Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment
2010-2012
Summary of Phase 2 Works
Jernbaneverket
26 May 2011
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared by Atkins Transport planning and Management and are
intended solely for Jernbaneverket‘s information and use in relation to the Norwegian HSR Assessment
Project.
Atkins Transport Planning and Management assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or
arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.
Document History
Job number: 5101627
Document ref: NHS Ph2 Summary
Report_v2.0_issued 260511.docx
Revision Purpose Description
Originated
Checked
Reviewed
Authorised Date
Rev 1.0
First Draft
JT
TH
JT
WL
11/05/11
Rev 2.0
Final report incorporating JT
Client comments
TH
JT
WL
26/05/11
Client signoff
Client
Jernbaneverket
Project
Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment
Document title
Summary of Phase 2 Works
Job No.
5101627
Copy No.
1
Document
reference
Jon Tindall
Address:
3100 Century Way
Thorpe Park
Leeds
LS15 8ZB
UK
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +44 113 306 6010
Table of contents
Chapter
Pages
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
Introduction
This Document
The Study
Concepts to be Assessed
The Material
Structure of the Document
6
6
6
7
7
9
2.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
Market Analysis
Introduction
Subject 1: Demand Potential for HSR Services in Norway
Subject 2: Analysis of Expected Amount of Ticket Revenues
Subject 3: Passenger Choice – Preferences for Travel & Means of Transport
Subject 4: Location & Services of Stations/Terminals
Subject 5: Market Conditions for Fast Freight Trains
10
10
10
17
23
27
37
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
Rail Specific Planning and Development
Introduction
Subject 1: Further Reviews of Single Track HSR
Subject 2: Track Connections
Subject 3: Stations on HSR Lines
43
43
43
45
53
4.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
Technical and Safety Analyses
Introduction
Subject 1: Technical Solutions
Subject 2: Risk Assessment and Analysis
Subject 3: Assessment of High-speed railway‘s Contribution to Transportation Safety and Security
57
57
57
69
72
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
5.6.
Financial and Economic Analysis
Introduction
Subject 1: Analysis of Effects of Investment within the Road and Aviation Sectors
Subject 2: Estimation and Assessment of Investment Costs
Subject 3: Funding and Operation of the Infrastructure
Subject 4: Socio-economic Analyses
Subject 5: Uncertainty Analysis
74
74
74
77
79
82
87
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
Environmental Analysis
Introduction
Subjects 1 and 2: Landscape and Environmental Intervention Effects
Subject 3: Effects on Energy and Noise
Subject 4: Climate Related Effects
91
91
91
93
96
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
Commercial and Organisational Issues
Introduction
Scope of Work in Delivering HSR
Subject 1: Organisational Issues
Subject 2: Contractual Strategy
Subject 3: Commercial Strategy – Scope for Self-funding
Lessons from Case Studies and Market Soundings
99
99
99
101
102
103
103
Appendices
105
Appendix A.
The Mandate
A.1.
Introduction and Summary
A.2.
Background for the Assessment Task
A.3.
Purpose and Accomplishment
106
106
106
107
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
3
A.4.
A.5.
A.6.
The Assessment Task
Special Assessment Topics
The Organising, Financing and Time Frame for the Final Report of the Assessment
108
110
112
Tables
Table 1.1 – Phase 2: Work Contracts
Table 2.1 – Total annual demand for key corridors in Norway for main transport modes (2010)
Table 2.2 – Summary of Scenario D results (model testing only – not to be used for individual option
assessment)
Table 2.3 – Values of time per hour for long-distance private travel in Norway, NOK (2009)
Table 2.4 – Average values of time per hour from current study, NOK (2010)
Table 2.5 – Mode choice effects (Oslo-Bergen)
Table 2.6 – Prioritisation of intermediate station stops on HSR corridors
Table 2.7 – NSB Passenger satisfaction survey results 2006 – 2009
Table 2.8 – Summary of demand and revenue for selected stopping patterns
Table 3.1 – Delay statistics for existing lines
Table 3.2 – Norwegian requirements for safety zones on platforms
Table 4.1 – Types of HSR track system
Table 4.3 – Types of HSR rolling stock
Table 4.4 – Residual risk related to top events, overview
Table 4.5 – Residual collective risk, overview
Table 4.6 – Residual collective risk, point estimate overview
Table 4.7 – Residual collective risk of personnel overview
rd
Table 4.8 – Residual individual risk of passengers and 3 persons overview
Table 5.1 – Potential sources of financing for Norway HSR
Table 5.2 – Advantages and disadvantages of different types of funding
Table 5.3 – Core and extended/alternative economic assessment frameworks
7
12
15
18
18
21
29
30
32
44
54
64
68
70
70
71
71
71
80
81
84
Figures
Figure 2.1 – Population density in Norway by municipality
11
Figure 2.2 – HSR proposed routes
13
Figure 2.3 – Example of values of time by mode (NOK per hour)
18
Figure 2.4 – Willingness to pay (NOK per return ticket) for improved in-train services (work purposes)
19
Figure 2.5 – Willingness to pay (NOK per return ticket) for improved in-train services (non-work purposes) 20
Figure 2.6 – Oslo-Bergen: HSR fare against revenue (2024)
22
Figure 2.7 – Rail-air market share (Steer Davies Gleave, 2006)
23
Figure 2.8 – Impact of factors on attractiveness of current mode (existing air users)
24
Figure 2.9 – Impact of factors on likelihood of using HSR (existing air users)
26
Figure 2.10 – Impact of tunnels on likelihood of using HSR
27
Figure 2.11 – Potential HSR corridors in Norway
28
Figure 2.12 – Conclusions on state of readiness for HSR rail demand
31
Figure 3.1 – Simple track loop
46
Figure 3.2 – Combined passing and track loop
46
Figure 3.3 – Track loops used for temporary single-track operation
46
Figure 3.4 – Length of track loop with different turnout standard. Main signals marked with simple arrows
beside the tracks.
47
Figure 3.5 – Maximum capacity for temporary single-track operation, with train speeds of 200 and 300 kph 47
Figure 3.6 – One-sided passing loop. The track loop turnouts (red) could here be given the same standard
as (130 kph) as the passing loop turnouts if the loop is planned to be used for overtaking in both directions 48
Figure 3.7 – Maximum capacity for temporary single-track operation, with turnout speed fixed to 100 kph. 48
Figure 3.8 – Alternative loop lengths for an ordinary, one sided, passing loop
50
Figure 3.9 – Alternative loop lengths for a two-sided passing loop for combined overtaking and passenger
stop
50
Figure 3.10 – Minimum scheduled delay at overtaking. Regional and freight trains with alternative turnout
speeds (diverging track).
51
Figure 3.11 – Mean number of possible freight trains per hour
52
Figure 3.12 – Track layout for single track station with 1 stopping and 1 passing, 2 stopping, or 2 passing
trains
53
Figure 3.13 – Track layout for double track station with 2 stopping and 2 passing trains
53
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
4
Figure 3.14 – TGV station at St-Raphaël
Figure 3.15 – Lille, Porte de Valenciennes
Figure 4.1 – Ballasted track with B 70 sleepers
Figure 4.2 – The new ICE high-speed line Nürnberg -Ingolstadt with BÖGL system
Figure 5.1 – Illustration of airline responses to HSR demand abstraction
Figure 5.2 – Illustration of HSR's potential impact on the road sector
Figure 5.3 – Market segment and transport service, differentiated by time and money
Figure 5.4 – Summary of Life Cycle Cost Model structure
Figure 5.5 – Uncertainty analysis tools
Figure 5.6 – Foresight scenarios
Figure 7.1 – Key roles in an HSR project
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
55
56
65
66
75
76
76
78
88
89
101
5
1.
Introduction
1.1.
This Document
This document represents the Summary Report of the findings of Phase 2 of the Norwegian HSR
Assessment Project. It brings together the outputs of all of the different workstreams considered in Phase 2
of the project into a single document. It is a summary document only and no interpretation of the individual
reports is intended. Where practicable the original writing style of the original reports has been retained.
This includes the tense used as well as the style of written English.
Please note that whilst due care has been taken in producing a summary, the full reports are available at
http://www.jernbaneverket.no/no/Prosjekter/Hoyhastighetsutredningen/, and should be used in any technical
examination of the methodology or results by other parties.
The work undertaken in Phase 2 of the Norwegian HSR Assessment Project was commissioned in
September 2010, and completed in February 2011.
1.2.
The Study
The Norwegian Rail Administration (Jernbaneverket) has been given a mandate from the Norwegian Ministry
of Transport and Communication to assess the issue of high-speed railways in southern Norway. The
assessment shall provide recommendations on long-term strategies that will form the basis of long-distance
passenger traffic in southern Norway into the future. The deadline for the assessment and recommendations
to the Ministry is February 2012. The Mandate is included as Appendix A of this document.
The Mandate states that the assessment shall be undertaken in three distinct pre-defined phases, as follows:



Phase 1. The purpose of this stage of the study is to give an overview and presentation of the
knowledge base that already exists within Norway, with regard to HSR ways. This includes
examining work already undertaken by the Norwegian National Rail Administration, as well as work
from other stakeholders including Norsk Bane AS, Hoyhastighetsringen AS, and Cocinco North.
Also, included in this assessment is the work undertaken on HSR in Sweden;
Phase 2. The purpose in Phase 2 of the study is to identify common premises for HSR concepts that
might be relevant for Norwegian conditions. The premises comprise a number of topics including,
market analysis, evaluation of different conceptual solutions related to the use of dedicated tracks,
stop-patterns and station design, different speed standards, and the possibilities of incremental
development of the existing rail network. In addition, it is necessary to assess conditions related to
income and costs, environmental concerns, energy consumption, maintenance over winter
conditions, and organisation; and
Phase 3. On the basis of the findings of Phase 2, Phase 3 will undertake specific analysis of action
plans for individual corridors, including recommendations for long-term development strategies.
Phase 1 of the study was undertaken early in 2010. The findings of Phase 1 are summarised in a document
produced by COWI consultants, entitled: Norwegian National Rail Administration, Status of Knowledge
on High-Speed Rail Lines in Norway, Report, July 2010.
This document represents the summary document for Phase 2 of the study, representing the Phase 2 work
undertaken between September 2010 and February 2011. In Phase 2 of the study, analysis was undertaken
in six discrete areas:




Market Analysis. Comprised an assessment of the market conditions and traffic basis for different
types of passenger and freight traffic in the concepts under consideration;
Railway Specific Planning and Development. Comprised an assessment of the use of single-track
and double-track for HSR, an examination of station development and stop patterns, and
consequences to public transport in general;
Technical and Safety Analysis. Included an assessment and use of HSR standards, technical
aspects of construction of high-speed railways, along with safety and security considerations;
Financial and Economic Analysis. Included an examination of suitable socio-economic
assessment methods, likely cost and income structures, impacts on other transport modes, and
assessments of risk and uncertainty;


Environmental Analysis. An assessment of methods and the premises for environmental analysis
regarding landscape analysis, environmental intervention effects, effects on noise and energy
consumption and assessment of climate related environmental effects;
Commercial and Organisational Issues. Assessment of different organisational, contractual and
commercial strategies in planning and construction phases of HSR systems.
Each of these areas of analysis will be examined in turn in the main sections of this document.
1.3.
Concepts to be Assessed
The Mandate states that the following corridors in southern Norway and into Sweden are assessed as part of
the study:






Oslo – Kristiansand – Stavanger;
Oslo – Bergen;
Oslo – Trondheim;
Oslo – Gothenburg;
Oslo – Stockholm; and
Bergen – Haugesund/Stavanger.
For each of the corridors the Mandate requests that a number of different scenarios be assessed based on
varying degrees of new infrastructure provision. The Scenarios selected for review in Phase 2 were as
follows:
Scenario A: Current railway: the reference project – provision of higher speed services based on the
plans of the current railway according to what is set out in the National Transport Plan (―NTP‖) 20102019.
Scenario B: More investment in rail infrastructure both within and outside the InterCity Area.
Scenario C: Provision of high speed services based on the existing InterCity rail Strategy and similar
improvements or new infrastructure outside the InterCity Area.
Scenario D: Provision of high speed services operating largely on dedicated new high speed
infrastructure.
For the remainder of this report these scenarios will be referred to as Scenarios A to D.
1.4.
The Material
1.4.1.
The Contracts
A total of six contracts were let to cover the six work areas undertaken in Phase 2. These contracts, along
with the consultants supplying the services, are given in the table below:
Table 1.1 – Phase 2: Work Contracts
Work Topic
Consultants
Market Analysis
Atkins, in conjunction with Rand Europe, The
Institute of Transport Studies (University of
Leeds), and Significance.
Railway Specific Planning and Development
WSP
Technical and Safety Analysis
Pöyry in conjunction with Sweco, Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology and Interfleet Technology
Financial and Economic Analysis
Atkins, in conjunction with Faithful & Gould and
Ernst & Young.
Environmental Analysis
Asplan Viak, in conjunction with MISA, VWI
GmbH, and Brekke Strand.
Commercial and Organisational Issues
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
7
Each of the consultants produced findings of their analyses in a series of Phase 2 reports. These reports
were used as the basis for producing this Summary document. The specific documents produced under
each of the contracts are given below. A review of the documents below forms the basis of this Phase 2
Summary Report.
1.4.2.
Market Analysis
The following documents were produced as part of this subject:
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 5: Market Analysis.
Subject 1: Demand Forecasting. Final Report. Atkins, 04/03/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 5: Market Analysis. Annex
to Subject 1: Demand Forecasting. Model Development Report. Final Report. Atkins, 18/01/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 5: Market Analysis.
Subjects 2 and 3: Expected Revenue and Passenger Choices. Final Report. Atkins in conjunction with
Rand Europe,18/02/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 5: Market Analysis:
Location and Services of Stations/Terminals Final Report. Atkins, 17/02/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 5: Market Analysis.
Subject 5: Market Conditions for Fast Freight Trains. Final Report. Atkins, 14/02/2011.
1.4.3.
Railway Specific Planning and Development
The following documents was produced as part of this subject:
The Norwegian HSR Assessment Project, Phase 2. Rail Specific Planning and Development Analysis.
Final Report 2011-02-18. WSP.
1.4.4.
Technical and Safety Analysis
The following document was produced as part of this subject:
HSR Assessment, Phase II. Norwegian Rail Administration. Technical and Safety Analysis. Report.
February 2011. Poyry in conjunction with Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Sweco, and Interfleet
Technology.
1.4.5.
Financial and Economic Analysis
The following documents were produced as part of this subject:
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 6: Financial and
Economic Analysis. Subject 1: Effects on Road and Aviation Sectors. Final Report. Atkins,
14/02/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 6: Financial and
Economic Analysis. Subject 2: Estimation and Assessment of Investment Costs. Final Report.
Atkins, 18/02/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Project. Contract 6, Subject 3: Funding and Operation
of the Infrastructure. Final. Ernst& Young, 18 February, 2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 6: Financial and
Economic Analysis. Subject 4: Economic Analysis. Final Report. Atkins, 18/02/2011.
Jernbaneverket. Norwegian High-speed railway Assessment Project. Contract 6: Financial and
Economic Analysis. Subject 5: Uncertainty Analysis. Final Report. Atkins, 04/02/2011.
1.4.6.
Environmental Analysis
The following document was produced as part of this subject:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
8
A Methodology for Environmental Assessment – Norwegian High-speed railway Project Phase 2.
Final Report Rev.1. Jernbaneverket March 2011. Asplan Viak, in conjunction with MISA, VW1 GmbH,
and Brekke Strand.
1.4.7.
Commercial and Organisational Issues
The following document was produced as part of this subject:
HSR Norway – Long Distance Passenger Rail Transport in Norway. Commercial, Contractual, and
Organisational. Report Phase 2. February 2011. PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
1.5.
Structure of the Document
The remainder of this report is structured in the following manner:






Chapter 2 summarises the work undertaken as part of the Market Analysis topic;
Chapter 3 outlines the work undertaken as part of the Railway Specific Planning and Development
topic;
Chapter 4 summarises the work undertaken as part of the Technical and Safety Analysis subject;
Chapter 5 outlines the work undertaken as part of the Financial and Economic Analysis work area;
Chapter 6 summarises the work undertaken as part of the Environmental Analysis topic; and,
Chapter 7 outlines the work undertaken as part of the Commercial and Organisational Issues
discussion.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
9
2.
Market Analysis
2.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Market Analysis Contract is to establish the size of the potential HSR passenger and
freight markets under different HSR scenarios. This involves identifying the current market and its projected
growth, mode share and the preferences and priorities of those markets. The current market is used as a
basis, together with expected willingness to pay for new services, to forecast how much of this market would
be attracted to new HSR scenarios, and how much additional demand may be induced.
The Market Analysis Contract consists of five subjects:





Subject 1: Demand potential for HSR services in Norway;
Subject 2: Analysis of expected amount of ticket revenues;
Subject 3: Passengers choice – preferences for travel and means of transport;
Subject 4: Location and services of stations / terminals; and
Subject 5: Market conditions for fast freight trains.
This report summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of Phase 2 for the purpose of
informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by Atkins, in
conjunction with Rand Europe, The Institute of Transport Studies (University of Leeds), and
Significance.
The other contracts let under Phase 2 of this study are primarily concerned with examining literature to
inform, and constructing models to be applied, in Phase 3 of the study. Whilst the Market Analysis contract is
concerned with constructing models to be applied in Phase 3, it also involves a large element of new
research, specifically in the Norwegian context.
Each of the five subjects is considered in turn in the remainder of this chapter.
2.2.
Subject 1: Demand Potential for HSR Services in Norway
2.2.1.
Introduction
This section provides outputs from the demand forecasting (Subject 1) work undertaken to support the
market analysis. The existing passenger market was assessed and a model was built to forecast the amount
of demand that might transfer from other modes to HSR. It also provides an estimate of how much demand
might be generated as a result of the improvements to the rail network.
The demand forecasts are an important input into the socio-economic assessment of the proposed
improvements. The forecast use of the improved services and shift from other modes are used to quantify
the revenue and monetised benefits of the improvements, which are compared to the costs of building the
scheme to understand which improvements are economically worthwhile.
2.2.2.
Size of Existing Travel Markets
2.2.2.1.
Introduction
The HSR services under examination in the study connect five key Norwegian cities: Oslo, Stavanger,
Bergen, Trondheim and Kristiansand. Services towards Gothenburg and Stockholm are also being
considered. There are smaller urban areas between these key cities that could also be served by the
services if there is adequate demand. The demand analysis has focussed on the long-distance market.
Shorter distance flows to and from Oslo are considered by the parallel InterCity Study, and are not included
in our analysis.
2.2.2.2.
Population and Income Distribution
Norway is a relatively sparsely populated country due to the large mountainous regions and fjords which limit
development of urban areas in vast areas of the country. The population of Norway is predominantly focused
in the south-east of the country, where the topography is far less mountainous, and along the coastline.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
10
1
The figure below shows the population density in Norway in 2010 by municipality. This figure illustrates the
large sparsely populated areas in the centre of Norway, and the high concentration of population around
Oslo. There are also clearly areas of sizable population along the south and west coastline. The distribution
of income is broadly similar, with the highest average net income along the south and west coast and in the
areas surrounding Oslo.
The distribution of population and income shows that the predominant demand for HSR is likely to be for cityto-city travel. Another implication for HSR is that the highest willingness to pay for time savings is generally in
cities and surrounding suburban areas, so the positioning of stations and connectivity with local transport will
highly influence the implementation of any potential HSR service.
Figure 2.1 – Population density in Norway by municipality
2.2.2.3.
Long-distance Travel Demand: City-to-city
Demand between cities considered in the study is annual demand for 2010 derived from the NTM5 model.
Rail and air demand matrices from this model were calibrated using Norwegian State Railways (NSB) ticket
sales data and Avinor passenger count data, respectively.
1
Population data from Statistics Norway (Jan 2010): http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/folkber_en/tab-2010-12-16-01en.htmland
Municipality areas from the Norwegian Mapping Authority (2010): http://www.statkart.no/nor/Land/Fagomrader/Arealer_og_tall/
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
11
Current long distance travel between the cities considered (trips of over 100km between the city pairs) is
shown in the table below together with mode and journey purpose split. It is noticeable that travel by car is
relatively limited as this table presents travel between city pairs only. For long-distance travel from areas
outside the cities, car travel is much more dominant, particularly for leisure travel.
About 65-70% of the trips between Oslo and the major cities of Bergen, Stavanger and Trondheim are
leisure trips, although on the Bergen – Stavanger corridor the business market is more dominant than on the
other routes. Air travel dominates the business market for long distance travel with 74% of business trips
between these cities being made by air.
Route
Rail
Distance
(km)
Total Trips
(2010)
Air
Classic rail
Car
Coach
Business
Leisure
Table 2.1 – Total annual demand for key corridors in Norway for main transport modes (2010)
Oslo – Bergen
484
337,000
45%
28%
23%
4%
35%
65%
Oslo – Stavanger
599
171,000
50%
15%
31%
4%
36%
64%
Oslo – Kristiansand
365
121,000
23%
22%
39%
16%
29%
70%
Bergen – Stavanger
N/A
192,000
35%
1%
54%
9%
41%
59%
Oslo – Trondheim
553
277,000
47%
17%
31%
4%
33%
67%
The mode share of air is most dominant on the longest distance routes. This is driven by journey times and
passengers travelling by air having a higher value of time than those travelling by other modes. Frequency of
service will also contribute to higher volumes of business travel choosing air travel given classic rail, for
example, only provides four or five services a day between the main centres where as there are up to 28
flights per day. For shorter distances (e.g. Oslo – Kristiansand) air is less dominant.
By contrast, car dominates the leisure market with 45% of long distance leisure trips made between these
city pairs made by car. 25% of the city-city leisure trips are made by air, 22% by rail and just 8% by coach.
Classic rail has low mode share for business travel (10-20%) but carries more leisure passengers (20-30%).
2.2.2.4.
Tourism Market
An important aspect of long-distance travel in Norway is the existence of a significant tourism industry. There
are two distinct tourism markets in Norway:


A winter tourism market based largely on access to ski resorts. This is a more dispersed market
largely focussed on travellers from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a lower proportion of
international arrivals by air. Travellers often arrive by car and/or ferry and travel to private ski chalets
or resorts across southern Norway; and
A summer tourism market, with significant travel to the coast western Norway, particularly to the
―Fjordland‖ around Bergen. This has a larger proportion of international travellers arriving by air, with
potential to use HSR to access areas of Norway outside Oslo.
From the study of the existing tourism related travel market it can be concluded that:




Most popular ski resorts and natural attractions are located in remote areas away from the main
corridors which drive demand for travel;
Some of the most popular ticketed attractions are located in major urban centres and tourism may
attract further demand to these centres;
The majority of overnight stays by domestic and foreign visitors are made along the Bergen and
Trondheim corridors; and
Existing tourists arrive mainly by ferry and air. Swedish tourists, unsurprisingly, use surface
transport, with a low air arrival share.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
12
2.2.3.
Comparison of Services
From the analysis of current service provision, it is clear that air travel provides the best service for interurban users on the majority of corridors, with over 20 flights a day between Oslo and Bergen, Trondheim and
Stavanger. On the Kristiansand and Gothenburg corridors, the air service is not as frequent, presumably due
to the higher quality roads on these routes and the more manageable journey time by car. There are also
more frequent coach services on these corridors. The current level of service for rail is presently low for the
main long distance routes, with approximately 5 trains a day between the key cities. For more local travel
there is a more frequent service. Fares tend to be higher for air compared with rail and coach, although if
booked in advance air fares are broadly similar to rail and coach fares booked on the day.
2.2.4.
International Experience
In terms of attraction from current services to the new high-speed services, HSR in other countries has
tended to compete with air services and therefore is dominated by business users, with a strong need for
reduced journey times. Leisure passengers on the whole find car travel to be the most convenient mode of
transport.
For HSR to compete effectively with car travel, provisions will need to be made to ensure strong connectivity
to HSR stations and careful consideration of station location must be made. There is a delicate balance
between optimising end-to-end journey times for business air users, while at the same time introducing
enough intermediate stops to attract leisure users who would currently travel by car.
From an international benchmarking review, we have established that the size of the potential market for
HSR in Norway is much smaller than the HSR markets already established in countries such as France and
Germany, although the size of the potential market is more similar to that of Sweden. From experience in
other European countries where HSR is already well established, there has sometimes been almost total
abstraction from air on routes served by HSR as rail journey times have been dramatically reduced and
major rail stations are located more conveniently than the airports.
2.2.5.
Future ‘Do Minimum’ Travel Market
Given that any HSR scheme is likely to be implemented in several years‘ time, the work described in this
section examined expected levels of growth in travel demand even before HSR is implemented. Growth
between current levels and future levels was established using the NTM 5 model. In the medium term, rail
demand is assumed to growth at around 2 to 3% per annum depending on the route and air demand is
expected to grow at around 2% per annum. This will increase the potential market for HSR services.
2.2.6.
The Demand Potential for HSR Services
2.2.6.1.
Introduction
Within Phase 2 of the overall HSR assessment project, the Market Analysis work has developed a
forecasting approach which can be used to test detailed options in Phase 3 of the project.
For marginal improvements to the existing services, the NTM 5 long distance demand forecasting model is
appropriate for forecasting demand on the improved services. However, for the more aggressive
improvements giving a step change in rail services, a more suitable new model was built. This new model
uses outputs from Stated Preference (SP) Surveys (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this chapter) to determine
the likely responses of passengers to the new services. The scope of the demand forecasting work is the
long distance travel market. The market for InterCity commuting into Oslo was specifically excluded from
consideration, as it is subject to a separate study by JBV.
A number of example options were tested to demonstrate the suitability of the model for forecasting, give
initial views on the potential size of HSR markets and allow options to be further developed during Phase 3
of the study. Please note that these tests were not undertaken to establish individual scenarios as will be
required in Phase 3. These corridor options are shown in Figure 2.2 below:
Figure 2.2 – HSR proposed routes
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
13
Trondheim
Lillehammer
Bergen
Geilo
Gol
Hamar
Kongsvinger
Oslo
Haugesund
Bø
Stavanger
Halden
Kristiansand
The indicative results from the initial set of modelling tests carried out are shown in the table below. For
Scenario D only, a range of demand and revenue has been presented, on the basis of different fare
assumptions. It is important to note that when lower fares are assumed, the demand is higher but the overall
revenue is reduced. The higher revenue shown corresponds to the option where HSR fares are assumed to
equal air fares, as even though there are fewer passengers, the total yield is forecast to be higher. Further
testing of more combinations of alternative frequencies, journey times, stopping patterns and fares will be
carried out in Phase 3 to add to this initial set of tests.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
14
Table 2.2 – Summary of Scenario D results (model testing only – not to be used for individual option assessment)
Corridor
Total Rail
Demand
(million)
DM
demand
(million)
Generated
demand
(million)
Daily Rail
Demand
DM
Revenue
(million
NOK)
HSR
Air
Bergen
2.1
0.7
0.5
5,855
1,912
1,019
63.3%
36.7%
3.0
0.7
0.7
8,342
1,912
1,003
70.9%
29.1%
4.4
2.1
0.8
12,088
5,647
1,938
64.8%
35.2%
6.0
2.1
1.0
16,479
5,647
1,945
72.4%
27.6%
3.3
1.4
0.6
8,934
3,734
1,312
60.2%
39.8%
4.4
1.4
0.8
11,956
3,734
1,291
68.6%
31.4%
2.8
1.0
0.4
7,559
2,803
1,290
68.8%
31.2%
3.2
1.0
0.5
8,658
2,803
947
76.3%
23.7%
0.8
0.03
0.3
2,307
68
574
64.5%
35.5%
1.1
0.03
0.5
2,890
68
434
73.6%
26.4%
1.2
0.3
0.3
3,175
910
671
100.0%
0.0%
1.3
0.3
0.3
3,647
910
479
100.0%
0.0%
0.7
0
0.3
2,025
11
530
72.6%
27.4%
0.9
0
0.4
2,526
11
395
79.4%
20.6%
Y-route
Stavanger
Trondheim
Stockholm
Gothenburg
Haugesund
Between Oslo and Bergen, with the fastest journey times (Scenario D, 2 hours 30 non-stop compared to 6
hours 30 currently), 1.5m to 2.5m trips per year are forecast to be attracted to the HSR services depending
on the fare assumptions used, generating up to 1.3bn NOK per annum. Total rail trips on the corridor would
correspond to 2.1m to 3m trips per year. If journey times are reduced to approximately 4 hours 30 minutes
(Scenario C), around 1.1 million trips per year are attracted (assuming stops at Hønefoss, Gol and Voss).
Compared to Scenario D slightly more trips are abstracted from car and slightly fewer from air.
Between Oslo and Stavanger via Kristiansand, Scenario D is forecast to generate 2.0m to 3.1m trips per
annum and up to 1.7bn NOK per annum on HSR services. Services would take 2 hours 30 minutes plus
stopping time (compared to 7 hours 40 today) with stops at both Kristiansand and Porsgrunn. Total rail trips
in the equivalent corridor would be around 3.3m to 4.4m trips/year. The slower Scenario C service, taking 5
hours 30 minutes in total, stopping at all key locations, generates 1.3m trips and 0.7m NOK per annum.
Although the faster Scenario D services are forecast to attract 0.7m to 1.8m more trips per annum, the
slower stopping services perform relatively well despite significantly slower end-to-end journey times. The
trade off between the revenue generated and the costs of the infrastructure service should be investigated in
Phase 3 to see which the optimum service is as the infrastructure for the faster services could cost
considerably more than the slower one. Consideration should also be made of the interactions with the intercity study because of the indirect potential to improve journey times between Oslo and Southern Norway.
There is a proposed ―Y-shaped” route from Oslo to both Bergen and Stavanger. This service is forecast
to attract 2.5m to 4.1m trips per annum (with a total rail market of 4.4m to 6m trips/year); this is less than the
combination of the alternative Bergen and Stavanger routes, which together attract about 3.5m to 5.6m
demand, as they serve more intermediate markets than the Haukeli route. Up to 2.5bn NOK is generated per
year on HSR services with this option.
Introducing a service from Bergen to Stavanger is forecast to attract 0.7m-0.9m HSR trips per annum
stopping at Haugesund, generating up to 0.5bn NOK. The engineering to produce the link is likely to be
particularly challenging given the proximity to the coastline and requirement to cross fjords. In Phase 3 the
costs associated with this will be understood and, along with all other options, consideration of whether the
generated revenue and benefits can justify the costs.
Improving journey times between Oslo and Trondheim from 6 hours 40 minutes currently to 2 hours 45
minutes is expected to attract around 1.8m to 2.2m trips per annum on HSR services (2.8m to 3.2m total rail
trips per year on the corridor), stopping at Gardermoen Airport, and generates up to 1.3bn NOK per annum.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
15
Gardermoen Airport is a key driver of HSR demand; we recommend that options for HSR to Bergen and
Stavanger be developed to include direct connections to the airport to increase HSR demand further.
On routes towards Stockholm and Gothenburg, current demand forecasting shows around 0.8-1 million
trips would be attracted to HSR services (a total of on each of the routes and up to 0.7bn NOK revenue for
each corridor. The HSR route to Stockholm takes 3 hours compared to the 6 hour service today and the
journey time to Gothenburg is assumed to reduce from about 4 hours to 2 hours and 30 minutes. The route
to Gothenburg attracts the most demand, although limitations on available data means that caveats have to
be applied to the robustness of this forecast.
For the less significant journey time improvements of Scenario B compared to Scenario A (usually saving
about an hour from current journey times), about 0.1m rail trips are attracted on the corridors from Oslo to
Bergen, Stavanger and Trondheim. Routes for Scenario B towards Sweden were tested but the impact on
demand was negligible due to the lack of demand within scope of the forecasting model.
2.2.6.2.
Mode Shift
For the smaller journey time improvements in Scenario B 90% of the additional rail demand attracted is
forecast to be from either newly generated trips or transfer from car. On the route to Bergen, 78% of demand
is generated and 14% transfers from car. On routes to Stavanger and Trondheim, almost 60% of the
attracted rail trips are generated and around 30% is from car. Less than 5% is transferred from coach or ferry
and around 5% is from air.
For the faster services in Scenarios C and D tested so far, generally a third of the demand attracted to HSR
is forecast to be newly generated trips, 40% is from air, 15-20% from car and less than 10% from current rail
services and coach. The clear exceptions to this are:



