DEGREE PROJECT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020

An Analysis of Fossil-free
Alternatives for Swedish
Railway
MARTINA KOMUHENDO

YUANJIAN ZHAI

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
 TRITA ABE-MBT-20394

An Analysis of Fossil-free Alternatives for

Swedish Railway

Master’s thesis

Martina Komuhendo
&
Yuanjian Zhai

School of Architecture and the Built Environment

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Stockholm, Sweden

June 2020

ii
iii
Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to our families, friends and classmates who through their support, the journey to
complete the thesis was made possible. We would like to appreciate all the individuals who availed
themselves to provide us with their time to clarify and provide insight during our research: “Magnus
Forsen (Bombardier)”, “Andreas Frixen (Alstom)”, “Christer Löfving (Trafikverket Strategic
Development)” and “Mats Berg ( KTH Rail Vehicle Division)”. The data, advice and perspective
provided was greatly appreciated.

We would most of all like to thank our supervisors Anders Lindahl (KTH), Ingrid Johansson (KTH)
and Patrik Dimberg (Alstom) for the assistance and guidance they provided during this process
especially during the regular meetings, positive criticism, feedback, help getting in touch with various
individuals for interviews and ideas when we faced challenges.

Gratitude goes to Alstom Sweden for providing the topic and allowing us to divulge into this topic.

Martina Komuhendo & Yuanjian Zhai, Stockholm, June 2020

iv
Abstract
The transport sector is a major contributor to the rise in global temperatures and emissions. The use of
fossil fuel being one of the main drivers, most modes of transport are looking at alternatives to the
limited and environmentally unsustainable fuels. Despite the railway sector being considered the more
‘green’ alternative mode of transport as compared to other modes like air, there exist more work that
is required to make the railway sector as efficient and green as possible especially the significant
percentage of the railway networks that are still non-electrified. These lines tend to be short, isolated
and in some instances with seasonal traffic, hence there not being an urgent need to electrify.

The cost of electrification is usually costly especially in terms of initial infrastructure development and
alternatives are needed where the cost of electrification is not viable. The main objective of this report
is to analyze the current fossil-free alternatives that are available or soon to be available on the market
and determine which alternative is suitable for a specific non-electrified line considering factors such
as cost, impact to the environment and the long-term strategy. As this is a complex analysis, the authors
of this report will utilize the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) model to determine the most suitable
choice for each line. The AHP model is one of the multicriteria methods developed to deconstruct
complex situations into simple levels with the first level containing the goal: determining the viability
of a fossil-free alternative that may be suitable for a particular railway line using the various criteria
and sub-criteria.

The results differed along the various railway lines with Fryksdalsbanan, Tjustbanan, Hällnäs-
Lycksele, Kinnekullebanan and Vaggerydsbanan having battery-operated trains as the optimal choice
while the Mellerud-Bengtsfors, Stångådalsbanan, both Inlandsbanan (North and South), Halmstad-
Nässjö, Bockabanan and Nässjö-Vetlanda favoring the hydrogen-fueled trains.

In conclusion, both the battery-operated and hydrogen-fueled trains are viable options on the short,
low-demand railway lines while the electric trains and diesel-fueled trains are expensive and
environmentally unsuitable, respectively.

Keywords: fossil-free alternatives, railway, costs, environmental impact, AHP, Sweden.

v
Sammanfattning
Transportsektorn är en stor bidragande orsak för den ökande globala temperaturen och
koldioxidutsläpp. Då fossila bränslen är en av de främsta anledningarna till ökningen så letar
transportsektorn efter ett alternativ till de ändliga och miljöfarliga bränsleslagen. Även då järnvägen
generellt räknats som det mer ”gröna” sättet att resa på om man jämför med andra sätt som till exempel
att flyga, så finns det fortfarande mycket inom järnvägen som behöver förbättras och effektiviseras för
att få järnvägssektorn att bli så grön och miljövänlig som möjligt. Då syftar vi speciellt på den andel
av järnvägen som ännu inte är elektrifierad. Dessa järnvägslinjer tenderar att vara korta, isolerade
delsträckor och i vissa fall endast erbjuda säsongstrafik och har på grund av detta inte ansetts behöva
vara elektrifierade.

Kostnaden för att elektrifiera järnvägssträckor är vanligtvis hög. Speciellt vid uppgradering av redan
existerande infrastruktur. Man kommer även vara tvungen att hitta andra lösningar där uppgraderingen
till elektrifierade järnvägslinjer skulle kosta så mycket att det inte skulle anses rimligt. Huvuduppgiften
för den här rapporten är att analysera de nuvarande fossilfria alternativ som finns tillgängliga (nu eller
som snart kommer finnas tillgängliga), för att fastställa vilket alternativ som bäst lämpar sig till en
specifik linje som ej är eldriven med hänsyn till kostnad, miljöpåverkan och långtidsstrategi. Då detta
är en komplicerad analys så kommer författarna av denna rapport använda sig av den analytiska
hierarkiska processmodellen (AHP) för att avgöra de lämpligaste alternativen för varje enskild
järnvägslinje. AHP- modellen är en av metoderna för problem med flera kriterier som utvecklats för
att dela upp komplicerade situationer till enkla steg där det slutliga steget når målet: Att avgöra
huruvida ett fossilfritt alternativ kan vara lämpligt för en specifik järnvägslinje genom att tillgodose
alla kriterier och delkriterier.

Resultaten skilde sig åt mellan olika järnvägslinjer med Fryksdalsbanan, Tjustbanan, Hällnäs-Lycksele,
Kinnekullebanan och Vaggerydsbanan var batteridrivna tåg som det bästa valet medan vätgasdrivna
tåg var bättre för Mellerud-Bengtsfors, Stångådalsbanan, båda Inlandsbanan (Nord and Söder),
Halmstad-Nässjö, Bockabanan och Nässjö-Vetlanda.

Sammanfattningsvis är både batteridrivna och vätgasdrivna tåg livskraftiga alternativ på de korta

järnvägslinjerna med låg trafik medan EMU är dyra och för dieseldrivna tåg är dåligt för miljö

Keywords: fossilfritt alternativ, järnväg, kostar, påverkan på miljön, AHP, Sverige.

vi
Definitions and Acronyms
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
GDP: Gross Domestic Product.
GHG: Green House Gases.
NOx: Nitrogen oxides.
PM: Particulate Matter.
Mtoe: million tons of energy.
AHP model: analytical hierarchy process model.
MCA: Multicriteria Analysis.
NE: New Energy train in Japan.
BEMU: Battery Electric Multiple Unit.
EMU: Electric Multiple Unit.
IPEMU: Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit
RTRI: Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute.
JR: Japan Railway company.
CO2: carbon dioxide.
GWP: global warming potential.
BOP: balance of plant, a component of the fuel cell vehicle system.
PEM: proton electrolyte membrane, a component of the fuel cell.
LCA: life cycle analysis.
LCC: Life cycle cost.
GREET: Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions and energy use in transport.
LiB: Lithium-ion Batteries.

vii
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. v

Sammanfattning .................................................................................................................................... vi

Definitions and Acronyms ...................................................................................................................vii

Figures.................................................................................................................................................... x

Tables ...................................................................................................................................................xii

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 14

1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 18

1.3 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 19

1.4 Thesis structure........................................................................................................................... 20

2. Literature review .............................................................................................................................. 22

2.1 Definition.................................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 23

2.3 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 25

3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Overview of AHP method .......................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Implementation of AHP method ................................................................................................ 29

4. Overview of non-electrified railway in Sweden .............................................................................. 34

5. Fossil-free alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Battery trains .............................................................................................................................. 38

5.2 Hydrogen trains .......................................................................................................................... 44

5.3 Electric trains .............................................................................................................................. 48

5.4 Diesel trains ................................................................................................................................ 48

5.5 Selection of trains for the study .................................................................................................. 49

6. Costs................................................................................................................................................. 50
viii
 6.1 Train costs .................................................................................................................................. 50

6.2 Infrastructure costs ..................................................................................................................... 51

6.3 Fuel costs .................................................................................................................................... 54

6.4 Maintenance costs ...................................................................................................................... 61

6.5 Track access charges .................................................................................................................. 64

6.6 Overview of Costs ...................................................................................................................... 67

7. Long-term strategy ........................................................................................................................... 68

7.1 Traffic demand ........................................................................................................................... 68

7.2 Capital expenditure estimation ................................................................................................... 69

7.3 Operating cost estimation ........................................................................................................... 70

7.4 Overall cost estimation ............................................................................................................... 71

7.5 Suitability of different alternatives ............................................................................................. 74

7.6 Potentiality of different alternatives ........................................................................................... 75

8. Environmental impact ...................................................................................................................... 78

8.1 Life cycle analysis ...................................................................................................................... 78

8.2 Overall Environmental impact ................................................................................................... 98

9. Evaluation of alternatives .............................................................................................................. 101

9.1 Establishment of an evaluation system .................................................................................... 101

9.2 Evaluation of rail transport alternatives ................................................................................... 103

9.3 Results of the evaluation .......................................................................................................... 106

10. Conclusion and discussion ........................................................................................................... 113

10.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 113

10.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 114

10.3 Further research ...................................................................................................................... 115

