunnels and earthworks have relatively long individual construction timesand the railway equipment incl. track work cannot be installed in the respective sections until lineconstruction has been completed.

The total duration of construction depends heavily on the respective logistic and organizationalplanning, so that the assessment of line km per year is not automatically possible. A number ofguide values for the construction times of individual main structures in new lines in Germany aregiven below for comparison.

New Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line:

Total length: approx. 200 kmConstruction time: approx. 5 - 6 years

Viaducts with a length exceeding 100 m and height exceeding 20 m:Total construction time incl. foundation, abutments, piers and superstructure: approx. 2 - 3 years


German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation]

Tunnels:The construction time for tunnels depends heavily on the prevailing conditions. First the geology,on which the construction advance depends. The daily progress here can vary from less than1 m per day to 20 m per day. Second the topography, which determines whether a tunnel can bedriven from the portals only or whether additional intermediate stages are necessary.

In the mountainous sections of the new Cologne - Frankfurt/Main line, construction times ofapprox. 2 to 5 years were required for tunnels with lengths of up to 4 km. Correspondingly longerconstruction times may be necessary for long tunnels under difficult conditions.

Earthwork and Track Work:For embankment filling work, settling times of half a year may be necessary to allow forsubsequent subsidence. These measures are particularly necessary for site-sensitive high-speed lines.

For direct fixation tracks of new German lines, line progress of approx. 150 - 200 m/day isestimated. Ballasted track can be laid at the rate of 700 - 1000 m/day under optimum conditions(track meters).

Key milestones of new lines in Germany:

Cologne - Frankfurt/Main:

Length of line 200 km

Topography: mainly hilly to highland

Start of planning activities 1992(design, approval and execution planning)

Start of construction 1996

Planned operation 2002

Total costs (without rolling stock) 10 billion DM

Hanover - Berlin:

Length of line 264 km

Topography: mainly lowland

Start of preliminary planning 1988

Start of detailed planning activities 1991


L German Peer Review California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation J

(design, approval and execution planning)

Start of construction 1994

Start of operation December 1998

Total costs (without rolling stock) 5.85 billion DM

5.6 Summary

The assumptions and investigations concerning the costs and construction times for theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Study (HSR) have been compared with comparable empirical valuesand planning parameters of German Railway construction projects. In particular, relevant figureshave been considered for new German high-speed lines (InterCityExpress - ICE) with a speed ofup to 300 km/h.

The cost items estimated in the HSR study cover a majority of the costs occurring. However, thecosts of temporary site facilities, track substructure and safety facilities for the tunnels apparentlyhave not been included. (Parsons Brinckerhoff stated that safety facilities were included in thetunnel costs, although not explicitly described in the Corridor Evaluation Report.) Thesubstructure for the tracks is of great importance, particularly for high-speed lines, as highstandards are required for secure and accurate track positioning.

The line sections in regions with seismic activity place high demands on tunnels. These concernboth constructional and railway matters as well as safety and emergency rescue concepts whichneed to be considered in more detail in the next project phase.

The relationships between the estimated unit costs compared with the German figures indicatethat the estimates for some items tend to be too low. An example of this is the comparatively lowprice for aerial structures. With a share of up to 17 % of the line costs for aerial structures, thisitem has a relatively large influence on the total costs. Appropriate comments on the separateunit prices for earthwork, drainage, line-laying, signaling and electrification can be found in thecorresponding sections.

An assessment of the approval, planning and construction times estimated in the HSR study isonly possible to a limited extent. The necessary preliminary planning and studies prior toobtaining building permission and thus the start of the actual construction depend on therespective legislative situation and the approval procedures to be completed. These cannot beautomatically compared with German conditions.

The actual construction time of 10 years can be viewed as a realistic minimum period, if therelevant dependencies and external conditions have been adequately clarified in the preliminarystages. These concern the local conditions (geology, topography and the construction method tobe selected), the construction capabilities to be achieved for the individual works and theircoordination.