60% of the demand attracted to services to Trondheim that stop at Gardermoen is from air;
between Bergen and Stavanger less of the HSR demand attracted comes from air (34%), more is
transferred from car (24%) and none comes from rail where there currently is no service; and
A significant proportion of demand to Gothenburg transfers from car (67%) and almost none
transfers from air. For the routes to Stockholm less than 10% is attracted from car and a much more
(around 50%) from air. On routes to Stockholm about 40% of HSR trips are generated but fewer on
the route to Gothenburg (about a third). These conclusions also should be treated with caution given
the current limitations of the Swedish demand data.
2.2.6.3.
Journey Purpose
For passengers attracted to the new HSR services, generally 60-65% of trips are forecast to be business
trips and 35-40% are leisure trips, showing that HSR competes more with air for the market attracted to
higher speeds and the service quality offered by HSR. For slower services the percentage of business users
is at the bottom end of this range. For example, Oslo to Bergen, for Scenario C services 59% of demand is
forecast to be business but for scenario D services, 63% is business. The key exceptions to this are:




Between Oslo and Stavanger business travel is forecast to be at the higher end of the spectrum at
66% for Scenario D services and 64% for scenario C;
From Bergen to Stavanger, business travel is significantly higher at 74% despite there being a lower
transfer from air to HSR;
The service to Gothenburg has much higher business demand at almost 80% despite almost no
transfer from air; and
Routes to Stockholm have much less business travel at around 30% of demand, despite a more
significant transfer from air.
For the smaller improvements in journey times from Scenario A to B, 25-30% of the forecast demand
attracted to rail services is business trips, in contrast to the 60-65% business trips with the more significant
increases in journey times in Scenarios C and D.
2.2.7.
Next Steps
In Phase 3 further refinements to the modelling and scenario tests will be made in light of a review of the
outputs from Contract 1 – Technical and Safety Analysis, and Contract 2 – Rail Planning and Development.
Recommendations from the route alignment and technical feasibility studies will help inform more detailed
corridor alignments, stopping patterns and journey times. Further combinations of stops and frequencies can
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
16
be tested to find the optimum services comparing with the costs to understand the financial viability
alongside the demand generated.
There will also be interaction with Contract 6 – Finance and Economics, in order to incorporate the costs of
each option and calculate the relative benefits of each option. There will be an iterative process between the
demand and revenue forecasting and socio-economic assessment.
It will be important to consider services serving the main airports, particularly Trondheim Værnes and
Sandefjord Torp, as the routes serving Gardermoen picked up a significant amount of demand.
The trade off of the lost demand from Scenario C type improvements with the lower costs should be a focus
to understand whether the incremental benefits of the significantly faster speeds associated with Scenario D
are justified given the additional costs.
Interaction between the scenarios defined in this study and those being pursued in the Intercity study should
be examined to understand if there are additional benefits brought about by connectivity between HSR and
improved local rail services, especially in the south-east of Norway, in the counties of Oslo, Akershus,
Hedmark, Østfold and Vestfold.
In addition, further refinements to the forecasting approach will be made, to take advantage of any new data
available – particularly relating to travel to and from Sweden and the long-distance car travel market.
2.3.
Subject 2: Analysis of Expected Amount of Ticket Revenues
2.3.1.
Introduction
A bespoke survey was designed, undertaken and analysed for the purpose of meeting the objectives of both
Subject 2 (Analysis of Expected Amount of Ticket Revenues) and Subject 3 (Passenger Choice –
Preferences for Travel and Means of Transport). The following two sections document the key findings from
the analysis of the survey results. The survey results also provided the parameters for the demand model
system developed in Subject 1 (Demand Potential for HSR in Norway), which was also used to forecast fare
revenues for HSR. The work to be reported within this section is central to assessing the viability of highspeed rail services in Norway as it provides bespoke evidence from an up-to-date survey on the factors that
influence travellers‘ mode choice decisions when considering HSR.
Subject 2 focuses on the amount of revenue that HSR would generate from passenger fares. A forecasting
framework is developed by ascertaining the amount that passengers would potentially be willing to pay for
the new services and therefore forecasting how many passengers will use the new services. This is
determined by how much travellers‘ are willing to pay to save journey time (the passenger‘s value of time)
and the utility they get from the HSR services compared to alternative modes.
Please note that the modelling undertaken in Phase 2 does not imply what fares ought to be charged but the
likely financial impact of each. Low fares may be a policy objective in themselves, or may be a consequence
of a desire to maximise mode shift and/or improve social accessibility to high speed rail.
2.3.2.
Values of Time
The models developed from the choice experiments provide an understanding of the impact of different
factors on the likelihood of different groups of travellers choosing to switch to high-speed rail. These models
capture both the time and cost sensitivity of those making long distance trips, and from these it is possible to
infer the value that people place on journey time savings. The models suggest that cost sensitivity is nonlinear, with the marginal response to cost decreasing as the journey cost increases. This means that the
value of time varies with the cost of the journey under consideration, specifically that values of time increase
2
with increasing journey costs. This finding is consistent with findings elsewhere .
2
Full details of the literature which has been used for assessing the comparability of the model findings are provided in the full report.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
17
Figure 2.3 – Example of values of time by mode (NOK per hour)
Value of Time vs Cost (HH income more than 200K
NOK) & Non-work
200
180
160
VOT(NOK/hr)
140
Rail
Bus
HSR
Air
Car
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
Cost (NOK)
400
500
The models also suggest that the cost sensitivity of respondents decreases as their household income
increases. It is possible to make some comparisons with established values by looking at the mean and
median VOTs that would be implied from the observed distribution of journey costs within the sample (once
the income distribution has been appropriately weighted by mode and purpose to reflect the income
distribution for long distance trips within the NTS).
Table 2.3 – Values of time per hour for long-distance private travel in Norway, NOK (2009)
Handbook 140
3
Air
Car
Rail
Bus
303
172
94
80
Table 2.4 – Average values of time per hour from current study, NOK (2010)
Value of time (NOK/hour)
Air
Car
Rail
Bus
HSR
Work
Mean
372
105
373
197
331
Median
374
127
356
163
337
Mean
109
21
144
88
97
Median
112
22
146
91
100
Non-work
When comparing with the values of time in Handbook 140, we see that the recommended values for air and
car are closer to those that we find for trips made for work purposes, whereas those for rail and bus are more
in line with the values that this study finds for trips made for non-work purposes. Differences in values are to
be expected between studies, and it should be remembered that the values from this study relate to the
context of a mode choice, specifically a choice between currently available modes and HSR.
Moving forward, more complex model specifications could be investigated, for example distributed parameter
values, with a view to seeing how these may impact on the implied cost and time sensitivity across the
modes. We would also propose a joint estimation that would utilise the data used in the estimation of the
NTM5 models alongside the new SP survey data to create a single model that will be stronger across the
breadth of all possible scenarios and better integrate with shorter-distance journeys where car dominates as
a mode.
2.3.3.
Implied Willingness-to-pay for In-train Services
The models also provide a quantification of the willingness to pay for a range of different in-train service
factors. The charts that follow show the value placed on a range of different services and can be used to
assess whether a financial case may be made for different rolling stock configurations. In each case of each
factor the levels are valued relative to the base situation (which was used to describe the standard carriage
configuration in the choice experiment); these have values of zero in the following charts. The error bars
presented in the charts are the 95% confidence intervals on the willingness to pay estimates. It can be
observed that there are some cases where the willingness to pay for marginal improvements is not
significantly different to zero (where the error bars cross the axis).
3
Statens Vegvesen
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
18
Figure 2.4 – Willingness to pay (NOK per return ticket) for improved in-train services (work purposes)
Normal spacing
Wide spacing - male
Wide spacing - female
No power points or Wifi
Power points but no Wifi
Power points + free Wifi which works over half of route
Power points + free Wifi which works through entire route,
employer paid for a substantial part of journey
Power points + free Wifi which works through entire route,
employer did not pay for a substantial part of journey
Unreliable mobile phone coverage on journey
Reliable mobile phone coverage over half of the route
Reliable mobile phone coverage through entire route
Quiet carriage with no mobile phone calls permitted,
work involves making regular business trips
Quiet carriage with no mobile phone calls permitted,
work does not involve making regular business trips
Luggage stored in racks above seat
Racks above seat + option to lock luggage in secure area,
use rail to travel in Norway less than a couple of times a year
Racks above seat + option to lock luggage in secure area,
use rail to travel in Norway a couple of times a year or more
No food and drinks available for purchase on train
Food and drinks available for purchase from separate carriage
Food and drink available for purchase and served at seat
Food and drink included in price of ticket and served at seat,
use rail to travel in Norway a couple of times a year or more
Food and drink included in price of ticket and served at seat,
use rail to travel in Norway less than a couple of times a year
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
19
Figure 2.5 – Willingness to pay (NOK per return ticket) for improved in-train services (non-work purposes)
Normal spacing
Wide spacing
No power points or Wifi
Power points but no Wifi
Power points + free Wifi which works over half of route
Power points + free Wifi which works through entire route,
not travelling with children
Power points + free Wifi which works through entire route,
travelling with children
Unreliable mobile phone coverage on journey
Reliable mobile phone coverage over half of the route
Reliable mobile phone coverage through entire route,
aged 16 - 40 years old
Reliable mobile phone coverage through entire route,
aged 41 years or older
Quiet carriage with no mobile phone calls permitted
Luggage stored in racks above seat
Racks above seat + option to lock luggage in secure area,
travelling on their own
Racks above seat + option to lock luggage in secure area,
travelling with others
No food and drinks available for purchase on train
Food and drinks available for purchase from separate carriage
Food and drink available for purchase and served at seat
Food and drink included in price of ticket and served at seat,
aged 16 - 40 years old
Food and drink included in price of ticket and served at seat,
aged 41 years or older
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
20
2.3.4.
Demonstration of Mode Choice Effects
2.3.4.1.
Introduction
The choice models were implemented within a forecasting framework to provide forecasts of the market
shares and ticket revenues under different high-speed rail scenarios (different in-vehicle times (‗IVT‘ – the
amount of time spent on the train itself), fares and service frequencies). For the purposes of this report some
tests are reported for the Oslo-Bergen corridor. The following table shows the results of some of these tests
where a base scenario of an HSR service is tested in which HSR has an in-vehicle time of 2 hours 30 mins,
a headway of 60 mins (i.e. one train per hour), and a fare equal to the current air fare. Additional scenarios
then show the impact of varying the in-vehicle time, the fare, and the headway.
Table 2.5 – Mode choice effects (Oslo-Bergen)
Headway
Fare
IVT
Test
HSR Service Specification
Annual Passengers, (k) Annual Revenue, NOK
(m)
%
Generation
IVT
(mins)
Headway
(mins)
Fare (%Air
Fare)
Total
Work
NonWork
Total
Work
NonWork
140
60
100%
1468
929
539
1076
766
310
34.0%
150
60
100%
1363
862
501
999
711
288
33.3%
160
60
100%
1282
803
479
938
662
276
32.6%
150
60
80%
1547
954
593
902
629
273
34.2%
150
60
90%
1452
907
545
955
673
282
33.7%
150
60
100%
1363
862
501
999
711
288
33.3%
150
60
110%
1279
818
461
1034
742
292
32.8%
150
60
120%
1200
776
424
1061
768
293
32.4%
150
60
100%
1363
862
501
999
711
288
33.3%
150
120
100%
1321
833
488
968
688
280
33.0%
150
240
100%
1241
779
462
908
642
266
32.6%
These results demonstrate the revenues that may be obtained within this corridor under a number of
different scenarios. The table also shows that levels of trip generation that the model suggests may occur.
The results can also be used to calculate demand elasticities, which can be compared against other studies.
The change to HSR in-vehicle times above produce average implied travel time elasticities of -1.01 for all
passengers (-1.09 for work and -0.88 for non-work trips). These are within the range reported in international
literature on the impacts of HSR. 10% changes in either direction on HSR fares produce average implied
elasticities of -0.63 for all passengers (-0.51 for work trips and -0.84 for non-work trips). Again these
elasticities correspond well to those reported in the literature. These tests suggest that the model return
reasonable rail elasticities when compared to other existing evidence.
The following figure presents the forecast changes to HSR revenue on the Oslo-Bergen corridor against
changes in fares (measured as a % of air fares).
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
21
Figure 2.6 – Oslo-Bergen: HSR fare against revenue (2024)
The figure above suggests that:



Total HSR revenues would peak with a fare of approximately 160% of the current air fare, although
the total revenue varies by less than 2% between an average fare of 130% and 180%;
Revenues from non-work passengers would peak at a fare equivalent to 120% of the current air fare;
and
Revenues from work passengers would be forecast to peak at a fare equivalent to 170% of the
current air fare.
2.3.4.2.
Comparison with Observed Data
Mode Share
Previous studies have examined the relationship between travel time by train and the rail-air market share. A
strong relationship is observed between the two as the majority of travel time by air is not incurred as invehicle time.
The forecasts undertaken on the Oslo-Bergen corridor suggest that HSR is forecast to obtain:


65% of the HSR-Air market share with a journey time of 2 hours 30 minutes (Scenario D); and
45% of the HSR-Air market share with a journey time of 4 hours 30 minutes (Scenario C).
This is in line with findings from comparable international evidence, as shown in the graph below.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
22
Figure 2.7 – Rail-air market share (Steer Davies Gleave, 2006)
Generation
The levels of the forecasts of generated traffic on the Oslo-Bergen corridor also compare well with the
international evidence, although for this corridor the forecasts are towards the higher end of the range
expected from the literature with induced journeys typically accounting for between 32% and 34% of total
HSR demand. It is however worth noting that the proportion of generated trips will vary for different high
speed corridors as the changes to the total accessibility brought about by the introduction of HSR are a
function of both the new service provided and the existing alternative services for making a given journey.
We therefore conclude that the models estimated from the choice experiments are providing intuitive findings
and provide a forecasting framework that can now be used to assess a wide range of different HSR
scenarios across the full range of corridors.
2.4.
Subject 3: Passenger Choice – Preferences for Travel &
Means of Transport
2.4.1.
Introduction
The objective of Subject 3 was to gain a quantitative understanding of the aspects of the service that
motivate travellers‘ choice of mode between high-speed rail and other modes of transport: air, car, bus and
ferry.
This section gives a full breakdown of how the survey respondents rated a wide range of factors. Given the
focus of the previous section on the market demand and revenues for HSR when considering it as a
competing mode to air it is informative to review the factors that the air travellers in the sample stated would
influence the attractiveness of HSR compared to air.
2.4.2.
Ratings of HSR Compared to Current Mode
The first set of questions followed the section that introduced the respondent to HSR and asked respondents
to provide an initial assessment of how HSR would compare to their current mode for the journey that they
had made. The figure below shows the ranking of the attributes of air travel when compared with HSR,
ordered to show the attributes that respondents considered made their current mode less attractive.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
23
Figure 2.8 – Impact of factors on attractiveness of current mode (existing air users)
Time required for your journey
Ability to work during your journey
Comfort of your journey
Ease of making your journey
AIR much less attractive
AIR less attractive
Travelling with your group
no effect
AIR more attractive
Luggage requirements
AIR much more attractive
Cost of your journey
Security on your journey
Reliability of making your journey
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
For the air travellers the initial impressions of respondents (before completing the choice experiments) were
that HSR is more attractive than air across all of the attributes considered. Some respondents see air as
being better in some dimensions, but on average, more are positive about the benefits of HSR. Car and bus
users were also generally positive about HSR, with car users particularly identifying personal security as a
key factor, and bus users valuing the improved comfort. Current rail users were far less positive about HSR,
even considering the time taken to complete their journey as more attractive by rail. This is presumably as a
result of high loyalty to existing rail services and respondents making trips that lend themselves well to the
existing rail network.
It is noteworthy that having been given an indication of the likely HSR travel times, HSR is perceived to offer
time advantages over air. Clearly in most cases the flight time will be lower than the HSR in-vehicle time
(given the speed advantage of air), so this suggests that without direct prompting the respondents are
considering the journey time in its totality, i.e. including the time required to reach the airport and then to
check in, pass security, and wait for boarding. This is supported by the high rating also placed on the ease of
making an HSR journey compared to air. It is also interesting to note that the attribute which the air
respondents are least positive about is the potential reliability of HSR services (although this is generally still
viewed as better than air). This suggests that there may be advantage to emphasising this dimension of the
new service when promoting HSR schemes with air travellers, particularly for cases where new dedicated
alignments are used which could allow higher levels of reliability than shared track.
2.4.3.
Impact of Service Factors on Likelihood of Using HSR
Respondents were also asked about the impact of a range of factors on their likelihood of using HSR. From
these ratings questions it can be observed that the factors that respondents report would most influence
them to use HSR are significant savings in journey travel time, followed by the provision of connecting bus
and train services that would give an integrated public transport journey. It can also be observed that across
the users of all modes the highest weight is placed on the ―fundamentals‖, i.e. journey time, accessibility and
security. The comfort related factors still have an influence, but generally come lower down the list of
traveller priorities.
It is interesting to note that across all modes, the factors that would most influence people to use HSR are
the provision of connecting bus and train services that would give an integrated public transport journey and
significant savings in journey travel time. It is interesting that car parking provision is also high on the list of
priorities, but that the public transport provision is given more weight. It can also be observed that, across all
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
24
of the figures, the highest weight is placed on the ―fundamentals‖, i.e. journey time, accessibility and security.
The comfort related factors still have an influence, but generally come lower down the list of car users‘
priorities.
The figure below presents a breakdown of the perceived impact of different factors on the likelihood of using
HSR for existing air users, as an example.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
25
Figure 2.9 – Impact of factors on likelihood of using HSR (existing air users)
1-No effect
2
3
4
5- Much more likely to use HSR
Significant savings in your journey travel time
Connecting bus and train services at the train
stations
Wifi available on trains and in tunnels
Having rest rooms at the end of each carriage
Food and drink available on the trains
Good parking provision at the train stations
Having electrical power points at seats
Well defined and easy walking routes for the
connection between the HSR platforms and …
Good security at stations
Having plenty of leg room between seats
Direct services to more destinations
Having mobile phone signal in tunnels
Litter removed and restrooms checked during the
journey
Having wider seats
Having quiet zones on the train
Locked luggage areas available for storing baggage
on trains
Having well lit carriages
High quality waiting areas offering refreshments
Food and drink served at seats
Staff walking through the train
CCTV coverage of all carriages and contact with
the driver or guard
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
26
2.4.4.
Attitudes towards Tunnels
Respondents were informed that in order to maintain high speeds, a substantial portion of the railway line
may have to be built in tunnels and that whilst this would reduce the journey time, and that would mean that
for a passenger the views of the countryside would be reduced. When asked about their attitude to having a
significant proportion of the journey in tunnels, a significant majority (79%) stated that travelling in tunnels
would not affect their choice to use high-speed rail.
Figure 2.10 – Impact of tunnels on likelihood of using HSR
I would rather use rail if a substantial
portion of the journey was in tunnels
Travelling in tunnels would not affect my
choice to use high-speed rail
I would probably not travel by rail if a
substantial portion of the journey was in
tunnels
I would definitely not travel by rail if a
substantial portion of the journey was in
tunnels
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
The 16.5% of respondents that indicated that they would either ―definitely‖ or ―probably‖ not travel by rail if a
substantial portion of the journey was in tunnels were then asked about their specific concerns. The most
significant concern related to the loss of the view of the scenery on the trip, with the next most important
concern being the implications of the train having an accident whilst in a tunnel.
These findings suggest that there are a wide range of potential factors other than fares that could influence
passenger‘s decisions of which mode to travel on, and that these can inform the strategies that may be
developed to better inform public perception about what a given HSR service may or not be able to offer.
2.5.
Subject 4: Location & Services of Stations/Terminals
2.5.1.
Introduction
The aims of Subject 4 were as follows:





Study the population and employment accessibility of locations across Norway, to determine
those places where locating stations would deliver optimal demand levels;
Assess the development of existing multi-modal terminals to form part of the HSR network;
Forecast the impact on demand and revenue of particular stopping patterns recognising the
trade-off between minimising journey times and maximising access to stations;
Consider the relative merits and performance of city centre and out of town (parkway) locations for
stations; and
Consider multi-modal connections at potential HSR station locations.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
27
2.5.2.
Norway’s HSR Corridors
2.5.2.1.
Introduction
The corridors in the Norwegian High Speed Line Assessment Study under examination are shown in the
figure below.
Figure 2.11 – Potential HSR corridors in Norway
Trondheim
 Trondheim
corridor
Bergen
 Bergen
 Bergen -
corridor
Stavanger
corridor
 Stockholm corridor
Oslo
Stavanger
Stavanger
corridor
 Gothenburg
corridor
Kristiansand
Looking at the distribution of population and employment across Norway as a whole and at strategic multimodal interchanges within the context of six proposed HSR corridors it is found that the corridor termini are
by far the most significant locations. Furthermore, it was determined that intermediate settlements contribute
significantly lower population and jobs, with the only exception being Kristiansand.
Potential locations for intermediate stations on each of the corridors are examined in the remainder of this
section.
2.5.2.2.
Trondheim
There are a number of towns such as Lillehammer, Hamar and Gjøvik, which may be of sufficient scale to
justify an HSR stop. The area surrounding these towns has relatively high population and employment
density and potentially a single station could be considered to serve the whole region. If a single station was
chosen, accessibility analysis indicated that Hamar would be the preferred station location. North of
Lillehammer the region is sparsely populated and further calling points are unlikely, possibly with the
exception of Otta or Dombås to provide a connection with the Rauma Line. The corridor alignment would
likely serve Gardermoen Airport, which as the international gateway to Norway would justify an HSR stop.
2.5.2.3.
Bergen
Aside from Bergen and Oslo the markets on the Bergen corridor are very small. Most of the existing
stations along the route have access to fewer than 1,000 people within 20 minutes, demonstrating the
sparsely populated nature of the Norwegian interior. There is seasonal demand to stations such as Gol and
Geilo for skiing and some tourism associated with the line itself, which is considered, along with the
connecting Flåm Railway, to be one of the most scenic in the world. However, very few business trips would
be expected to intermediate locations. There is potential for HSR stations at Hønefoss, the largest
intermediate location, and Voss, which is the terminus of the Bergen commuter railway.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
28
2.5.2.4.
Stavanger
The Stavanger corridor is far more densely populated and encompasses two routes: the Sørland line
which follows the southern coastal route and the Vestfold Line serving a ring of population centres in
Vestfold. Kristiansand, which is a major port and employment centre, is the most important intermediate
location, and will justify an HSR station. The coastal cities of Vestfold County, in particular the
Porsgrunn/Skien conurbation, Sandefjord and Tønsberg, demonstrate the largest continuous area of high
accessibility, despite not currently being served by the main line. Arendal is another important location along
the southern coast, which could be served directly if a new HSR alignment is considered. Drammen is also a
large town with high population and employment accessibility and should be considered as a potential HSR
stop.
2.5.2.5.
Sweden
On the Stockholm corridor there are no major Norwegian settlements but Kongsvinger has been
considered as a potential calling point if the current alignment is maintained. Although outside the scope of
this work it is assumed the corridor will connect to Karlstad in Sweden, use the Värmlandsbanan before
joining the Västra stambanan at Laxå. The Gothenburg corridor is highly populated within Norway and
so numerous calling points may be justified, particularly Fredrikstad/Sarpsborg, Moss and Halden. It is
important to recognise the interface with the Oslo area Intercity Study, which has proposed the construction
of the Follo Line between Oslo and Ski.
2.5.2.6.
Bergen – Stavanger
There are currently no rail routes between Bergen and Stavanger, owing to difficult terrain that requires
multiple passages of water. Haugesund is the main settlement in this region, and is a significant regional
employment centre. Leirvik and Odda are the next largest settlements in the region but are very small
markets, and the wider area is sparsely populated.
2.5.2.7.
Summary
Table 2.6 provides a summary of the potential priority stops on each corridor likely to be worthy of further
assessment.
Table 2.6 – Prioritisation of intermediate station stops on HSR corridors
Corridor
Stops in order of priority
1
2
3
4
5
Trondheim
Gardermoen
Hamar
Lillehammer
Gjøvik
Otta/
Dombås
Bergen
Hønefoss
Voss
Kongsberg
Bø
Gol
Geilo
Stavanger
Kristiansand
Drammen
Porsgrunn/
Skien
Sandefjord
Tønsberg
Arendal
Stockholm
Lillestrøm
Kongsvinger
Gothenburg
Sarpsborg/
Fredrikstad/
Moss
Halden
Ski
Bergen/
Stavanger
Haugesund
Leirvik (Stord) Odda
2.5.3.
Station Facilities
2.5.3.1.
Introduction
6
It is important to understand the works that would be necessary to ensure stations have the capacity and
facilities to meet the needs and expectations of HSR passengers. In order to assess the performance of
existing stations, expected to function as stations on the HSR network, Atkins undertook passenger surveys
and interviewed station managers on each proposed high speed corridor. The facilities on offer were
compared with those available at HSR stations across Europe in order to identify service quality gaps at the
stations studied.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
29
2.5.3.2.
Expectations of HSR Stations
In summary the key expectations of HSR stations include:






A wide range of facilities to cater for longer waiting times and expectations of services associated
with long distance trips. This includes extended retail and catering facilities, comfortable workenabling waiting space and luggage storage ability;
Connectivity with other modes is critical – an HSR station should be situated at the local network
hub;
Security should be designed into the station and supplemented by high staff presence;
Accessibility for all is essential, but Norwegian stations already perform very well on this;
Ticket purchase and enquiry facilities need to be clear and abundant. If there are multiple
operators a way of unifying the approach to ticket sales is desirable; and
Live information needs to be of high quality. NSB passenger satisfaction survey responses
suggest this is a key weakness of current stations.
Critically, the stations need to have these facilities at the necessary scale to accommodate additional
demand generated by improved rail services.
High quality station design, both in engineering and aesthetic terms is needed to compete with airport
terminals, which tend to be of an excellent standard in Norway.
2.5.3.3.
Passenger Satisfaction
Table 2.7 presents a summary of customer satisfaction surveys of local and regional passengers for the
years 2006 – 2009 inclusive.
Table 2.7 – NSB Passenger satisfaction survey results 2006 – 2009
Criterion
Service
Average Score
2006
2007
2008
2009
NSB Lokaltog
77
72
75
72
NSB Regiontog
85
84
82
81
Information at
station area
NSB Lokaltog
61
59
62
58
NSB Regiontog
77
74
74
73
Information when
delays occur
NSB Lokaltog
41
35
35
34
NSB Regiontog
57
51
51
50
Station area
The survey results suggest that live information is an aspect of the journey experience that passengers feel
could be much better on the existing network. For HSR, clear information and arrival time updates are
essential given the likelihood of onward connections and appointments. For this reason upgrade of the
existing live information infrastructure will be required if existing elements of the rail network are incorporated
into future HSR.
2.5.3.4.
Station Reviews
Station assessments were conducted using data from the Norwegian Rail Network Statement, through site
visits to the most important stations and through discussion with line managers. Thirty stations were
assessed to understand their state of readiness for the potential introduction of HSR services in terms of
facilities and modal access. Figure 2.12 categorises the stations studied into three classes according to the
level of investment required to bring the station up to the standards expected for HSR demand.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
30
Figure 2.12 – Conclusions on state of readiness for HSR rail demand
*Major development already planned at these stations
2.5.3.5.
Summary
A review of the existing stations in Norway shows that only stations on the existing HSR route through
Oslo meet the expectations of HSR. The larger cities‘ stations like Bergen and Stavanger already have
excellent multi-modal links around their stations, however facilities are not at an adequate scale to support
the potential demand increases. Investment would be needed to provide the capacity and range of facilities
expected of HSR and stations at some of the potential stopping points require significant development e.g.
Kristiansand. Oslo Central may require expansion to cope with large increase in passengers, but that is less
likely to be the case after the current (proposed) upgrade is completed.
2.5.4.
Demand & Revenue Impacts of Intermediate Stations
2.5.4.1.
Introduction
The demand and revenue model, developed as part of Subject 1 was used to assess the impact of
particular stopping patterns on demand and revenue. Early assumptions were made with respect to journey
times, fares and stopping patterns. It is likely that changes are made to these assumptions once more
detailed route alignments and social and economic benefits are established, which will have an effect
on the findings presented here. At the moment, however, it has been concluded for each corridor that the
following stopping patterns will maximise HSR demand and revenue:
2.5.4.2.
Trondheim
The model results demonstrate that there is likely to be a great deal of demand between Oslo and
Trondheim, which is abstracted from air to HSR. However, due to the long distance between Oslo and
Trondheim this mode shift is sensitive to the HSR journey time and intermediate stations have a net
negative impact on the end to end flows based on the journey times tested. Due to the national significance
of Gardermoen it is likely that a route via the airport would be necessary, for the given end to end journey
time. Therefore Oslo – Gardermoen – Trondheim performs best as the stopping pattern for this
corridor, but this will need to be examined in more detail in Phase 3, once more detailed rail timetabling has
been undertaken.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
31
2.5.4.3.
Bergen
The results suggest that selected intermediate stops can induce significant demand, which can enhance the
revenue and overall business case of the route. It was found that the Haukeli alignment with stops at Bø and
Odda produces the highest revenues, but that some of the demand driving this comes from southern coast
regions that would be better served by the Stavanger HSR route. Therefore the Hallingdal route was tested
in conjunction with the Stavanger route and it was found that Voss presents the best case for an
intermediate station, for the given end to end journey time.
2.5.4.4.
Stavanger
Results suggest HSR demand for Kristiansand is of a similar magnitude to Stavanger indicating a
station stop there is essential. There are also forecast significant trips between Drammen/Skien and
Stavanger (although not Kristiansand). A station at Arendal might be well used if built, but it will abstract
demand from Kristiansand and reduce Stavanger-Oslo demand so is not recommended. There are also
forecast significant trips between Porsgrunn and Stavanger. Therefore stops at Kristiansand and
Porsgrunn are recommended, for the given end to end journey time, with the latter subject to further
understanding of the interface between the Intercity Study project and the long distance HSR
network.
2.5.4.5.
Stockholm
A station is recommended at Lillestrøm, which already has good standard multi-modal interchange facilities.
The existing station has already been expanded as part of the construction of the Gardermoen Line and will
improve access from the suburbs east of Oslo.
2.5.4.6.
Gothenburg
The Gothenburg corridor within Norway is densely populated but many commuting trips to Oslo will not be
best served by the long distance service. The Intercity Study seeks to provide high speed commuting trips
into Oslo. However, a station at Fredrikstad/Sarpsborg may be justifiable. Due to the absence of demand
for trips of less than 100km in the demand forecasting model, it is not currently possible to assess the impact
of including intermediate stops on this corridor. This will be addresses as part of the model development in
Phase 3.
2.5.4.7.
Bergen – Stavanger
There is a good case for a stop at Haugesund if this alignment is pursued. However, it should be recognised
even at this early stage that the costs of this alignment are likely to be very high.
2.5.4.8.
Summary
Table 2.8 below summarises the demand and revenue on each corridor, based on the stopping pattern
chosen as a result of the assessment using the demand and revenue model.
Table 2.8 – Summary of demand and revenue for selected stopping patterns
Calling points
Business
passengers
(per day)
Leisure
Revenue
passengers (million
(per day)
NOK)
Average
business
yield NOK
Average
leisure yield
NOK
Oslo, Gardermoen, Trondheim
3014
1909
1290
834
535
Oslo, Voss, Bergen
2615
1589
1019
745
534
Stavanger, Kristiansand, Porsgrunn,
Oslo
3530
1830
1312
761
495
Stockholm, Lillestrøm, Oslo
673
1578
574
872
625
Stavanger, Haugesund, Bergen
1470
540
530
835
410
2.5.4.9.
Further Work
It has also been observed that mixed stopping patterns could bring benefits, enabling extra stops and
fast non-stop services maximising mode shift to HSR on the key end-to-end market and increasing overall
market size. In addition, there will be an opportunity to add in extra stops if the end to end journey is
amended to average speeds more equivalent to other European ‗high-speed‘ rail networks. These will need
to be examined in Phase 3 of the study.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
32
2.5.5.
City Station Location
2.5.5.1.
Introduction
Although not considered at this stage in the demand and revenue forecasting, there has been consideration
of the relative merits of different station sites and the value of multiple HSR stations in the largest urban
areas. There are clear advantages to reducing access times by including a secondary station in the most
heavily urbanised areas. However, there could be negative impacts of increasing end-to-end HSR journey
times. Alternative sites outside of city centres can be more attractive to access than city centre sites for
regional populations; however, employment is generally easier to access from city centres.
2.5.5.2.
Oslo Area
Although it is certain that HSR services should terminate at Oslo Central as the hub of the Norwegian rail
network, there are a number of well connected stations within Oslo urban area, which could aid
dispersal of passengers around the urban area. Lysaker and Lillestrøm have particularly strong multimodal transport links, and already cater for HSR – so these should be considered as potential additional
stopping points within Oslo. The conclusions for additional stops in the Oslo region also need to be
considered is conjunction with the Intercity Study, which will serve the high demand commuter flows into
Oslo.
2.5.5.3.
Bergen
Alternative sites for a HSR station were considered in Bergen:



Existing central station – taking advantage of its excellent multi-modal connections, and location
next to the central business district (CBD);
Nesttun – an example of a potential parkway station. This is a significant town centre outside of the
CBD, with multi-modal connections; and
Bergen (Flesland) Airport – the airport is located to the southwest of Bergen and is the second
busiest international airport in the country. It currently lacks a rail connection, but will be connected
to the planned light rail extension.
The analysis suggests that:

The central business district (CBD) of Bergen is located at the northern end of the urban area with
much of the regional population distributed to the south and islands to the northwest;
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
33



A station near Nesttun at the centre of the urban area provides better access than the central station
for around 40% of the region;
The rail route to Bergen alters the overall attractiveness of a station at Nesttun. If HSR reaches
Bergen via Voss the high cost of extending the railway and the additional journey time weakens the
case for a station to the south; and
Although the airport is the second busiest in Norway an HSR station at Flesland would not be
attractive on accessibility grounds.
Therefore it is recommended that if the rail alignment into Bergen is from Voss, only the existing
Central station be developed. However, if the Stavanger-Bergen route is pursued a station at Nesttun
would be attractive. Under the Y-shaped route option (from Oslo to Bergen and Stavanger) the
station at Nesttun would also be recommended.
2.5.5.4.
Trondheim
Alternative sites for a HSR station were considered in Trondheim:



Existing central station – taking advantage of its relatively good multi-modal connections and
potential improvements;
Heimdal – an example of a potential parkway location. Heimdal is the busiest station of the
commuter rail network, and has good access to the road network. If an out of town station was to be
constructed it would make sense to locate it at a site with existing multi-modal connections; and
Trondheim Værnes Airport – the airport is located to the east of Trondheim and is located close to
smaller towns such as Stjørdal.
The analysis suggests that:





Trondheim Central Station is located close to the waterside at the north end of the city reducing its
accessibility from the south;
Heimdal appears to be an attractive second station, and would be used by a greater residential
population;
Trondheim Central is located at the edge of the CBD, so for employment the existing station remains
the most accessible. Additionally, the status and location of the Central station will be increased
further when the waterfront redevelopments are completed;
Whilst the second station provides improved access times for some of the regional population,
slowing down journey times to the city centre has an overall negative impact; and
A station at Værnes was considered to serve the airport and as a parkway station serving towns to
the northeast of Trondheim. There is no journey time penalty for Trondheim Central passengers as
Værnes is located further north.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
34
Therefore a secondary station should be considered for Værnes, to improve accessibility to the
northeast of Trondheim and air interchange, but additional infrastructure may be required to extend
HSR services. A station at Heimdal is likely to attract less demand unless the journey time of the stop
can be balanced out.
2.5.5.5.
Stavanger
Alternative sites for a HSR station were considered in Stavanger:



Existing Central Station – taking advantage of its good multi-modal connections and proximity to
the traditional city centre;
Sandnes – considered a major point of growth and nearer to some of the large employers (e.g.
Statoil at Forus); and
Stavanger Airport (Sola) – connection with air and road network.
The analysis suggests that:




The distribution of employment around Stavanger makes a second station at Sandnes attractive,
particularly if the route is aligned through the south of the urban area. Sandnes is one of the fastest
growing areas of Norway and already has a well developed regional interchange;
Analysis has shown that if the second station were included it would attract as many passengers as
the central station due to the large number of jobs around Sandnes, Forus and Sola and the high
population density;
A station at Sola is also attractive, especially when considering improved air connectivity. In reality
the air connection may be best served by a shuttle bus from Sandnes; and
If the alignment is from the south the second station is detrimental to journey times to Stavanger
Central. However in this case the second station at Sandnes appears to be as significant at the
primary station at Stavanger.
Therefore it is recommended that, subject to the route alignment, a second station stop is developed
at Sandnes. In conjunction with this, an improved connection should be provided from Sandnes to
the airport at Sola.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
35
2.5.5.6.
Kristiansand
Three sites were considered at Kristiansand:



Existing central station – retaining the existing station would mean proximity to the city centre and
the ferry link is maintained;
Parkway – a new station could be developed where the Sorlandbanen currently forms a delta
junction to access Kristiansand. It would be accessed from Seterdalsveien, and is located 3.5km to
the north of the existing station; and
Kristiansand Kjevik Airport – this site is 8km to the northeast of Kristiansand.
The analysis suggests that:



There is particular interest in the impact of changing the station site at Kristiansand, because the
existing site is constrained and could be difficult to use as an HSR stop;
An alternative site was considered 4km to the north of the existing site and was shown to be highly
accessible. Access to the city centre is reduced to a small extent, although this could be mitigated
with appropriate local transport. Regionally the relocation would have little impact; and
Kjevik airport is physically separated from most of the urban area by the Topdalsfjordan, so is not
attractive as an alternative location.
A new station is likely to be best constructed just to the north of the city centre to avoid the need to
turn back trains at Kristiansand, as constructing a through „high speed‟ alignment will prove difficult.
2.5.5.7.
Summary
In general additional stations present an opportunity to improve access times but given that the catchment
areas generally overlap so heavily there is not much additional demand generated. The additional journey
time reduces the attractiveness of end to end journeys slightly. There appears to be a strong case for a
station at Sandnes as well as Stavanger. In the Bergen and Trondheim urban areas there may be a case for
stations at Nesttun and Heimdal but the case is not as strong. At Kristiansand a new parkway station should
be considered. It was found in all cases that airport stations are not as accessible due to their relative
isolation from housing and jobs.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
36
2.6.
Subject 5: Market Conditions for Fast Freight Trains
2.6.1.
Introduction
The study brief for Subject 5 required consideration of the following:





Combined freight and passenger trains, including the requirements for stations/terminals and time
spent on loading/unloading cargo and any impact on train frequency;
The market for high speed freight trains, including a study of current freight flows in the corridors (by
all means of transport) and an assessment of possible transferable volumes to high speed freight
trains;
Interest among cargo shippers to use fast freight trains and the decisive factors in the choice of
mode of transport;
Assessment of the railway‘s advantages and disadvantages compared to road and air transport for
freight transport; and
Willingness to pay for the new service, and expected price for HSR freight transport, compared with
cost levels in other transport modes.
This market analysis has considered:






The HSR or improved rail ‗concepts‘ or scenarios to be tested for the wider passenger HSR studies;
Examples (or proposals) in other countries of fast or HSR freight services;
Results from a survey of potential users of such HSR freight services in Norway and Sweden;
Use of the Norway/Sweden Freight Model to assess likely market demand;
A consideration of the costs of providing such freight services; and
An overall assessment, including financial and non-financial aspects.
2.6.2.
Key Definitions
2.6.2.1.
„Fast‟ and „High Speed‟ Rail Freight
The brief for this study refers to both ‗fast‘ and ‗high speed‘ rail freight services. After considering similar
services in other countries, we have defined these services as follows:


‗High speed‘ rail freight: maximum speed greater than 200km/h; and
‗Fast‘ rail freight: maximum speed greater than around 120-160 km/h.
By comparison, ‗conventional‘ rail freight can be considered to have a maximum speed less than around
120-160 km/h – in practice the operating speeds are usually much less than this because of delays
introduced by the need for shunting and train assembly (the Norway/Sweden Freight Model suggests current
conventional rail freight services on the corridors have an average speed of 65 km/h or less).
2.6.2.2.
Types of Fast Freight Train
Two broad types of fast/HSR freight service were considered:


Dedicated freight trains; and
Mixed passenger/freight trains.
It was assumed in the light of previous studies that the technical features of the HSR network would be
defined primarily by the needs of passenger trains. HSR freight trains would therefore require similar
characteristics to the passenger trains (for example, in acceleration, axle-load, aerodynamics, etc.). This
implies that the HSR freight trains would need to be essentially converted passenger train sets, which would
allow the greatest timetabling flexibility.
Given the obvious need to retain the key advantages of HSR freight – speed and reliability – we have
assumed that both types of train would be fixed formation. We have concluded that it would be difficult to
operate HSR freight services if there were a need to operate with part-trains or ‗wagonload‘ traffic – where
individual wagons or groups of wagons would have to be shunted together to form complete trains – as this
would cause delays that would have a negative impact on the journey times.
One advantage of mixed passenger/freight HSR trains is that there would be no timetable conflict between
freight and passenger services. The main drawback is that there would be, inevitably, a limited capacity
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
37
available for freight and – more importantly – this capacity would either subtract from the capacity available
for passengers or result in longer trains.
2.6.2.3.
Potential HSR Scenarios
The study considered the potential for running parallel freight services under each of Jernbaneverket‘s (JBV)
four scenarios for the development of a HSR network.
It was have assumed that scenarios A and B offer no likely possibility of developing fast or HSR freight
services. Scenario C offers the possibility of ‗fast‘ rail freight services and Scenario D offers the possibility of
HSR freight services.
It has also been assumed that the infrastructure developed primarily for HSR passenger services would not
have significant spare capacity for freight; therefore, providing this additional capacity would have an
additional – and probably significant – capital cost.
For single-track HSR corridors it is unlikely it would be further developed to sustain a significant frequency of
HSR dedicated freight trains and only mixed passenger/freight trains would be feasible. If HSR corridors are
double-tracked, it may be easier (and cheaper) to develop capacity for additional train paths for either HSR
freight trains or regional passenger trains.
2.6.3.
Overview of Potential Impacts
The main benefit of fast or HSR freight services is clearly increased speed. Also, because of the need to
adhere to an HSR timetable for passenger services, the freight services will be more reliable than
conventional rail freight services (where journey times are typically much more flexible).
The downside of HSR freight in mixed passenger/freight trains is that because of the need for quick loading
and limited storage space, the quantity of freight that could be carried would be limited.
The transfer of freight from air or road would have some social benefits, in particular:


Reduction of road accidents, due to the fewer overall road vehicle trips; and
Reduced emissions profile – including CO2 (although it should be noted that high speed trains have
higher overall emissions than conventional rail).
One impact of HSR network development may also be some capacity benefit for conventional rail freight
services (due to a reduction in conventional passenger rail services), although this effect is expected to be
relatively small due to the need to continue to serve smaller intermediate stations (that would not be served
by the HSR passenger service).
The Norway Freight Model shows a significant potential for increasing the tonnage of goods carried by rail if
journey times by rail can be substantially reduced.
2.6.4.
Level and Potential Size of Market Interest
2.6.4.1.
Introduction
Fast rail freight services could compete with parallel air and road freight services (as well as conventional rail
services). There might also be competition between fast rail freight service providers – although this seems
unlikely, given the high ‗barriers to entry‘ of specialised rolling stock and limited train paths.
The message received from the market was mixed. Several respondents have confirmed that reliable, fast
HSR freight services could play a role in their distribution services. However, cost will be a major issue, given
the competition from road, air and conventional rail.
As the market study has shown, the potentially attractive price that shippers would accept for fast/HSR
freight depends on which mode of transport is currently being used:



100%-110% of the current cost of road transport (for traffic currently moving by road);
100%-107% of the current cost of rail freight (for traffic currently moving by rail); or
Up to 200% of the current cost of road transport or half the current air freight cost (for traffic currently
moving by air).
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
38
2.6.4.2.
Mixed HSR Passenger/Freight Trains
The market survey has shown that there could be demand for a transfer of domestic air freight to HSR freight
services if freight rates were around 50% of the current air freight rates and if fast journey times could be
guaranteed.
The order of magnitude of air freight on the corridors (tens of tonnes per day) concerned is more suitable for
the freight capacity of a mixed passenger/freight train than for a dedicated fast freight train. Moreover, some
products, like newspapers and magazines might be transported efficiently to city centres by a mixed
passenger/freight service.
The conclusion is that there may be sufficient demand for HSR freight movements carried in an HSR mixed
passenger/freight train and such a service may be commercially viable. One essential requirement will be the
incorporation of an early morning delivery in the passenger timetable.
2.6.4.3.
Dedicated Fast/HSR Freight Trains
As has been identified by the survey and the Norway Freight Model, there is potentially significant demand
for a transfer from road to fast/HSR freight, although shippers are not willing to pay a significant
premium to transfer from road to rail – even with the doubling or tripling of average speeds.
Thus, if the costs of service delivery could be kept low, demand could potentially outstrip the capacity that
could be provided in mixed passenger/freight trains if fast/HSR freight trains. However, providing track
capacity for dedicated freight trains would be additional to what would be needed to serve the purely
passenger market and would, therefore, probably incur additional significant capital and operating costs.
We have not been able to assess the potential demand from Posten Norge, which – in any case - has a
policy of using rail as much as possible, and presumably would be interested in improvements in their level
of service. However, the indications from experience in other countries are that postal services, facing a
highly competitive logistics and distribution market, would find it difficult to finance a premium HSR postal rail
service.
2.6.4.4.
Rail-on-Rail Competition
Fast rail freight services would compete with existing conventional services. There might also be competition
between fast rail freight service providers – although this seems unlikely, given the high ‗barriers to entry‘ of
specialised rolling stock and limited train paths.
2.6.5.
Willingness to Pay and Price Premium
Air cargo may transfer at a premium but the quantity of this flow is limited, and would be more consistent with
mixed passenger/freight trains.
For an HSR freight service to be commercially feasible, the cost structure must be similar to that of road
transport:


For a shared passenger/freight service this may be possible – but then the quantities of cargo that
could be carried would be limited; and
For a dedicated fast freight train, it seems unlikely that the capital and operating costs would be
comparable to road transport, even at the relatively long distances covered by the identified
corridors.
Thus, although conventional rail freight may be price-competitive over longer distances compared with road
haulage (in the sense that less investment may be needed in new rolling stock), it seems unlikely that
dedicated fast rail freight trains would be. International experience seems to support this conclusion – the
only dedicated HSR freight trains (TGV La Poste) has had to reduce its service due to lack of demand.
It is not possible to be more definitive about this relationship until more detail is available on the specific
Norwegian HSR rolling stock and infrastructure costs.
2.6.6.
Commercial Feasibility
Air freight is commercially the most attractive market, as a price premium might be possible. However, the
size of this market is relatively small and could be adequately served by the limited capacity provided by
mixed passenger/freight services.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
39
For larger flows of freight sufficient to justify dedicated HSR freight trains, it would be necessary to attract
traffic from road transport, for which there is likely to be little price premium. It is also likely that dedicated fast
freight trains would have significant additional capex (both infrastructure and rolling stock) and opex costs.
The introduction of fast/HSR freight services would require investment in:



Rolling stock;
Station/terminal facilities; and
Cargo containers and handling equipment.
Revenue would have to cover the vehicle capital and operating costs before it could make a contribution
towards any necessary rail infrastructure costs.
At present it is not possible to determine whether mixed HSR passenger/freight trains or dedicated HSR
freight trains would be commercially viable and more analysis would be required to confirm this, based on
the on-going rolling stock and alignment work under this project. However, international experience appears
to show that an HSR trainload service may not be commercially viable but that a mixed passenger/freight
train service – similar to that operating in Germany – may be viable.
2.6.7.
Potential contribution to Business Case and Cost/Benefit Ratio
Because of the relatively small size of the air freight market (where a price premium might be possible), it
would make more commercial sense to serve this traffic with mixed passenger/freight services, which would
be frequent but would have limited capacity.
For larger flows of freight, dedicated HSR freight trains would be necessary. However their market would
depend on attracting traffic from road transport, for which there is likely to be little price premium. It is also
expected that dedicated fast freight trains would have significant additional capital and operating costs. For
these reasons, we do not expect dedicated HSR freight trains to be commercially viable. More analysis
would be required to confirm this, based on the on-going rolling stock and alignment work under Phase 3 of
this project.
Other social or environmental impacts would depend on the scale of transfer from air or road transport. For
HSR mixed passenger/freight trains, these are expected to be small (because of the relatively small
quantities of freight likely to be attracted); for dedicated HSR freight services, these could be larger.
2.6.8.
Impact on Conventional Rail Freight Services
One aspect not considered (as it was outside the scope of the study) was the potential impact on
conventional rail freight services of any release of capacity the on the conventional rail network due to the
development of additional HSR capacity for passenger services.
It must be assumed that improvements to the rail network will create additional capacity for other
conventional services, including freight. This may provide an opportunity to improve some conventional
freight services and to increase the market share of rail freight. The Norway Freight Model shows a
potentially substantial demand for reduced journey times by rail (based on existing rail charges) and surveys
indicate demand for fast rail freight services as long as the rail freight tariffs are not significantly higher than
for road freight.
2.6.9.
Conclusions
2.6.9.1.
Market Study Conclusions
The overall assessment of this market study may be summed up as follows:



International experience shows some examples of fast or HSR freight services that are likely to be
technically feasible on the Norwegian fast or HSR network;
The single example of a dedicated HSR freight train (TGV La Poste) has operated successfully but is
facing a declining market and has (until now) proved unable to diversify into the express courier
market;
The German example of the Lufthansa-subsidiary express courier business based on the existing
fast rail passenger services continues to be successful and has a link to air cargo that might develop
further in the future; and
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
40

However, fast courier services on mixed passenger/freight X2000 services in Sweden were stopped,
apparently for commercial reasons.
The level of air freight movements on the HSR corridors that are the subject of this study are low – the
busiest is of the order of less than one lorry load per day; however, this cargo might be attracted to HSR
freight services at a premium price.
The level of current freight movements by road that might be attracted to fast or HSR freight services
appears to be substantial, however:


There is evidence that, although shippers might be attracted by the faster rail speeds, they would not
be willing to pay a significant premium for fast rail freight; and
Posten Norge is a major potential user, but already is committed to using conventional rail freight
(i.e. rather than road).
The busiest freight corridor (by an order of magnitude) is likely to be Oslo – Bergen.
2.6.9.2.
Study Brief Conclusions
In terms of the specific requirements of the study brief, the following conclusions may be drawn:
For the loading/unloading of fast freight rail services:


Cargo operations for combined freight /passenger trains should take place on the same platform as
passenger transfer and broadly within the same time constraints (as shown by the example of
ic:kurier in Germany); and
Cargo handling for dedicated fast freight trains should be undertaken at separate freight terminals,
because of the longer loading/unloading times and the operation of required mechanical equipment
(as shown by the TGV La Poste operation in France).
The findings on the market for high speed freight trains are:




There are considerable freight flows in the corridors concerned by road, rail, air and coastal shipping;
however, only a very small proportion of this traffic might be attracted to fast rail freight services,
primarily: air freight, express packages and courier traffic and postal traffic;
The most lucrative market (in the sense of potential price premium) would be air freight, but the
current total flows of air freight on the corridors is small – of the order of less than one lorry-load per
day; possibly half of the air freight might transfer at rail freight rates of about half the current air
freight rates;
There is a substantial market for fast rail freight services transferring from road (and potentially
conventional rail); however the shippers do not appear to be likely to be willing to pay a price
premium (over the road transport cost) for this service; and
An upper limit for this transfer from road transport is a total of around 1.5 million tonnes per year
(assuming current rail freight charges); the most popular corridor is expected to be Oslo-Bergen,
which might attract 70% of this traffic.
The decisive factors for cargo shippers in the choice of mode of transport were identified as:




Speed, which would be very significant for air freight and is attractive for current road transport;
Cost: for existing road freight to transfer to fast freight services, the cost would need to be similar to
existing road freight charges;
Availability of early morning delivery to destination (to allow morning delivery); and
Reliability: this was a common comment from several interviewees – moreover, some respondents
had poor experience of rail reliability.
Railway‘s advantages and disadvantages compared to road and air transport for freight transport may be
summed up as follows:


For existing users of air freight, the key advantage of fast rail freight would be a significantly lower
cost at a comparable speed to air freight; and
For existing users of road freight, the key advantage would be the significantly shorter journey times
(at a similar cost to road freight).
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
41
Willingness to pay for the new service is characterised as follows:


For air freight transferring to fast rail freight, there is a willingness to pay up to half the current cost of
air freight (around NOK 2000 per tonne); and
For road freight transferring to fast rail freight, there is little willingness to pay more than the current
road charge (an expected price of around NOK 500 per tonne).
2.6.9.3.
Risks and Degree of Uncertainty
There is clearly a high degree of uncertainty over the potential level of market demand, as well as the
commercial viability of any fast/HSR freight services. This uncertainty may reduce when more details are
available of HSR rolling stock and infrastructure costs.
2.6.10. Next Steps
The following process is suggested for such a follow-up study:





Define the assumptions for availability (if any) of freight paths, capacity and journey times (working
with the rolling stock contractor) on each corridor, in line with the assumptions of the passenger
services proposed;
Determine the additional cost of providing a fast freight capability (either mixed passenger/freight or
all-freight trains) compared to passenger-only infrastructure and rolling stock required;
Forecast demand and revenue to be gained from freight services (possibly using the Norway Freight
Model, as we have in this study), particularly to investigate further the likely behaviour of road
shippers to average rail speeds less than 120km/h to 160km/h;
Compare the revenue with the additional capital and operating costs to determine the overall
commercial viability of the freight services; and
Consider other socio-economic costs and benefits of such services.
In addition, the treatment of any competing demand for capacity for regional passenger services would need
to be considered.
Furthermore, the concept of a fast/HSR dedicated train for courier/post traffic should be followed up with
Posten Norge, to investigate whether this organisation would be willing to finance – in part or in whole – the
capital costs of such an initiative on its own.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
42
3.
Rail Specific Planning and
Development
3.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Rail Specific Planning and Development contract is to study three key subjects, which in
turn relate to several themes in relation to the planning and development of HSR (HSR).

Subject 1 – Further reviews of single track HSR
- Acceptance criteria of punctuality on dedicated HSR and mixed traffic lines
- Design of crossing loops on single track HSR and the effect on capacity, travel time and
avoidance of delays

Subject 2 – Track connections on double track HSR lines
- Track loops used for operational flexibility and temporary single track operation
- Passing loops used for overtaking slower services

Subject 3 – Stations on HSR lines
- Station design
- Effects of HSR stops and benefits of station establishment
- Experiences from other countries
This section summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of this Phase 2 Contract, for the
purpose of informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by WSP
Consulting Engineers.
The Rail Specific Planning and Development Contract is primarily concerned with establishing terms and
conditions to be applied in Phase 3 of the overall study. In addition to desktop research, a questionnaire was
issued to railway authorities in countries that have existing high-speed railways. The findings from the
questionnaire fed into the recommendations drawn.
Each of the three subjects is considered in turn in the remainder of this chapter.
3.2.
Subject 1: Further Reviews of Single Track HSR
3.2.1.
Introduction
Subject 1, Rail Specific Planning and Development, contains two parts. The first part is concerned with an
analysis of the acceptance criteria of punctuality, through a review of previous studies of punctuality. The
second part is concerned with an analysis of the design of crossing loops, through capacity and delay
analysis of different design variants within several operational strategies.
3.2.2.
Acceptance Criteria for Punctuality
Punctuality is an important factor in railway operations. It is a central measure of performance and it is widely
used to evaluate effectiveness of infrastructure investments and timetable adjustments. Delays and
punctuality affect the benefit of railway lines directly. Care has to be taken to design the infrastructure so that
the delays and delay propagation are kept to reasonably acceptable levels.


