Cost-Benefit Analysis of Overhead Line Island Systems

Initial Situation

The Public Transport Association Rhineland-Palatinate South, together with DB InfraGO AG, is planning overhead line island systems in the southern Palatinate.

The measure involves converting a 240 km railway network in Rhineland-Palatinate to electric trains. To enable flexible deployment of battery trains (BEMU), charging stations as overhead line island systems are planned in individual station areas, along with partial new electrifications on certain track sections.

Task

For the construction of the overhead line island systems and the partial new electrifications, investments arise that are to be funded through the GVFG federal program. Therefore, a standardized evaluation was prepared in coordination with the funding bodies (federal government, state of Rhineland-Palatinate). Since this is a DB measure, the Federal Railway Authority (EBA) is also involved in the review.

Approach

The standardized evaluation was carried out according to the “Simplified Procedure for Electrification Measures and the Construction of Refueling and Charging Infrastructure for Alternative Drives,” version 2016+.

In the simplified procedure, the scope of work is significantly reduced compared to the standard procedure. The application of the simplified procedure is possible because the operational concepts do not change with the measure. In the simplified procedure, the summed partial indicators for the without-case and with-case are presented side by side. In the with-case, in addition to operating costs, CO2 emission and pollutant costs, and primary energy consumption, the costs of the required infrastructure are also taken into account.

Results

In the with-case, the costs are significantly lower than in the without-case, even when considering the necessary investments for the overhead line installations.

The greatest benefit of the measure arises from the reduction of CO2 emission costs, lower pollutant emissions, and reduced primary energy consumption. These benefits are offset by additional infrastructure costs, and the operating costs are higher due to vehicle capital service and maintenance. Energy costs decrease with electrification.

The simplified evaluation demonstrates that the measure is economically viable and that funding under the GVFG is possible.