Phase 1 Report Page 5 - 13 1C010413

Table 5-1: Alignment Unit Costs

Track and Guideway Items HSR California Cost Guidelines of German Railway Summary of other Sources

Unit Pnce Unit Remarks SourceItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 HS/VHS Track - Ballasted km $781 00[ 1500 DM/m double track Rail, sleeper, ballast 1500 DM / m of I~ne Project Frankfurt 212 HS/VHS Track - Direct Fixation km $1.477 00( 2800 DM/m double track Rail, concrete slab, hxlng 3400 DM / m of hne Project Frankfurt 213 Maglev - At Grade Slab & Track Beam km $3 295.60(4 Maglev - Track Beam (Aerial and Tunnel) km $2 166 75(

15% of Mainline5 Special Trackwork (VHS) %Trackwork

Earthwork and Related ItemsItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Site Preparation hectare $9.50( 5 DM/m2 S=te preparation 5 DM / m3 DE-Consult, =nternal2 Earthwork Cu-m $7 20 DM/m3 So=l classes 3-5 25 DM / m3 DE-Consult, internal3 Imported Borrow Cu-m $1( DM/m3 So=l classes 3-54 Landscapm,q / Erosion Control hectare $6.35( 5[ DM/m2 Landscap=ng, plant~ng5 Fenc=ng (Both Sides of R/W) km $80 00( 50£ DM/m (1 rn cappln~ rail 350 DM/m) 250 DM / m DE-Consult, internal6 Dra=nage Facihhes % 5% of Earthwork 30= DM/m D~tches

250 DM/m Deep drainage 80 S=de d=tches DE-Consult, internal

Structures, Tunnels and WallsItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Standard Aenal Structures km $10 800 00( 5850C DM/m structure 4500 DM/m2, b=13m2 Spec=al Aerial Structures km $29 550 00( 84500 - 11830£ DM/m structure 6500 -9100 DM/m2, b=13m

4400( S=ngle track3 Cut and Cover Tunnels km $20.960 00(: DM/m structure5900( Double track4 Double Track Tunnels - Doll and Blast km $23 940 00( 44000 DM/m structure5 Double Track Tunnels - M=ned (soft sod) km $64 270.00( 65000 DM/m structure6 2 S~ngle Track Tunnels - Doll and Blast km $47 000 00( 78000 DM/m structure7 2 S~n,qJe Track Tunnels - Tunnel Bonn.g Machine km $31 440.00( 4700t DM/m structure 60% o~8 Se=sm=c Chamber EA $60 680.00C9 Retaining Walls km $3 460.00C 1500 - 250J DM/m2 structure e ~ h=4m => 7000 DM/m10 Crash Walls km $1 180 00~11 Sound Walls km $450.00C 190C DM/m structure m above top of rail

420(: 5 m above top of rail 2200 DM / m Prelect Frankfurt 21

Grade S~ )arationsItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Undercross~n,q - (Dense Urban, Urban) EA $14 100 00C2 Overcrosslng - (Dense Urban, Urban) EA $13 500.00[ 60 000 000 DM/km - structure Ra~l/rad DE-Consult, =nternal3 Undercrosslng - (Dense Suburban) EA $5 400.00C4 Overcross=ng - (Dense Suburban) EA $5 100 00C 4 300 000 Each Rad/motorway DE-Consult, =ntemal5 Undercrossm,q - (Suburban, Undeveloped) EA $910 00C6 Overcrossin.q - (Suburban, Undeveloped) EA $860 00C 2 700 000 Each Ra~l/road DE-Consult, internal7 Close Ex=st~ng At Grade Crossing EA $140.00C8 Waterway Crossln,g - Primary EA $5.400 00C 1 200 000 Each Rail/path stream DE-Consult, =nternal9 Waterway Crossing - Secondary EA $2 700 00C