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 116

ix
Figures
Figure 1: The amount of emissions per sector (Chapman, 2007). ....................................................... 15
Figure 2: The relationship of the greenhouse emissions to the GDP of a country (Statistics Sweden,
n.d.). ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3: The current Swedish railway network showing the electrified and non-electrified sections
.............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4: The workflow of the thesis work .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 5; The standard AHP model structure .................................................................................... 29
Figure 6: The non-electrified lines with passenger traffic ................................................................... 34
Figure 7: The percentage of electrified railway lines in Sweden out of the lines currently in use (UIC
Synopsis, 2020) .................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 8: The general structure of the Battery electric multiple units (Yoshida & In, 2012) .............. 38
Figure 9: A simplification how battery electric trains operate (Molyneux et al., 2010)...................... 41
Figure 10: Results of the battery performance of the train during winter and summer along the
Karasuyama line (Yoshida & In, 2012) ............................................................................................... 42
Figure 11: The battery performance as the elevation varies (Yoshida & In, 2012)............................. 42
Figure 12: The image shows the Alstom Coradia continental (BEMU) (Alstom, 2020). ................... 43
Figure 13: IPEMU-Essex railcar (Bombardier, 2015). ........................................................................ 44
Figure 14: UK Hydroflex train (Thorne et al., 2019) .......................................................................... 44
Figure 15: The technology of the Alstom Coradia iLint (Alstom, 2020). ........................................... 47
Figure 16: A sketch showing the location of the transformer and main converter on an AC EMU (Hata,
1998). ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 17: Alstom Coradia Lint 54 DMU (Alstom, 2019) .................................................................. 49
Figure 18: The charging system when in operation and stationery (Yoshida & In, 2012). ................. 52
Figure 19: Basic configuration of a hydrogen refueling station (Parker, 2007). ................................. 53
Figure 20: Costs for Frysksdalsbanan (left) and for Mellerud-Bengtsfors (right) ............................... 72
Figure 21: Costs for Tjustbanan (left) and Stångådalsbanan (right) .................................................... 72
Figure 22: Costs for the Inlandsbanan-North (left) and Inlandsbanan-South (right)........................... 72
Figure 23: Costs for Hällnäs-Lycksele (left) and Kinnekullebanan (right) ......................................... 73
Figure 24: Costs for Nässjö-Halmstad (left) and Vaggerydsbanan (right) .......................................... 73
Figure 25: Costs for the Bockabanan (left) and the Nässjö-Vetlanda (right) ...................................... 73
Figure 26: Suitability of each alternative under different situations.................................................... 74
Figure 27: Share of each type of cost for running battery trains ......................................................... 75

x
Figure 28: Share of each type of cost for running hydrogen trains ..................................................... 76
Figure 29: Share of each type of cost for running electric trains ......................................................... 76
Figure 30: Share of each type of cost for running diesel trains ........................................................... 77
Figure 31: The standard life cycle analysis phases according to ISO 14040....................................... 80
Figure 32: The main components of a lithium-ion battery .................................................................. 82
Figure 33: A schematic illustration of a Lithium cell adopted from Romare & Dahllöf (2017) ......... 83
Figure 34: The relationship between the increase in battery capacity to the amount of CO2 emissions
(Ambrose & Kendall, 2016). ............................................................................................................... 86
Figure 35: The amount of emissions produced during recycling (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017). ............ 87
Figure 36: The total average emissions per life cycle stage ................................................................ 89
Figure 37: The fuel cell schematic typically used in a hydrogen train (Föger, 2008). ........................ 90
Figure 38: Weight distribution within the fuel cell using a baseline scenario of a hydrogen vehicle
(Evangelisti et al., 2017) ...................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 39: The various different results on the global warming potential of the fuel cell at the
manufacturing stage (Evangelisti et al., 2017)..................................................................................... 91
Figure 40: The average amount of emissions due to the various components of the fuel cell stack during
their life cycle (Berger, 2017) .............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 41: GWP of the various stages of the life cycle of a typical ICE diesel engine unit (Li et al.,
2013) and (MacLean & Lave, 2003).................................................................................................... 94
Figure 42: GWP comparison between the diesel engines of the Lint 54 and WD615.87 with considering
the raw materials. ................................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 43: The overall environmental impact of the different train alternatives along the unelectrified
lines for thirty years (expected life span of the train vehicle).............................................................. 99
Figure 44: The environment impact of each alternative in terms of % to the other options ............. 100
Figure 45: The evaluation system regarding rail vehicle alternatives ............................................... 103

xi
Tables
Table 1: Relative importance scale used for criteria and description .................................................. 30
Table 2: Relative performance scale of alternatives and description .................................................. 32
Table 3: The non-electrified lines with passenger traffic .................................................................... 35
Table 4: Specifications of rail vehicles along the identified non-electrified lines ............................... 36
Table 5: Battery electric multiple units currently in operation and the prototypes globally ............... 39
Table 6: The summary of the existing hydrogen trains (Thorne et al., 2019) ..................................... 46
Table 7: The features of the battery train ............................................................................................. 57
Table 8: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for battery train ................................. 57
Table 9: The features of hydrogen train ............................................................................................... 58
Table 10: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for hydrogen train ........................... 58
Table 11: The features of electric train ................................................................................................ 59
Table 12: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for electric train .............................. 60
Table 13: The features of diesel train .................................................................................................. 60
Table 14: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for the diesel train........................... 61
Table 15: Maintenance costs of battery trains after completing a single trip on lines......................... 62
Table 16: Maintenance costs of hydrogen trains after completing a single trip on lines..................... 62
Table 17: Maintenance costs of electric trains after completing a single trip on lines ........................ 63
Table 18: Maintenance costs of diesel trains after completing a single trip on lines .......................... 63
Table 19: Track access charges for battery trains on lines .................................................................. 64
Table 20: Track access charges for hydrogen trains on lines .............................................................. 65
Table 21: Track access charges for electric trains on lines .................................................................. 66
Table 22: Track access charges for diesel trains on lines .................................................................... 66
Table 23: The annual number of trips per each line section in the 1st year and 30th year .................. 68
Table 24: Minimum number of trains and the quantity of rail infrastructure for each line section..... 70
Table 25: The amount of emissions produced per different LCA method used .................................. 84
Table 26: The average sum of the GHG according to Romare & Dahllöf (2017) from the various
components of the battery .................................................................................................................... 85
Table 27: Life cycle impact of each battery component (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017). ......................... 88
Table 28: The estimated global warming potential of the train over its life ........................................ 92
Table 29: The calculated emissions produced during operation on the various non-electrified lines . 96
Table 30: The amount of emissions produced by the ICE diesel engine of its life cycle .................... 97
Table 31: Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria .............................................................................. 106

xii
Table 32: Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criterion (costs) ......................................................... 107
Table 33: Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criterion (long-term strategy).................................... 107
Table 34: Pairwise comparison matrix of all criteria and sub-criteria ............................................... 108
Table 35: Pairwise comparison matrix of alternatives in terms of each criterion ............................. 109
Table 36: Total weight of each alternative ........................................................................................ 110
Table 37: Results of all non-electrified lines ..................................................................................... 112

xiii
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The growth of population coupled with technological advancement has played a
significant impact on people and the environment (Doyle & Muneer, 2017). The various
human activities carried out in pursuit of economic development have created great
advancements for mankind as whole however, the far-reaching adverse effects of these
activities include most importantly climate change. Energy is an important aspect of
daily human life; the various human activities have shown a global growth in energy
consumption and resource depletion. The term climate change is most notably
measured by the increase in temperatures of the earth which in turn leads to changes in
the various eco-systems (Button, 2008). According to various studies, the change can
be readily attached to the emissions released as a result of the various anthropogenic
activities being carried out that exhaust the limited natural resources such as fossil fuels
(van Essen, 2008).

The Figure 1 below shows the amount of emissions per sector with the transport sector
contributing 26% of the global carbon dioxide emissions, the second highest among the
sectors (Chapman, 2007). The different fuels are consumed by the transport sector with
fossil fuels accounting for nearly 97%, natural gas 2%, electricity 1% and the
renewables <0.5% in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
countries (OECD) of which Sweden is a member.

The fossil fuels such as oil and its by-products are the dominant cause for the transport
sector having such high emissions (Chapman, 2007). It was estimated in 2016 that the
transport sector alone consumed approximately 2748 million tons of oil equivalent
(Mtoe) energy which made up 29% of the total world’s entire energy consumption in
that year (Dai et al., 2019).

14
 Figure 1: The amount of emissions per sector (Chapman, 2007).

1.1.1 Environmental issues

With a population of more than 10 million and a high national GDP, Sweden is regarded
as one of the most affluent countries in Scandinavia. With the population expanding
and country developing, Sweden is now facing some environmental issues that could
potentially harm people, change the climate, and even obstruct the further development
of each industry (Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, n.d.). These include
environmental issues such as global warming, air pollution, natural catastrophes and
extinction of species due to human activities that require special focus.

Nowadays, the Swedish population is at risk of air pollution (Statistics Sweden, n.d.).
Even though Sweden has one of Europe’s lowest levels of air pollution, there are still
many people and their health influenced by worse air quality. Around 7600 people die
prematurely due to exposure to some pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate
matter. According to some relevant studies, the high levels of nitrogen dioxide are
mainly caused by transport emissions with an increased proportion of diesel vehicles
exacerbating the problem. Because each death corresponds to a loss of roughly 11 years
of life, the annual cost to the society is estimated to the amount of at least SEK 56
billion in 2015.

15
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are keeping increasing continuously in Sweden.
GHG emissions increased by 1.1% in the second quarter of 2019 compared with the
same time period in 2018 as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: The relationship of the greenhouse emissions to the GDP of a country (Statistics Sweden, n.d.).

Besides, global energy consumption is increasing, and facing the problem of a shortage
of fossil fuels in the coming decades with the demand for fossil fuels peaking and
estimated in the next 50 years to be exhausted (Solar impulse foundation, 2020).
Therefore, human will need to change their behaviors to avoid or at least minimize the
bleak future, making the world better.

1.1.2 Swedish fossil-free vision

Based on the decision by the parliament, Sweden aims to be one of the world’s first
fossil-free nations by 2045( Axelsson, 2018). Fossil-free Sweden was initiated by the
Swedish government ahead of the COP21 climate change conference in Paris in 2015.In
the beginning it was more like a vision, but with the ongoing public climate movement
and activists such as Greta Thunberg, the vision has become a goal. All enterprises,
municipalities, associations, and other types of actors must follow this goal to carry out
the work to be responsible for reducing GHG emissions and the environmental impact.
There is no doubt that some new policies and new technological solutions will be
implemented and developed in decades. As one of the most significant parts of the
world, transport sector; which is responsible for approximately 29% of the total energy
demand that is the leading cause for almost three-quarters of the carbon emissions,
16
requires to implement the change to achieve fossil-free transport modes (Fragiacomo
& Piraino, 2019).