Primary delays can be kept at low levels through frequent maintenance of infrastructure and
vehicles, but also through solutions and designs with a limited number of components that can
malfunction and cause delays; and
Knock-on delays, i.e. delay propagation, can be avoided and kept at low levels through well
designed infrastructure solutions. This includes the design and location of crossing loops, passing
loops and track loops. The subsequent analysis will show how different infrastructure solutions,
vehicles and primary delays affect the knock-on delays.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
43
A review was conducted of previous studies of punctuality, with delay statistics from existing lines compiled
and presented below. These statistics give useful insights to delay and punctuality levels achieved on
existing lines. In some sense these levels form lower limits on the delay and punctuality scale that are to be
considered during the planning and design of new high speed lines.
The review of delay statistics for existing lines can be summarized in the following table.
Table 3.1 – Delay statistics for existing lines
Mean delay
[min]
Punctuality
at 5 min.
level
Departure
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Norway
3-5
3-4
75-85%
85%
Sweden
1-2
4-8
75-95%
65-85%
Spain (conventional trains)
89-95.9%
Spain (AVE high speed lines)
97.3-98.9
Proposed acceptance criteria 1-3
1-3
85-95%
85-95%
The conclusion and proposal from the analysis undertaken is that the new high speed lines shall be
constructed for punctuality on a five minute level within the interval 85-95%. The lower value is here a lower
limit that corresponds to existing Norwegian operation, whereas the higher value is reachable for well
maintained systems with a well thought-out design. Assuming negative exponential distributed delays these
values corresponds to mean delays of 1-3 minutes.
It is important to assume reasonable punctuality levels. If the assumed entry punctuality is higher than the
realized one, the infrastructure will be under-dimensioned and cause more knock-on delay and punctuality
drop than intended. If the assumed entry punctuality is lower, the infrastructure will be over-dimensioned and
the gain in less knock-on delay will not correspond to the higher construction costs.
3.2.3.
Design of Crossing Loops
3.2.3.1.
Introduction
Crossing loops are essential on single-track sections. This section assesses the infrastructure design of
single-track sections of a potential future Norwegian high-speed railway network. Several different design
variants were tested for several operational strategies. The evaluation is divided into two independent parts:


Capacity Analysis; and,
Delay Analysis.
Each of these two parts is considered in turn in the remainder of this section.
3.2.3.2.
Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis is a general timetable analysis where different infrastructure designs are tested and
evaluated for different traffic conditions. A generic algorithm (TVEMS) is applied to determine the capacity for
different traffic mixes on different infrastructure designs.
The results of this analysis clearly show that there are capacity limitations for a single-track line operated
with a mix of high-speed trains and slower trains.
3.2.3.3.
Delay Analysis
This work is concerned with finding the requirements to achieve short and reliable travel times for the
operation of dedicated high-speed traffic, or infrequent mixes of high speed and slower traffic. Statistical
methods and modelling of the signalling system and vehicle movements are applied to estimate delay
propagation and calculate the needed time supplements to cope with the knock-on delays.
It is very important that the intended traffic mix is known during the design of single-track line sections. Traffic
mix and frequency of service are the most important factors to take into account during the design work. It is
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
44
strongly recommended that further timetable studies are carried out when the alternative infrastructure
designs are to be evaluated.
3.2.3.4.
Conclusions
Mixed traffic is a challenge already on double-track lines where faster trains catch up with slower ones. For
single-track lines this phenomenon is combined with crossings. This means that both crossings and
overtaking must be handled. The catch-up effect also results in timetable wedges which in turn makes it
difficult to find feasible timetable solutions for crossings. Based on the performed analyses the following is
recommended.
High-speed and Regional Traffic:
 A frequency of 0.5 high-speed trains/h/direction and 0.5 regional trains/h/direction will work on a
normal single-track line; and
 A combination of 1 train/h/direction for one of the train types and 0.5 trains/h/direction for the other
will probably work on an adjusted2 single-track line.
High-speed and Freight Traffic:
 A frequency of 0.5 high-speed trains/h/direction and 1 freight train/h/direction will work on a normal
single-track line; and
 A frequency of 1 high-speed train/h/direction and 0.5 freight trains/h/direction will also work on a
normal single-track line with average inter-loop distance 10 km.
Homogeneous High-speed Traffic:
 A frequency of 1 high-speed train/h/direction will work on a normal single-track line; and
 A frequency of 2 high-speed trains/h/direction will probably work on an adjusted single track line.
Design of Single-track Lines for Homogenous High-speed Traffic
A system for homogeneous high-speed traffic can be adjusted for very high operational performance. This
requires:




High standard crossing loops;
An inter-loop distance not longer than 20 000 m. Shorter distances are needed to get timetable
flexibility;
Co-location of passenger stops and crossings. This combination results in less time consuming
crossings and less investment; and
Extended crossing loop where passenger stop and crossing cannot be combined.
3.3.
Subject 2: Track Connections
3.3.1.
Introduction
Subject 2, Track Connections, deals with double-track issues. Subject 2 focuses on the loops which in a
double track system are necessary to allow trains with different speed characteristics to share the same
tracks and for allowing traffic even though part of the system is blocked. Two kinds of loops are analysed:


3.3.2.
Track loops, used for temporary single-track operation during maintenance and failures etc, and to
increase the operational flexibility through amended use of the two line tracks, e.g. parallel operation;
and
Passing loops, used for overtaking where faster trains pass slower ones.
Track Loops
Track loops are crossovers that connect the two line tracks on a double-track railway line. They are usually
located at major stations/junctions, at passing loops (minor stations) or just on the line as simple crossing
points. This section focuses on the use of these loops to maintain traffic during maintenance work and/or
failures that cause closure of one of the two-line tracks. This implies a temporary single-track operation
between two adjacent track loops. The task is to find a suitable distance between the track loops as well as a
recommendation of speed level in the turnouts.
The track loop is a rather simple design with four turnouts positioned so that they form two crossovers that
allow trains to shift from one main track to the other. It is feasible to distinguish between two types:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
45


Simple track loop; and
Combined passing and track loop.
These are illustrated in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 below.
Figure 3.1 – Simple track loop
Figure 3.2 – Combined passing and track loop
A simple track loop can only be used to switch from one track to the other, whereas a combined loop also
gives access to the passing loop from the outer track.
The major design parameter for a track loop is the permissible speed for the diverging track in the turnouts.
This turnout standard affects the delay caused to the trains when they are forced to switch tracks. To some
extent the turnout standard also affects the capacity for single-track operation through its influence on the
run time between two adjacent track loops.
A track loop does not work on its own. In most cases two or more track loops are used during special
operational modes such as temporary single-track operation, parallel operation etc. This means that the
track loops cannot be designed individually. The inter-loop distance is therefore a factor of great interest.
Figure 3.3 shows a typical single-track operation where one of the line tracks is blocked. Reasons for such
blockage could be vehicle failure, track or signal failure or planned maintenance etc. In such cases it is often
feasible to let all traffic pass on the other, still operational track.
Figure 3.3 – Track loops used for temporary single-track operation
The main aim for the system designer is to design the track loops and the distance between them so that the
capacity for this kind of operation is high enough. This is done in this assignment through run time
calculations. The speed restriction for the diverging track in turnouts forces switching trains to slow down
before a track loop, which extends the traversing time between the track loops. This results in lower capacity
and more delay. Figure 3.4 shows details for the evaluation of two alternative loop designs.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
46
Figure 3.4 – Length of track loop with different turnout standard. Main signals marked with simple arrows beside the
tracks.
Bunching is a useful measure to increase capacity for temporary single-track operation between two
adjacent track loops. This means that two or more trains follow in the same direction between each direction
change. Most often this kind of improvised single-track operation means that the trains have to wait
(queuing) before they get access to the single-track section.
The evaluation involved 24 combinations of inter-loop distance (10, 20 and 30 km), maximum train speed
(250 and 300 km/h), turnout standard (100 and 130 km/h) and bunch size (1 and 2 trains). Figure 3.5 shows
capacity for each of these 24 variants.
Figure 3.5 – Maximum capacity for temporary single-track operation, with train speeds of 200 and 300 kph
It is seen that the bunch size and the inter-loop distance are the most important factors. The capacity
increase for bunched operation is 45-75%. Bunching has greatest effect when inter-loop distance is long (30
km) and maximum speed is low (200 km/h). A short inter-loop distance and fast trains makes bunching much
less beneficial.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
47
The inter-loop distance is more important for the slower trains. A change from 30 km to 10 km inter- loop
distance means a capacity increase of 110% for traffic at 200 km/h but only 60% for traffic at 300 km/h. This
leads to the conclusion that the turnout standard is not a key factor. This is reasonable since:



Only half of the trains suffer from speed restrictions in turnouts;
The speed restrictions (for restricted trains) almost only apply at the exit track loop since the
restriction at the entrance loop lies over the acceleration curve regardless of turnout standard (100 or
130 km/h); and
The speed restriction at the exit loop prolongs the cycle time through extended run times. However
the extension limits to the braking, since the following acceleration course is performed outside the
single-track section, where the train route is already released.
It is therefore reasonable to use the moderate turnout standard of 100 km/h for track loops that are used
mainly for redundancy. One exception from this recommendation is one-sided passing loops where the track
loop turnouts can be given a higher standard to ensure time and capacity efficient overtaking. One-sided
passing loops are illustrated in Figure 3.6 below.
Figure 3.6 – One-sided passing loop. The track loop turnouts (red) could here be given the same standard as (130 kph)
as the passing loop turnouts if the loop is planned to be used for overtaking in both directions
It is of interest to focus on the three most important factors: the inter-loop distance, the bunch size and the
maximum speed (vehicle type). Figure 3.7 shows how the inter-loop distance affect the capacity for the four
combinations of bunch size and maximum speed. The turnout speed is here fixed to 100 km/h and the interloop distance is increased step-wise by 1 km from 10 to 30 km.
Figure 3.7 – Maximum capacity for temporary single-track operation, with turnout speed fixed to 100 kph.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
48
The figure above can be used to choose a feasible inter-loop distance, given a required capacity level. The
figure demonstrates the features discussed above: faster trains give higher capacity for a given inter-loop
distance and the difference between fast and slow trains increases with the inter-loop distance. Bunched
operation is more beneficial, compared to one-by-one operation, for long inter-loop distances.
The analysed parameters also affect the additional delay that trains suffer due to temporary single- track
operation. This delay is heavily dependent on the timetable design and it is therefore very difficult to give
useful estimations of these delays.
3.3.3.
Passing Loops
3.3.3.1.
Introduction
This section addresses the design of passing loops and the distance between them (inter-loop distance).
These parameters are essential in the design of double-track railway systems due to their direct impact on
capacity, scheduled delays (run times) and knock-on delays. They need to be properly designed and located
so that a feasible timetable, or even more importantly several feasible timetables, can be constructed. This
kind of timetable flexibility is a requirement for future traffic development.
Operation of double-track lines differs from operation of single-track lines since the crossings may take place
anywhere and without time loss. However, double-track lines may be operated with a mix of trains at different
speeds, e.g. high-speed, regional and freight trains. The consequent mix of speeds implies overtaking where
faster trains pass slower ones. The overtaking shares some features with crossings:





They increase capacity (for a given traffic mix);
They have to be carefully planned in the timetable;
They imply time losses (scheduled delays);
They mean a risk of delay propagation (knock-on delays); and
They require dispatching actions in disturbed situations.
How these features affect the operational outcome of a railway line depends heavily on the infrastructure
design and operational factors such as timetable and occurrence of disturbances. The passing loops have a
great impact on capacity and timetable flexibility.
The scheduled delay is a factor of great importance. It affects not only the run times (travel times), but also
capacity and operational robustness. The scheduled delay is therefore a given measure of performance
when double-track railway lines are to be designed.
3.3.3.2.
Design of Passing Loops
Passing loops have to be designed for time efficient overtaking. This means that turnouts and track lengths
have to be chosen so that the time needed for the faster train to pass the slower one is as short as possible.
This section analyses the effect of some important technical design factors for passing loops on the
effectiveness of overtaking. Two different operational situations are addressed; a high-speed train overtaking
a regional and freight train respectively.
The analysis is performed through run time calculations where deceleration and acceleration courses are
modelled as well as release and setting times for the train routes. The calculations are purely deterministic
and aim at finding the minimum scheduled delay caused to the overtaken train. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9
show two principal designs. The speed level at the entrance turnout determines the distance to the stopping
point. A distance of 100 m is assumed between the stopping point and the trap point (the first exit turnout).
The exit turnouts have a maximum speed of 100 km/h for the diverging track in all cases. Given the assumed
stopping point and acceleration data this speed will not be restrictive for accelerating trains.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
49
Figure 3.8 – Alternative loop lengths for an ordinary, one sided, passing loop
Figure 3.9 – Alternative loop lengths for a two-sided passing loop for combined overtaking and passenger stop
The evaluation of different designs and traffic situations has resulted in the following recommendations:



Speed in entrance turnout (diverging track): 130 km/h;
Length of loop track (between signals): 685 m; and
Speed in exit turnout (diverging track): 100 km/h.
The technical design values give a scheduled delay of 155-170 seconds, depending on the operational
situation. If the overtaking is combined with a passenger stop the delay is only 20 seconds.
Regional trains suffer from greater scheduled delays due to their higher maximum speed (200 km/h)
compared to the freight trains. An efficient way to reduce the impact of the overtaking is to combine it with a
passenger stop. This means that the deceleration supplement, some of the dwell time and the acceleration
supplement become useful (operational) time instead of scheduled delay, which is illustrated in Figure 3.10.
The dwell time used here corresponds to a short regional stop of 60 seconds and the shown values include
time supplements for deceleration and acceleration. For major stations a longer dwell time may be
necessary. Those cases mean that an overtaking might be scheduled without scheduled delay.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
50
Figure 3.10 – Minimum scheduled delay at overtaking. Regional and freight trains with alternative turnout speeds
(diverging track).
It is very important to bear in mind that this analysis only concerns minimum scheduled delay caused by
overtaking. Delays in the real operation will result in a need to include also special time supplements to limit
the delay propagation. The amount of such supplements depends on the details of the infrastructure design
as well as in the timetable. This means that such supplements must be addressed in special order when
more details about the infrastructure and the operation are known.
3.3.3.3.
Loop Spacing
The design of passing loops is a question of details where metres of track length and seconds for release
and setting of train routes have to be optimised. Another, much more general, factor in the design of doubletrack lines is the loop spacing (inter-loop distance).
The loop spacing is general since it affects not only the scheduled and knock-on delays, but also the
capacity and the number and the structure of feasible timetables. This means that the loop spacing should
be analyzed (at least) from two points of view:


Capacity and operation possibilities, i.e. timetable flexibility, scheduled delays etc.; and
Knock-on delays, need for time supplements etc.
The second point corresponds very well to the analyses performed for crossing loops and the same method
might be used to estimate the knock-on delays and the time supplements needed for the overtaking. One
major difference, however, is that such estimation requires detailed knowledge, or assumptions, about the
timetable.
It is much easier to foresee a future single-track timetable, since the crossings strongly restrict the timetable
variability. A double-track line has much higher timetable flexibility and hence more feasible timetables. For
this reason these analyses will need to be examined in the next stage of the study when more timetable
details are known. Even if the detailed delay analyses are left for future assignments, it is very useful to
analyse the capacity effects of different loop spacing strategies. The analysis is performed as a multi-factor
analysis where the effect of the inter-loop distance is analysed together with operational factors such as
maximum speed of high-speed trains, frequency of service, stopping pattern and traffic mix.
A mix of infrequently operated high-speed trains and regional trains is a feasible traffic mix for a double-track
railway system. The frequency of service for the high-speed trains has a great impact on the timetable
flexibility for regional trains. A lower frequency of one high-speed train per hour gives the opportunity to
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
51
schedule regional trains without overtaking, which means that the number of passing loops does not restrict
the number of alternative timetables.
Passing loops are much more important when high-speed frequency is high. This is seen both in a lower
proportion of feasible timetables and a greater (relative) difference between different inter-loop distances. In
other words, for the studied traffic mix the inter-loop distance is only a capacity concern when high-speed
frequency is high.
A mix of infrequently operated high-speed trains and fast freight trains (140 kph) is also a possible traffic
combination for at double-track system. Figure 3.11 shows that at least one freight train/h is possible in all
variants but one. Several of the variants show very high capacity for freight trains, 4-11 trains per hour.
Figure 3.11 – Mean number of possible freight trains per hour
It is seen that the inter-loop distance is of great importance. It is possible to compensate a high maximum
speed and/or frequency of service with a shorter inter-loop distance. The maximum speed of high-speed
trains does not affect freight train capacity very much when the frequency of service is only one train per
hour. A higher frequency of high-speed trains results in a higher sensitivity to the inter-loop distance.
Even if this amount of freight traffic might not seem realistic, the evaluation indicates that there is spare
capacity between the high-speed trains. The two traffic mixes analyzed in this section are rather simple
ones. If the mix becomes more complicated, including more than two types of traffic, the capacity is likely to
drop and the scheduled delay to rise.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
52
3.4.
Subject 3: Stations on HSR Lines
3.4.1.
Station Design
This section examines a series of station layouts applicable to different traffic scenarios of a single or double
track high-speed railway. It is recommended that in Phase 3 the series of layouts outlined is used to identify
and choose station layouts. Such choice must be done based on the actual traffic scenario at each station as
well as be based on the local conditions at each station location. Another recommendation is to build stations
based on active barriers and full height platform screen doors.
There are a number of possible cases for station design depending if it is single track operation or double
track operation and whether passing or crossing is required because of the track occupancy requirements,
timetable, reliability and traffic mix. The track layouts of stations will of course depend on the traffic that they
shall serve. The intention with these scenarios is to identify various station design alternatives that may be
relevant for a Norwegian HSR network.
The proposed traffic scenarios are influenced by the Swiss concept Bahn 2000 (effectively a ‗standard hour‘
timetable system with ‗standard hour‘ connections), but the results as regards station designs are quite
general. An advantage of using a ‗standard hour‘ concept is that regional and local transportations may
efficiently connect to the stopping HSR trains in both directions. This latter aspect makes the traffic scenario
interesting also in the case of a double track line.
Examples of possible station track layouts are shown in Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13 below. A cross-section
of all possible station track layouts is presented in the appendix of the Station Design Report. Various track
layout solutions may be chosen depending on the traffic scenarios defined in later stages of the Norwegian
High Speed Rail Assessment. Solutions for single and double track railways are also included.
Figure 3.12 – Track layout for single track station with 1 stopping and 1 passing, 2 stopping, or 2 passing trains
Figure 3.13 – Track layout for double track station with 2 stopping and 2 passing trains
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
53
It was considered that the preferred platform design consisted of an island platform which gives crossplatform interchange capabilities and, in terms of the environment, the station design should be energy
efficient and adapted to the environment via the use of materials chosen to promote sustainable construction
and to maintain an areas identity.
A further aspect of the designs concerns the protection barrier between accessible platform areas and tracks
where high-speed trains will pass at high speed. The safety of passengers on platforms is a fundamental
aspect for the station designs. Objects may be thrown up on the platform by the snow plough or by the
aerodynamic drag of the train. The situation is considered to be the most severe in winter time with snow and
ice in the track. The slipstream effect of passing trains may cause dangerous forces on people on a platform.
Safety zones are today commonly used along platform edges. Current Norwegian requirements are shown
below in the figure below.
Table 3.2 – Norwegian requirements for safety zones on platforms
Speed (kph)
V ≤ 50
50 < V ≤ 140
140 < V
Width of safety zone
0.5
1.0
1.5
The boundary of the safety zone (danger area), furthest from the platform edge, is normally marked with
visual and tactile warnings. There may also be acoustic warnings and special information on the platform
signs when a train is passing.
The Norwegian requirement for the marking of the safety zone is that the safety zone shall have a tactile
surface, for blind persons and persons with reduced sight, of 400mm width towards the zone where
passengers may stay. The safety zone shall be marked by a 100mm wide yellow line. A similar, possible
thinner, line should mark the platform edge.
The normal rule is that passengers may not stay on a platform where trains pass at speeds ≥ 240 km/h.
Access is only permitted when a train is intended to stop. However, when speeds of passing trains are
increased above 200km/h, new solutions for platform safety should be found. In this report we identify
―active‖ and ―passive‖ protection barriers between high-speed tracks and platform areas where passengers
may stay when a high-speed train is passing.
A passive protection is a wall, or possibly a fence, separating the high-speed track through the station from
the platform areas. Several of the station layouts may use passive barriers, which should be fairly simple to
build and maintain. However, station layouts with passive barriers will in general require 1 or 2 more tracks
than the layouts with active barriers.
Passive barriers are quite common on high-speed railways worldwide. An example is given in Figure 3.13
below.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
54
Figure 3.14 – TGV station at St-Raphaël
Active barriers, or platform screen doors (PSDs), are quite common on modern metro systems, but should in
principle be possible to use also on high-speed and conventional railways.
Active barrier systems are:



Full height (as shown in the example included in Figure 3.14 below);
Semi-high platform doors; and
Half height platform doors (platform safety gates).
The full height barriers have the advantage that the waiting area may be given a very good passenger
environment, including the provision of heating, or air-conditioning, as appropriate.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
55
Figure 3.15 – Lille, Porte de Valenciennes
PSDs have many advantages, but also disadvantages such as costs and reliability. We recommend that the
choice of active or passive barriers is done considering each specific case. PSDs are relatively simple to
apply in metro systems with indoor tunnel stations and homogenous rolling stock. The situation is more
complicated on high-speed and conventional railways. Weather conditions must be considered as the
aerodynamic forces on the PSDs are higher and the position of the doors will obviously partly be in conflict
with the doors of different types of rolling stock.
It is also strongly recommended that stations in tunnels shall be avoided unless trains are run at fairly low
speeds through such tunnels. Pressure variations may travel between the enclosed spaces in which trains
run and the other spaces of stations, which may produce powerful air currents that passengers cannot
withstand and will find very uncomfortable.
Other important safety aspects are:





Sufficient platform width to be provided based on passenger demand;
Tactile paving to be provided near platform edges;
Audio-visual information on how to act in an emergency;
Secondary means of escape in the event of a train fire; and,
Location of emergency access points to be provided near train door stopping locations.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
56
4.
Technical and Safety Analyses
4.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Technical and Safety Analysis Contract is to examine the different technical and safety
aspects of the construction, and subsequent operation, of HSR, with particular emphasis on the challenges
faced by the Norwegian context.
The Technical and Safety Analysis Contract consists of three subjects:



Technical Solutions. Within this subject there are a number of other subtasks specified, which are
discussed in more detail below;
Risk Assessment and Analysis; and
Assessment of high-speed railway‘s contribution to transportation safety and security.
This section summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of this Phase 2 contract, for the
purpose of informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by Pöyry,
in conjunction with Interfleet, Sweco and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
As with the Rail Specific Planning and Development Contract, this contract is primarily concerned with
establishing terms and conditions to be applied in Phase 3 of the overall study.
Each of the three subjects is considered in turn in the remainder of this section.
4.2.
Subject 1: Technical Solutions
4.2.1.
Introduction
The Terms of Reference for the Technical and Safety Standards Contract requested that a number of
different items be addressed as part of the Technical Solutions element of the work. These were:





Standards and Norms that are needed for HSR;
Aspects of Norway‘s different weather and climatic conditions, with regard to possible HSR
construction and operation;
Different technical track solutions;
Assessment of infrastructure concepts, including tilting train operations; and
Rolling stock.
Each of these items is examined in turn in the remainder of this section.
4.2.2.
Standards for High-speed Railways
4.2.2.1.
The Task
The Mandate requests that an assessment is carried out of the extent to which speed standards are suitable
for the different corridors. This first task of the technical assessment has therefore been to map standards
and technical regulations that exist and which are relevant for development of high-speed railways in
Norway. A set of European wide standards have been established, the ―Technical Specifications for the
Interoperability‖ (TSI) of European HSR systems, so these were taken as the starting point for the
examination of applicable technical standards, but this has been extended to related or extra standard
complexes.
These European-wide specifications have then been compared with the current Norwegian specifications,
the ‗JBV Teknisk Regelverk‘. All areas where standards or technical regulations do not cover the relevant
requirements for development and operation of high-speed railways in Norway have then been identified,
and the need for new or modified Norwegian regulations for high-speed railways are studied and evaluated.
4.2.2.2.
Technical Specifications for Interoperability
The European Community contributes to the development and expansion of Trans-European networks in the
area of transport infrastructure. To achieve these objectives, the European Community takes all necessary
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
57
actions to ensure the interoperability of networks, particularly in the field of harmonisation of technical
standards.
For the railway sector, the European Council took the first measure with the adoption of Directive 96/48/EC
on the interoperability of the Trans-European HSR system (HGV) on 23 July 1996. On 19 March 2001
Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the conventional railway system was introduced as well as
Directive 96/48/EC on community procedures for the preparation and adoption of TSI and common rules for
assessing conformity. The two interoperability Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC have been amended
several times; today the directive 2008/57/EC of 17 June 2008 is in effect.
To achieve the objectives of the interoperability directives for high-speed railway systems the European
Association worked with the AEIF – Association Européenne pour l'Interopérabilité Ferroviaire (European
Association for Railway Interoperability), a body representing the infrastructure managers, railway companies
and the rail industry, to develop, implement and revise the TSI for HSR traffic.
Since the implementation of Directive 2004/50/EC, the competent authority for the development of the TSI is
the European Railway Agency (ERA). It has been established to provide the EU Member States and the EU
Commission with technical assistance in the fields of railway safety and interoperability. This involves the
development and implementation of Technical Specifications for Interoperability and a common approach to
questions concerning railway safety. The Agency's main task is to manage the preparation of these
measures.
The development of TSIs has shown the need to clarify the relationship between the essential requirements
and the TSIs on the one hand, and the European standards and other documents of a normative nature on
the other. In particular, a clear distinction should be drawn between the standards or parts of standards
which must be made mandatory in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive, and the ‗harmonised‘
standards that have been developed in the spirit of the new approach to technical harmonisation and
standardisation.
Today the Agency works on drafting the third group of Conventional Rail Technical Specifications for
Interoperability concerning Infrastructure, Energy, Locomotives and Passenger rolling stock, and Telematics
applications for passenger services. The Agency is also carrying out the revision of TSIs related to Freight
wagons, Operation and traffic management, and Noise. Further activities will include revision of earlier
adopted TSIs with the aim of extending their scope to the entire European railway network.
This study is relevant for the development of high-speed railways. In the present TSI for the trans-European
HSR system the lines were classified as Category I, Category II and Category III respectively.
The requirements to be met by the elements, subsystems, etc. characterising the infrastructure domain shall
match at least the performance levels specified for each of the following line categories of the transEuropean high-speed rail system:



Category I:
250 km/h.
Category II:
Category III:
specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than
specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h.
upgraded lines for higher speeds from 160 km/h to 200 km/h.
All categories of lines shall allow the passage of trains with a length of 400 metres and a maximum weight of
1000 tonnes. The performance levels are characterised by the maximum permissible speed of the line
section allowed for high-speed trains complying with the High-Speed Rolling Stock TSI. The values of
parameters specified are only valid up to a maximum speed of 350 km/h.
4.2.2.3.
Norwegian Regulations “Teknisk Regelverk JD5xx”
Jernbaneverket‘s technical regulations (Teknisk Regelverk JD5xx) include requirements for design,
construction and maintenance of infrastructure facilities on the public railway network in Norway. The latest
version of the technical regulations is in force since 01/07/2010. The next release of the technical regulations
will probably be published 01/03/2011. The regulations will be set up in a new format.
The 2010 version of the technical regulations contains design rules for speeds up to 250 km/h for all
subsystems except for the control- and signalling-system (JD 550-553). The old version for the old systems
is still valid.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
58
In anticipation of the design rules for ERTMS systems, changes to JD 550 will be made that make it possible
to project existing or new systems for speeds up to and including 250 km/h.
As part of the technical regulations there are also JD590 Infrastructure document properties. This document
provides comprehensive information on infrastructure adapted to the needs of those who will design, build
and maintain rolling stock.
Similar to the TSI the technical regulations contain dated and undated references to normative documents.
The documents are referred to in appropriate places and publications are listed in separate appendices to
the main document for each subject. For dated references, or publications marked with revision number
applies to issue that are described. For references that are not dated or labelled terms of the latest edition of
the publication referred to.
Similar to other European countries, the TSI seems to be the basis for the Regelverk. Some minor
differences were found, but not in the main parameters.
4.2.2.4.
Summary of Findings
The conclusions from the review of standards are as follows:






Extend the existing Teknisk Regelverk for Category I high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally
equal to or greater than 250 km/h regarding to TSI (limit 350 km/h) and change or adapt all speed
related parameters;
This applies in particular to the Infrastructure section, but also to all speed-related subsystems such
as Energy, Safety in Tunnels etc.;
The subsystem Control and Signalling is currently revised regarding ERMTS. For ETCS, it is
recommended to include the above mentioned speed range in the process;
The final and effective norm or at least a binding preliminary version should be available before the
start of the final, detailed planning;
TSI conformity checks should be done during the planning and the construction phase; and
Minor differences could be discussed with those responsible within the JBV organisation.
4.2.3.
Climatic Conditions – Meteorological Data
4.2.3.1.
The Task
The Mandate specifically requests that consideration be given to the demands and consequences of the
Norwegian climate and Norwegian winter conditions. The proportion of days with weather, climate or special
winter conditions is high in Norway. The ambition is therefore that the technical solutions chosen for highspeed railways will enable normal operation under most climate variations likely to occur here.
In the following section different issues are discussed in detail. First an overview will be provided of the
Norwegian geographic conditions. It contains the theme of climatic conditions and meteorological data,
topographic issues and landslides. The following sub-sections will then outline problems and solutions which
must be noted in the planning of new high-speed railway lines. This part contains issues such as climatic
impact on the construction phase, rolling stock, operation of railway systems and an overview of early
warning systems (EWS).
4.2.3.2.
Norwegian Conditions
Climatic conditions
Norway's climate shows great variations. From its southernmost point Lindesnes, to its northernmost North
Cape, there is a span of 13 degrees of latitude, or the same as from Lindesnes to the Mediterranean Sea.
The rugged topography of Norway is one of the main reasons for large local differences in climate over short
distances.
In the winter season, precipitation is in the form of snow in all parts of the country. Generally 1mm of rain
gives up to 10 mm of snow. However, a warm cloud with rain normally contains a lot more precipitation than
a cold cloud with snow. There exists a large geographical variation in snow and snow covered periods. In the
southern and western coastal areas snow is normally infrequent and the snow covered periods are normally
not continuous throughout the winter season. Nonetheless quite a lot of snow can fall in a short time frame,
and sometimes 0.5-1.0m of snow can build up during a 24 hour period. In inland areas, where temperatures
are low, there is normally moderate snowfall; while the snow covered period is long.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
59
Generally the highest wind speeds occur in open areas near the sea and on the high mountain routes. A
maximum mean wind speed between 30-35 m/s is quite usual, even 45 m/s in some cases. For extreme
situations, gusts of wind can pass 60 m/s. For a new line, places where heavy wind occurs should be
avoided. This has to be evaluated for each line separately, giving special attention to high bridges and
embankments across valleys.
Topographic issues and mass wasting
Mass wasting or mass movement is the process of rock and soil moved naturally by gravity, often triggered
by weather conditions. This process is commonly referred to as a landslide. This section also includes ice
and snow movements. The geological composition, topography and climate vary widely throughout Norway,
from deep fjords and high mountains to the more plain areas. Large temperature differences, localised heavy
rain, steep topography and unstable areas with marine deposits make the country vulnerable to various
types of mass wasting that may occur, even in the flatter parts of the country.
Much of the landslide activity is associated with the fjord landscapes in Western and Northern Norway, but
also the East and the North are prone to mass wasting. In this area though, it is often found to be a different
type of land wasting.
The most rapid types of mass movement were given the greatest attention. Mass movement can also occur
more slowly, which of course will be hazardous for the operation of a high speed line if the track is affected.
The assessment of this however is a standard part of the construction phase, and appropriate measures will
be taken to prevent this.
Mass wasting activities vary according to seasonal changes. Statistically, the occurrence of mass wasting
activities is most infrequent in the summer. The danger of rock and earth slides increase during rainy periods
in the autumn. However, the statistics show that landslide activities are greatest during snow melting periods
in the spring. The snow melting period is characterized by continuous water flooding during the day
combined with frost expansion during the night.
The bedrock of the country is varied, but mostly consists of good rocks in terms of stability. Landslide activity
therefore usually depends more on local topography and fracturing than on the type of rock.
4.2.3.3.
Issues to be Considered in Planning HSR
Construction
The Norwegian topography and climate poses great challenges not only for railway operations but also for
the construction work. Some of the corridors for the possible HSR lines are exposed to varied climatic
conditions, since they stretch from regions of typical coastal climate through narrow valleys towards high
mountain areas before returning through valleys back to regions of more or less coastal climate. It will be a
challenge to maintain construction works during the winter in the mountain areas, in a landscape
characterised by low temperatures, deep snow and strong winds. The winter season length, volume of snow
and temperature varies from year to year. For normal construction operations based on common practice the
winter season has to be considered and taken care of in the planning of the implementation.
For construction sites (corridors) located in specific areas in the mountains, as well as close to nature
protection areas, building temporary local roads can be a challenge. This may affect the distance between
construction sites, temporary storage areas and rigging areas due to evacuation of people and machines in
extreme weather situations.
Construction work in tunnels can be carried out independent of outside weather conditions, but it still
depends on the logistics outside in relation to road access and the continuous running of machines and other
equipment in spite of ice, snow and heavy winds.
After a period with heavy snow it can be difficult to restart the construction work. Equipment for thawing
snow/ice from machines and equipment for removing snow from the roads/rail is strongly recommended as
part of the rig.
Finally, it will be an economic question related to progress at site and required precautions (weather
conditions) to ensure safety for the staff and machines and to ensure correct (acceptable) quality of the
construction being carried out.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
60
Impact on rolling stock
Other European high speed operations already have experience with high winds and heavy rain, so the new
challenge will be to combat the low temperatures, including snow and ice that come with the Norwegian
winter. Interviews with other operators across the continent suggest that the winter measures common in
Europe are found to be the use of snow ploughs, high positioned ventilation, and de-icing facilities using
steam or glycol. These measures are well known and in use on both conventional trains as well as highspeed and tilting train services. An interesting observation is that the operation of tilting trains does not differ
much from regular trains with regards to adverse weather.
There is a risk of snow packing between the car body and bogie with tilting trains. This risk has to be
minimised in the design phase.
If problems occur due to adverse weather, the general measure in Europe is to reduce speed or even cancel
trains and wait for the weather to improve. The ambition for the Norwegian operation must be to operate
normally in all expected winter conditions, and this is achievable using current design guidelines.
Operation
This section considers how adverse weather and climatic conditions might affect the operation of HSR.
Through different interviews and a literature study it was found that extreme weather conditions for railway
transport do not always correlate with the extreme peaks, but rather when sudden changes in weather
conditions appear, or when bad weather lasts for a long time. It was also found that troubles with adverse
weather do not only happen in the mountains but also in the lowland areas. The latter will sometimes cause
even more problems because the organisation will not be as well prepared for it.
Some key areas were identified as extreme weather conditions for railway construction and operation. For
some of these situations, different solutions were found to deal with the weather. For other situations, it is
mainly a question of good planning. Especially in the construction phase a lot of problems will be avoided as
a result of a well made phasing plan.
Early warning systems (EWS)
When new high-speed railway lines are planned, robust and reliable infrastructure should always be the
main goal. This includes bridges, tunnels and protecting embankments in places where the surrounding
nature and climatic conditions are particularly demanding. In a few cases though, it is not technically or
economically possible to build such infrastructure. In these cases an early warning system (EWS) could be
an option. EWSs are built to monitor the ground conditions, and give warnings as early as possible when
land wasting happens. This can give the railway operator a few valuable seconds to protect the running of
trains on the railway line. In most cases the train can be stopped on prepared stopping points before it runs
into the problem area. In some rare cases, the train will not be able stop at all, but should at least be able to
slow down the speed to reduce the damage to equipment and injuries to people.
There are different ways to monitor exposed areas. Generally initial deformations in the bedrock indicate that
something more will happen. This can be measured, but to make the system reliable, it also has to be
calibrated. The latter is the main issue, because a very sensitive system will stop the trains far too often.
Monitoring has to be combined with local knowledge to achieve an appropriate warning system. Simulation
of different situations has to be accomplished, and also effects of different protecting measures have to be
evaluated. Safe positions for the stopping of trains have to be selected and incorporated in the signal
system.
It is currently understood that avalanches cannot be monitored through a safe and reliable method. This has
to be monitored through metrological conditions and analysis of the snow cover, combined with statistical
methods. A somewhat reliable output will be achieved after a long period of calibration.
The most common areas for monitoring are listed below:





External factors, like weather conditions and groundwater conditions;
Deformation in the bedrock or the behaviour of forces in the bedrock;
Seismic activity (vibrations);
Early detection of land wasting after it has happened; and
Surveillance cameras.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
61
4.2.3.4.
Summary of Findings
Train operation in winter can be difficult as experienced in northern Europe in the winter of 2009/2010. A
study that examines the correlation between train delays and winter conditions in Norway has been
performed by SINTEF for the years 2005 - 2010 as well as a study by the Swedish Trafikverket to sum up
their experience from the winter of 2009/2010.
The current solutions for operating trains in winter climates were well covered in earlier studies. This report
acknowledges this work and has found some ―new‖ additions, especially regarding high speed in exposed
mountain environments. In the mountains it is important to design the line to accommodate deep snow, wind
in combination with snow and plan how the line can be kept clear. Rolling stock that is designed using
current guidelines will technically be able to operate at full speed in most conditions as long as the lines can
be kept clear. In the winter it is however necessary to allow sufficient slack in the schedule to allow proper
maintenance and de-icing between the runs.
The current design of switches is vulnerable to snow and ice. High speed switches are even more
susceptible due to their greater length. The moving tongue can easily be blocked by hard packed snow, ice
lumps from passing trains and ballast stones. Since a jammed switch has severe consequences for the
traffic, investing in research for a switch design that is less sensitive to foreign objects can eventually benefit
the whole industry. A revolving or sliding action to operate the switch instead of the sideways squeezing
movement can be part of a solution.
A very important task will always be the necessary planning and organising before the winter season.
Through traditional measures most problems can be solved before they cause delays to operation.
4.2.4.
Technical Track Solutions
4.2.4.1.
Introduction
The Mandate requires that consideration should be given to using slab-track versus the traditional ballasted
track, using different speed concepts and different levels of mixed traffic, and as a coherent concept.
In railway design, increasing traffic loads and volumes and particularly the introduction of high-speed trains
in the last decade have resulted in the need for new approaches to track design. In addition, concern for the
environment requires the concept of sustainability to be taken into account in the design process. Slab track
systems were shown to provide good technical alternatives for several elements of traditional railway
construction.
Different railway systems have shown that these modern types of construction are able to meet the
requirements of modern railway tracks. These systems offer the advantage of superior stability and almost
complete absence of deformation, whilst travel comfort is high. In addition, ballast-less track systems incur
significantly lower maintenance costs compared to ballasted track. Furthermore, due to the absence of any
ballast, damage by flying ballast at speeds higher than 250 km/h is avoided. In addition, high lateral track
resistance of slab tracks allows increase of speed in combination with tilting technology. However,
construction of a slab track is more expensive than a traditional ballasted track, and modifications after
implementation of the system are much more complex than for traditional ballasted track systems.
In this section, different track solutions are investigated and studied taking into account various parameters
which are influencing the track systems (functional, operational, economical, technical, etc.).
4.2.4.2.
Track Systems Considered
This work included consideration of available ballasted and slab track systems in current railway operation
throughout the world.
The classic traditional railway track system comprises rails laid on timber or concrete sleepers, supported by
a ballast bed. The main advantages of this traditional type of track are:




Cost-effective construction process;
High elasticity;
High maintainability at relatively low cost; and
High noise absorption.
However, ballasted track also has a number of disadvantages:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
62






Over time, the track tends to ―float‖ in both longitudinal and lateral directions, as a result of nonlinear, irreversible behaviour of the materials (this is also a result of temperature differences);
Limited non-compensated lateral acceleration in curves, due to the limited lateral resistance offered
by the ballast;
Ballast can be churned up at high speeds, causing serious damage to rails and wheels;
Reduced permeability due to contamination, grinding-down of the ballast and transfer of fine
particles from the sub-grade;
Ballast is relatively heavy, leading to an increase in the costs of building bridges and viaducts if they
are to carry a continuous ballasted track; and
Ballasted track is relatively high, and this has direct consequences for tunnel diameters and for
access points.
There is an increasing use of ballast-less track systems in the construction of new HSR operations
worldwide. The arguments are indeed convincing, such as long life cycles, top speed, ride comfort, and
greater load-carrying capability. Practically maintenance free, ballast-less track systems ensure close to
100% availability over many years. A maintenance-free track system might be the more cost-effective
solution in the long-term. Slab track is used for Japanese HSR as well as recent German high-speed lines
(Köln – Frankfurt, Hannover – Berlin, Nürnberg-Ingolstadt).
The success of ballast-less-track technology is primarily based on the following advantages:




Stability, precision, and ride comfort. Ballast-less track assures a permanently stable track position
and stands up to the loads subjected by high-speed traffic, with performance characterised by high
quality, functionality, and safety. Millimetre-exact adjustment of the track system during assembly on
the construction site is the prerequisite for high ride comfort on the train, and for reduction of loads
experienced by the rolling stock;
Long life cycles and practically no maintenance. With its proposed service life of 60 years – with little
or no requirement for service or maintenance on the slabs – a ballast-less track offers high
availability and unmatched cost effectiveness in high-speed operations;
Flexibility and end-to-end effectiveness in application. With its comparatively low structural height,
and with the possibility of achieving optimal required track position, ballast-less track technology
offers highly attractive and beneficial solutions as end-to-end systems technology for main-track and
turnout sections, for application on a uniform basis on embankments, bridges, and tunnels; and
Basis for optimal routing of rail lines. For high-speed operations, ballast-less technology enables
more direct routing of train lines, with tighter radii and higher gradients. These benefits enable a
reduction in civil structures costs.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
63
A summary of the types of track systems examined in this study are given in the table below:
Table 4.1 – Types of HSR track system
Design Types of
Track/Slab Track
Examples
Elements/Particularities/
Limits
Applications
Supporting points,
with embedded
sleepers (SES)
Rheda 2000
In situ construction;
reinforced concrete slab;
In Germany the main solution on
HSR lines and tunnels; also
other European countries,
Taiwan, China;
Supporting points,
without sleepers,
prefabricated slabs
(PS)
Bögl, ÖBB-Porr,
Shinkansen
Prefabricated reinforced
concrete slabs
In use in Germany, Japan and
Austria on HSR lines and
tunnels; HSR in China;
Continuous support, NFF Thyssen
on longitudinal beams (New slab track
and stakes (NFF)
Thyssen)
In situ construction; no
underground preparation
needed; for use in soft and
difficult soils;
In soft and difficult soil;
Supporting points,
with prefabricated
booted blocks
embedded in slab
(PBS)
In situ construction; blocks
resting elastically within a
―shoe‖; embedded in
reinforced concrete slab;
On main lines in different
European countries; in tunnels
all over the world, especially
Switzerland; LVT in the Channel
tunnel;
EBS-Edilon, LVT
Supporting points,
Getrac, ATD
with sleepers, laid on
top of asphalt layer
(SA)
In situ construction; on
In Germany for rehabilitation of
asphalt layer; anchor blocks superstructures in existing
connecting sleeper with
tunnels;
asphalt layer;
Continuous support,
on slab; embedded
rails in U-like
channels (SER)
ERS-HR-Edilon
In situ construction; rail
On main HSR lines; tunnels;
embedded in U-channel; rail bridges; railway level crossings;
fastening by elastic twocompound mass
(Corkelast);
Ballasted Track
B 450 Twin Block
Sleeper
(2.40m/245 kg)
Max axleload=17 t,
v(max)=350 km/h; Two
blocks which increases the
lateral resistance;
On HSR lines in France;
Ballasted Track
B 90 Sleeper
(2.60 m/340 kg)
Max axleload = 25 t;
v(max)= 250 km/h;
On main lines;
Ballasted Track
NSB 95 Sleeper
Max. axleload=25 t;
(2.60 m/270 kg)/B v(max)= 250 km/h;
70 Sleeper
(2.60 m/280 kg)
On main lines: on high speed
lines in Germany;
Ballasted Track
Wide sleepers
(2.40m/560kg)/YSteel-sleepers
70 % larger lateral resistance
compared to B70 sleeper;
applied in Germany for testing
only;
4.2.4.3.
Max. axleload=25 t;
v(max)= 120 km/h for Ysleeper and 160km/h for
Wide sleeper;
Evaluation of Track Systems
Each of the types of track have been analysed and scored against a series of set criteria based on various
parameters. The weighted scores for all discussed parameters are summed up to compile an overall ranking
which is documented in a total sum together with the influences of:



Operational parameters (lifetime, adjustment possibilities, availability, load, flexibility, repairing
possibilities, suitability for tilting train operation);
Functional parameters (cross section, station, tunnel, bridge, lateral track resistance, eddy-current
brakes, safety);
Geotechnical parameters (adaption to soft soil and rock);
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
64



Environmental impact (noise, vibration);
Service parameters (comfort criteria); and
Cost parameters (investment, maintenance).
4.2.4.4.
Summary of Findings
The main findings of this evaluation are:
Scenario A and B:
For both scenarios the track system with the highest ranking is the ballasted track with NSB 95 or B 70
sleepers. This system showed the highest scores and a stable result within the sensitivity analysis. The
result was mainly influenced by:








Flexibility in operation programme;
Change of cant or relocation of switches can be performed very easily;
Repair after accidents/damages;
Rehabilitation of existing tracks;
Time duration for exchange and maintenance of components for a single event;
Investment costs;
Construction time; and
Airborne noise emissions.
These parameters are all advantageous for the ballasted track systems recommended.
Figure 4.1 – Ballasted track with B 70 sleepers
Scenario C
For Scenario C a slab track system with prefabricated elements (e.g. Bögl, ÖBB-Porr) has the highest
ranking based on the result of the point rating system. Nevertheless, in the next phases planning within this
scenario has to go into more detail and should consider and evaluate both types of superstructure, slab
tracks and ballasted tracks. The reason for continued consideration of both types of track is that the final
decision of the recommended track system is influenced by the corridor, the route, and the operational
programme. All related parameters should thus be scored and evaluated for each corridor individually.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
65
Figure 4.2 – The new ICE high-speed line Nürnberg -Ingolstadt with BÖGL system
Scenario D
In the case of Scenario D, where a pure high-speed line is built, the recommendation derived from the
scoring-model is a slab track system with prefabricated slabs. It has to be assessed which of the highest
ranked systems are best suited for different segments with the varying conditions of a corridor. Reasons for
this recommendation are:







Lifetime will be much longer than compared to ballasted tracks;
Track availability is outstanding;
Reduction of maintenance operations;
Suitability with regard to both speed and load is excellent;
Lateral track resistance is much higher than with the conventional ballasted track;
Eddy-current brakes match very much together with slab tracks, so rolling stock might be equipped
with them; and
Emissions of structure borne noise in combination with a slab track system will achieve best results;
if a mass-spring system is selected.
It should be stated that the track analysis was made without any reference to specific corridors with defined
requirements. This means that in forthcoming design phases the evaluation matrix has to be developed and
applied with regard to specific corridors, lines and sections. Perhaps in a specific section some parameters
are not influencing the track system at all or there are additional which might be introduced. Also the
significance for a specific corridor or line might change.
Another task of the further design phases is to calculate investment costs and introduce them in the decision
matrix. Based on the approach in this analysis the track evaluation can be supplemented by a costeffectiveness analysis for a corridor or defined sections.
4.2.5.
Infrastructure Concepts
4.2.5.1.
Introduction
The Mandate requires that different infrastructure concepts are examined for the Norwegian context. In
particular, it requires consideration of the extent to which the use of tilting train technology could be
appropriate in certain concepts. It then states that the assessment should include experiences from the
countries that have introduced and succeeded in the use of tilting trains, so that the reasons for its success
can be elucidated.
In order to examine the success, or otherwise, of tilting trains, Case Studies of countries where tilting trains
are operated were collected to deduce the experience of rail net providers and railway operators with tilting
train infrastructure.
For the determination of the line layout the alignment parameters for both conventional railway and tilting
train operation were assessed and described for three train service concepts.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
66
Under consideration of thresholds for alignment parameters for an interoperable rail service different
European standards were evaluated.
It is assessed that the decisive thresholds like cant, cant deficiency and gradient for the line layout have
risen constantly. For both new and upgraded lines the layout could be developed with a reduction of
investment costs for tunnel and bridge structures. As a matter of fact special thresholds of the alignment
parameters for a pure HSR line with tilting train operation obviously will lead to minimum investment cost for
maximum speed. However the increase of the alignment thresholds causes operational limitations with
regard to freight traffic. Furthermore it implicates higher applied loads on the superstructure and can lead to
a reduction of travel comfort.
4.2.5.2.
Case Study – Tilting Trains
Experts from manufacturers, railway infrastructure providers and railway operators of ten different countries
were interviewed in order to provide an integrated view on tilting train operations. The countries represented
were Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and USA.
The case study shows that tilting train technology was developed to achieve increased speed on existing
lines without or with only small upgrading investments. These have been the decisive factors mainly for
countries or areas with low population density and wide meshed railway networks. An example for an
existing or planned special new tilting train line could not be found. However Switzerland has chosen a
renewal model by re-aligning two lines to implement tilting trains with the objective of reaching a defined
travel time. Also in the United States and Spain re-alignments are to be taken into account.
Cost effects could not be quantified as many countries are not compiling detailed data with regard to tilting
train operation as the delimitation of tilting bound effects from conventional operation effects cannot be
sufficiently differentiated.
Nevertheless, the qualitative result is that the most important aspect for running a successful tilting train
network is to consider the strong interdependency of infrastructure, rolling stock and operational concepts.
Only if all three fit together can a high profit tilting train operation be achieved. This includes the importance
of alignment parameters such as cant, cant deficiency and lateral acceleration.
To achieve benefits in travel time the curviness of a line has to be in an appropriate range for the tilting
system. Even though few tilting trains exist which can reach a curve speed of up to 250 kph (e.g. Alstom
ETR 600) none of the interviewed railway operators are driving with these high curve speeds. Italy is
operating tilting trains with the highest curve speed of 200 kph. The Norwegian Class 73 tilting train is
operated up to 210 kph. However rolling stock technology could also be developed further to use a tilting
mechanism with higher speeds if the dedicated line is designed to fully utilise the alignment thresholds. If
transverse forces are utilised to the maximum level, the track set has to be of high quality. Also travel comfort
has to be considered carefully as utilisation of these parameters can lead to motion sickness (Kinetose).
For the development of an existing railway network and for new lines alignment parameters have to be
determined taking into consideration the operational concept and a balanced cost-benefit ratio over the lifecycle.
Based on today‘s state-of-the-art technology, line layouts can be designed with smaller curve radii and
higher gradients than in past decades. However for the determination of a line the rail engineer has to take
into consideration travel comfort and the forces acting on track and rolling stock.
The use of limiting values for an alignment variant is reasonable. But it has to be considered that the line
layout with limiting values for the alignment is only one variant which has to be compared to a line layout with
standard values. Based on this the final optimal alignment elements have to be decided in the specific line
corridor.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
67
4.2.6.
Rolling Stock
The work presented in this report is mainly focused on the specific requirements and needs of the Norwegian
railway. The existing and future HSR stock studied as part of the Phase 2 work is shown in the table below.
Table 4.2 – Types of HSR rolling stock
Manufacturer
4
Train Type
Where Deployed
Bombardier Transportation
Zefiro
Italy
Siemens
Velaro
Spain, Germany, Russia
AnsaldoBreda
Fyra
Amsterdam-Brussels route
Alstom
TGV
France, UK, Germany, Italy
Hyundai Rotem
Korea
Kawasaki
Japan, Taiwan
China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock
Corporation Limited (CSR)
Hitachi
Polaris
China
Japan, UK
An evaluation model was used to identify potential issues or parameters that might be challenges when
combining various kinds of rolling stock with various kinds of potential scenarios. The potential issues are in
most cases connected to climate and/or topography but also other parameters were assessed. These areas
must be addressed in the specification phase not only for rolling stock but for the complete railway system.
Specific issues to be addressed include:









Climate and environment;
Route alignment;
Pressure pulses;
Collisions with animals;
Fire and evacuation (specifically related to constructing longer tunnels);
External noise;
Length of train;
Track impact; and
Energy consumption.
The group has not identified any issues that can be seen as a major obstacle concerning rolling stock for
high-speed railways in Norway.
A large portion of the potential issues identified in this report must be seen in close connection with
infrastructure issues. It is vital that the further work is done with both the rolling stock and the infrastructure in
mind, as well as consideration of maintenance.
4
Values for collective risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities/year‖, values for individual risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities/person *
year‖.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
68
4.3.
Subject 2: Risk Assessment and Analysis
4.3.1.
Introduction
Within the task of the Technical and Safety Analysis in Phase 2 a risk analysis according to the RAMS
standard EN 50126 was carried out for high-speed operations on Norwegian high-speed infrastructure.
The analysis identifies relevant hazards and its associated incident rates and consequences. Incident rates
and consequences are integrated into a judgement, or estimation, of risk levels.
The risk assessment provides a calculation model which is suitable to determine an expected residual risk of
a new HSR system in Norway. The result considers the risk for a single person (individual risk) as well as the
risk for society (collective risk). Another aspect of the estimated risk will be a comparison with risk
acceptance criteria. As it is an attribute of any risk analysis – or prediction – model, the quality of the result of
the suggested models strongly depends on the quality/reliability of the available input parameters. In this
phase of the risk assessment all values shall be interpreted as examples only, and the model will need to be
reapplied in Phase 3 once the design has progressed further.
The risk analysis considered two different system variants and eight top events. The system variants
examined were:


System Variant 1. This represents an upgrade of the existing track to be a HSR track; and
System Variant 2. This represents a completely new track, which is used exclusively by high speed
trains.
The system variants are both considered against an existing network situation.
The eight top events considered are as follows:








Derailment;
Collision train-train;
Collision train-object;
Fire;
Passenger injured at platform;
Level crossing accidents;
Person injured at track side; and
Other accidents.
Through the elaboration of the model the assessment provides the following results:




Definition of Risk Acceptance Criteria;
Hazard Identification;
Consequence Analysis; and
Residual risk, calculation model.
The generic calculation model is fitted to ensure changes in top-events and/or scenarios in later project
phases.
4.3.2.
Summary of Findings
Detailed calculations were made for the estimation of the residual risk of every defined top-event. The results
of this process are shown in the table below, with residual risks determined by the point estimate of the two
different potential high-speed system variants as well as the status quo concerning the risk in the Norwegian
railway system (existing net).
5
In Table 4.3 the results regarding the estimated residual collective risk for the different groups of persons
are subsumed.
5
Values for collective risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities / year‖.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
69
Table 4.3 – Residual risk related to top events, overview
Top Event
Residual Risk
Derailment
6
Existing Net
System-Variant 1
System-Variant 2
Collective risk
0.322
0.900
1.578
Individual risk
6.95E-06
1.95E-05
3.41E-05
Collective risk
0.042
0.118
0.045
Individual risk
3.61E-06
1.01E-05
3.89E-06
Collective risk
1.155
3.235
5.668
Individual risk
2.27E-05
6.35E-05
1.11E-04
Collective risk
0.049
0.090
0.131
Individual risk
1.21E-07
2.22E-07
3.23E-07
Passenger injured at
platform
Collective risk
3.891
4.094
3.911
Individual risk
2.25E-05
2.37E-05
2.26E-05
Level crossing
accidents
Collective risk
0.982
1.033
Not applicable
Individual risk
1.11E-06
1.17E-06
Not applicable
1.900
1.999
1.949
Individual risk
5.69E-06
5.98E-06
5.83E-06
Collective risk
0.333
0.350
0.350
Individual risk
2.10E-06
2.21E-06
2.21E-06
Collision train-train
Collision train-object
Fire
Person injured at track Collective risk
side
Other accidents
Table 4.4 shows the determined residual collective risk values for the different rail systems and benchmarks
the point estimated results as well as the lower end estimations with the tolerable number of 11 fatalities per
year defined by JBV.
Table 4.4 – Residual collective risk, overview
Rail-System
Residual collective risk for
passengers
Residual collective
risk for 3rd persons
Residual collective
risk for personnel
Existing Net
0.677
7.531
0.465
System-Variant 1
1.120
9.778
0.920
System-Variant 2
1.555
11.733
1.327
6
Values for collective risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities/year‖, values for individual risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities/person *
year‖.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
70
Table 4.5 – Residual collective risk, point estimate overview
Rail-System
Residual collective risk, Residual collective
Comment
overall, point estimation risk, overall, lower end
Existing Net
8.674
-
JBVs collective risk criteria
fulfilled
System-Variant 11.818
1
8.731
JBVs collective risk criteria
fulfilled considering lower end risk
estimation. Slight excedance of
criteria by point estimate
System-Variant 14.615
2
8.764
JBVs collective risk criteria
fulfilled considering lower end risk
estimation. Significant excedance
of criteria by point estimate
An extrapolation of the collective risk of the Norwegian railway assuming 5% additional mixed traffic
compared with the existing railway results in an expected higher residual collective risk (9.125 equivalent
fatalities per year) compared to the lower end estimations shown in the above table.
st
JBVs risk acceptance criteria regarding personal risk (1 person) is defined as less than 12.5 fatalities per
100,000,000 working hour, or 1.25E-07 fatalities per working hour. As is shown this risk criterion is fulfilled
for both assumed system variants.
7
Table 4.6 – Residual collective risk of personnel overview
Rail-System
Residual collective risk
for personnel [EqFa /
year]
Residual collective risk for
Comment
personnel [EqFa / working hrs]
Existing Net
0.465
3.45E-08
JBVs individual risk criteria
for 1st persons fulfilled
System-Variant 0.920
1
6.81E-08
JBVs individual risk criteria
for 1st persons fulfilled
System-Variant 1.327
2
9.83E-08
JBVs individual risk criteria
for 1st persons fulfilled
8
Table 4.7 shows the estimated residual individual risk-values for the different rail-systems and benchmarks
the results with the respective boundary value (0.0001 fatalities/person/year) by JBV.
rd
Table 4.7 – Residual individual risk of passengers and 3 persons overview
Rail-System
Residual individual risk. Residual
Residual
passengers & 3rd
individual risk for individual risk for
persons
passengers
3rd persons
Comment
Existing Net
2.74E-06
2.26E-07
2.51E-06
JBVs individual
risk criteria
fulfilled
System-Variant 3.63E-06
1
3.73E-07
3.26E-06
JBVs individual
risk criteria
fulfilled
stem-Variant 2
5.18E-07
3.91E-06
JBVs individual
risk criteria
fulfilled
4.43E-06
7
Residual collective risk for personnel based on assumed 13.5 Mio. working hours per year Feil! Fant ikke referansekilden..
8
Values for individual risk are given as ―Equivalent fatalities / person * year‖.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
71
4.4.
Subject 3: Assessment of High-speed railway’s Contribution
to Transportation Safety and Security
4.4.1.
Introduction
An important basis for decisions regarding possible future high-speed rail operations in Norway is the impact
of such an operation on the overall transport safety in society. Subject 3 of the Technical Safety Analysis
therefore comprises a comparative study of comprehensive transport safety applied on present and possible
future transport scenarios.
4.4.1.1.
Objectives & Scope
The overall objective of the study is to estimate the effect of a high-speed railway operation on the total
transport safety. This is accomplished by analysing the following three scenarios:



Future safety level of transport with present relevant means of transport;
Future safety level of transport with high-speed train operations on combined tracks as a part of the
transport service; and
Future safety level of public transport with high-speed train operations on separate tracks as a part
of the public transport service.
The study includes the development of a detailed methodology for the assessment, accompanied by a
description and reasoning surrounding decisions. The model is then applied to quantify the expected change
in transport safety due to the operation of a HSR system.
An economic valuation of the change in transport safety due to the implementation of HSR operation is
calculated as a function of the expected change in transport safety, expressed as the expected number of
fatalities and the value of a statistical life (VSL) used in Norway.
Additional safety factors that will follow from an introduction of a high-speed railway are assessed and
included in the analysis. Examples of such factors are: a possible increase in safety level for road traffic
caused by more goods transported on the railways and fewer trucks occupying roads.
To accomplish the objectives, the study includes the following six major steps:






Estimation of the current transport safety level and development;
Estimation of the future distributions between types of transport means;
Estimation of future transport safety levels without high-speed operations;
Estimation of the future transport safety including high-speed operations;
Estimation of changes in safety and the consequences of the changes; and
Uncertainty analysis.
4.4.1.2.
Limitations
During this phase of the project there will be no quantitative information available from the market analysis of
the project on the expected future distribution of transport between different transport means due to the
implementation of a HSR system. In addition the assessment of the HSR future safety levels in Subject 2
could only be made on a general level in this phase of the project since no detailed information regarding the
HSR operation is yet available. Therefore the safety analysis is subject to two important limitations:


The safety calculations had to be performed on a set of possible hypothetical future transport
scenarios rather than quantitative forecasts of future transport volumes in different transport modes;
and
The safety calculations for the three scenarios and the economic consequences of the expected
changes in safety levels should be regarded as generic at this stage rather than forecasts suitable
for supporting decisions on a detailed level.
As a result of the data limitations the work was primarily directed at preparing a model for safety forecasts
that can be updated as new information becomes available during later phases of the project. The model
was developed as an assessment tool that can be used to model different future transport scenarios for
specific corridors of future HSR operations.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
72
4.4.1.3.
Definitions
Passenger kilometres – Number of passengers multiplied by the distance in km
Vehicle kilometres – Number of vehicles multiplied by the distance in km
Road transport – In Subject 3 road transport is considered to be car, bus and truck traffic
The two principal system-variants that were described in Subject 2 are also used in Subject 3.