10 Irr=,gahon/Canal Crossing EA $320.00C 210£ DM/m Nom=nal diameter < 1000 mm

Buildin9 ItemsItem No.] Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 ITerm~nal Station LS $88.0003 IS~te Development/Park=ng (Term na Stat on) LS $22.000 00¢2 I Urban Stat=on ’ LS $44 000 00C4 IS=te Development/Parking (Urban Stat on) LS $11 000 00£5 Suburban Stat=on LS $22 000 00(;6 S=te DevelopmenVPark~n,q (Suburban Station) LS $5 500 00£7 Rural Stat=on LS $11 000 00£8 S~te Development!Parking (Rural Stahon) LS $2 200.00£

Rail and Utility RelocationItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Ex~st~n,g R/R Relocahon km $1.000 000 Honzontal track sweep2 Ut=llty Relocat=on - Dense Urban km $700.000 1200 DM/m - Gas All types of I~ne lay=n9 1000 DM / rn DM / m - Gas DE-Consult, internal3 Ut=llty Relocation - Urban km $535 000 700 Water Line laying] 650 DM / rn Water DE-Consult, =nternal4 Utdlty Relocahon - Dense Suburban km $375.000 700 Sewage L=ne lay=n~ 500 DM / rn Sewage DE-Consult, internal5 Uhhty Relocat=on - Suburban km $215.000 250 Power (laid under~round) L~ne la~=n~l 180 DM / m Power (under~rd) DE-Consult, internal6 Ut=hty Relocat=on - Undeveloped km $11 000 200 Telecoms (laid underground) Line

610 Mean va~ueRight of WayItem No, Item Description Unit Unit Price Land purchase

1 RI,ght of Way - Dense Urban (50’ Corndor 15 20m km $4 920.00£ 16000 (2280 - 304001 DM/m 15o - 2000 DM/m;2 R~ght of Way - Urban (50’ Corndor) km $3.280.000 16000 (2280- 30400) DM/m t 50- 2000 DM/m~3 R=,qht of Way - Dense Suburban (50’ Corndor) km $1 640.000 5000 (760- 9120 DM/m 50- 600 DM/m;4 R=ght of Way - Suburban (100’ Corridor 30 40m km $1.150 000 10000 (1520 - 18240) DM/m 50 - 600 DM/m:5 R=,qht of Way - Undeveloped (100’ Corndor) km $820 000 300 (152- 456 DM/m 8 - 15 DM/m;

Environmental Impact MitigationItem No, Item Description Unit Unit Price

3% of1 Enwronmental M~hgat~on % Construction 510 DM / rn Project Frankfurt 21

Signalin! ~ & CommunicationItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Si,qnahn,q (ATC) - VHS km $665 000 1580 ~M / m Cologne - Frankfurt DE-Consult, internal2 Commumcat~on - VHS/w/F~ber Optic Backbone) km $550.000 62C DM / m Cologne - Frankfurt DE-Consult, internal3 Signahng (ATC) - Maglev km $770 0004 Communication - Maglev (w/F~ber Optic Backbone km $550 000_5 Ways=de Protection Systems (VHS & Maglev) km $52.800

ElectrificationItem No. Item Description Unit Unit Price

1 Tract=on Power Supply - VHS km $340.000 4oG 3M/rn DE-ConsuJt, internal2 Traction Power D~stnbuhon - VHS km $634.000 1160 3M / m DE-Consult, ~nterna~3 Trachon Power Supply - Maglev km $640 0004, Traction Power Dlstnbut~on - Ma,~lev km $2,440 000

C010414

C010415

LLI

C010416


6. CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Report represents a valuablemilestone document in the ongoing development of the California High-Speed Rail Plan. For acomparative assessment of the alternative corridors, the information provided is comprehensiveand sufficient at this time.

However, there are several areas with questionable assumptions and findings, most notably theentire operations concept and related fleet requirements and costs. The train running timecalculations have been made in a simplified manner with questionable results. The timetablesshown in the report comprise a great variety of trains with different stopping patterns and amixture of very fast non-stop trains with various medium fast and slow local trains. Due to thetravel time differences between the different train categories, the density of the timetable and thelength of line, overtaking of slower trains by faster trains cannot be avoided. Our operationssimulation program has shown that almost half the trains are overtaken by faster trains, some ofthem 2 to 3 times, with passed trains encountering delays of up to 30 minutes. Therefore, thetimetables do not reflect real operating conditions. According to Parsons Brinckerhoff, thetimetable included in the Corridor Evaluation Report was merely intended to illustrate a possiblescenario of how the system could operate once implemented and was not based on a detailedoperations analysis or simulation modeling.