1.1.3 Current status of rail lines and rail technology

In the 1930s, Sweden undertook a major project of electrifying its railway network
concentrating mainly on the main lines (Sweden - Energy Union and innovation |
Mobility and Transport, n.d.). As a result of this initiative, today approximately 75% of
the Swedish railway lines are electrified while around 3300 km in total of railway lines
are non-electrified, where diesel trains are mainly operating. The Figure 3 below
shows the authors’ own drawing to display the current location of the various electrified
and non-electrified lines in Sweden with the water areas included. On the map, red lines
represent electrified lines while the blue lines represent non-electrified lines.

Figure 3: The current Swedish railway network showing the electrified and non-electrified sections

17
It can be inferred that current old diesel trains will soon need to be replaced with fossil-
free trains due to the end of life cycle of trains and the goal of fossil-free nation. When
it comes to fossil-free trains, apart from electrified trains that are mostly used now,
other types of trains such as hydrogen trains, biofuel and battery trains are also possible
alternatives that are developed by some companies as substitutes for the fossil fueled
trains. Due to the costs incurred to implement electrification, only the tracks with high
passenger and freight demand are electric to justify the initial cost of the electrical
infrastructure as a result, many smaller lesser used lines remain non-electrified and
using diesel (Niggemann & Betreuender, 2009). Diesel trains affect the local
communities and ecosystem due the pollutants released. These pollutants include diesel
exhaust, nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds,
Sulphur oxides and many other compounds considered harmful to the air quality.

Therefore, it is necessary and urgent to study and analyze all practical fossil-free
alternatives in Sweden to figure out the optimal alternatives that can be applied to
railway sector under the background above and how Swedish railway especially the
part of non-electrified railway is going to develop well in the future.

1.2 Objectives
The objective of this project is to explore and study the potentiality and feasibility of
using some different fossil-free alternatives for Swedish railway to replace
conventional diesel trains running on non-electrified railway lines from technological,
operational, cost-benefit and environmental perspectives. Under the overall objective,
there are some small phased objectives as follows:

(1) Identify the non-electrified sections of railway and find out the propulsion of the
vehicles currently used and the reasons why it is used including both the infrastructural
and operational perspective. This includes factors such as geographical features,
capacity utilization and the general public opinion to the existing train vehicles.

(2) Analyze the characteristics of some different fossil-free alternatives such as

electrified trains, hydrogen trains and battery trains from different aspects and the
external impact of different alternatives from a long-term perspective.

18
(3) Apply the AHP model to identify the most suitable alternative for identified non-
electrified railway tracks. Then figure out the competitiveness of each alternative to
give clients options.

1.3 Scope
The project plans to concentrate on only the non-electrified railway lines operating with
passenger traffic in Sweden and different fossil-free alternatives: electrified trains,
hydrogen trains, battery trains. This scope is defined by the overall objective that study
the feasibility of applying fossil-free alternatives to non-electrified railway lines in
Sweden. In addition, this project only considers passenger traffic due to some
limitations of current technology of fossil-free alternatives, the alternatives that are
going to be studied are mainly about multiple unit trains mostly used in passenger traffic
rather than conventional trains with locomotives.

The project is considered from two aspects: demand side and supply side. The purpose
of the demand is to know the status of non-electrified railway lines and their operation
to understand what and why rail transport looks like, and what is needed for operation.
That is the demand of non-electrified railways for passenger traffic. As a result of the
project background, new different fossil-free alternatives must be applied replacing old
diesel trains running on non-electrified railway lines. In this case, the supply side is
introduced into the project. Through securing and understanding the characteristics of
each fossil-free alternatives as well as different attitudes from the authority side, it can
be analyzed if new options could meet the demand after comparisons. As for different
fossil-free options, it can also be known which fossil-free option is the most suitable or
the optimal choice that can be applied to non-electrified railway lines to achieve the
fossil-free vision, making rail transport more environmental-friendly. Therefore, the
whole working process can be summarized as a flow chart shown in Figure 4.

19
 Figure 4: The workflow of the thesis work

1.4 Thesis structure

In chapter 1, a brief description of the current status quo of the railway network and the
actual problem of emissions is described in conjunction with its effects and the cost
both human and economical. Chapter 2 provides the various forms of literature used to
generate the basis of this report and explores the where the authors generated the
methodology and why. Chapter 3 further elaborates on the methodology to be used with
a description of what the AHP model is and how the authors will apply it in this scenario.
The chapter also includes the ways the data, both qualitative and qualitative was
retrieved to be used in the model and achieve the various objectives.

Chapter 4 provides an overview what is the current status of the non-electrified lines,
their locations including a map, the specifications of the various lines and the common
features shared that would assist the authors during the analysis of possible alternatives
suitable for each line. This chapter incudes the vehicles that currently operate on the
line, the specifications as these was considered the main area of interest as most of the
alternative railcars, the main difference is the propulsion system and how it would
operate in place of the diesel car; an understanding of the diesel railcar operations was
needed and summarized in chapter 4. Chapter 5 elaborates further on the mentioned
three alternatives of battery, hydrogen and electric trains. This involved understanding

20
the evolution of the traction systems and current examples that exist globally. The
operation, infrastructure and test that have been done so far to prove how efficient the
vehicles would perform are included.

Chapter 6, 7 and 8 consider the three main factors the authors considered that maybe
important to influence the decision during the AHP process of selection of the various
alternatives on the different non-electrified lines. The factors during this study and in
relation to the AHP model, were named criteria and included: cost, impact to
environment and the long-term strategy. The effect of the criteria was determined by
the various sub-criteria that each alternative displayed. Similar equations were used to
use for all the alternatives to provide a means of comparison. Chapter 9 provides the
establishment of the evaluation system based on AHP then takes one railway line as a
case to show the results of the overall evaluation. Chapter 10 summarizes and concludes
the entire study with the further analysis generated from the research and includes the
recommendations.

21
2. Literature review
2.1 Definition
Fossil fuels refers to the decomposed plants and organisms that have been buried under
the earth’s crust for millennia making them carbon-rich (Nunez, 2019). These resources
are non-renewable and responsible for approximately 80% of the world’s energy. They
include coal, oil, and natural gas, all fossil-fuels which when burnt contribute to global
warming (Denchak, 2018). The need for these fuels and production of them is expected
to increase and with the associated CO emissions (Mohr et al., 2015). Around 70% of
the total global greenhouse gas emissions often in form of CO are as a direct result of
combustion of fossil fuels (Johnsson et al., 2019). In their report Johnsson et al. (2019)
compared the share of renewables to the non-renewables but with the share of fossil-
fuels taking 80% to the 20% of the fossil-free alternatives globally but they concluded
by suggesting more investment into alternatives to the fossil-fuel in all sectors is
urgently needed to fulfill the Paris agreement.

Transportation alone produced 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2015

(Khalili et al., 2019). The fossil-fuel dependency is a major factor that needs to be
tackled to reduce transport emissions and replace the existing transport modes with
those with low climate impact (Åkerman, 2011). It is estimated that about 95% of the
vehicle fleet in Europe is diesel or gasoline driven (Poulikidou et al., 2019). There is a
need to develop alternative emission-free fuels to drive the transport sector and improve
the ecological efficiency to solve the major issues facing our world that include climate
change, environmental pollution, and scarcity of resources, especially fossil fuels;
Axelsson (2018), Johnsson et al. (2019) and Poulikidou et al. (2019) all in their papers
clearly showed a switch to fossil-free has a significant difference of 85% on reduction
of emissions.

In railway, the electric trains have higher efficiency than the ICE train (Khalili et al.,
2019), the renewable sources of energy such as electricity and hydrogen provide a
higher level of sustainability both for freight and passenger. The global share of rail
freight and passenger based on liquid-fuel is 61% and 55% respectively (Sven et al.,
2015), a significant percentage that requires a need for change. A change agreed by all

22
the stakeholders as noted by Jo Johnson (government official) in his speech to the rail
bosses, ‘All diesel trains should be scrapped by 2040’ (Parker, 2007).

2.2 Alternatives
Globally, of the 1.3 million km of railway lines, approximately a quarter is electrified
(Verkehr et al., 2018). There is a variation from continent to continent with Europe
having approximately 57% of the world’s electrified railway lines. In Europe,
Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, and Austria are some countries having a
significant number of electrified lines (UIC Synopsis, 2020). However, due to the high
costs of electrification, it is often the main lines that account for 80% of the traffic that
are electrified leaving the shorter lines with less passenger traffic using ICE trains
(Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong, 2017). Meynerts et al. (2018) in their research
determined that ecologically, the use of the hybrid technology on the railway line is a
viable option to the conventional diesel trains. With the development of a new battery
(Cusenza et al., 2019) and fuel cell technology (Thounthong et al., 2009), there is hope
for new ‘greener’ alternatives being tested on the railway lines (Correa et al., 2017).

The alternatives that have garnered popularity include electric trains, battery-operated,
and hydrogen-fueled trains. The bio-fuel are more predominant in the automotive sector
than rail, the results from one of the studies is positive dependent on the heat generation
and electricity mix (Shanmugam et al., 2018).

In their studies Simons & Bauer (2015) and Yang et al. (2020) discuss the possibility
of the fuel cell and battery vehicles to be used as alternatives to the conventional cars.
The results vary depending on the electric mix of the country and the distance covered.
Hwang et al. (2013b) carried out a life cycle assessment of the fuel cell and battery
vehicles; it was concluded that depending on the hydrogen production, determined how
well fuel cell vehicles performed in comparison to battery vehicles environmentally.
The manufacture and production stage of the Lithium-ion battery is one of the main
obstacles to reducing the global warming potential of the battery vehicles in the overall
life cycle (Yang et al., 2018) but results from Nordelöf et al. (2019) show that the use
of the battery is better alternative to diesel in public transport.

