Energy Efficiency in Railways
Technical Aspects
Prof.
Dr.
‐
Ing.
Markus
Hecht
TU
‐
Berlin
/
FG
Schienenfahrzeuge
/
Salzufer 17
‐
19
/
Office
SG
14,
D
‐
10587
Berlin
www.schienenfzg.tu
‐
berlin.de
markus.hecht@tu
‐
berlin.de
markus.hecht@tu berlin.de
Railway transport
Changes in world wide passenger
transport from 2000-2014
(Index 2000 = 100)
Changes in world wide freight
transport from 2000-2014
(Index 2000 = 100)
2
000 =
100]
2
000 =
100]
o
lume [Index
2
o
lume [Index
2
T
raffic V
o
T
raffic V
o
Positiv-/Negative-
Pkm Passenger Rail
Positiv-/Negative-
tkm Freight Rail
Positiv-/Negative-Scenario
Positiv-/Negative-Scenario
Pkm Passenger Rail
Transport
tkm Freight Rail
Transport
CO
2
– Emissions in Freight transport in g / tkm
96
78
96
23
35
rt
rt
w
ay
craft
2
il
transpo
r
G
ermany
il
transpo
r
w
itzerland
u
ck
e
et
wide)
ruck
0
t
and water
w
2
Ra
In
G
Ra
S
w
Tr
u
(fl
e
T
r
4
0
Inl
EU-Projects and Projects with local Partners
/
ECORailS with
TSB/FAV,
SenStadt Berlin,
et.
al.
•
Evaluating
technologies
and
operational
measures
regarding
energy
efficiency,
environment
‐
friendliness
and
Life
Cycle
Costs
Waste Heat Recovery for Power Generation with Voith/Amovis
Waste
Heat
Recovery
for
Power
Generation
with
Voith/Amovis
•
Studies
on
the
degree
of
efficiency
of
ORC
‐
and
Kalina
‐
Process
in
DMU
and
Locomotives
•
Feasibility
studies
regarding
package
problems
Energy
Saving
at
the
NEB
•
Measurement
of
the
energy
distribution
in
the
powertrain during
regular
operation
•
Simulation
of
the
vehicle
longitudinal
dynamics
•
Cost
‐
Benefit
‐
Analysis
of
technologies
and
operational
measures
to
reduce
the
fuel
consumption
consumption
Studies
on
Functional
Requirements
of
Driver
Assistance
Systems
for
Freight
Transport
at
the
HVLE
•
Determination
of
position
using
dGPS,
inertial
navigation
and
vehicle
dynamics
p
otential
Pollutants emissions savings potential
Economic potential (on LCC basis)
Noise
n
d
o
rt
n
a
l
n
a
l
v
ing
v
ing
s
ion
a
l
c
ost
st
o
st
D
C)
o
ise
I
n
ergy savings
p
T
echnologies a
n
operational
measures (sh
o
name)
CO2 emissio
n
saving
potenti
a
NOx emissio
n
saving potenti
a
O
emission sa
v
potential
C
emission
sa
v
potential
a
ticulate emis
s
saving potenti
a
m
plementation
c
(IC)
O
perational co
(OC)
M
aintenance c
o
(MC)
isposalo
c
ost
(D
D
if
ference
in N
o
Emissions
(Indicator: TS
Noise)
E
n
T
C
O
H
C
P
a
Im
O
M
D
i
D
Energy recovery
DT
35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% High: > 1% of initial investment of the vehicle Lower in comparison with a situation without solution implementation Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle reduced starting noise + reduced pass-by noise in braking phaseEnergy recovery
depends on energy mixdepends on energy mix depends on energy depends on energy mix depends on
energy mix High: > 1% of
Lower in comparison
with a situation Low: < 0,1% of Low: < 0,1% of reduced pass-by
Energy recovery
ET
20-30% energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary on energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary initial investment of the vehicle with a situation without solution implementation initial investment of the vehicle initial investment of the vehicle noise in braking phaseEco Driving
without electronic
assists
2-5% 2-5% 2-5% 2-5% 2-5% 2-5% Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle Lower in comparison with a situation without solution implementation Low: < 0,1% of initial investment ofthe vehicle (training
measures for driving
personal)
none no effect
personal)
Eco Driving with
assistens
systems
5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% Medium: 0,1% ÷ 1% of initial investment of the vehicle (aprox. 30000€ per drivers cab) Lower in comparison with a situation without solution implementation Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle no effectStand-by and
depends on depends on depends depends on depends onLow: < 0 1% of Lower in comparison Low: < 0 1% of Low: < 0 1% of
y
comfort functions
(ET)
2-5% energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary on energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary energy mix at the catenary Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle with a situation without solution implementation Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehicle Low: < 0,1% of initial investment of the vehiclereduced stand still noise
Measurement
Analysis
0% Traktionsarbeit [kWh] Arbeit an der Hydrostatikpumpe [kWh] Arbeit am Generator [kWh] Arbeit am Luftkompressor [kWh] Arbeit am Klimakompressor [kWh] durchschnittliche Fahrtdauer [h] Streckenlänge [km] verrichtete Arbeit pro Fahrzeug [kWh] streckenbezogene Arbeit [kWh/km] Karow ‐ Basdorf 17.88 0.82 1.15 0.11 0.53 0.20 13.40 40.99 3.06 Karow ‐ Groß Schönebeck 58.82 3.07 4.46 0.37 1.79 0.67 37.50 137.01 3.65 Karow ‐ Wensickendorf 27.79 1.46 1.91 0.19 0.93 0.35 27.90 64.57 2.31 Karow ‐ Klosterfelde 31.19 1.58 1.99 0.22 1.07 0.40 22.80 72.09 3.16 Lichtenberg ‐ Kostrzyn 115.13 6.15 7.29 0.72 3.47 1.30 80.40 265.50 3.30 Lichtenberg ‐ Kostrzyn (express) 97.13 5.20 5.96 0.63 3.07 1.15 80.40 223.98 2.79 87% 5% 5% 3% Traktionsarbeit [kWh] Arbeit an der Hydrostatikpumpe [kWh]Arbeit am Generator [kWh] Arbeit am Luftkompressor [kWh] Arbeit am Klimakompressor [kWh]
S
ti
Shortest
Time
Possible
Energy
Efficient
Driving
Low
friction
y
Suggestions
Name des Systems Integrationsgrad Einsparpotential *
Driver Assistant Systems
Ve
lo
c
it
y
Name des Systems Integrationsgrad Einsparpotential 1
ZF TopoDyn + EcoLife sehr hoch bis zu 25% ESF mit EBuLa der DB sehr hoch 10‐15% Bombardier EBI Drive hoch bis zu 10% Knorr‐Bremse LEADER hoch bis zu 10%