The report implies a daily running performance per train of about 3,000 km which is highlyunrealistic. Our calculations have shown that 1,860 km per day and trainset would be morereasonable. As a result, the number of required trainsets given in the report with 38 has beensubstantially underestimated; we have determined that 62 trainsets would be required whichincludes a 10-% spare ratio.

Furthermore, the energy costs appear to be underestimated. Our computer simulation of trainruns indicate an energy consumption three times higher. The operations and maintenancecosts of the high-speed trains seem to be in the right order-of-magnitude, whereas those for thecommuter trains are considerably overestimated.

The alignment design parameters used are appropriate and comply with the requirements foran HSR-system for a design speed of 350 km/h. Not specified in the report are the relevantdimensions for station platforms and platform access, special requirements and protectivemeasures for line sections parallel to existing roads and railways, and rescue/evacuationprovisions in tunnels and on long bridges. Since these requirements are very similar to thevarious alternative corridors under investigation, they may not influence the relative merits ofthese options, but could very well affect the overall costs of the alignment alternatives.

In selecting the final design parameters during the upcoming project phase, the pro’s and con’sof opting for minimum versus more generous alignment and permanent way design parametersshould be carefully weighed, particularly with regards to their impacts on (1) wear of permanentway and rolling stock, (2) maintenance requirements and costs, (3) passenger comfort, and (4)options for future improvements.



Furthermore, it may be prudent to re-assess the requirement to design the California HSRsystem for a top speed of 350 km/h under consideration of the economics of operations andmaintenance, travel time savings, environmental impacts, and investment costs for infrastructureand rolling stock.

The construction cost items in the Corridor Evaluation Report cover the majority of costsoccurring. However, the costs of temporary site facilities, track substructure and safety facilitiesfor tunnels apparently have not been included. (Although not explicitly described in the CorridorEvaluation Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff commented that safety facilities were included in thetunnel costs.) Furthermore, some unit cost estimates appear to be too low in comparison withGerman experience; in particular, this is the case for aerial structures. With a share of up to 17%of the line costs for aerial structures, this item has a relatively large influence on the total costs.

The Corridor Evaluation Report does not include a general technical description of candidatetrain technologies. Some of the train data are in part inconsistent; for example, the accelerationrates shown for higher speeds are far too high.

Our assessment of the merits of locomotive-hauled trains (concentrated power) versus EhlU-type trainsets (distributed power) indicates that the EMU trainsets have a higher seatingcapacity of approximately 8% and, more importantly, a superior climbing capability. Alignmentswith sustained gradients of 3.5% and even 5.0% are possible, but require the deployment ofEMU-type trainsets with high power output and tractive effort.

This peer review also included an assessment of mixed operations of high-speed passengertrains and freight services on high-speed lines. Two types of freight services were considered inthe Corridor Evaluation Report: (1) small package/light container services in especially adaptedhigh-speed rolling stock and (2) special medium-weight freight with locomotive-hauled trains,adapted to the special conditions of the high-speed line.

The first category would use rolling stock with the same performance characteristics as the high-speed passenger trainsets and does not create any operational problems. However, separateloading and unloading platforms may be required at stations. The slower locomotive-hauledfreight trains would have to operate at night to avoid interference with the much faster passengertrains.

The locomotive-hauled freight trains are capable of negotiating long sustained gradients, butwith significant weight restrictions. We have simulated freight train runs with the German 5600-kW-"Eurosprinter" locomotive with the following results: The maximum trainload per locomotiveis about 700 t on 3.5-% grades and about 400 t on 5.0-% grades. This corresponds to trainlengths with 8-9 wagons and 5 wagons, respectively. With additional locomotives, the maximumtrain load could be increased proportionately.


california high-speed rail corridor · pdf filedecember 2000 c010333. ... ballasted track...

Documents