23
In Japan, the NE (New Energy train) was upgraded to have a pantograph and battery
along the Karasuyama line in 2012 (Yoshida, 2012). The main objective was to operate
trains by electric power along the non-electrified line and charged by primary circuit
batteries while allowing quick charging at the end stations, via regenerative breaking
and other specified locations. The paper analyzed the performance of the battery-
operated multiple units (BEMU) in varying conditions, charging while running and
while stopped (Alfieri et al., 2019), these tests have proven positive results on the
automotive side (Gerssen-Gondelach & Faaij, 2012). The battery-operated train has
been considered as a viable alternative in short, idle with low demand railway line
sections in countries such as Tanzania as concluded by Mwambeleko &
Kulworawanichpong (2017). These line sections are often uneconomical to invest in
the electrification infrastructure, but the BEMUs provide an economical and
environmentally viable option for diesel trains (Nagaura et al., 2017). The comparison
analysis was carried out by considering the train dynamics, existing demand, fuel cost,
and carbon dioxide emission rate of the alternatives to carry out simulations to
determine how viable it is replacing the existing diesel railcars with the BEMUs along
the various railway lines in different countries by Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong
(2017) in Tanzania and Thorne et al. (2019) in Norway. The methods used in this report
considered the research done by Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong (2017) and
Thorne et al. (2019) as a basis to determine the weight of some criteria like cost where
the Davis equations were used to determine the approximate fuel consumption.

Hydrogen operated rail cars are considered as alternatives as well wherein Britain along
the Birmingham route, a simulation was done to determine the efficiency of a
conceptual railcar to replace the diesel (Hoffrichter et al., 2016a). Considering the
hydrogen source is from natural gas, the trains are designed to reach the benchmark
journey of 94 minutes without there needing to refuel. The hydrogen hybrid was
reported to have achieved about 79.0% and 66.4% reduction in energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions res in comparison to the original diesel railcar (Hwang
et al., 2013). The Ontario research paper carried out a sensitivity analysis over a range
of the costs and the return if the hydrogen passenger railcars were implemented and
provided a comparison with electrification, the ideal alternative but due to initial
investment uneconomical to implement (Marin et al., 2010b). The paper analyzed the
installation and operation costs per train-km. All these various studies aim to increase
24
the share of renewable means of propulsion in the transport sector, (Gustafsson &
Johansson, 2015) in their master thesis attempted to make a comparison which
alternative would perform better using the ecological and cost as factors for
consideration for an automotive vehicle. Using the same basis but with four alternatives,
three factors instead of the two (cost, environment and long-term) for twelve different
lines and the AHP model to analyse the possible options applicable to phase out the
diesel trains currently used in Sweden.

Shift2Rail Organization is a body of the European Union, exploring focused research

and market-driven solutions to accelerate the development of new and advanced
technologies for rail transport in Europe. This organization has done a study on
hydrogen trains. Through the analysis regarding market potential of applying hydrogen
rail technology as well as the results of hydrogen trains testing on a few railway lines
in several European countries, it concluded that the operating hydrogen trains will make
a positive contribution to environment and the costs of running hydrogen trains will
definitely decrease. Hydrogen trains make more economic sense on long non-electrified
lines than current diesel trains (Ruf et al., 2019).

CH2M HILL Canada Limited, a construction engineering company did a feasibility

study on Regional Express Rail Program with applying hydrogen trains in Canada. The
study analyzed the technical and financial requirements for operating hydrogen trains
for a rail network, and the aspects regarding the laws, policy and public acceptance
were discussed to make the whole evaluation more holistic. It concluded operating
hydrogen trains was technically feasible, and the lifetime costs in total would be
equivalent to operating a conventional rail network with catenary system (CH2M HILL
Canada Limited et al., 2018).

2.3 Methodology
In all the research papers reviewed during the course of this project, all the various
studies have carried out the comparison analysis using LCA or a variant form as the
methodology to determine between two alternatives for example: hydrogen vs. diesel
(Marin et al., 2010b) or diesel vs. battery (Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong, 2017)
or hydrogen vs. battery (Hwang et al., 2013) or among three alternatives (Meynerts et
al., 2018) for a specific line or route with the major factors considered being ecological
25
and economic (Nordelöf et al.,2019; Evangelisti et al.,2017a; Meynerts et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2016; Ahmadi et al., 2015) to mention a little bit. While the studies are
comprehensive, these studies are often case study specific with bias affecting the result.

In addition, some studies on environmental impact and costs for rail transport in general
have been done. According to Stripple & Uppenberg (2010), the life cycle assessment
method can be used to calculate and forecast the environmental impact of constructing
a railway line and running rail traffic on it. Take Bothnia line as a case, although
constructing the line has negative impact on environment, the total environmental
impact will be compensated by the transport of passengers and goods. This study
proved the possibility of applying life cycle assessment method to analyze the
environmental impact of rail transport by modularizing rail components.

Life cycle analysis of fuel cell technology was conducted by Dhanushkodi et al. (2008),
the study investigated the environmental contributions of different components and raw
materials during the production stage of hydrogen fuel. The reduction of emission was
studied in comparison with other energy technologies such as internal combustion
engines, wind, and solar energy. It proved the reliability of LCA applied to fuel cells
since it can examine various environmental issues and deals with uncertainty in the
future.

A systematic process for measuring the overall cost for rail transport was proposed by
Gattuso & Restuccia (2014). The total cost was divided into investment cost and
operating cost, where investment cost consisted of costs of infrastructure, rolling stock
as well as other fixed facilities while other costs were belonging to operating cost. When
the number of trains, the amount of infrastructure and equipment, and the running
distance of trains were known, the overall cost could be estimated. Although this
method did not include details as a feasibility study did, this process allowed policy
planners and decision makers to consider and analyze the project in a comprehensive
way, which would be prior to detailed studies of this project.

The AHP (analytical hierarchical process) model is a form of multicriteria analysis that
incorporates the technique for checking the consistency of the decision maker’s
evaluation while reducing bias in the decision-making process (Saaty, 1980). The AHP
26
model has been used to perform various complex scenarios such conflict resolution as
done by Oluwabukola et al. (2013), who applied AHP to solve the Boko Haram crisis
in Nigeria or using qualitative data in the medical field to determine patient preference
(Danner et al., 2017). In their study, Danner et al. (2017) compared the discrete choice
and the AHP; the results were similar with exception of the level based interpretation
which is dependent or independent on the attribute importance on level ranges in either
method. An advantage that AHP has to decision-makers is that it that it offers a
structured flow when dealing with often difficult problems and highlights
inconsistencies at an early stage and attempts to minimize them through redundancy
(Politis et al., 2010). It is widely used in a variety of sectors like environmental
engineering (Jing et al., 2013), suitability analysis (Mwambeleko et al., 2019) and
transport (Chou, 2010).

A research studied an application of analytic hierarchy process in selection the most

appropriate way of transportation for a logistics company (Kumru & Kumru, 2014).
The study proved the feasibility of the method in transport decision making process,
different transport modes can be evaluated holistically based on consideration of several
aspects. Under known situations, this method can be used to help decision makers find
the optimal transport mode for logistics.

27
3. Methodology
The primary method to carry out the analysis will with the use of the AHP model.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an analytical method that implements qualitative
and quantitative analysis of influential critical factors related to a problem then makes
decisions based on the analysis results (Panagiotis et al., 2018). The model is a type of
multicriteria analysis (MCA) method that aims to solve a complicated situation similar
to the one presented in this thesis; breaking it down into simple, manageable steps or
level (Saaty, 2002). AHP is widely used in group decision making in many industries.
Instead of prescribing a correct decision, the AHP helps decision makers find one that
best suits their goal and enhances their understanding of the problem. It provides a
comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for
representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals,
and for evaluating alternative solutions. In this project, the AHP model will be used to
analyze which alternatives are more suitable for decision-makers.

3.1 Overview of AHP method

This method is a hierarchical weighted analytical method mostly used for decision
making process, which was proposed and developed by American operational
researcher Thomas L. Saaty in the 1980s (Atanasova -Pachemska et al., 2015). AHP
method is a quite simple, flexible, and practical multi-criteria decision-making method
for quantitative analysis when solving qualitative problems. It is characterized by
dividing various factors in complex problems into ordered and interconnected levels,
making them well-organized. Then according to the results of subjective judgment and
objective measurement, establish a matrix including all pairwise comparisons.
Afterwards, a mathematical method is used to calculate the weights that reflect the
relative importance of each element from each level, and the relative weights of all
elements are calculated and sorted by the total ordering among all levels (Zeng et al.,
2017). Due to the feature of combining qualitative data and quantitative data with the
consideration of multiple criteria, it is convenient and flexible to be implemented in
practical work when making decisions. Now it is widely applied in many areas such as
industry, urban planning, business and education.

28
Initially, the AHP model has a three-level structure shown below. Level 1 represents
the goal of a problem; more specifically, the goal is to find out the optimal choice from
all available alternatives in a decision-making process. Level 2 includes all criteria that
are taken into consideration to achieve the goal by analyzing and evaluating influential
factors of other options. Level 3 is composed of all available alternatives that could be
probably considered in decision making. All criteria are applicable to each option.

Figure 5; The standard AHP model structure

There are some advantages when implementing AHP method. AHP method can be able
to take relative priorities of influential factors as well as relative performance of all
alternatives in terms of each factor into consideration (Oguztimur, 2020). AHP could
provide an effective way to make decisions with a clear structure when facing many
factors simultaneously. Also, either qualitative aspects or quantitative aspects, or
subjective judgements or objective judgements could be included during the decision-
making process.