4.4.2.
System-variant 1: The first principal variant is represented by an upgrade of an existing track to be a
HSR track. In Subject 3 called ―HSR combined‖; and
System-variant 2: The second variant is represented by a complete new track which is used
exclusively by high speed trains. In Subject 3 called ―HSR separate‖.
Summary of Approach
The possibility of introducing HSR connections in Norway has to be carefully analysed and all economic and
safety aspects have to be taken into account when choosing (or rejecting) different options considered.
The safety of a HSR system can be looked at in isolation where fatality rates per passenger kilometre or train
kilometre can be estimated. This was done in Subject 2 of this work. The safety analysis evaluates the
impact of a HSR system on the entire transport safety level. Any change in global safety level can be
economically valued using the value of a statistical life.
The total transport safety level reflects how many people are killed, when travelling, using available means of
transportation. Means of transportation can be cars, busses, trains, airplanes, ferries etc. The total safety
level is the sum of the safety levels of all means of transportation. Any change in distribution between the
means of transportation used affects the total safety level as will a transfer of passengers from existing
means of transportation to a new mean of transportation like a HSR system. A typical example would be a
transfer of passengers from cars to trains: this is a transfer to a safer system which would increase total
transport safety.
Based on this perspective a generalised assessment model was developed that calculates the current
transport safety level as well as estimates future levels of transport safety as a function of transport mode
distributions and the introduction of different options for HSR. Economic valuation of this safety level is also
performed by the model based on the value of a statistical life.
This generalised approach enables the estimation of a total general transport safety level by combining
safety calculations for HSR solutions current transport safety levels and future traffic and mode distribution
forecasts as these become available in Phase 3 of the project.
4.4.3.
Conclusions
Given the input information used the model calculations show that implementation of HSR operations may
have a positive effect on the total transport safety. From the uncertainty analysis it can be seen that the
probability of a positive net present value is in the order of 53% for Scenario 1 and 56 % for Scenario 2. This
means that with these input values there is a slightly larger probability of positive socio-economic effects
than negative from HSR operations with respect to safety. Given the input data used the total economic
benefit of the operations was assessed to be in the order of 175m NOK for Scenario 1 and 360m NOK for
Scenario 2 for a 25 year time horizon.
It should be emphasized that these results may not be representative of a true future transport situation
since fundamental information regarding the future transport conditions and HSR safety is not yet available.
A full uncertainty analysis could not be performed due to the limited information on several input parameters.
However, a sensitivity analysis using the Monte Carlo simulation, where each input value was given an
uncertainty of +/- 10 % of the input value, identifies the parameters most sensitive to the final model results.
It was shown that the inputs on car transport will be of great importance to the reliability of the model
calculations. The reason for this is that a dominating part of the total journeys are made by car and that the
safety level is relatively low compared to other transport means.
The model described here should be an important tool in assisting decisions on future HSR operations and
can be used on both a national level and for specific HSR corridors.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
73
5.
Financial and Economic Analysis
5.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Financial and Economic Analysis Contract is to establish an assessment framework to
use to evaluate potential HSR options. Outputs of the assessment framework will show the financial impact
and affordability of the interventions, including an evaluation of alternative financing options. Socio-economic
impacts of the improvements will also be demonstrated and together with forecast generated revenue will be
considered in relation to the expected costs. The uncertainty around the results will be assessed. Together
the outputs will provide a basis for HSR investment decisions in Norway.
The Financial and Economic Analysis Contract consists of five subjects:





Analysis of effects of investment within the road and aviation sectors;
Estimation and assessment of investment costs;
Funding and operation of the infrastructure;
Economic analyses; and
Uncertainty analyses.
This section summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of this Phase 2 contract, for the
purpose of informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by Atkins,
in conjunction with Faithful & Gould and Ernst & Young.
This contract was primarily concerned with establishing frameworks and tools for use in the assessment of
options in Phase 3 of the study. In particular the contract included the construction of cost and financial
models to be applied in Phase 3, along with the establishment of a socio-economic assessment framework.
Each of the five subjects is considered in turn in the remainder of this section.
5.2.
Subject 1: Analysis of Effects of Investment within the Road
and Aviation Sectors
5.2.1.
Introduction
A specific requirement of the Mandate is to examine the consequences of the introduction of HSR for airline
traffic and the airports when constructing one or more corridors of HSR. This includes examining the
potential effects on the national budget of in maintaining the regional airport network, and the possibilities for
avoiding avoiding/postponing greater investments in the larger airports. The Mandate then widens this to
examining the impacts on wider transport infrastructure investment, thus including the roads sector.
This section therefore examines the potential interaction between HSR and the existing modes of transport,
evaluating the impact this relationship will have on the financial and socio-economic assessments. It
considers the likely impacts that HSR may have on the air and road sectors and the possible effect of
improvements to airport terminal handling on the competitiveness of air travel. It also considers the impact on
infrastructure development should there be more than one HSR operator on a given route.
5.2.2.
The Air Sector
It is important that the impacts HSR will have on the air sector are considered, as a part of the business
case. HSR will abstract demand from air travel, resulting in a reduction in passenger numbers and revenue
for the airport operator. This could prompt a number of responses:



Acceptance of revenue loss without changing services – for example, if the route is subsidised or if
the planes provide higher profit connecting services;
Reducing operating costs to offset revenue loss, but without noticeably impacting on passengers –
for example use of smaller planes, reduction in back office costs or supply chain optimisation;
Measures taken to increase revenue or reduce costs which do impact on passengers – for example
fare increases for less elastic demand or a reduction in flight numbers. Any reduced capacity could
enable expansion in to markets affecting competition elsewhere.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
74

Increase competition – reducing fares or increasing service levels at peak times could abstract
demand back from HSR and generate new demand.
A large number of potential response measures fall within these four categories. In addition a single
response may incorporate a package of measures, possibly falling within more than one of these categories.
The responses taken are likely to be heavily dependent upon the scale of demand abstraction from air to
HSR on each individual corridor. These impacts will be assessed during Phase 3, along with sensitivity
testing of the effects of various responses from the air sector and the iterative impact on HSR, using the
demand model developed as part of the Phase 2 study.
Figure 5.1 – Illustration of airline responses to HSR demand abstraction
HSR
Air demand
Air revenue
?
Airline responses
• demand-side e.g. improve yields, penetrate new markets
• supply-side e.g. smaller aircrafts, aggressive service level improvements
• combined e.g. premium service
Number of flights
?
Air demand
?
Once this assessment has taken place, the socio-economic impacts can be calculated, based primarily on
the reduction in flight numbers, considering changes in noise, pollution, emissions and accidents relating to
the air sector, following the guidance currently used by Jernbaneverket.
The impact HSR may have on future airport investment will also be considered in Phase 3. At this stage,
pre-demand forecasting suggests that any impacts are likely to be minimal.
Although almost one third of air demand at Oslo Gardermoen airport is on a route under consideration for
HSR service, removing connecting flights from the equation leaves only about 20% of the total that have the
potential for abstraction from air to HSR. Similar assessments of the other airports which will be in
competition with HSR, show that the immediate level of demand reductions that can be expected, range
between 10% and 15%.
Taking into account air operator responses and continued annual growth in demand, any requirement for
airport expansion is likely to remain even with HSR in competition.
Although the impacts on overall air demand are unlikely to be high, it will be important during the Phase 3
assessment to consider which routes are affected. Some routes provide substantial profits for the operator,
while others require subsidies to achieve other socio-economic aspirations. It is important that the profitable
routes are able to continue to provide this cross-subsidisation.
A further consideration is that, while over long distances air travel and HSR may be in direct competition,
over shorter distances the two services may complement each other, with HSR providing improved access to
air terminals. This can result in investment in both modes becoming more effective.
5.2.3.
The Road Sector
Abstraction of demand from car traffic to HSR will result in a loss in toll revenue received by the government,
but will also reduce the requirement for expenditure on infrastructure repairs.
Reductions in traffic will also generate other socio-economic benefits, such as reduced noise, pollution,
emissions and road accidents. These impacts will be assessed during Phase 3.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
75
Figure 5.2 – Illustration of HSR's potential impact on the road sector
HSR
Socio-economic
Car traffic
Noise, pollution, accidents
Financial
Toll revenue
Financial
Road spending
It is likely that a portion of travellers using HSR will access the stations by car, generating a further impact on
road traffic. However, local access issues are not core to this study and will need to be considered in detail
at a later stage.
5.2.4.
The Bus and Ferry Sectors
Compared to the impacts of HSR on demand for air and road travel, the effects are expected to be small on
buses and even more so on inter-city ferries. It will however be important to assess the impacts on long
distance bus operators and confirm the effects on ferry demand for the relevant corridors, by using the
demand forecasting outputs in Phase 3.
As for air travel, the calculated abstraction of demand from bus to HSR may be subject to responses from
the bus operators and the impacts of these will require consideration.
In terms of market segments for transport, people can be distributed along the two axes of time and money –
some have a lot of time but very little money, while others are ―cash rich, time poor‖. Similarly, transport
modes can be categorised according to the dimensions of speed and price.
Figure 5.3 – Market segment and transport service, differentiated by time and money
Time
People – market segment
Transport service
Speed
Student
backpackers
Bus
Train
Rich
Retired
directors
Ordinary office
workers
Poor
Slow
Fast
HSR ?
Business
executives
Poor
Rich
Money
Plane
Cheap
Expensive
Price
According to this, the market segments being targeted by HSR will be more likely to be currently using plane
than train and the lower price of bus for example, will be less of an attraction to them than the faster speed of
the existing rail.
On this basis, it is unlikely that many of the current bus users will be attracted to using HSR, as the higher
price will prove too detrimental. Ferry users meanwhile are a relatively niche market, given that the service is
neither cheap nor fast, and are unlikely to be within the market segment targeted by HSR.
One exception to the above may be the Stavanger – Bergen route, on which bus is currently the most
convenient mode of public transport. The HSR therefore has greater potential to impact on demand along
this route. It may therefore prompt a response from bus operators, such as investment in fleet or other
infrastructure, though this is likely to be focussed on providing an improved local service, which is not an
area considered in detail within this study.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
76
5.2.5.
Airport Handling Efficiencies
Improvements in terminal handling efficiency may be achieved in future, but it cannot be guaranteed that
these improvements will translate directly to overall airport time savings, as there are a number of different
processes involved. Also, the potential for improvements is dependent upon the commercial considerations
of the air sector and the benefits that could results.
Survey results show that typically flyers spend more than the recommended minimum times at airports.
However, many frequent flyers on domestic trips spend considerably less time. These passengers are likely
to form a significant part of the HSR target market and so observations of them and their time requirements
are more important than taking the average figures.
The stated preference survey undertaken as part of the Market Analysis study will provide information on the
average time spent in airports by this portion of the target market, enabling a demonstration of the impact
that a reduction in terminal times could have.
It is understood that reductions of five minutes in passenger terminal times could be achieved in the near
future. Therefore, in Phase 3 sensitivity tests will be performed to assess the impact that five and ten minute
efficiency improvements could have on HSR demand, revenue and user benefits.
5.2.6.
Multi-operator Scenario
Multiple operators of rail services can generate competition on routes, leading to increases in innovation,
customer focus and investment in infrastructure. Operators may make small scale investments in ticketing
and waiting facilities, but tend to be averse to making large capital investments which may not return profit
within a sufficient timeframe.
The extent of an operator‘s incentive to invest in infrastructure or provide input into its development is largely
dependent on the contractual structure of the operating contracts.
Some rail services will require subsidy to achieve specific socio-economic aspirations and if part-subsidised
franchises are employed to provide services, then profitable routes will need to be protected to ensure
sufficient revenue is available.
However, if the priority is to reduce the dependence on public sector investment and encourage innovation to
increase the generation of revenue, then there may be a case for encouraging competition between
operators.
5.3.
Subject 2: Estimation and Assessment of Investment Costs
5.3.1.
Introduction
This section of the report provides details of the approach developed for the Assessment and Estimation of
Investment Costs, which will be used for the Financial and Economic Analysis contract.
Details are provided on the development and application of the cost models to estimate both Capital Costs
and Life Cycle Costs. An outline is provided of the approach that will be applied to risk management during
Phase 3.
As part of Phase 2, a robust cost model was developed, to inform the selection of the most economically
viable routes. At this stage though, the costs which were modelled were not estimated in detail, as no
specific alignment engineering work in the corridors under consideration was undertaken in the Phase 2
works.
5.3.2.
Assessment and Quality Assurance of Previous Estimates
In conjunction with the preparation of the Capital Cost Model, a review was conducted of data from previous
studies. These studies set out the costs involved in a range of existing HSR lines in northern Europe, as well
as cost estimates made in 2007 for the Norwegian HSR produced for JBV.
This review provided unit rate and elemental cost data for input to the regression model. However, the level
of detail reported in the costs produced for JBV in 2007 was low and was found to be insufficient to provide
breakdowns by cost type. This data was limited to total costs per kilometre.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
77
In addition, the cost estimates for Norway appeared to be high when compared to actual costs reported for
other HSR lines in Europe. These costs have therefore been treated as a pre-feasibility order-of-magnitude
estimate and the data was applied with that in mind.
5.3.3.
Capital Cost Modelling
A Capital Cost Model was developed to enable informed decision making on which options will be the most
economically viable from a range of potential HSR routes. It was designed with the flexibility to enable the
comparison by route of alternative scenarios reflecting different levels of service delivery, ranging from
standard inter-city services to segregated HSR lines with an allowance for freight.
The model incorporates two independent modelling approaches:


An estimating cost model, based on unit rates and quantities; and
A regression cost model, using historical data from similar projects in comparable geographic areas.
The former is benchmarked against the latter to verify the integrity of the data.
The estimating cost model is based on high level unit rates, such as line length, proportion of tunnel, number
of stations. Historical data from the regression model is used to supplement these costs, to arrive at the final
estimates.
In Phase 3, workshops will be held with the engineering consultants, JBV and other relevant parties, to
harmonise the unit cost rates that were applied during Phase 2, to provide further robustness. This
harmonisation of historic data will incorporate details such as local labour rates, applied price bases, site
specific factors and market or other economic conditions.
A schedule of input data required from each of the design and engineering consultants was compiled, in
preparation for Phase 3.
5.3.4.
Life Cycle Cost Modelling
The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Model is designed to calculate operating costs, maintenance costs, capital
renewals and refurbishments. It was developed to produce high level cost estimates for testing the viability of
different HSR options.
Costs such as finance and strategic non-construction cost that relate to the Whole Life Costs are excluded
from the LCC but are detailed in the financial model. End of Life costs are also calculated externally to the
LCC model. Where appropriate, assets which have value remaining at the end of the assessment period will
be covered in the financial model.
Figure 5.4 – Summary of Life Cycle Cost Model structure




Construction – initial capital construction work costs
Maintenance – major replacement; subsequent refurbishment; redecorations; scheduled planned
preventative; reliability centred and reactive maintenance costs
Operation – rolling stock and rolling stock operating costs; utilities; administration; staffing &
cleaning costs
Occupancy – user support costs relating to the assets
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
78
Initial Life Cycle Costs were based on the Baumgartner report, maintenance costs were calculated as a
percentage rate of the capital costs, while operating costs were based on data from HSR in the UK.
The LCC model was tested to cover 40 years from the opening date. During Phase 3 however, this
assessment will be extended to cover costs over 25 and 40 years, plus an additional sensitivity test over 60
years.
5.3.5.
Risk & Uncertainty
5.3.5.1.
Risk
The aim of risk assessment is to identify, understand and then remove, or reduce as far as possible, all risks.
In this way the overall risk exposure can be minimised and at the same time the probability of realising
opportunities can be enhanced.
A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) will be used to provide a systematic approach to risk management.
This will enable all risks to be considered in parallel, to identify which have the greatest potential to impact on
the project‘s objectives. Based upon this ranking of risks, it will be possible to determine a priority by which
the risks should be addressed.
Each identified risk will be allocated an appropriate risk owner, who will be responsible for acting on that risk
by a specified deadline.
Three main stages in the assessment period of a transport project are identified, outlining the detail of risk
assessment and quality of cost estimate possible at each:



Pre-feasibility – information for risk assessment limited
Option Selection – qualitative/pseudo QRA undertaken
Design Development – quantitative QRA is possible
During Phase 2 an initial generic HSR risk assessment was prepared, but the qualitative and quantitative
QRAs can only commence once route option specification is complete. The current cost model includes an
input for risk, which at this stage was set at 20%. This will require re-evaluation in Phase 3, based upon the
QRA.
5.3.5.2.
Optimism Bias
In addition to risk, an uplift for optimism bias will be required to allow for the tendency of unexpected cost
overruns, delays to programme and over-estimation of revenue streams. This uplift is based on studies of a
number of similar significant infrastructure projects. During phases 2 and 3 this uplift is set at 66%, but this
will be adjusted at subsequent stages of the project life, in line with historical evidence.
Optimism bias and risk should be viewed in conjunction with each other, to avoid double counting of factors
which may cause overspend.
5.3.5.3.
Estimate Uncertainty
At this early stage, the level of uncertainty is high, as there is a considerable range of costs which are
dependent upon the final proposals. Because of this and the level of cost development undertaken to date,
the current cost estimates should be regarded as having an average tolerance of no better than +30% to 10%.
A more sensitive tolerance estimation exercise will be performed as better information becomes available.
This will assess both unit values and quantities for potential variance.
5.4.
Subject 3: Funding and Operation of the Infrastructure
5.4.1.
Introduction
This section of the report provides a qualitative assessment of the funding options and commercial structures
available for the Norwegian HSR, based on those applied for HSR in other countries and on the funding
options used in Norway for other infrastructure projects.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
79
It also details the development of the quantitative, high level financial model to be applied at Phase 3 for the
assessment of commercial and contractual structures.
This topic allies closely with the work undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in the Commercial and
Organisational Issues contract, discussed in Chapter 7 of this document.
5.4.2.
Financing the HSR
5.4.2.1.
Introduction
The evaluation of an HSR must be conducted in the context of assessing a perpetual asset which will be in
continuous operation over the long term. So short term funding and affordability issues should not be allowed
to drive the contractual and financial delivery structure.
Similarly, financing considerations should not determine the delivery structure, but should be considered
once the construction and operation details are properly understood.
Rail projects, including HSR, do not typically raise sufficient revenue to cover their costs and even
operational costs often run higher than generated revenue. It is therefore likely that government, as well as
private sector funding will be required.
At this early stage, it is hard to ascertain the level of market appetite for the Norwegian HSR, since delivery
structure, costs and revenue all have a high level of uncertainty. However, based on other HSR projects, it is
likely that the private sector will show an interest.
Key findings from international HSR and Norwegian infrastructure projects:






Direct or indirect government support is crucial to HSR projects;
Capital markets are likely to represent a significant source of funding in the medium term;
Other sources of financing are likely to be available, such as commercial bank loans, construction
finance or infrastructure funds;
Historically, Norwegian infrastructure projects have been largely financed by commercial debt;
Infrastructure and operations were procured through both PPP and traditional methods; and
There are a number of international and EC grant of debt funding sources which should be
examined.
5.4.2.2.
Funding Sources
The following funding sources should be considered:
Table 5.1 – Potential sources of financing for Norway HSR
Direct or Indirect Government Funding
Commercial Funding
Direct Government Funding
Societe Generale
Nordic Investment Bank
RBS
Northern Periphery Programme 2007-13
BNP
Regional Funding Contributions
Credit Agricole
European Investment Bank
Nordea
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
Depfa
Marco Polo II
SEB Merchant Bank
*
ING
BBVA
DnB NOR Bank
Fortis
*These banks have all recently been involved in financing infrastructure and refinancing projects in Norway.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
80
The impact of the credit crisis in obtaining funding for large infrastructure projects is the reduced liquidity in
the market and increased cost of financing. The prevailing market conditions at the time of obtaining funding
will largely dictate the interest in the project and availability of funds.
5.4.2.3.
Types of Funding
There are various advantages and disadvantage to alternative funding methods for an infrastructure project.
These are set out in the table below.
Table 5.2 – Advantages and disadvantages of different types of funding
Advantages
Disadvantages
Grant
The cheapest form of funding, as there There is often an onerous administrative
burden involved with obtaining the grant
is no requirement to repay the grant
and adhering to its criteria.
Debt
Significant funds could potentially be
raised.
Stringent covenants often restrict efficient
use of cash in operations.
The cost of debt is often higher.
Sub-Debt Provides an additional source of
funding providing flexibility and greater
security to lenders of senior
commercial debt.
Equity
Has no legal requirement to return
capital or dividends to shareholders
and has the benefit of committing
suppliers to the project.
More equity investors leads to greater
scrutiny and a more complex contractual
structure.
An assessment will be made of the type of funding which will be available for the Norwegian HSR. This will
require detailed revenue and cost forecasts and a well defined delivery and contractual structure, so will fall
in Phase 3 of the study.
5.4.3.
Delivering the Norwegian HSR
The contractual structure for delivery of the Norwegian HSR project affects both the involvement of and the
transference of risk to the private sector.
A number of options are available for the contractual structure, the most appropriate of which will depend on:





The level of investment the government can and is willing to provide
The level of risk the government is willing to take on;
The nature of the proposed design;
The availability of operators in the market for each structure; and
The position of the debt market.
A range of possible contract structures was explored, with case studies from across Europe identified and
examined for each type:







Traditional Design, Construction and Maintenance (DCM);
Traditional Design, Build, Finance, Maintain (DBFM) + Operate
Design, Build Transfer;
Design then Construct – Traditional public sector procurement;
A combination of Design & Build (D&B) for the civil works and Design, Build, Finance & Maintain
(DBFM) for the rail systems;
Availability based PPP; and
Demand based PPP.
Whichever contract structure is used, experience in other European HSR projects shows that robust crossparty government support will be required.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
81
5.4.4.
Financial Modelling
To assess the financial impact to government of the HSR project a high level Financial Model was designed.
It allows the testing of various commercial and contracting structures, to illustrate the potential government
commitments and profiles.
This modelling is dependent upon cash flows, various forms of debt, equity and direct or indirect government
support. It is independent from the other Market, Financial and Economic Models, but will make use of their
outputs such as capital costs, operating costs and revenues.
The principal objectives addressed in the creation of the model are:


Create a flexible and robust tool for effective decision making;
Assess the commitment required from the government based on:
-

Various contracting and commercial structures
Revenue and cost forecasts
Funding methods for each cost item
Profitability of the infrastructure company (InfraCo) and Franchise/OpCo
Risk distribution between contractual parties
Summarise the sources and uses of funds for the project, displaying the quantum of funding gap,
if present, under each scenario; and
Create a cash flow for the two key contractual parties to the project (InfraCo and Franchise/OpCo).
In Phase 2, the model has only been run using fictitious figures, to test its functionality. During Phase 3, it will
be used to identify feasible funding plans and identify the contribution from various funding sources for each
project financing option.
5.5.
Subject 4: Socio-economic Analyses
5.5.1.
Introduction
The Mandate identifies the Benefit-to-Cost Analysis as a special topic for consideration in the study, as it is a
key tool in the decision-making process. It specifies that the analysis should be broad, to consider factors
such as the reduction of future investments in other transport modes, and to include the impacts on the
economy.
As part of Phase 2 of the study conducted by Jernbaneverket to determine the viability of a HSR network in
Norway, a set of appropriate tools for undertaking the socio-economic assessment were developed.
The report to establish the tools included four key areas:




5.5.2.
Identification of the likely impacts of HSR, to identify areas for inclusion in socio-economic
assessment;
Review of existing Norwegian socio-economic assessment methods;
Review of socio-economic assessment methods applied by other countries; and
Identification of an appropriate method for comprehensively assessing the Norwegian HSR.
Key Impacts of HSR
To understand the range of benefits and disbenefits which are likely to be generated by the installation of an
HSR network, a study of the impacts of HSR in other countries was performed. Evidence of the impacts in
these cases was analysed, to identify likely significant impacts of the Norwegian HSR which should therefore
be included in the socio-economic assessment.
The most prominent identified issues relating to the socio-economic impacts of HSR networks were:



Demand impacts on other modes and through trip generation;
Significant transport user benefits;
Significant financial implications, especially due to large construction and operation costs;
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
82



5.5.3.
Potential impacts on the wider economy (beyond immediate transport issues) affecting issues such
as land use and business competitiveness;
Environmental impacts (both detrimental impacts of construction and potentially positive effects of
reducing other mode use); and
Uneven distribution of impacts; geographically and by social group.
Review of Norwegian JBV Guidance for Rail Projects
Assessment of the existing JBV guidance for assessing rail projects in Norway showed that, while the
existing guidance covers a comprehensive range of assessment areas, the likely impacts of HSR and the
methods applied in modelling it lead to the requirement for some additional considerations in socio-economic
assessment.
Firstly, HSR needs to be considered as a ‗new transport mode‘ because its characteristics (in terms of
journey time and experience) vary considerably from any existing Norwegian transport modes for which
parameters are available within Norwegian guidance. The inclusion of HSR therefore involves revision to the
approach for calculating user benefits and to the parameters (such as values of time) used in calculating
travel costs.
A second important consideration is the inclusion of an allowance for real growth in costs and benefits over
time, to account for the potential for growth rates to vary from general inflation.
Additionally, the likely scale and influence of HSR schemes means that impacts are likely to be more
significant than those of the conventional rail schemes typically assessed using the JBV guidance.
Consequently, some impacts require more detailed consideration for HSR schemes than they are given in
the JBV guidance.
In particular, additional entries are needed to capture impacts on fast freight and more detailed consideration
of the impacts of the scheme on other transport operators. Additionally, the standard consideration of
impacts on noise, emissions and accidents could be extended in line with the more detailed assessment in
the Norwegian guidance for assessing road schemes.
The scale and likely duration of HSR impacts also suggest that the assessment period used should be
extended from 25 years to provide a more complete assessment of HSR scheme impacts.
Further sensitivity tests in addition to those identified in the standard guidance are also recommended as a
result of the scale and likely duration of HSR impacts, particularly testing sensitivity to demand forecasts.
Finally, the high costs of infrastructure required for HSR mean that extra prudence is required in their
calculation to help avoid cost underestimation. This suggests that it would be advisable to apply an optimism
bias uplift to help account for the potential of cost overruns.
5.5.4.
Review of Overseas Guidance
A review of a range of sources for socio-economic assessment methodology, as applied in other European
countries, was performed to assess the extent to which current JBV guidance is in line with the best known
practices. This review highlighted that, the approaches used were generally consistent and that JBV
guidance is comparable to some of the most comprehensive frameworks.
It also highlighted however, that while methodology may be consistent between countries, many parameters,
such as values of time, vary considerably. Consequently assumptions regarding HSR need to reflect
Norway‘s specific conditions, rather than being based on HSR parameters elsewhere.
Some variations were also evident between the approaches with respect to the treatment of externalities and
monetised impacts. The qualitative approaches prescribed in the Norwegian guidance are comparable with
the approaches used in many other countries.
A final area of variation related to different countries‘ approach to assessing wider economic impacts‘ with
the review showing that there is no general consensus between countries on the best approach to take.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
83
5.5.5.
Recommended Method for the Socio-economic Assessment of
Norway HSR
Based on the key identified typical HSR socio-economic impacts and the reviews of Norwegian and
overseas guidance, two approaches are recommended to assess the HSR and related rail scenarios under
consideration.
The first is a ‘core‗ approach which is in line with existing JBV guidance, with the only variation being an
adjustment to allow for treatment of the new HSR mode, by ‗combining‘ with another mode.
The second is an ‘alternative/extended‗ framework, which builds on the ‗core‘ approach to encapsulate the
benefits specifically generated by HSR more comprehensively and reflect international best practice, based
around the existing guidance, with reference to overseas guidelines on assessment of HSR and other
relevant best practices. The details of these approaches are set out in the table below.
Table 5.3 – Core and extended/alternative economic assessment frameworks
Project impacts
Core
Extended/Alternative
Safety
Accident numbers
Environment
(Provided by environment consultants)
Noise
Change in nuisance
Local emissions
Change in emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions
Change in emissions
Change in train service
Schedule
Descriptions of train services (hours per annum)
Frequency
Punctuality
Capacity
Passability
(None in the Guidance
but requested in the
mandate )
Description of train seats per
annum
Description of track-sharing
ability
Travel impacts
Rail costs
Change in costs
Rail passenger journeys
Change in demand per annum
Rail freight journeys
Air passenger journeys
Road passenger journeys
(None)
Change in demand per
annum, to improve on the
detail of impacts
Road freight journeys
Bus passenger journeys
Monetised Effects
User benefits
HSR
Road
Other public transport
Based on ―rule of a half‖ Primarily based on ―logsum‖
and unit rates, not subject and ―rule of a half‖ to improve
to real value growth
the detail of calculation, and
also unit rates (e.g. for road
decongestion) including real
value growth
Operator benefits
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
84
HSR
Conventional rail
Air
Car
Based on revenue
estimates and estimated
impacts on operating
costs by mode, not
subject to real value
growth
Revenue and costs of
alternative modes are
considered in greater detail.
Real value growth is included
Reported as a single
value for all aspects, not
subject to real value
growth
To be reported by each
aspect, based on environment
contract outputs, including real
value growth
Bus
Third party benefits
Noise
Local air quality
Greenhouse gas emissions
Accidents
Tax financing effects
20% addition to state investment costs
Residual value
Straight-line depreciation, value taken at the end of the
assessment period
Total gross advantage
Key indicators of project socio-economic efficiency
Socio-economic profitability
Net benefit (NB)
NB per budget krona
Sensitivity tests
Discount rate
Low 3.5%, high 5.5%
GDP per capita elasticity for real value
growth
None
1
(central test = 0.7)
Traffic (demand) growth
±20%
Subject to more detailed
sensitivity tests (see report on
uncertainties)
Investment cost
±20%
+66% based on forecast vs
actual cost survey, -20%
Wider economic impact
(not part of sensitivity
test)
+ 15%
+30% maximum
Assessment period
None
(central test = 25 years)
25 years and 60 years
(central test = 40 years)
(None)
Commentary
(Not part of nonmonetised analysis)
Comment on scale and nature
of potential freight use
Based on a single score
for all aspects
Score (using JBV Guidance)
for each aspect, to be
reported separately
Reference (demand) growth
Non-Monetised Effects
Journey cost (non-monetised)
Reliability
Comfort
Option values
Rail fast freight
Externality (environment)
Community life and outdoor life
Landscape / cityscape
Severance
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
85
Natural environment
Cultural heritage
Natural resources
Wider economic impact
Agglomeration
(None)
Commentary for each aspect,
to be reported separately
Limited qualitative
analysis
Qualitative analysis
(None in the JBV
Guidance but requested
in the mandate )
Qualitative analysis based on
GIS access contours
Labour market
Competition
Other
Distribution analysis
Spatial
By social group
Accessibility
The ‘alternative/extended‘ approach involves eleven adjustments from the ‗core‘ approach‘, of which seven
are consistent with the general socio-economic assessment guidance provided by the Norwegian Ministry of
Finance.
Variations consistent with Ministry of Finance Guidance:




Revisions of treatment of user benefits for ‗new modes‘ – use of logsums for calculation of user
benefits;
Revision of treatment of costs and revenue for operators of other modes – incorporation of sensitivity
test to assess the extremes of operator response without impact on service quality (i.e. one extreme
being accepting all revenue losses without changes in operating costs and the other extreme being
balancing revenue losses with reductions in operating costs without any impact on service provision
for remaining passengers on the mode);
Revision of the treatment of non-monetised impacts – extension of the assessment to follow the
guidance for assessing environmental effects and distribution effects as set out in the Norwegian
road scheme assessment guidance, along with the assessment of non-monetised elements of
transport user benefits (such as reliability, comfort and option values);
Revision of treatment of wider economic impacts –
- inclusion of a qualitative assessment of wider economic impacts, in terms of:
o
o
o
o
agglomeration;
labour market effects;
increased competition;
value of outputs in imperfect competition;
- indicative sensitivity tests to assess the effect of wider impacts achieving a 15% or 30% uplift on
conventional benefits, recognising the lack of specific Norwegian evidence for these uplifts;



Addition of fast freight impacts - inclusion of commentary on the potential scale and nature of fast
freight use;
Addition of HSR mandate indicators - for the capacity, passability and accessibility objectives
identified in the Mandate; and
Addition of sensitivity tests - to improve understanding of the impacts of variations in forecasts of
demand impacts on the economic case for the scheme.
Departures from Ministry of Finance Guidance:

Revision of assessment period - from 25 years to 40 years, (with sensitivity tests for 25 years and
60 years);
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
86



Inclusion of real growth – assumption of real growth of costs and real growth of values of time,
accidents and environmental impacts (assuming an elasticity of 0.7 to per capita GDP with a
sensitivity test assuming elasticity of 1);
Revision of values of time and time weightings – use of the ‗model‘ of generalised cost of travel by
each mode (for each purpose) generated through the Stated Preference survey, using the implied
values of time and weightings by mode suggested by the survey for the ‗new mode‘ scenarios; and
Inclusion of an optimism bias uplift of 66% on capital costs - as a sensitivity test.
5.6.
Subject 5: Uncertainty Analysis
5.6.1.
Introduction
Like Benefit-to-Cost Analysis, the Mandate also identifies the dealing with uncertainty as a special
assessment topic. It correctly identifies that constructing one or more HSR corridors will be a decisive choice
for the allocation of transport means for many decades to come, so full consideration of all the issues should
be undertaken.
This section therefore provides a review of items of uncertainty, which could impact on decisions regarding
investment in the Norwegian HSR. For major projects such as HSR, it is important to consider the wide
ranging factors that may affect future performance.
While estimates can be made of how much it would cost to build the infrastructure today and observations of
the current number of trips being made by rail and air between any two locations can be used, there is no
certainty over how these figures will change in the future. Factors such as changing energy prices, attitudes
towards climate change and locations of future workplaces may distort current forecasts of trip patterns.
These factors and many others need to be considered when examining the future viability of HSR, rather
than focusing only a central case forecast.
5.6.2.
Elements of Uncertainty
Uncertainty analysis considers the impacts of risk and uncertainty on costs, benefits, performance,
environmental impacts and timescales. For the purposes of this project, five key themes of uncertainty were
identified:





Demographic and Economic Factors
Human Factors
Costs of HSR and other Modes
Construction Solutions and Technology for HSR
Policy and Legislative Background
These themes of uncertainty sit alongside the internal project risks, which will be identified in the risk register
and can be influenced or managed by those developing and implementing the project. It should be noted that
these elements are not the same as the Estimate Uncertainty, discussed in Section 5.3.5.3.
A range of tools were then identified as being available to aid decision making during the business case
development process. These are:




Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) – this is applied during cost estimation, to identify risks and
quantify their probability and scale;
Reference Class Forecasting – this is normally applied through the use of ‗optimism bias‘ to reflect
the experience gained from historic project cost estimates;
Sensitivity Testing – this is mainly applied to demand, economic and financial modelling, to identify
the key factors which will most influence the business case;
Scenario Planning – the use of alternative future scenarios, to identify a range of potential
outcomes, particularly where several dependent factors are involved.
The figure below sets out how each of these tools fits into the business case development process:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
87
Figure 5.5 – Uncertainty analysis tools
Route
options
Cost data
Cost
model
Demand
data
Demand
model
Optimism
bias
QRA
Sensitivity
tests
Riskadjusted
costs
Financial
data
Financial
model
Sensitivity
tests
Financial
indicators
Range of
demand
forecasts
Structuring
options
Economic
model
Economic
data
Economic
indicators
Scenario planning
Range of
financial
indicators
Range of
economic
indicators
Informed decision-making on HSR
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
88
5.6.3.
Recommendations for the Treatment of Uncertainty
The first two tools to deal with Uncertainty, Quantified Risk Assessment and Reference Class Forecasting (or
use of ‗Optimism Bias‘), are picked up in this study as part of the Estimation and Assessment of Investment
Costs work, described earlier in this chapter. These items are specifically discussed in Section 5.3.5 – Risk
and Uncertainty. These two items will be dealt with in producing a set of Risk Adjusted Costs, as illustrated in
the diagram above.
The other two tools identified, Sensitivity Testing and Scenario Planning, are not dealt with as part of the
process of producing risk adjusted costs so will be treated separately in Phase 3 of the study.
The Sensitivity Testing to be carried out during Phase 3 of the project is recommended to include:










Rate of population growth;
Rate of economic growth;
Passenger perceptions on the attractiveness of HSR;
Passenger mode choice behaviour;
Transport prices (or fares) for HSR and other modes;
The cost and attractiveness of air travel;
The cost and attractiveness of car travel;
Enhanced performance of HSR, including operating speed, reliability, capacity and cost
Impacts of climate change on HSR construction and operation;
The impact of key complementary transport projects.
Scenario Planning analysis will be required to establish the range of effects on HSR of certain major
uncertainties:




The rate and pattern of economic growth;
Patterns of travel demand and how these might be affecte4d by shifts in attitude and/or
communication technology;
The cost and security of supply of oil and electricity;
Public policy on transport development and energy.
During Phase 3 future scenarios should be developed to allow the consideration of these uncertainties. A
set of scenarios based on two axes of change – governance and social values, could be developed and
used to enable the complex interactions of travel behaviour, costs of different modes, environmental impacts
and travel pricing to be assessed.
Figure 5.6 – Foresight scenarios
Globalisation
World
markets
Consumerism
Global
sustainability
Conventional
development
Provincial
enterprise
Community
Local
stewardship
Regionalisation
World Markets – Places an emphasis on short-term welfare and meeting personal consumption demand,
supported by strong global institutions.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
89
Provincial Enterprise – Also puts an emphasis on the short-term and meeting personal consumption
demand, but with national and provincial government being more successful in asserting their interests.
Global Sustainability – Places an emphasis on long term sustainability and meeting the collective needs
and wants, with a globalisation of governance systems.
Local Stewardship – Places an emphasis on the long-term economic and environmental sustainability,
together with meeting collective wants and needs, but with discrete federal political systems, with
sovereignty retained at national and regional levels.
During Phase 3, the development of assumptions for these scenarios and examination of their range of
impacts will allow a good understanding of key factors that could influence the case for HSR in Norway.
Having established a base level of risk and uncertainty, it will be important to continue to monitor and
manage the key elements throughout the project life cycle, in order to mitigate impacts where necessary,
consider the transference of risk, or accept the effects and allow for them within the available budgets.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
90
6.
Environmental Analysis
6.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Environmental Analysis Contract is to identify HSR concepts which might be suitable for
Norwegian conditions. The scope of work is to provide a common premise for the consideration of
environmental effects, in a way that will enable the comparison of alternative concepts and benchmarking
against alternative transport modes during Phase 3 of the study.
The Environmental Analysis Contract consists of four subjects:




Landscape analyses;
Environmental intervention effects;
Effects on energy consumption and noise; and
Assessments of climate related environmental effects.
This chapter summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of this Phase 2 contract, for the
purpose of informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by Asplan
Viak AS, in conjunction with VWI and Brekke & Strand Akustikk AS.
Each of the four subjects is considered in turn in the remainder of this chapter.
6.2.
Subjects 1 and 2: Landscape and Environmental
Intervention Effects
6.2.1.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop a methodology for analyzing landscape and environmental effects
of alternative rail solutions during Phase 3. The methodology should enable a comparison of effects within
and between alternative concepts at an early stage of decision-making, and provide an evidence base for an
initial filtering of alternatives.
6.2.2.
Methodological Approach
6.2.2.1.
Introduction
A review of some of the most widely used methods and models for impact assessment and landscape
analysis in Norway, as well as a selection of international approaches, was used to identify ‗tried and tested‘
concepts which could be adapted for high level analysis at a large geographical scale. As a result, the
proposed methodology is based on a combination of value and sensitivity analysis (Kolbenstvedt et al. 2000)
and a simplified impact assessment methodology applied by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration for
evaluating strategic infrastructure concepts (Statens vegvesen 2008, 2010).
In brief, the methodology will consist of:




Mapping the characteristics of an area under each topic;
Ascribing value/ importance/ sensitivity to the characteristics of the area;
Describing the magnitude and potential conflict of proposals on these characteristics; and
Deriving an overall measure of potential conflict.
6.2.2.2.
Establishment of Models
The main focus will be on identifying areas of conflicting interests within the proposed high-speed railway
corridors. A GIS model will be built to aid the visualisation and analysis. The model will be based on ILARIS,
AREALIS and Topographic Position Index.
In brief, the model building will constitute the following steps:


Data capture (collecting and verifying databases);
Extracting databases with existing value ratings for further analysis;
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
91



Deriving databases and analysis of databases for exploring vulnerability. Identifying methods for
analysing impact;
Stage 1: Overall assessment of main corridors. Identifying ―knock out areas‖ and data gaps/
uncertainty. Establishing the need for further data capture from regional/local authorities; and
Stage 2: Detailed analysis within corridors for evaluation of alternative railway lines. Implementing
models from point 3.
6.2.3.
Coverage of Topics
6.2.3.1.
Landscape
For the purpose of this study, the landscape topic was defined in terms of visual characteristics, including
visibility, visual barriers and visual experience. This reflects the scope of work set out by Jernbaneverket and
the way in which landscape assessment is usually undertaken for transport infrastructure initiatives in
Norway. It is furthermore driven by the time restraints for undertaking the assessment in Phase 3.
Landscape characteristics which are relevant for describing and assessing visual characteristics, and for
which there are available datasets with existing value ratings, are listed below:





Valuable landscapes of culture heritage value
Urban environment / townscape
Protected areas
Protected watercourses
Wilderness areas
Other datasets not classified in terms of value:




Aquatic areas (lakes, watercourses, fjords and more)
Densely populated areas and buildings
Protected / important outdoor recreation areas
Recreation areas near densely populated areas
6.2.3.2.
Environmental Effects
Natural Environment
It is proposed that the delimitation of the natural environment topic should reflect the definition used in
Handbook 140 (Statens vegvesen 2006). The following data classifications will be relevant:








Prioritised habitats
Protected areas
Wilderness areas
Game areas
Species
Protected watercourses
River deltas
Vegetation
Water Resources
The analysis of water resources will cover a combination of user interests in the watercourse, changes in
hydrology and water quality in the catchment. This reflects both the goals of the EU Water Framework
Directive and the delimitation of water resources described in Handbook 140 (Statens vegvesen 2006).
Relevant data and databases are:



Catchment and hydrology databases
Water quality databases
User interest databases
Some of the data sets, including national parks, wilderness areas (INON), protected watercourses and
potential world heritage sites, provide important information to both the assessment of landscape and
environmental intervention effects. These data sources may therefore be used during both assessments,
and the potential for double counting will need to be addressed in Phase 3.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
92
6.2.4.
Value Classifications
Based on the literature review and the need for a method which enables a high level assessment of strategic
alternatives, it is proposed to adopt a simplified approach to value ratings similar to that used by the
Norwegian Public Roads Administration for strategic infrastructure concepts (Statens Vegvesen 2008, 2010).
This implies that most of the data included in the assessment will be data with existing value classifications
(e.g. national, regional, local), and that they are ascribed a ‗high‘ value rating during the analysis unless
otherwise specified.
For areas without existing value classifications, an assessment will be required to derive the value rating of
the area and its sensitivity to interventions. This will be done using a combination of sources which together
describe the nature of the area and topographical features, in line with the approach outlined in the ‗Value
and sensitivity analysis‘ (Kolbenstvedt et al. 2000).
Although this implies a broad simplification of value classification during the assessment in Phase 3, the
original databases with more detailed value descriptions (e.g. the distinction of international, national,
regional or local importance) will still be accessible and could enable analysis at a greater level of detail
should this be required at a later stage.
6.2.5.
Magnitude of Effect and Conflict Potential
6.2.5.1.
Introduction
Magnitude of effect is an expression of the scale and importance of (positive or negative) changes caused by
an intervention, and should be assessed against the baseline scenario. The assessment of magnitude will
focus on characteristics of ‗high‘ value. In order to assess the magnitude of impact from the GIS model,
parameters will be defined in terms of distance from the corridor and/or land take.
Conflict potential will then be assessed for each alternative rail concept as a combination of potential effects
and their magnitude within the physical corridors, and the value/sensitivity of the affected areas and their
characteristics.
6.2.5.2.
Measure of Conflict Potential
Conflict scores will be based on professional judgement and described qualitatively. An overall measure of
conflict will be derived for individual sections of the railway and/or for each topic, supported by a written
justification.
6.2.5.3.
Ranking of Alternative Concepts
In order to facilitate an initial sifting of HSR concepts, it is proposed that the alternatives are ranked
according to their overall conflict potential. The ranking will be based on professional judgement supported
by a written statement to ensure transparency and accountability.
6.2.6.
Testing and Refinement of Methodology in Phase 3
The assessment of landscape and environmental intervention effects at a large geographical scale presents
considerable challenges with regards to methodology and data. The validity, reliability and coverage of data
vary greatly for the different themes and geographical regions. In addition, the methodology was developed
in absence of the reference alternative which has yet to be defined by Jernbaneverket. As a result, certain
assumptions will need to be revisited, and the proposed methodology for assessing landscape and
environmental intervention will need to be tested, adjusted and refined in Phase 3.
6.3.
Subject 3: Effects on Energy and Noise
6.3.1.
Energy
6.3.1.1.
Introduction
This section focuses on the energy consumption of rolling stock operating on high-speed infrastructure. The
analysis specifically aims at mapping and evaluating the infrastructure and operation factors that have an
effect on energy consumption. Therefore, different high-speed trains are compared with each other in order
to identify typical levels of energy consumption as well as to determine preferable train designs. The results
are an assessment of existing high-speed trains with regard to their energy consumption. The report also
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
93
includes remarks on the construction of timetables, the operating conditions of high-speed lines, railway
infrastructure and the power supply system.
To this end, existing high-speed trains‘ technical data is modelled with VWI‘s software tool PULZUFA, which
allows for the simulation and calculation of the vehicle dynamics and energy consumption on a given
infrastructure. From the simulations done with PULZUFA, typical energy consumption values are derived that
take into account different characteristics of railway infrastructure and operations, such as gradients, tunnels
and intermediate stops
6.3.1.2.
Rolling Stock
One finding from the analysis is that two of the trains studied exhibit a significantly lower specific energy
consumption than the others: the German ICE 3—in service since the year 2000—and the French AGV,
which will shortly be put into service in Italy. From the characteristics of these trains, conclusions can be
drawn regarding the requirements for energy-efficient and state-of-the-art high-speed trains as well as the
future development of high-speed trains and their characteristics.
Three major factors can be pointed out that have a positive effect on the energy efficiency of trains:



The aerodynamic design of the train: a small cross section, in combination with an aerodynamic
design of the front and favourable materials for the train‘s surface. Especially at high speeds, energy
consumption depends largely on the quality of aerodynamic design;
EMU trains: distribution of the tractive system components along the train increases
performance and creates more passenger space; and
The use of power converters with IGBT technology increases the efficiency degree of the train‘s
tractive system.
As for the future development of high-speed trains, more incremental improvements are expected than huge
advances. This can be noted from the comparison of the specific energy consumptions of the ICE 3 and the
AGV. Although these trains were introduced into service almost a decade apart, they both exhibit similar
levels of specific energy consumption.
One reason behind these incremental improvements may be due to the restriction that the railway
infrastructure has on the trains. Although high-speed trains have the potential to increase their energy
efficiency via innovation in aerodynamics, lightweight construction, and technical component improvement,
this potential is limited by the conditions of railway infrastructure with its long service life.
6.3.1.3.
Infrastructure
More detailed analysis of the infrastructure design revealed that tunnels considerably affect the amount of
energy consumed. The specific energy consumption in tunnels increases as the tunnel length or the quotient
between a train‘s and the tunnel‘s cross section increases. In contrast, the effect of different designs of track
incline arrangements was found to be comparatively small.
Regarding the design of crossing loops on single-track lines, favourable layouts were found. While there is
no significant effect on flat terrain, on inclines the crossing loop should be built either in the form of a
rhomboid, or in the form of a trapezoid with the siding reserved for the train travelling uphill.
For the possibility and the extent of energy recovery, the railway power supply system plays an important
role. If power supply sections are interconnected and power supply stations are to be connected to the public
power supply network, energy recovered from using regenerative brakes can be used in the most flexible
way.
6.3.1.4.
Operation
With regards to train operations, economical driving, i.e. letting a train coast down to a certain speed instead
of braking right away, was found to be energy-efficient only to a certain extent. If the coasting phase lasts for
too long, the average train speed will decrease to levels unfitting of high-speed railway operations.
6.3.1.5.
Concluding Comment
The values for the specific energy consumption derived from the basic infrastructure scenarios serve well as
input values to estimate the energy consumption of trains on potential railway lines. Combined with
corrective factors and findings regarding the infrastructure design and traffic operations, they may lead to an
early-stage energy consumption assessment for a set of possible railway alignments. However, in order to
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
94
provide more detail and accuracy to the analysis, both the infrastructure and rolling stock need to be defined
and modelled in greater detail as the characteristics of and even more importantly the interaction between
the rolling stock and infrastructure significantly affect the overall energy consumption.
6.3.2.
Noise
6.3.2.1.
Introduction
The following section concerns noise and vibration arising from HSR services and incorporates the following:



Results of literature studies on noise and vibration from high speed trains;
Discussion of remedial actions on rolling stock and track considering noise and vibration from high
speed trains; and
Methodology on calculation of noise, vibration and ground borne noise which may be used in Phase
3 of the project.
The high-speed railway systems defined as "high-speed" in this context are considered to be electrically
powered and capable of speeds up to at least 250 km/h. From a noise perspective the noise characteristics
of HSRs vary considerably as speed increases. For that reason it may be beneficial to subdivide the HSRs
into 3 sub-categories:
1)
―High-speed,‖ with a maximum speed of about 250 km/h;
2)
―Very high-speed,‖ with a maximum speed of 400 km/h; and
3)
―Maglev,‖ magnetically levitated and powered systems representing a potential speed range
of above 400 km/h.
For practical purposes only 1) and 2) are considered feasible for long distance travelling in this analysis.
6.3.2.2.
Definitions
Airborne noise: the noise originating directly from the high-speed train is called airborne noise since it is
transmitted through the air.
Vibration: movements transmitted in the ground from the passing of the train to nearby buildings. Floors,
walls and ceilings vibrate as a result. The frequency content which can be felt by human beings is low, and is
measured up to 80 Hz.
Ground borne noise: pressure differences in the air as a result of vibration radiate a noise. The ground borne
noise level is higher inside a house than outside because the radiated noise is amplified in the room, and
because the vibration in the panels and slabs are amplified. The main frequency content in ground borne
noise usually is in octave frequency bands 63 – 250 Hz.
6.3.2.3.
Rolling Stock
Up to a speed of around 300 km/h the noise from the contact rail /wheel is the dominating source. For higher
speeds the aerodynamic noise is the dominating source, and the noise level increases strongly with
increasing speed. The pantograph then is a dominating source. This noise is difficult to shield. In addition it
may have a tone component and the noise limit may be lower because of this. It is very important that the
noise from the pantograph is reduced as much as possible.
The Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) for noise from highs speed trains is lower than the
measured values from recent high speed trains. It is expected that the new generation of high speed trains
will be below the noise limit. This is beneficial for the high speed lines in Norway.
6.3.2.4.
Track
Slab track results in a higher noise level than ballasted track, typically a 2 – 4 dB increase. The requirements
for the settlement of the slab track are very strict and will be expensive to fulfill on clay in Norway. For this
reason it is probable that ballasted track will be used on grade. This is assumed in the noise calculations.
It must be foreseen that the maintenance of the Norwegian high speed lines will keep the rail roughness low
and within the TSI specification. The key parameter is the grinding of the rail. It is very important that the
grinding process is carried out regularly and with short time intervals so that roughness will not develop.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
95
6.3.2.5.
Noise
The recommended method for the calculation of noise from high speed trains is Nord 2000. This is a
commercially available method. The input data will have to be acquired from measurements on relevant train
types. It is recommended that the scope of Phase 3 includes such measurements.
In the corridors the L5AF = 72 dB contour lines should be drawn in the maps. This is the distance to which the
façade insulation in the houses may need to be improved. The actual L5AF value in the contour line may be
corrected when better noise data have been established. On the basis of GIS data the number of dwellings
between the track and the L5AF = 72 dB contour line is calculated. In these houses the noise insulation may
need to be improved. Costs for the increased sound insulation are calculated on the basis from our
experience in other railway projects. The number of people who live in these houses may also be calculated
by using GIS data.
6.3.2.6.
Vibration
Calculated vibration levels in dwelling near a new high-speed railway line on clay in Norway will be very
uncertain values. It is necessary to collect more measured data from highs speed trains on clay, preferably in
Norway. It is recommended that the scope of Phase 3 includes such measurements.
It is probable that the embankment must be stiffened in order to prevent problems with critical speed. There
are also strong requirements on settlements of the track. Probably lime – cement piles must be established
in places with soft clay. This will reduce the vibration transmission to the dwellings as well.
In the corridors in Phase 3 the limit value v w,95 = 0,3 mm/s contour line should be drawn in the maps. In built
up areas it should be implemented that for the line on clay lime – cement piles are established below the
track. On the basis of GIS data the number of dwellings between the track and the v w,95 = 0,3 mm/s contour
line is calculated. In these houses the vibration limit is expected to be exceeded. The number of people who
lives in these houses should be calculated by using GIS data.
6.3.2.7.
Groundborne Noise
An empirical calculation method which is based on measurements from conventional trains on ballasted
track in the Oslo region was developed. The method is corrected for high speed trains, based on recent
Swedish measurements.
Concerning remedial actions it will not be possible to keep the ground borne noise below the limit in many
dwellings above tunnels if the strict value for stiffness of ballast mats shall be incorporated. Studies will have
to be made to see if softer ballast mats may be used. This is also valid for slab track in bored tunnels. The
strict requirements on rail deflection will imply that floating slab track must be used when there are dwellings
near to the tunnels.
In the corridors in Phase 3 the LA,max = 32 dB contour line should be drawn in the maps. In built up areas 10
dB noise reduction in the track is assumed. On the basis of GIS data the number of dwellings within the
contour lines is calculated. In these houses the ground borne noise limit is expected to be exceeded. The
number of people who lives in these houses should be calculated by using GIS data.
6.4.
Subject 4: Climate Related Effects
6.4.1.
Introduction
This section addresses the issues regarding the emissions of greenhouse gases. The aim here is to describe
the approach to calculate the temporal distribution of emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2e), as
resulting from development or non-development of HSR (HSR) concepts for passenger and freight transport
in Norway.
In order to provide the necessary flexibility for implementation in Phase 3, a component-based inventory is
proposed here. The modular approach allows later adjustments and refinements, in composition of corridor
development options and technologies for railway infrastructure and rolling stock. The component-based
approach is implemented for all modes, road and air as well as rail. The approach is scoped for the goal of
just comparison of HSR alternatives against the alternative transport modes.
Final calculation of the corridor alternatives to be made in Phase 3 for development options A-D relies on
input from the other work packages. These links are most notably found in connection to WP1 on market
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
96
analysis and from the physical planning of corridors, but appear also from several of the other work
packages.
Previous studies for HSR concepts in Norway and abroad typically cover infrastructure and operation of train
sets. Some include manufacture of rolling stock, and maintenance and decommissioning of infrastructure. In
effect, any study that aims to include direct and indirect emissions in a consistent manner must accept lifecycle assessment (LCA) methods and life-cycle thinking. Some of the HSR studies in literature explicitly use
LCA as a reference for methodology and environmental information, while others make the connection more
implicit. In this report LCA methodology is assumed in standards, data sources and modelling tools. Lifecycle assessment provides a structured way to describe system aspects of HSR alternatives.
Life-cycle assessment provides a standardised framework to evaluate and compare alternative products.
The product for HSR corridors is the transport service it provides. Environmental performance may be
evaluated per single journey, or from a total demand perspective. The aim in this assessment is to evaluate
the greenhouse gas emissions from HSR corridor development and operation, and compare to alternative
transport modes such as use of private car, bus services and air transport.
6.4.2.
Lessons from Other Studies
In a review of published studies for high-speed rail in Europe, the following summarises the main
conclusions that were made:






Comprehensive system boundaries are required for proper evaluation of HSR in the Norwegian
context, with regards to infrastructure, rolling stock and operations;
Comparison with alternative transport modes requires that the same or similar system boundaries
are used for all modes;
Emissions from electricity production may be highly significant, even at low fractions of fossils in the
electricity mix;
Scandinavian HSR concepts use relatively clean electricity for operation, implying that infrastructure
development contributes the larger share of the greenhouse gas emissions per passenger;
Occupancy of seats on HSR corridors, and the degree of use of HSR infrastructure, controls the
greenhouse gas emissions per passenger in Norway. Energy use per seat may be modelled with
good detail, but energy use per passenger in HSR depends on corridor-specific factors; and
Completed studies assume very different settings for the most important variables, leading to
diverging results for seemingly similar assessments.
6.4.3.
Solution: Component-based Emissions Inventory
6.4.3.1.
Model Implementation
Based on the lessons drawn from reviewed studies, it is found that an emissions model for the various
corridor alternatives to be assessed in Phase 3 needs to allow multiple infrastructure compositions, market
situations and energy supply scenarios. It is proposed to solve this by a component-based emissions
inventory, established through use of standardised life-cycle assessment methods.
The following approach is used to ensure a flexible yet transparent model:






Use of a commonly accepted model approach: life-cycle assessment
Consistent use of database values for emissions: ecoinvent for all background processes
Norwegian-based emissions modelling for construction of rail and road, given the high importance
for infrastructure to the total emissions estimate for HSR
Unit process detail implemented in software for LCA: SimaPro
Parameter options for wide scenario analysis
Equivalent coverage for all competing transport modes, to properly reflect the effect of market
transfer from car, bus and air transport for all HSR concepts
Inputs from the complementing work groups in the Norwegian HSR assessment will be implemented
in the emissions model in Phase 3, together with the alignment proposals from physical planning for
corridor alternatives.
6.4.3.2.
Environmental Assessment Time
Relevant environmental assessment guidelines propose a 60 year assessment time. Some major
components have technical lifetimes up to 100 years. If HSR concepts are developed for Norway, they
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
97
should have an impact for the national transport system for a long time into the future. It is therefore
proposed an environmental assessment time up to 100 years, although market information may not be made
for the entire period.
Emissions in construction are evaluated separately, to appear in the period up to first year of operation.
Maintenance inputs, operational requirement and rolling stock manufacture emissions are annualised based
on technical lifetime estimates.
6.4.3.3.
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Emissions
Emissions from infrastructure, rolling stock and operation of rail, road and air transport systems are split
between national emissions and emissions appearing abroad. This allows easy estimation of the effect on
national greenhouse gas emissions with and without development of HSR concepts.
Scenario considerations are systematically incorporated into the model, for all transport modes through the
assessment period.
6.4.3.4.
Norwegian Inventory Sources Selected to Describe Rail and Road Infrastructure
Inventories for the transport infrastructure components are compiled from various sources. The main sources
for road and rail infrastructure systems are found in reports for the Norwegian transport authorities (road:
Statens Vegvesen; rail: Jernbaneverket). These projects were carried our specifically to evaluate the
environmental profile of infrastructure components in the Norwegian context, and are therefore considered
the most relevant source for inventories to describe the relevant infrastructure for the task here.
6.4.3.5.
Phase 3
This subject forms the premises for evaluation of corridors for different HSR concepts. It fulfils the goal and
scope phase of life-cycle assessment, and partly also the inventory stage. Several links to the
complementing working groups in the assessment project are identified, where data gaps will be filled by
input for specific HSR concepts in Phase 3. The data gaps are identified and listed throughout the report,
and summarised in a separate section.
Main factors are expected to be within the market modelling and physical planning, although identified also in
the other groups. Energy modelling is a separate task within the environmental work package and is
discussed elsewhere in this report.
A systems analysis such as the Norwegian HSR assessment relies on multiple mutually dependent factors,
and it is therefore expected that several iterations must be made for each of the corridors. Concluding results
regarding the climate-related environmental performance of high-speed rail in Norway may not be drawn
before venturing into Phase 3.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
98
7.
Commercial and Organisational
Issues
7.1.
Introduction
The purpose of the Commercial and Organisational Issues Contract is to address contractual and
commercial strategies and organisational issues associated with procuring major, new infrastructure, such as
a high-speed railway.
The Commercial and Organisational Issues Contract consists of three subjects:



Organisational aspects;
Contract strategies; and
Commercial strategies.
This chapter summarises all of the findings of the work carried out as part of this Phase 2 contract, for the
purpose of informing the ongoing work for the Norwegian HSR Study. The work was carried out by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
In developing the report it has become clear that most issues do not fall exclusively under one of the
commercial, contractual or organisational headings. Topics were assigned on the basis that:



Contractual strategy deals with what is being procured and how it is procured;
Commercial strategy broadly deals with how what is to be procured might be funded and financed;
and
Organisation is about who will do the procuring and what issues the entity, or entities, leading any
procurement required to deliver HSR (the ―Procuring Authority‖) need to address. The discussion is
split into two elements – the first considering the organisation of the rail industry in Norway after HSR
has been introduced and the second addressing the requirements of the Procuring Authority.
Organisation is necessarily last in this sequence as it is the enabler for delivering the solutions to the
contractual and commercial questions.
Each of the elements is considered in turn in the remainder of this chapter. Before this, however, a section is
included on the scope of work required in delivering a high-speed railway.
Finally, as part of this contract a market sounding exercise was undertaken, along with the examination of
case studies of similar projects. The results of this exercise are reported at the end of this chapter.
7.2.
Scope of Work in Delivering HSR
7.2.1.
Key Steps in Delivering HSR
To deliver a high-speed railway project the following elements of the project need to be considered and in
most cases specified and procured through contracts of various types:



Planning of the network and land acquisition: preparation of detailed plans, business cases,
environmental impact assessments and management of any statutory planning processes to obtain
relevant planning consents; and acquisition of land for the line(s) and for construction and access,
including compulsory acquisition. All activities need to include consideration of integration with other
land uses and transport modes and a plan to ensure the benefits of the project are realised.
Design: concept design through to detailed design of each work package – different levels of design
could be carried out by different parties.
Construction of the new infrastructure: new build dedicated high speed lines plus enhancements
to and interfaces with the existing network so that high speed trains can be operated on the existing
line as necessary. This work will typically comprise civil engineering (for example tunnelling,
excavation, structures, and permanent way including ballast, sleepers and rails) plus signalling,
communications and power supply and distribution.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
99








Maintenance of the infrastructure: scheduled lifecycle refurbishment such as periodic renewal of
track, unscheduled maintenance such as repairing damaged power lines and routine inspection and
servicing.
Operation of the infrastructure: signalling and control systems plus safety management including
providing appropriate levels of security and responding to incidents.
Rolling stock manufacture: designing, manufacturing, testing and commissioning any new high
speed trains being acquired to run on the network.
Rolling stock maintenance: scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and servicing. Scheduled
maintenance may include periodic major overhauls.
Train operations: the day to day operation of the train service including dispatch, driving, on board
customer service and ticket sales and inspection.
Property construction (stations and depots): stations, depots and stabling facilities for the rolling
stock. This may require existing property assets to be upgraded and new assets to be built as well
as integration with neighbouring property such as roads bus/ tram stations, offices or retail facilities.
Property maintenance: unscheduled and scheduled maintenance for new and enhanced property
assets.
Funding and financing: this relates to how all of the above activities will be paid for in the short
term and, if financed by loans or equity, how such amounts will be serviced in the long term.
Whilst the operation of passenger services and the provision of rolling stock is outside the scope of the
Mandate, reference has been made to these issues in this study for completeness and because these issues
are relevant to the consideration of contractual and commercial strategies.
7.2.2.
Structure of the Project Delivery Organisations
The national strategic importance and profile of HSR combined with the likely requirement for substantial
public funding means that public sector leadership for such a project is essential. In addition, the Norwegian
Government will need to ensure that the new HSR meets safety standards and that the specification of the
project meets its (the Government‘s) strategic objectives. Given Norway‘s approach to EU regulations, it is
highly likely that the Government will want to ensure that the HSR solutions comply with EU interoperability
requirements.
The private sector will likely have an important role to play in the delivery and, possibly, operation and
financing of HSR. The Government will therefore need to put in place a structure that optimizes the role of
the private sector. Currently, national network track infrastructure and the delivery of significant
enhancements are managed by the Norwegian Rail Authorities/Jernbaneverket. Manufacture of rolling stock
is undertaken by the private sector and operations are undertaken by NSB. A number of large non-rail
infrastructure projects have recently been procured in Norway using PPP-type structures and/ or private
finance.
The delivery structure for the project needs to have the following attributes:





Ability to define and focus on key strategic objectives;
Ability to mobilise appropriate levels of resource and expertise;
Ability to secure funding and finance;
Minimal bureaucracy and overhead costs; and
Not a distraction from delivering existing infrastructure which is safe and reliable.
A very simple outline of the key roles to be fulfilled in an HSR project delivery structure is as follows:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
100
Figure 7.1 – Key roles in an HSR project
Given the likely complexity of HSR schemes, interfaces with the existing infrastructure and operations and
the need to maintain focus on delivering the existing infrastructure and operations to appropriate standards,
careful consideration will need to be given to how, and the extent to which, the Norwegian rail
authorities/Jernbaneverket and NSB are involved in project delivery activities.
7.3.
Subject 1: Organisational Issues
7.3.1.
Delivery Organisations
An effective organisation structure is key to the successfully delivery of major infrastructure procurements. In
simple terms there are three critical roles:



Government: to set policy and retain ultimate responsibility for key strategic decisions such as
defining the objectives of the project;
Procuring Authority: to develop the detailed specification of what to procure, run the procurement
process to select parties to fulfil other roles and oversee the delivery of projects. The Procuring
Authority would have to ensure compatibility between different projects on the Norwegian rail
network; and
Project delivery company: such a company would be responsible for delivering the project to
specification, timescale and budget including integrating the different aspects being delivered by
different parties and ensuring the overall functionality of the project.
Beneath the Procuring Authority or the project delivery company as appropriate there will be a range of
construction and maintenance contractors, covering infrastructure and rolling stock, as well as operators of
services.
In recent years, major rail infrastructure has been procured using a variety of organisational structures. The
HSL Zuid infrastructure was delivered with the Procuring Authority contracting directly four main pieces of
work and managing the interface risk. By contrast, the Crossrail infrastructure is being procured by a
substantial team fulfilling the role of the Procuring Authority but also using a project delivery company as its
programme delivery partner to coordinate all the major strands of work being let. The thinking behind this is
that the size of the project and the risks involved necessitate a close working relationship with the
contractors and a need to encourage good working practices between contractors.
The appropriate organisation structure for delivering HSR will depend on the scale and complexity of the
works required, the degree of interface with the existing infrastructure and operations and the need to
assemble adequate resources and skills to focus on delivering the project. In the Gardermoen project,
structuring of the project companies as limited companies (not public administrative bodies) was believed to
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
101
have been beneficial in part because it enabled the project organisation to finance the project in a flexible
9
manner through both grants and loans .
7.3.2.
Industry Structure
Careful consideration needs to be given to a range of technical (e.g. technical standards, systems to be
used, gauge), commercial (how access will be allocated, who pays who for what? etc) and operational (e.g.
timetabling, ticket sales, fares, passenger information) and industry structure issues if HSR services are
introduced in Norway. Appropriate solutions will largely be driven by the extent to which the HSR solutions
rely on and interface with the existing network and operations. In general, the greater the overlap the
stronger the case is for following the existing industry structure. However, under Scenario D, where the
infrastructure is relatively separate it will be necessary to consider issues such as who should own and
maintain the infrastructure? Who can use the infrastructure and how should access charges be determined?
In general it is best to avoid creating a complex, two tier industry structure which can divert attention away
from providing the best service for customers. On the other hand, the final industry structure must
adequately accommodate HSR services and provide the right incentives to deliver both existing and high
speed services to appropriate standards in the long term.
7.4.
Subject 2: Contractual Strategy
The main messages arising from a review of contractual issues and international case studies are:







The delivery and procurement strategy needs to be focused on delivering an effective operating
model rather than on procuring infrastructure assets efficiently or suiting a particular financing
solution – the success of the solution is the consistent delivery of an appropriate quality of passenger
services for many years, not simply the completion and acceptance of new infrastructure;
There is no dominant contractual structure being used to deliver major rail infrastructure projects
internationally. Instead, structures were tailored to circumstances and the key objectives of the
project;
There is a range of contractual strategy options relating to who takes responsibility for the design,
build, operate and maintain phases of the project. It is important to understand the strengths and
weaknesses of the different options and recognise that success depends not only on the selection of
the right approach but also on ensuring that it is implemented effectively;
Contracts are a key means of allocating risk and providing incentive mechanism to manage the risk.
Careful thought needs to be given to who is best placed to manage each risk and the implications for
price of transferring risk;
Careful consideration needs to be given to decisions around packaging – bundling up activities (e.g.
design, build, operate, maintain or even individual activities in construction – preparatory works,
track laying, signalling, structures, tunnels, rolling stock) or breaking down activities. Major drivers of
decisions to bundle will be the transfer of interface risk (e.g. the risk of technical or physical
incompatibility or work not being complete on time and holding up the next activity) offset by the
need for bidders to form consortia and the potential value of contracts which could serve both to limit
bidders (because the risks can become too great) and reduce competition;
There is a need to address early the adequacy of the framework for acquiring land and obtaining
planning permission. These can be costly and time-consuming activities as evidenced by the case
studies and feedback from the market soundings. Consideration may need to be given to specific
legislation to simplify these activities; and
External regulatory requirements (EU Directives, technical standards etc) should be adopted both to
facilitate interoperability and to enable the use of best, proven technology rather than encouraging
the procurement of something that is unique to Norway as this would likely be much more costly and
result in dependencies on particular suppliers in the future.
A number of strategic issues will need to be addressed properly to create appropriate incentives for
contractors. These include:

How to encourage / enable innovation and the application of emerging best practice? This might best
be addressed by setting specifications based on outcomes or outputs rather than inputs;
9
NOU 1999:28 – Gardermoprosjektet – Evaluering av planlegging og gjennomføring (The Gardermoen project – Assessment of
planning and execution)
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
102



7.5.
How to incentivise contractors to address whole life costs (build and maintenance costs) and whole
system costs (impact of a specific asset or activity on the rest of the system) in order that their
proposals represent best value for money? Whole life costs issues are often addressed by requiring
the builder also to provide quotes to maintain the relevant asset for a significant part of its life. Whole
system cost issues may be dealt with by identifying particular problem areas (e.g. weight of
vehicles), setting out clear requirements, perhaps incentivizing the right behaviours, and evaluating
bidders‘ solutions;
What payment mechanisms to employ in order to transfer risk effectively and ensure that
infrastructure and services are delivered on time and to specification? This is typically addressed by
defining clearly how satisfactory delivery will be measured and linking compensation to delivery; and
What levels of performance (e.g. availability, reliability, maintenance downtime, capacity) are
required of assets and services in order to deliver a level of service that will support the demand
forecasts? Such specifications need to be underpinned by performance mechanisms (e.g. payment
deductions where performance levels not met, such deduction set both to compensate the operator/
passengers for poor performance and to incentivize the owner of the assets to rectify problems)
where they are believed to be critical. A challenge is to ensure that the performance of the
infrastructure is not determined on a standalone basis but is, instead, linked to the required standard
of services necessary to attract forecast levels of ridership.
Subject 3: Commercial Strategy – Scope for Self-funding
Funding relates to how the procurement of an asset is ultimately paid for. Financing refers to how the project
is paid for in the short term. As a result the cost and repayment of financing ultimately has to be funded.
The scale of major rail infrastructure projects presents a funding challenge. Whilst passenger revenue might
cover the cost of operations and elements of infrastructure maintenance, it is extremely unlikely that such
revenue will make any meaningful contribution to construction costs or any financing costs. Nevertheless it
may be appropriate to use private sector finance serviced (part or in full) from passenger revenue net of
operating cost as means of effecting the transfer of risk. Private finance may also provide a potential for
better flexibility in managing the project in an optimal manner.
Consideration might also be given to how to reduce the funding burden on the state budget. Possible
sources of funds include:




Hypothecated charges on road or aviation users, additional levies on local taxes (personal or
business) and environmental charges;
Funding by regions or cities – used extensively in the funding of the latest high speed lines in France
and in Japan;
Some form of planning levy, property tax or share of development gain reflecting the enhanced value
of land and buildings adjacent to stations which are better served by the new infrastructure; and
Contributions from businesses – Crossrail, a major rail project in the UK, has attracted significant
funding from both the City of London and the businesses of Canary Wharf which will both be served
by the new line.
The decision to use private finance is a complex one. A case needs to be made to demonstrate that the
premium paid for private finance over the cash cost of Government debt is less than the benefits achieved
from transferring risk to the private sector.
7.6.
Lessons from Case Studies and Market Soundings
A range of relevant case studies were considered including TAV in Italy, Gautrain in South Africa, the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Heathrow Airport terminal 5 and Crossrail in the UK, TGV in France as well as
major projects in Norway such as Gardermoen Airport and Gardermobanen, and the E-18 road Public
Private Partnership (―PPP‖). These are included as Appendix 1 to this study.
Drawing lessons from both international and domestic case studies is difficult because it is necessary to
understand the objectives of each procurement before being able to assess whether a particular approach
has worked well or not. Nevertheless, some important general lessons can be identified:

The costs and timescales associated with delivering major new rail infrastructure projects mean that
strong political support is required to give assurance as to the continuity of the programme and
availability of public sector funding;
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
103





Strong, dedicated project organisations are critical to the successful procurement and delivery of
working infrastructure. Such organisations need to be adequately resourced with the right skills and
experience and lead the project in a manner which gives confidence as to the deliverability of the
project against realistic timescales;
Strong project organisations need to be supported by clear objectives provided by Government, a
lack of political interference and a clear governance and decision making process;
The case studies demonstrate a wide range of different approaches to packaging or bundling of
activities and the allocation of responsibilities and risk. It is clear that this has occurred as authorities
have sought to tailor solutions to their particular circumstances and priorities;
Careful consideration will need to be given to the volume of work that can be tendered, undertaken
or financed at any point in time. The scale of rail infrastructure projects is such that they can use up
all available capacity leading to shortages of key skills and self-induced cost escalation; and
Even when letting a design, build, operate/ maintain contract it is vitally important that the Procuring
Authority continues to monitor progress and the completion of milestones. This is because whilst
much/ all of the risks may have been transferred to the contractor, if the contractor does not manage
the risks properly they will likely revert to the Procuring Authority.
The market soundings generally endorsed these lessons. The other major themes coming from the market
soundings was an unwillingness of both contractors and financiers to take demand risk and the need for the
public sector to take responsibility for land acquisitions and obtaining planning consent.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
104
Appendices
Appendix A. The Mandate
February 19, 2010
A.1.
Introduction and Summary
The Norwegian National Rail Administration is hereby given the task of assessing the issue of high-speed
railway lines in Norway. The assessment shall be organised as a project organisation. The assessment shall
include recommendations about which long-term strategies shall form the basis of the development of long
distance passenger train transport in the southern part of Norway. The assessment shall include an analysis
of whether developing high-speed railway lines could contribute to obtaining socio-economically efficient and
sustainable solutions for a future transport system with increased transport capacity, improved passability
and accessibility.
The task includes a.o.t. elucidating positive and negative consequences and costs following a potential
railway construction, as well as order of and division of the distances in stages. Advantages and
disadvantages following a construction of high-speed railway and consequences for the transport system as
a whole shall be elucidated. Different high-speed concepts shall be compared to a reference alternative:
continuing the current railway politics in the different corridors as described in National Transport Plan 20102019. Based on the analysis and the superior goals for the transport politics, one shall develop different
action alternatives with recommendations (i.e. concept/construction strategy) for each corridor. Among
others, the following corridors are to be assessed: Oslo – Kristiansand – Stavanger, Oslo – Bergen, Oslo –
Trondheim, Oslo – Gothenburg and Oslo – Stockholm. In addition, Bergen – Haugesund/Stavanger is to be
assessed in combination with Oslo – Bergen and Oslo – Kristiansand – Stavanger.
The consequences for the rest of the society are to be elucidated as thorough as possible. Deadline for the
Norwegian National Rail Administration's recommendation to the Ministry is February 1, 2012.
A.2.
Background for the Assessment Task
Many countries have implemented and/or plan to construct high-speed railway lines. This is one of the
reasons why the Ministry of Transport and Communications in 2005 gave the Norwegian National Rail
Administration the task of assessing the potential for high-speed railway lines in Norway. Following an
international announcement, a German assessment syndicate, headed by VWI, was chosen to do a
feasibility study. The last part of the study was delivered in the autumn of 2007. The Norwegian National Rail
Administration and the Ministry of Transport and Communications studied another five partial assessments
from different consultant agencies who elucidated some specific issues further on the basis of VWI's work.
This material combined formed the basis for what the Ministry of Transport and Communications
communicated about high-speed railway lines in Report No. 16 to the Storting (2008-2009) National
Transport Plan 2010-2019.
The assessment showed a.o.t. that a travel time of two to three hours between the largest cities in Southern
Norway would make high-speed railway lines competitive with airline traffic. However, the construction costs
on the distances in question will be high, one of the reasons being a challenging geography and topography.
The passenger market between the end stations was considered to be limited. The assessments also
showed that there would be no significant environment or climate effects following a high-speed railway line.
The assessment performed by VWI was not based on Norwegian benefit-to-cost methodology. This was in
part harshly criticised from economists. The analysis performed by ECON Pöyry AS, which was based on
Norwegian methodology, showed a far weaker benefit-to-cost ratio.
In Report No. 16 to the Storting (2008-2009), the government recommended improving and developing a
capacious railway network in the InterCity triangle. There was no intention of constructing separate highspeed railway lines during the plan period. It was emphasised that concepts for high-speed railway lines
must be developed further and adapted to Norwegian conditions before any construction can take place in
Norway. Thus, in Report No. 16 to the Storting (2008-2009), it was pointed out that the government would
ask the Norwegian National Rail Administration to continue working on how the potential concepts for the
construction and operation of a high-speed railway line could be adapted to Norwegian conditions.
Furthermore, it was necessary to consider more closely the possibilities for mixed traffic on a future high-
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
106
speed network. The significance of referring to the experiences in Europe and in the rest of the world,
especially with regards to financing and technology, was also stressed.
When handling the National Transport Plan 2010-2019, the majority of the Standing Committee on Transport
and Communications was in favour of the government's prioritisation of a further development of a capacious
railway network in the InterCity triangle, as well as of the necessity of a further assessment of a future highspeed railway line in Norway.
Different interest organisations and companies, many of which are in favour of realising different forms of
high-speed railway lines in Norway, e.g. Norsk Bane AS and Høyhastighetsringen AS, have performed their
own studies and assessments. For example, Norsk Bane AS has engaged consultants from Deutsche Bahn
International to perform an assessment. Deutsche Bahn International states that the passenger market
between end stations will be significant, and they suggest constructing a double track high-speed railway for
both passenger and freight traffic.
The different assessments have partially had different approaches and reached different conclusions. Thus,
both Parliament and the government are in need of further assessment of the issue of a high-speed railway
line in Norway.
A.3.
Purpose and Accomplishment
The aim of the assessment shall, in line with the conditions set in Report No. 16 to the Storting (2008-2009) /
Innst. S. nr. 300 (2008-2009), be the construction of a high-speed railway line. The assessment shall show if
it is possible to realise this aim. The Parliament has asked for a "basis for decision-making in due time before
handling the National Transport Plan in four years".
Both the government, in Soria Moria II, and the Parliament majority, on several occasions, latest in Innst. 13
S (2009-2010), have expressed clear ambitions regarding high-speed railway in Norway. It is therefore of the
utmost importance that the assessment provides the necessary elucidations for the further decision-making
process.
The final report is meant to include recommendations about which long-term strategies shall form the basis
of the development of long distance passenger train transport in the southern part of Norway. This applies to
the distances between the largest cities in Southern Norway and from Oslo to Gothenburg and Stockholm
respectively. The assessment shall provide the answer to whether a construction of a high-speed railway line
in one or more of the corridors is the right thing to do in a socio-economical aspect. The assessment shall
also include a discussion about what additional values a construction of a high-speed railway line will
represent, compared to the construction of other transport infrastructure. Issues that are to be elucidated are
a.o.t. the consequences following such a construction for settling/regional enlargement, urban and area
development, increased competitiveness for business and industry and other possible effects. The
assessment shall include considerations whether the current method for calculating consequences of new
infrastructure projects also manages to encompass the long-term effects, or if one can expect larger effects
because the changes in the transport offer are considerable. In addition, the assessment shall elucidate the
expected consequences of constructing a high-speed railway line for the civil air traffic in Norway.
Environmental and climate issues are also to be included in the assessment. One shall consider how a highspeed railway line can contribute to reaching national environmental and climate targets. Environmental
consequences such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, local emissions, noise, natural
interventions and barriers are to be discussed.
The assessment shall also explain how the railway freight transport is meant to be taken care of in the
different alternatives.
The assessment shall also include considerations concerning how the construction of a high-speed railway
line in one or more corridors can form the basis of a joint collective traffic system. Thus, one must consider
the possibility that a high-speed railway line may contribute to a larger change in the collective transportation
as a whole, and one must consider the environmental consequences this might have. The potential of
making areas outside the larger urban areas more attractive for business establishments and settling is also
to be discussed.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
107
Phases / Accomplishing the Assessment
Phase 1
As mentioned above, several assessments have already been made. The first step in the further assessment
of a high-speed railway line will be to present a collected overview of the accessible competence of the issue
in Norway, as well as the presented assessment of a high-speed railway line in Sweden. (SOU 2009: 74).
The competence in Norway comprises the assessments made by the Norwegian National Rail Administration
and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, but also accessible studies made by different
stakeholders like Norsk Bane AS, Høyhastighetsringen AS, Coinco North a.o. This material is to be
summarised in a report, which shall include recommendations about which grounds the further assessments
shall be based upon, and which areas need a deeper or broader approach.
Phase 2
An important target in phase 2 is to identify which high-speed concepts are adaptable to Norwegian
conditions. The main assessment shall explain and analyse common problems and prerequisites, followed
by analyses of the different corridors. Phase 2 shall also include market analyses, considerations of the
different conceptual solutions related to the dedicated high-speed railway lines, multi-purpose lines, stop and
station patterns, speed standard and the possibilities for a gradual development of the existing railway
network. In addition, there are issues related to revenue and costs, environment, energy consumption, winter
maintenance, organising, general cost considerations etc. These different issues shall constitute a ground for
corridor analysis and be presented in a report. It is also important that the premises may be used flexibly in
the corridor analyses.
Phase 3
Based upon the results from phases 1 and 2, phase 3 shall include concrete analyses of the different
distance alternatives with recommendations regarding long-term development strategy for the railway lines
adapted to each corridor.
The assessment work related to the high-speed railway lines must be closely coordinated with:


The Norwegian National Rail Administration's work with developing the IC network for the
Lillehammer/Skien/Halden area, following up NTP 2010-2019.
The Norwegian National Rail Administration's assessment of the capacity in the Oslo area on a
short-, semi-long- and long-term basis.
These assessments are described more closely in Chapter 5.
A.4.
The Assessment Task
Superior instructions
The Norwegian National Rail Administration shall:



Respect the aims for the transport politics described in the Parliament's National Transport Plan
2010-2019.
Obtain information about relevant international experiences from Europe and the rest of the world.
(Which conditions for constructing a high-speed railway line are present, a.o.t. population, population
structure, amount of travellers, stop pattern, homogenous or mixed traffic). Great emphasis should
be placed on experiences in countries which resemble Norway with a challenging
geography/topography and a small population, e.g. countries like Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Austria
and Switzerland.
Cooperate with the Norwegian Public Roads Administration and Avinor (the company responsible for
planning, developing and operating the Norwegian airport network), as well as with other concerned
bodies, like the Swedish authorities.
Main analysis
The Norwegian National Rail Administration shall

Assess which action alternatives are best suited in order to obtain the goals for the transport politics
in the different corridors, including a.o.t.:
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
108
- the reference alternative: continuing the current railway politics
- a more offensive further development of the current railway infrastructure, also outside the IC
area
- high-speed concepts, which in part are based on the existing network and IC strategy
- mainly separate high-speed lines

Related to the high-speed concepts, assess the following a.o.t.:
- single vs. double tracks
- pure long distance passenger traffic vs. different types of mixed traffic
- to what extent new infrastructure will replace or come in addition to the existing railway network.
Important for such an assessment will be travel time, station and stop patterns etc.

Analyse the effects of a construction in stages vs. a continuous construction distance by distance.
Carry out the market analyses which are necessary in order to perform the main analysis, including:







Assess the market conditions for different types of passenger and freight traffic in the different
assessed concepts. Investigations shall be made as to whether there could be a market for new
services with rapid freight trains (mail, packages, etc.).
Analyse the decisive factors for people when choosing train instead of airplane and car, especially
related to travel time, comfort and willingness to pay.
Some corridors, depending on concept, will have a large amount of tunnels. The assessment must
elucidate whether this can influence the passengers' preferences. In this respect, the effect on
leisure travel and tourist market must be analysed.
Location of and responsibility for building and operating new stations
Perform an assessment of station development and transfer possibilities. Describe the effect of
different station structures related to market needs and demands.
Consider integrated city stations/collective traffic hubs vs. stations outside the city centre adapted to
the needs of the high-speed railway, including combinations and passing loops. Location of stations
(stop patterns) will influence the total travel time for the passengers and thus also influence the
competitiveness vs. other means of transportation.
Consider the security of a high-speed railway line on different speeds and different types of mixed
traffic, and traffic security consequences of transferring more passenger and freight traffic from road
to railway.
Assess relevant financial conditions, including:





socio-economic analyses and benefit-to-cost considerations following current calculation methods
the effects which are not encompassed by current analysis tools
the different models for spreading risks, including possibilities for participation/contribution from the
private sector and/or local authorities, e.g. when it comes to station and stop patterns.
the consequences for the airline traffic and the airports when constructing one or more corridors of
high-speed railway, including effects on the national budget in maintaining the regional airport
network and the possibilities for avoiding/postponing greater investments in the larger airports.
if the construction of a high-speed railway line will make other potential infrastructure investments
more profitable.
Carry out the market analyses which are necessary in order to perform the main analysis, including:

Analyse relevant distances of a high-speed railway line. The following distances are included in the
assessment task:
-
Oslo – Trondheim
Oslo – Bergen
Oslo – Kristiansand – Stavanger
Oslo – Gothenburg
Oslo – Stockholm
In addition, Bergen – Haugesund/Stavanger is to be assessed in combination
Bergen and Oslo – Kristiansand – Stavanger.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
with Oslo –
109









A.5.
Assess to what extent (high)speed standards are suitable for the different corridors, or parts of
corridors.
Assess different technical aspects of the construction of high-speed railway lines
Especially consider demands and consequences of the Norwegian climate and Norwegian winter
conditions.
Consider using slab-track (i.e. track being casted in a concrete sole) vs. the traditional track using
different speed concepts and different levels of mixed traffic (both for the station area only and for
tunnels/intersections/bridges) and as a coherent concept.
Calculate greenhouse emission effects of constructing a high-speed railway line. The calculations
must include emissions from the whole lifetime of the railway, including the construction period. The
assessment must consider how other countries have calculated and weighed these effects.
Assess how the lines and profiles may be adapted to the landscape and thus mitigate barrier effects
and reduce interventions in sensitive nature, and how a restructuring of railway lines possibly can
liberate valuable nature areas. Consequences of large mass depositions for biodiversity and nature
must also be considered.
Consider to what extent the use of tilting train material could be appropriate in certain concepts. The
assessment should include the experiences from the countries having introduced and succeeded
using tilting trains, in order to elucidate what is necessary for such a success.
Consider how the trains' energy consumption and noise level is influenced by speed level, curves,
incline etc.
Increased energy consumption must be compared to the advantages of the increased speed level,
like necessity of less trains, more efficient use of personnel, etc.
Special Assessment Topics
Dealing with uncertainty etc.
Several of the conditions and issues that are to be analysed in the assessment will be uncertain. Examples
are traffic prognoses, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a consequence of expected reduced airline
and car traffic, costs and revenues, accomplishment and conclusions etc.
It is of the utmost importance to perform sound uncertainty analyses. Constructing one or more high-speed
rail distances in Norway will be a decisive choice for the allocation of transport means and will influence the
transport work in the corridors in question for many decades to come. There is great uncertainty related to
the future technological development, both within railway as well as within other transport sectors.
The assessment must therefore draw up and discuss expectations to the technological development within
the automobile and airline sector, especially emphasising energy carriers and energy consumption. This is
relevant when considering the high-speed railway lines relative environmental qualities. The assessment
shall also draw up how a more streamlined and efficient terminal handling in the airports may reduce travel
time by plane and thus increase the airline's competitiveness. These assessments should be discussed
when deciding upon travel time goals in order to make high-speed railway lines able to compete with the
airlines.
The assessment should also investigate research and experiences made of the issues above and related
issues. It is to be emphasised that the assessment shall not include any independent analysis of these
issues.
Construction costs
Constructing one or more high-speed railway lines in Norway will cost a considerable amount. It is of the
utmost importance that the assessment includes realistic calculations of costs and revenues.
A prerequisite for the construction of a high-speed railway is that the assessment identifies means of
reducing construction and maintenance costs, or reduces the cost increase in future construction projects,
compared to the cost increase during the last 10-15 years. It is important to focus on the overall costs related
to construction, maintenance and train operation during its whole lifetime. One should consider the
experiences made in other countries.
A.o.t., the assessment shall include a consideration of the organisational aspects in the planning and
construction phase, general aspects related to contract strategies and establishing a highest possible level of
project competition, the development and choice of technical standards, the development of new and more
efficient operational methods in the construction work and how the costs in the planning phase may be kept
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
110
at a low level, without this leading to more uncertainty around the project and cost estimates. This partial
assessment should be performed at an early stage and provide premises for the more concrete corridor
analyses.
Benefit-to-cost analysis
The socio-economic calculations of a potential construction should be broad and include considerations of
capacity within the existing railway system, market potential, net influence on environment and climate
during construction and operation, population basis and travel times. The assessment shall, in a superior
analysis, also consider to what extent the construction of one or more corridors will reduce the future need
for investments in roads and airports and estimate the economisation and climate effects this may represent.
The construction of a high-speed railway line will provide new premises for the transport sector, the labour
market, urban and area development, regional development and population patterns. Increased mobility
contributes to economic growth, but also leads to higher energy consumption. However, these are effects
which are difficult to quantify and price in a benefit-to-cost analysis. Such non-priced effects, like influences
on the labour market and population patterns, regional enlargements in combination with reduced pressure
on the urban areas and cultural and natural environments, shall be described as thorough as possible. In the
description of consequences, one shall make a distinction between contributions to net value creation and
pure allocational consequences.
The assessment shall make use of established Norwegian methodology, and one shall perform socioeconomic benefit-to-cost calculations of the different alternatives in the different corridors. It is important that
the socio-economic analyses are performed on the basis of a common methodology regardless of sector in
order to secure a suitable basis for the prioritisation. As a basis for the analysis serve the guidelines from the
Ministry of Finance. The main purpose for socio-economic analyses is to clarify, identify and systemise the
consequences of efforts and reforms before decisions are made. Such an analysis should also show and
consider relevant issues that are not easily calculated.
The assessment must include a consideration whether and to what extent greater economic and social
effects are relevant when and if a high-speed railway line is constructed in Norway. One may perform more
thorough analyses of significant non-priced effects. The assessment should study how other countries have
handled these challenges and compare the relevance to Norwegian conditions.
One should perform sensitivity calculations of those elements which are most essential for recommendations
in the assessment. Furthermore, it may be appropriate to consider the use of scenario analyses.
The relation to the IC strategy and capacity considerations in the Oslo area
In Report No. 16 to the Storting (2008-2009), it is stated that the remaining part of the construction strategy
for the different InterCity distances may be adapted to a future high-speed network, if suitable. This may
apply to the renewal of the speed standard of the distances, a.o.t. Furthermore, it says that the IC
construction should be adapted and combined with the potential future high-speed traffic as much as
possible, having a speed of 250 km/h and above on the long distances. One shall consider if it is appropriate
to construct for higher speeds, i.e. 250 km/h or more for future projects within the IC triangle.
It is essential for the Ministry that the further development of the IC network strategy, the handling of the
long-term capacity problem in the Oslo area (refer to task given in Instruction 1 in NTP 2014-2023 dated
16.02.2010) and the development of the strategies of the main corridors are well coordinated. It is important
that the different alternatives for the main corridors may be coordinated as much as possible with the
strategy that is being made for the IC area, and vice versa. If the Norwegian National Rail Administration,
when working with the IC strategy, should need information which depends on results from the high-speed
assessment, then the assessment should seek to address this information as soon as possible.
On one hand, it is important that the efforts for developing the IC network does not provide unfortunate
obligations for establishing strategies for the passenger traffic in the different main corridors: that one binds
oneself too early so that relevant and interesting alternatives/concepts are not considered. On the other
hand, it is vital that the efforts for establishing strategies for the main corridors do not prevent the progress in
developing the IC network. The Ministry presupposes that the Norwegian National Rail Administration
identifies common interests at an early stage and organises the work in a suitable manner, taking both parts'
interests into consideration.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
111
Market analyses
The assessment must include thorough analyses of how extensive the traffic will be in the different
alternatives in the different corridors. In this respect, one must assess the different ways a high-speed
railway line can service the passenger market between end stations, as well as the passenger end station
market.
The Ministry of Transport and Communications also stresses the need for analyses of the income level which
may be expected from ticket sale. The high-speed railway is a different product than airplane and the train of
today. Thus, it is important to investigate the payment willingness, set in relation to higher standard of
comfort and the possibility to work continuously during the journey.
Organisation
If the result of the analyses in the assessment is a recommendation for constructing a high-speed railway
line in one or more of the corridors, the costs will be considerable, both in capital and planning and
construction resources.
The assessment shall, given a recommendation, include a consideration of how the project may be
organised in the best possible way. Different models are asked for. The assessment must include an
explanation of how large a part of the operation, maintenance and investment costs that may be covered by
economic surplus from the very train operation.
Plan of accomplishment
The planning and construction phases when constructing a high-speed railway will be long and challenging.
The assessment should include a rough time frame for how such a construction may take place, which plan
processes within the physical planning that need to be coordinated in the different decision-making and
planning phases (referring to the Planning and Building Act and the authorities for quality assurance of
greater state investments) and how the operative organisation of the planning and building process may be
organised in a most efficient way. In addition, the assessment must include a consideration whether a
construction divided into stages or a continuous construction distance by distance is preferred.
A.6.
The Organising, Financing and Time Frame for the Final
Report of the Assessment
The assessment is organised as a separate project within the Norwegian National Rail Administration. An
international tender competition is to be held, so that national and international peak competence within highspeed railway and socio-economic analysis may contribute to an assessment which can constitute a firm
basis for the further decision-making process.
A managing group is to be established, as well as one or more reference groups and/or expert panels who
can contribute with professional ideas, advice and quality assurance of the different parts of the assessment
work. The managing group is to be chaired by a representative from the Norwegian National Rail
Administration and will serve under the instruction authority of the Director General of the Norwegian
National Rail Administration. The assessment shall be based on the Norwegian National Rail
Administration's best professional judgment. The project organisation and the managing group must have
competence of international high-speed projects.
Reports about progress, finance and results from the assessment work are to be delivered regularly to the
Ministry of Transport and Communications.
The assessment is financed by the Norwegian National Rail Administration's budget for planning means,
chapter 1350, post 30. The budget limit for the assessment is NOK 50 million.
The Ministry of Transport and Communications is asking for an open process with seminars and the
possibility for ideas in written from different stakeholders during the process. One should place great
emphasis on external communication in the assessment process and separate means should be allocated to
this purpose, e.g. by creating a web site, writing regular newsletters etc.
The high-speed railway assessment is performed as a separate assessment. On the basis of the
assessment, the Norwegian National Rail Administration will present its recommendations to the Ministry of
Transport and Communications no later than February 1, 2012.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
112
Relevant results and recommendations are to be integrated in the departments' plan suggestions for
National Transport Plan 2014-2023.
The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment – Summary of Phase 2 Works | Version 2.0 | 26 May
2011
113