X hits on this document





41 / 67

IFEU Heidelberg


savings for all rail vehicles in % per 10 % weight reduction. Afterwards, the following train types and their average energy consumptions and savings will be dealt with sepa- rately:

  • Short distance passenger trains

    • o

      Subways/ Urban trains (electric)

      • o

        Regional trains (electric)

  • Long distance passenger trains

      • o

        Average passenger trains (electric)

      • o

        High speed trains (electric)

  • Long distance freight trains

      • o

        Electric freight trains

      • o

        Diesel freight trains

6.1 Relative energy savings for rail vehicles

Only few tests and simulations have been carried out for the relative energy savings of rail vehicles ([BÜTTNER 1998], [BÜTTNER & HEYN 1999], [EHINGER et al. 2000]). Tab. 17 shows the existing data. The weight “… is most important for stopping trains, in particular commuter and local trains stopping each 2-4 km. In such cases repeated ac- celerations may contribute to 70-80 % of energy consumption” ([ANDERSSEN 2000]). Data for short distance regional trains and subways/ urban trains are therefore on the high end of the spectrum and range between 6.6 % and 8.6 % for a 10 % weight re- duction. Two different values are stated for subways and urban trains, which may be due to energetic recovery systems, the age of trains and the geographical location. Subways and urban trains can be assumed to have higher relative energy savings than regional trains because of their more frequent accelerations. Therefore 8 % relative en- ergy savings will be used for subways and 7 % for regional trains.

High speed passenger trains are on the low end of the spectrum due to their high and steady speed. Relative energy savings for normal long distance passenger trains will be a little bit higher, but still considerably lower than for short distance trains. A fig- ure of 4 % will be used for the average long distance passenger train. This figure is also in line with the share of aerodynamic resistance consuming more than 50 % of the total energy consumption according to [ANDERSSEN 2000] and [BRUNNER & GARTNER 1999].

Train type


Relative energy sa vings [%/ 10%]

Subway/ Urban train Subway/ Urban train Regional train High speed passenger train

[EHINGER et al. 2000] [BÜTTNER & HEYN 1999] [BÜTTNER & HEYN 1999] [BÜTTNER & HEYN 1999]

8.6 6.6 7 3.2

Tab. 17: Overview of relative energy savings for rail vehicles

IFEU 2003

Currently no studies are available on the relative direct energy savings by weight re- duction for freight trains. Communication with experts ([LUKASZEWICZ 2002], [EHINGER 2002]) showed that indirect rather than direct energy savings are the primary

Energy savings by light-weighting

Document info
Document views223
Page views223
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 21:40:52 UTC 2017