3.2 Implementation of AHP method

For any decision-making problem, the first thing is to draft an AHP structure as shown
above. It is necessary to determine the goal of a problem, the influential factors that
could affect the judgement as well as available options. Once the structure is figured
out, the decision-making problem can be solved by the following consecutive steps.

Step 1: Forming a comparison matrix of influential factors and computing criteria

weights.

29
AHP starts with creating a comparison matrix A consisting of relative importance
between any two factors. (Chou, 2010) The matrix A is a 𝑚 𝑚 dimensional square
matrix, where 𝑚 is the number of criteria that are considered in decision-making
process. The comparison matrix A is shown below.
𝑎 𝑎 … 𝑎
⎡𝑎 𝑎 … 𝑎 ⎤
⎢ . . ⎥
𝐴 ⎢ . .
⎥ 3 1
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . ⎥
⎣𝑎 𝑎 … 𝑎 ⎦

Each component 𝑎 (𝑖 𝑚, 𝑗 𝑚) of this matrix A represents the importance of the

𝑖th criterion relative to the 𝑗th criterion. If 𝑎 1, the 𝑖th criterion is more important
than 𝑗th criterion; while if 𝑎 1, the 𝑖th criterion is less important than 𝑗th criterion.
If 𝑎 1, the 𝑖th criterion and 𝑗th criterion are believed to be equally importantly.
For all components on the diagonal of matrix A, 𝑎 is the relative importance of each
diagonal component to itself, which means the value of 𝑎 for all 𝑖 is equal to 1.

The values of relative importance 𝑎 between any two criteria of all criteria are
measured on a numerical scale as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Relative importance scale used for criteria and description

Scale of 𝑎 Description
1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/2 needed for average estimation
1/9 criterion 𝑖 is extremely less important than criterion 𝑗
1/7 criterion 𝑖 is strongly less important than criterion 𝑗
1/5 criterion 𝑖 is moderately less important than criterion 𝑗
1/3 criterion 𝑖 is weakly less important than criterion 𝑗
1 criterion 𝑖 and criterion 𝑗 are equally important
3 criterion 𝑖 is weakly more important than criterion 𝑗
5 criterion 𝑖 is moderately more important than criterion 𝑗
7 criterion 𝑖 is strongly more important than criterion 𝑗
9 criterion 𝑖 is extremely more important than criterion 𝑗
2, 4, 6, 8 needed for average estimation

30
Since 𝑎 is the reciprocal for 𝑎 , values of components below 1-valued diagonal can
be easily got as long as the values of components above 1-valued diagonal are known,
and vice versa. Normally it is enough to only know the values of components above 1-
valued diagonal in the beginning, then the values of components below 1-valued
diagonal can be calculated by using the formula below.
1
𝑎 3 2
𝑎

Afterwards, the comparison matrix A should be normalized by making the sum of

relative importance on each column equal to 1. After that, any newly normalized
component 𝑎 could be calculated as
𝑎
𝑎 3 3
∑ 𝑎

Eventually, the weight 𝑤 of the 𝑖th criterion is computed as

∑ 𝑎
𝑤 3 4
𝑚

The criteria weight vector 𝑤 is an m-dimensional column vector, which is shown

below
𝑤
⎡𝑤 ⎤
⎢ . ⎥
𝑤 ⎢ ⎥ 3 5
⎢ . ⎥
⎢ . ⎥
⎣𝑤 ⎦

Step 2: Forming a comparison matrix of all alternatives in terms of the performance on

criteria.

In this step, a comparison matrix S of alternatives in terms of alternatives’ performance

on criteria is supposed to be built. S is a 𝑛 𝑚 dimensional matrix where each
component 𝑠 (𝑝 𝑛, 𝑖 𝑚) represents the score of the 𝑝th alternative with respect
to 𝑖th criterion.

31
Firstly, a comparison matrix 𝐵 (𝑖 𝑚) is needed to be created for each criterion.
The matrix 𝐵 is a 𝑛 𝑛 dimensional square matrix where 𝑛 is the number of
available alternatives for a decision-making process and each component 𝑏 (𝑥
𝑛, 𝑦 𝑛 ) of matrix 𝐵 represents the relative performance of the 𝑥 th alternative
compared to the 𝑦th alternative with respect to the 𝑖th criterion. If 𝑏 1, the 𝑥th
alternative has a better performance than the 𝑦th alternative; while if 𝑏 1, the
𝑥th alternative has a worse performance than the 𝑦th alternative. If 𝑏 1, it is
believed that 𝑥th alternative and the 𝑦th alternative have almost the same performance.
For all components on the diagonal of matrix 𝐵 , 𝑏 is the relative performance of
each diagonal component to itself, which means the value of 𝑏 for all 𝑥 is equal
to 1.

Table 2: Relative performance scale of alternatives and description

Scale of 𝑏 Description
1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/2 needed for average estimation
1/9 alternative 𝑥 is extremely worse than alternative 𝑦
1/7 alternative 𝑥 is strongly worse than alternative 𝑦
1/5 alternative 𝑥 is moderately worse than alternative 𝑦
1/3 alternative 𝑥 is weakly worse than alternative 𝑦
1 alternative 𝑥 and alternative 𝑦 have the same performance
3 alternative 𝑥 is weakly better than alternative 𝑦
5 alternative 𝑥 is moderately better than alternative 𝑦
7 alternative 𝑥 is strongly better than alternative 𝑦
9 alternative 𝑥 is extremely better than alternative 𝑦
2, 4, 6, 8 needed for average estimation

Since 𝑏 is the reciprocal for 𝑏 , values of components below 1-valued

diagonal can be easily got as long as the values of components above 1-valued diagonal
are known, and vice versa. Normally it is enough to only know the values of
components above 1-valued diagonal in the beginning, then the values of components
below 1-valued diagonal can be calculated by using the formula below.
1
𝑏 3 6
𝑏

32
Afterwards, the same two-step normalization process is applied here to obtain the
performance vectors 𝑠 . Each n-dimensional column vector 𝑠 consists of the
performance of all alternatives with respect to the 𝑖th criterion. After repeating the
above procedure 𝑚 1 times more, finally the comparison matrix S is acquired as
𝑆 𝑠 𝑠 𝑠 … 𝑠 3 7

S is a 𝑛 𝑚 dimensional matrix including the performance of 𝑛 alternatives with

respect to 𝑚 criteria.

Step 3: Computing the total scores of alternatives.

After finishing computing criteria weight vector 𝑤 and comparison matrix S of

alternatives, the total scores of each alternative can be calculated as
𝐶 𝑆∙𝑤 3 8

Matrix C is an n-dimensional column vector shown below, where 𝑐 represents the

final score of the 𝑝th alternative
𝑐
⎡𝑐 ⎤
⎢. ⎥
𝐶 ⎢ ⎥ 3 9
⎢𝑐 ⎥
⎢. ⎥
⎣𝑐 ⎦

From the result of matrix C, it will be quite clear that which alternative is the best choice.
The Cost-benefit analysis which will be included will involve a process of evaluating
the final value of a project through comparing the costs and benefits from internal and
external perspectives. (Ambrasaite et al., 2011) The project is evaluated before the start
to analyze if it is worthy to do, which helps decision makers determine the feasibility
from a long-term perspective. In this project, such a method will be used to analyze
different alternatives using the criteria.

33
4. Overview of non-electrified railway in Sweden
Sweden has approximately 61 passenger traffic railway lines (Järnvägsdata, 2020). Out
of the entire network, twenty-two are non-electrified line sections with thirteen are in
Götaland, three in Svealand and six in Norrland. Of the twenty-two, twelve-line
sections have passenger traffic as shown in the map Figure 6. Of the twelve shown in
Table 3, the Mellerud-Bengtsfors, and Inlandsbanan have seasonal passenger traffic
during the summer or both summer and winter. The other lines have passenger traffic
all year round. According to the Local.se article of 28th May 2018, the Kinnekullebanan
was considered one of the ‘most scenic train journeys’ (Löfgren, 2018) and the
Inlandsbanan crosses through very scenic routes as well. All these sections are single-
track lines with the same track gauge of 1435mm. As displayed in Table 3, only the
Tjustbanan and the Stångådalsbanan have some form of remote blocking.

Figure 6: The non-electrified lines with passenger traffic

34
The Inlandsbanan is of interest as there have been earlier studies done to determine the
possibility of making the line fossil-free, the pre-study done by (Iversen, 2017)
indicates that by replacing the current propulsion systems with one of the alternatives
considered in the report (hydrogen) would aid the IBAB (Inlandsbanan AB) achieve
the reduction of greenhouse gases by approximately 90%. Inlandsbanan is divided into
two main sections since Inlandsbanan shares a stretch with Mittbanan between Brunflo
and Östersund, and Mittbanan has already finished electrification. The Hällnäs-
Lycksele is another line under consideration to change from the fossil driven train to a
more fossil-free alternative (electric), the study being proposed by Trafikverket on
behalf of the Västerbotten region would aim to analyse the expected cost to implement
the change (Höök, 2020).

Table 3: The non-electrified lines with passenger traffic

Speed
Length Max.Gradient Remote
No. Line Region Line category Track operator restriction Remarks
(km) ( ‰) blocking
(km/h)
Kil-Sunne-Torsby B_5,6 Strax
1 Svealand Trafikverket 82 50-90 16.7 no
(Fryksdalsbanan) 18.0t Stvm
2 Mellerud-Bengtsfors Götaland 5.6t/m Trafikverket 44 80 20 no
Bjärka Säby-Västervik
3 Götaland Trafikverket 96 110 18.5 radioblock
(Tjustbanan)
C2 Strax
radioblock
20.0t Stvm
Linköping-Hultsfred-Kalmar on the
4 Götaland 6.4t/m Trafikverket 235 140 19
(Stångådalsbanan) Linköping-
Rimforsa
Östersund-Storuman-Gällivare operate in
5 Norrland Inlandsbanan AB 746 140 17 no
(Inlandsbanan) summer
operate in
summer
Mora-Sveg-Brunflo
6 Norrland Inlandsbanan AB 285 140 17 no and winter
(Inlandsbanan)
sports
D2 Strax season
7 Hällnäs-Lycksele Norrland 22.5t Stvm Trafikverket 65 90 22 no
Gårdsjö-Lidköping-Håkantorp 6.4t/m
8 Götaland Trafikverket 121 100 15.2 no
(Kinnekullebanan)
9 Halmstad-Värnamo-Nässjö Götaland Trafikverket 196 120 17.8 no
10 Jönköping-Vaggeryd Götaland Trafikverket 38 100 17 no
(Jönköping)-Nässjö-Eksjö
11 Götaland Trafikverket 22 100 16.7 no
(Bockabanan)
12 Nässjö-Vetlanda Götaland Trafikverket 37 100 15 no

Table 4 shows that due to the low demand in the area through the lines pass have train
formation of 1-3 with speed not exceeding 200 km/h (conventional train speed unlike
the high speed that run at 200 km/h). The absence of high-speed possibility maybe due
to the absence of remote blocking in all but two lines as described in Table 3. All the
vehicles in table 4, use diesel as a form of propulsion with the Y1 and Y31 being the
most common railcar.

35
 Table 4: Specifications of rail vehicles along the identified non-electrified lines

Vehicle Formation Number Train Max. speed Accelation Gross weight Engine Power
No. Line Train operator ATC
type (No. cars) of seats length (m) (km/h) (m/s2) (tons) type output (kW)
1 Mellerud-Bengtsfors Y1 no
Östersund-Storuman-Gä
2 Tågab Y1/YF1 no
llivare (Inlandsbanan) Y1 1 68 24.4 130 unknown 47 diesel 420
Mora-Sveg-Brunflo
3 Tågab Y1/YF1 no
(Inlandsbanan)
Linköping-Hultsfred-Kalmar Transdev Sweden
4 Y2/Y31 Yes
(Stångådalsbanan) AB
Gårdsjö-Lidköping-Håkantorp
5 SJ Götaland Y31/Y32 no
(Kinnekullebanan)
Transdev Sweden
6 Halmstad-Värnamo-Nässjö Y31/Y32 Yes
AB
Kil-Sunne-Torsby
7 Tågab Y31/Y32 no
(Fryksdalsbanan)
8 Hällnäs-Lycksele Norrtåg Y31/Y32 no
Y31 2 86 39.2 140 1.0 79 diesel 960
Bjärka Säby-Västervik Transdev Sweden
9 Y31/Y32 Yes
(Tjustbanan) AB
Jönköping-Vaggeryd Transdev Sweden
10 Y31/Y32 Yes
(Vaggerydsbanan) AB
(Jönköping)-Nässjö-Eksjö
11 krösatågen Y31/Y32 no
(Bockabanan)
12 Nässjö-Vetlanda DSB Småland Y31/Y32 no

The Y1 is still used in Sweden (järnväg.net, 2007) as shown in the Table 4. Built in the
1980s by the Fiat/Kalmar Verkstads AB. During the height of its popularity, the
Swedish railway authority (SJ) ordered new types with space for cargo for their
northern lines. Other than the northern lines, most of the operators changed out the Y1
to the Y31 or Y32.

The Y31 or if it has three cars instead of two it is known as Y32 is the current popular
diesel railcar in use in Sweden (järnväg.net, 2007). Manufactured by Bombardier in
2002, approximately 11 Y31 railcars and 6 Y32 railcars have been built or delivered to
the various unelectrified lines in Sweden. In June of 2003 was when the first Y31 was
used in traffic in Småland, the train is popularly known as Krösatågen. Depending on
the area, it has other names such as the Kinnekulletåget.

36
5. Fossil-free alternatives
The rail sector like all other forms of transport is heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
Around the world approximately only 30% of the railway network is electrified. (Marin
et al., 2010) In Europe, approximately 60% of railway lines are powered by electricity
as shown in the Figure 7 below and the electric trains are fairly efficient, being able to
transfer more than 85% of the electric energy into mechanical energy has made
electricity a favorable choice to expand passenger transport, address greenhouse gas
emissions and noise; however, the cost of investment especially the infrastructure
approximately around several million Euros per kilometer in terms of generation,
transformers and the issues associated with catenary wires installation and repair has
made it cost effective to electrify only the major lines with high demand while leaving
the low demand, idle railway lines to operate old diesel trains (Mwambeleko &
Kulworawanichpong, 2017).

Figure 7: The percentage of electrified railway lines in Sweden out of the lines currently in use (UIC Synopsis,

2020)

The capital cost, the need to achieve interoperability and address the demand for energy
source alternatives has increased the popularity of the fossil free alternatives such as
hydrogen and battery trains which will be considered as the solution for the low-density
lines in this report. These alternatives are a mixture of hybrids and single technology
railcars. A hybrid train combines at least two types of technologies of energy storage
(for example battery) and conversion (electric motor) component that can work together
or as a stand-alone basis represent a feasible alternative for the railcar currently powered
by fossil fuels (Meynertsa et al., 2017). The hybrid railcars can cover long distances

37
and are able to be emission free during operation with the possibility of replacing the
diesel railcars to reduce the fuel consumption and emissions.

5.1 Battery trains

5.1.1 Introduction

Figure 8: The general structure of the Battery electric multiple units (Yoshida & In, 2012)

Battery trains as displayed in Figure 8 above or as they are commonly known as Battery
electric multiple units (BEMUs) utilize the energy stored in the batteries to run along
the non-electrified segments of the railway line and generally the new generation of the
popular electric multiple unit train (EMU) to minimize the cost of railway line
electrification (Ghaviha, 2016). The BEMUs replace the diesel generator with a
rechargeable battery most often Lithium ion, due their robustness and life cycle (Thorne
et al., 2019). With increase in battery capacity, power density and cost, this alternative
is more viable especially for shorter routes (Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong,
2017).

5.1.2 Development
The first known BEMUs were started in 1890 in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.
In 1911, the USA used the nickel-iron batteries giving the vehicles the name Edison
Beach types. The battery Edison car was popular in New Zealand between the 1926-
1934. (Thorne et al., 2019) Ireland tested the use of the drum nickel-zinc battery
between 1932-1946 and Britain tried the lead-acid battery in 1958. In all the earlier
examples, the BEMUs failed due the cost of production of the battery and its
maintenance not including the capability needed to produce a commercially viable
mileage.

38
In present time, the batteries are mostly used in trams in cities where the speed is not
higher than 80 km/h and there are no catenary wires as they are either expensive or
unwanted. They include the Citadis APS, Citardis Ecopack a light railcar by Alstom
with a supercapacitor (Alstom, 2019). CAF Urban 3 tramways in Serville in 2011,
siemens has tramcars for the education city in Doha; these trams have a battery and
supercapacitor charge via the overhead rail. In Portugal, Sitras HES system in 2008 ran
2500 m with catenary wires. In 2016, China has had the Huaia tram line 20.3 km that
uses batteries made by CRRC Zhu Zhou, these batteries recharge at stops. The most
recent BEMU development has mainly been in passenger traffic which is of interest for
the scope of this report, Table 5 displays the BEMUs currently available both
commercially and the prototypes. Provides a summary of the characteristics of the
battery electric multiple units and their battery types.

Table 5: Battery electric multiple units currently in operation and the prototypes globally

Battery
Development Range
Year producer operator Series/model size
stage (km)
(KWH)

zinc-acid
1837 Davidson prototype -
batteries

1879 Siemens prototype

Nickel-iron
1911 Edison railcar prototype
batteries

1932- Drum
prototype
1946 nickel-zinc

Electrostar

2015 Bombardier modified class prototype 500 50

379

Commercial
2014 J-TREC JR-east EV-E301 190 20.4
operation

JR- Commercial
2016 BEC819 360 10.8
Kyushu operation

39
 Commercial
2017 J-TREC JR-east EV-E801 500 50
operation

2018 Stadler Flirt Akku prototype 150

Class230 D-train
2018 Vivarail prototype 424 64
30002 variant

2018 Bombardier Talent 3 prototype 300 40(100)

Siemens
2018 ÖBB Desiro ML cityjet prototype 528
mobility

JR- Shinkansen
2019 prototype
central N7005

Coradia
Lithium
20? Alstom continental Theoretical 120
ion
BEMU

5.1.3 Technology
Battery trains replace diesel with the rechargeable battery as the source of energy
storage. According to Molyneux et al. (2010), batteries with high energy density and
high-power delivery could be used to drive a train a range of 80 km or more. The
average energy density of a diesel system is around 3500 Wh/kg, this is around 30% of
the actual capability of the system while in comparison the battery system has a higher
efficiency. The battery supplies energy during acceleration and regains between 55-65%
energy back due to regenerative braking on the non-electrified sections of the rail
(Fragiacomo & Piraino, 2019). However, new technology has been developed to allow
the battery trains to have catenary wire system whereby the train runs as ordinary
electric multiple unit on the electrified section while charging the battery (Yoshida,
2012). A battery electric multiple unit consists mainly of a battery pack which the
energy storage system, bi-directional DC-DC converter that lowers the DC voltage
from the overhead contact line to DC battery voltage, DC-AC converter, a power
transformer is incorporated with the Variable Voltage Variable Frequency (VVVF)
inverter. The VVVF inverter controls the traction motors using battery voltage as the
input and the VVVF is cooled by the wind blowing when the train runs. A pantograph
to connect to the charging unit at the selected terminals or to connect to the electrical
distribution system while running on the electrified section. Figure 9 below attempts to

40
explain visually how the BEMU would operate between the electrified and non-
electrified sections of the railway.

Figure 9: A simplification how battery electric trains operate (Molyneux et al., 2010).

On the electrified sections, the AC power from the overhead line is converted to DC
power by the traction controller, charging the batteries (Nagaura et al., 2017). During
the energy flow on the un-electrified during travel; the power is discharged from the
batteries is converted to AC power by the traction controller driving the motor. The
energy flow on the un-electrified lines as the train regenerates power during braking.

The success of the BEMUs has always been affected by the battery; the cost, size,
capability and robustness has influenced the success of the BEMUs throughout time.
The most popular include nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride and Lithium ion.
These batteries have high energy density, high efficiency and lower self-discharge
levels, long life cycle and chemical stability (Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong,
2017). However, the battery performance varies in different conditions due to usage as
the BEMUs transverse different elevations, temperature conditions of the area where
they operate and others. In Japan, where several tests were performed between the
Jichiidai and Ishibashi on the Tohoku line (Yoshida, 2012). The tests showed no
significant variation due to temperature conditions as shown in the Figure 10 and the
only significant change was when the train was going uphill or downhill due to the
elevation changes displayed in Figure 11 below.

41
Figure 10: Results of the battery performance of the train during winter and summer along the Karasuyama line

(Yoshida & In, 2012)

Figure 11: The battery performance as the elevation varies (Yoshida & In, 2012)

42
In Europe, as displayed in Table 5, all the BEMUs are still prototypes according to the
knowledge of this author only the battery operated train to actually carry passengers be
the IPEMU run by network rail together with Bombardier in Derby-Leicestershire
(Railway technology, 2020). Alstom has the Coradia Continental, the first of its battery
trains to cover the regional traffic on the Leipzig-Chemnitz, Germany (Alstom, 2020).

5.1.4 Coradia Continental and IPEMU

(a) Coradia Continental

Figure 12: The image shows the Alstom Coradia continental (BEMU) (Alstom, 2020).

As summarized in Table 5 and shown in the Figure 12 above, there have been several
batteries train most prototypes with the most recent being the anticipated Coradia
continental. A battery train (BEMU) coming from the Coradia group that is expected
to provide a mileage of 100-120 km running on battery traction alone without need to
recharge (Alstom, 2020). The 11 Bimodal trains are expected to offer emission free
advanced battery traction will be expected to enter service 2023. The railcars are
expected to be a conglomeration of the previous vehicles in Coradia group such as the
prima H3 locomotive (a hybrid shunting biodiesel locomotive), Coradia iLint (the
hydrogen train that will be discussed later in the report sub-section 5.2.4) and the
Citadis tram (a catenary bimodal tram that runs on battery within the city and on
catenary wire where it exists).This bimodal (battery and catenary) railcar is yet to be in
service.

43
(b) IPEMU (Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit)
One of the BEMUs tested on the British railway networks. It entered into trial service
in January 2015 and carried passengers while running several tests similar to those
carried out on the Karasuyama-Hoshakuji line in Japan where the EV-E301 is
commercially running; they include extreme high-speed test, range test and extreme
temperature test (Bombardier, 2015). Like the Japanese BEMUs, the IPEMU was
modified from the class 379 Electrostar EMU using electricity drawn from 25kV, 50Hz.

Figure 13: IPEMU-Essex railcar (Bombardier, 2015).

The IPEMU has a lithium ion battery with each battery raft having a battery box,
batteries, battery monitoring system, isolation switch, power distribution control panel
and battery charging inverter fitted into a rig (NetworkRail, 2015).

5.2 Hydrogen trains

5.2.1 Introduction

Figure 14: UK Hydroflex train (Thorne et al., 2019)

44
Hydrogen trains are generally described as a new type of trains using renewable
hydrogen fuel as a primary source of energy to power the traction systems and other
auxiliary systems (Thorne et al., 2019). The chemical energy of hydrogen fuel is
converted into mechanical energy eventually for propulsion. Apart from the difference
in energy source between hydrogen trains and other types of trains, hydrogen trains are
quite like other trains such as electric trains and diesel trains in terms of train
components and characteristics. Utilizing hydrogen fuel could be an effective way to
tackle some problems regarding the environment and energy sources, so hydrogen
trains are believed as a feasible fossil-free alternative that could be applied in the rail
transport sector and make rail transport more sustainable.

5.2.2 Development
At the beginning of the 21st century, the hydrogen-powered technology was studied,
afterwards hydrogen-powered rail vehicles for different purposes were planning to be
developed (Railway gazette international, 2012). Since then many relevant projects
have been launched and some prototypes of hydrogen-powered rail vehicles have been
come up with and designed. Some were designed for freight transportation while some
were studied for passenger transportation; some trains were powered by hydrogen fuel
cells while others used hydrogen in internal combustion engines.

In 2002, the first hydrogen-powered freight locomotive around the world was
demonstrated in Quebec, Canada. This project aimed to develop a hydrogen-powered
rail vehicle that would be used for mining work and served for a Canadian mining
company.

In the first half of 2006, the world’s first rail vehicle powered by hydrogen for passenger
transportation was developed by East Japan Railway Company (JR) (East Japan
Railway company, 2006). That same year, some tests were conducted by Japanese
Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) on an intercity train that was powered by
hydrogen fuel cells (Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2006). Afterwards, RTRI has been exploring
to develop hydrogen-powered trains with the greater power of hydrogen fuel cells and
the larger capacity of energy storage system, making hydrogen trains run with a better
performance (Adamson, 2007).

45
In 2010, a 357-kilometer new high-speed rail line exclusively used for hydrogen-
powered trains was proposed in Indonesia (Caedz corporation, n.d.), different from the
projects launched before in other countries, Indonesia was planning to construct a
hydrogen-powered, high-speed system rather than a conventional railway system.

In 2012, a hydrogen train project in Denmark was proposed aiming to develop and build
the first hydrogen-powered train in Europe (DW, 2019). An internal combustion engine
would be used, generating mechanical energy by combustion of hydrogen fuel.

Between 2012 and 2019, some universities and manufacturers in many countries such
as the UK, (Hoffrichter et al., 2016) France, Switzerland, (Railway technology news,
n.d.) China, (Peng et al., 2014) Japan, (East Japan Railway company, 2006) Malaysia,
(Marin et al., 2010) South Africa (Railway gazette international, 2012) were studying,
designing, building different types of hydrogen rail vehicles. So far, only two models
of hydrogen rail vehicles have been rolled out and tested. CRRC has developed the first
commercial hybrid tram powered by hydrogen fuel cells in the world and finished some
operation tests in China (Peng et al., 2014). Alstom has developed the world’s first
commercial passenger train powered by hydrogen fuel cells and related tests of this
train have been completed in Germany. By 2025, around 60 Alstom hydrogen trains
are expected to be used in a small railway network with the total length of 1,100
kilometers in Germany (Arcola Energy, 2019).

Table 6: The summary of the existing hydrogen trains (Thorne et al., 2019)

46
5.2.3 Technology
There are three means generating hydrogen fuel. Currently hydrogen is mainly
extracted from industrial process as a by-product or generated from steam reforming
process. But these two methods are not environmental-friendly since CO2 and some
pollutants are emitted. The third method is to produce hydrogen by electrolysis process,
which is regarded as the best approach without emissions, however it consumes too
much electricity.

For trains, there are two means to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen fuel into
mechanical energy for propulsion. The fuel cells are mostly used to generate electricity
by the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen in the cells, then electrical energy is converted
into mechanical energy by electric motors. The second way for trains to utilize
hydrogen fuel is burning of hydrogen occurs with air in combustion engine, generating
thermal energy. Then thermal energy is converted into mechanical energy for train
propulsion.

5.2.4 Alstom Coradia iLint

Figure 15: The technology of the Alstom Coradia iLint (Alstom, 2020).

47
Alstom Coradia iLint is the world’s first commercial passenger train powered by
hydrogen fuel cells (Alstom, 2018). It adopts the first way to convert chemical energy
of hydrogen fuel into electrical energy, then the electrical energy is utilized to generate
mechanical energy for traction. This train only emits steam and condensed water as
well as low levels of noise, which is quite environmental-friendly. Coradia iLint is very
special for its combination of different innovative elements such as clean energy
conversion, flexible energy storage in batteries, smart management of traction power
and available energy. This model is specifically designed for the operation of passenger
traffic on non-electrified lines, which enables sustainable train operation while ensuring
high levels of performance.

5.3 Electric trains

The most used electric train is the electric multiple unit train. It is the more advanced
version of a traditional locomotive; the main difference is the EMU have self-propelled
carriages that use electricity as the propulsion power (Nisit & Prasanta, 2006). The
electric traction motors are built-in with the various carriages to enable proper
utilization of space and reduce the extra equipment. The EMUs have several advantages
that range from their performance to accelerate rapidly to operate pollution-free, unlike
the diesel counterparts.

Figure 16: A sketch showing the location of the transformer and main converter on an AC EMU (Hata, 1998).

5.4 Diesel trains

The diesel electric multiple unit train (DMU) is similar to an EMU but with an internal
combustion engine (ICE) for propulsion instead of an electric power train. (Railway
Technical, 2019) It shares similarities with the old locomotive trains but differs by
having bogies and passengers’ seating in every carriage. The most common currently
used is those with diesel electric transmission type; the diesel engine drives the

48
electrical generator or alternator which produces electric energy that is fed to the
electric traction motors on the wheels and bogies. Examples include the Stadler flirt 3
and lint DMU group by Alstom like LINT 27, LINT 41,54 and 80. The modern DMU
often have the engine mounted underneath the frame of the railcar to efficiently utilize
space like for the Coradia Lint 54 which has 390kW ICE driving axles powered by a
cardan shaft weighing almost 100 tons (Parker, 2007). Often the DMU is sold in sets of
2-4 car sets often used for regional travel on short idle routes such as those being
analyzed in this report and having a seating capacity of around 150. Figure 17 below
shows Alstom Coradia Lint 54 diesel regional trains that are going to be delivered to
German railway.

Figure 17: Alstom Coradia Lint 54 DMU (Alstom, 2019)

5.5 Selection of trains for the study

In this section, many trains with different models were introduced and analyzed. To
make quantitative analyses of the study objective, precise, and reliable, one model was
picked from each train type as referenced models. These selected models should be at
the same class, which means they are designed for the same purpose and they have
similar characteristics. After comparing them, specific train models were determined:
Alstom Coradia Continental represents battery trains, Alstom Coradia iLint represents
Hydrogen trains, Stadler Flirt represents electric trains and Alstom Coradia Lint 54
represents diesel trains. The four picked trains have been designed for regional
passenger traffic, and they have nearly same passenger capacity including the seating
capacity of around 150. Therefore, the measurements, calculations and results from the
rest of project will be based on these four trains.

49
6. Costs
For purpose of this feasibility study, the first stage of analysis was to calculate and
compare the costs of implementing each fossil-free alternative on the various railway
non-electrified lines. The diesel option is also included and used for comparisons as it
is the status quo. In this study, the total costs are divided into five main parts: train costs,
infrastructure costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and track access charges. The reason
why only these five types of costs are taken into consideration is that these five types
of costs are main sources resulting in the differences of alternatives on total costs. No
matter which alternative is implemented, the administration costs, salaries to staff, costs
of advertisements, taxes and so on will remain almost the same, making no significant
difference on total costs of implementing alternatives. Costs of purchasing trains and
constructing relevant infrastructure are fixed costs, while others are dynamic costs that
might be changing during the actual operation.

6.1 Train costs

Train costs are the costs of purchasing trains, which is part of fixed costs. For train
operators, the train costs are equivalent to the prices of trains. The total train costs can
be calculated based on the equation below.
𝐶 𝑐 𝑁 6 1

Where 𝐶 is the total train costs, 𝑐 is unit price of a train and N is the number
of trains.

6.1.1 Battery trains

According the previous contracts signed by Alstom including the most viable to this
report being signed on the 5th of February 2020, the company will manufacture, deliver
and maintain the 11 ordered Alstom Coradia Continental BEMUs on behalf of the train
authorities along the aforementioned Leipzig-Chemnitz (NetworkRail, 2015). The
contract is expected to be worth approximately €100 million including delivering 11
battery trains and providing maintenance services for these trains (Alstom, 2020). The
share of eleven trains is around €72 million, so the estimated price of one train is €6.5
million. Considering the currency conversion rate of €1=SEK 10.8, the estimated price
of one battery train is SEK 70.2 million.

50
6.1.2 Hydrogen trains
According to the study on “Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Applications for Regions and Cities” (Navas, 2018), the approximate unit
cost of Alstom iLint is €5.5 million. The estimated price of one hydrogen train is SEK
59.4 million.

6.1.3 Electric trains

One of the latest contracts of Stadler electric trains was signed in 2018 by Transdev and
Stadler. Transdev ordered 64 Stadler Flirt electric trains from Stadler to operate on
Hanover S-Bahn network in Germany. According to the contract, this order was worth
around €320 million (Sapién, 2018). The approximate price of one electric train is €5
million, which is equivalent to SEK 54 million.

6.1.4 Diesel trains

According to the orders Alstom received in 2018, a total of 25 Coradia Lint 54 trains
would be delivered, where 20 trains were delivered to DB Regio Bayern and 5 trains
were delivered to Hohenzollerische Landesbahn AG. The shares of two orders were
$114 million and $28 million respectively, (Metro Magazine, 2018) the prices of one
train from two orders were $5.7 million and $5.6 million. Considering the currency
conversion rate of $1=€0.92, the approximate price of one diesel train is SEK 56.2
million.

6.2 Infrastructure costs

Most rail infrastructure such as land, structures, buildings, and relevant equipment is
existing along non-electrified lines, so additional infrastructure expected to be
constructed to support fossil-free alternatives is only the component providing energy
for train operation. In general, the total infrastructure costs can be calculated by the
following equation.
𝐶 𝑐 𝑄 6 2

Where 𝐶 is the total infrastructure costs, 𝑐 is unit cost of

infrastructure and Q is the quantity (or capacity) of infrastructure.

51
6.2.1 Battery trains
For battery trains, the major infrastructure is the charging system as majority of the
equipment is onboard the railcar. As mentioned before, there are two common types of
infrastructure for battery trains to get charged including the charging station and
catenary system. At terminals and stations, battery charging stations can be constructed
making sure trains can be charged when they stop for a long time. When trains are
running in the sections, they could get charged via catenary system along the rail
sections. Figure 18 shows how battery trains are charged in main line sections and at
stations.

Figure 18: The charging system when in operation and stationery (Yoshida & In, 2012).

As displayed in Figure 18 above, the pantograph rises in the electrified sections and the
railcar moves via pantograph as the battery charges. In the non-electrified parts, the
pantograph lowers, and the railcar runs using the batteries until the next charging
facility where the train stops, the pantograph rises, and power is collected with a large
current (Yoshida, 2012). The contact stripes are reinforced and the overhead rigid wires
at the wayside facilities to encourage quick charging. The traction circuit storage boxes
are in structures optimal for reduction of battery temperature rise while
charging/discharging and lowering of the temperature difference between batteries in
one box while stopping.

52
If charging stations are expected to be built, the scale and capacity of charging facilities
can be determined based on the number of battery packs installed onboard. Referring
the technology of Supercharger charging station developed by Tesla, the cost for one
charger to charge one battery pack would be $90 000 (Forster & Alto, 2017), which is
equivalent to SEK 894 240. Normally, it is believed that the minimum capacity should
be fulfilling the requirement that all trains could be charged simultaneously, therefore
the capacity of a charging station can be measured by the following equation.
𝑄 𝑁 𝑛 2 6 3

Where n is the number of wagons per each train, 2 means each wagon has two battery
packs.

If catenary system is needed as infrastructure instead, the non-continuous overhead

lines will be built. The average cost of constructing overhead lines is €0.7 million per
kilometer, (Gattuso & Restuccia, 2014) which is equivalent to SEK 7.56 million per
kilometer. The quantity of infrastructure is the length of non-continuous overhead lines.

6.2.2 Hydrogen trains

For hydrogen trains, the only infrastructure is the hydrogen refueling station. Figure 19
shows the basic configuration of a hydrogen refueling station.

Figure 19: Basic configuration of a hydrogen refueling station (Parker, 2007).

53
Technically, the capacity of a hydrogen refueling station is determined by the maximum
amount of hydrogen fuel consumption per day. It is enough once the amount of
hydrogen fuel stored in a refueling station can supply to trains in a whole day since the
needed hydrogen fuel for the next day’s operation can be transported from production
places to refueling stations quickly by the next day’s train operation, which avoids too
much investment on building a quite large hydrogen refueling station.

According to a study on cost estimation of hydrogen refueling stations conducted by

the national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, the average unit cost of
building a hydrogen refueling station is $3 370 per kg/day (Melaina & Penev, 2015)
equivalent to SEK 33 484 per kg/day.

6.2.3 Electric trains

For electric trains, the infrastructure is the catenary system. Same as the infrastructure
cost of overhead lines for battery trains in sub-section 6.2.1, the electrification cost of
a whole non-electrified rail line to ensure the regular operation of electric trains is €0.7
million per kilometer, (Gattuso & Restuccia, 2014) which is equivalent to SEK 7.56
million per kilometer. The quantity of infrastructure is the total length of a rail line since
the catenary system should cover the whole line, unlike the battery where it is
discontinuous.

6.2.4 Diesel trains

For diesel trains, the diesel refueling station should be the rail infrastructure. But diesel
refueling stations have been existing near non-electrified lines since diesel trains have
been running on these lines. If diesel trains continue to be running on non-electrified
lines rather than being replaced by battery trains, hydrogen trains and electric trains, no
additional diesel refueling stations are needed. In other words, the infrastructure costs
for diesel trains in this study are assumed to be zero.

6.3 Fuel costs

Fuel costs are the costs that occur when trains consume energy or fuel during the
operation. For battery trains and electric trains, the fuel cost is the price of electricity;
for hydrogen trains, the fuel cost is the price of hydrogen; for diesel trains, the fuel cost

54
is the price of diesel. The total fuel costs for trains running on lines can be determined
by average fuel cost per single trip and the number of single trips. The equation is:
𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 6 4

Where 𝐶 is the total fuel costs, 𝑐 is fuel cost per single trip and T is the
number of single trips.

First of all, the amount of energy needed for train propulsion on lines is supposed to be
measured. Then equivalent amount of fuel consumption can be estimated by
considering energy density and efficiency of powertrain systems onboard. Finally, the
fuel cost per single trip can be calculated based on the fuel consumption and the price
of fuel.

The needed mechanical energy for a train running a station to the next station can be
calculated (Mwambeleko & Kulworawanichpong, 2017). Considering the total mass
including the weight of passengers is unknow n and dynamic, and the total effect of line
gradients could be eliminated since the saved energy in downhill sections could
counterbalance the extra consumed energy in uphill sections when a train runs back and
forth. For any line section between two stations, the total change in kinetic energy of a
train is zero since the start speed and end speed are both zero. Therefore, the total
mechanical energy is the amount of energy needed for a train to overcome any types of
resistance along the line. The most important part is to figure out how much resistance
when a train is running.

Due to the similarity of Nordic railway in terms of geographical features, climates,

types of rail vehicles and so on, the method of calculating mechanical energy used in
Norwegian railway could also be applied to Swedish railway (Thorne et al., 2019;
Zenith et al., 2017).

The following Davis equations are used to calculate the different types of resistance
considering the train’s movement are governed by the Newton’s laws of motion.
Rolling resistance is the resistance to motion of the rotating parts and mathematically
expressed as follows:
𝐴 343 195 4𝑛 𝑁 6 5
55
 𝑠
𝐵 15.14 1.62 𝐿 𝑁 ∙ 6 6
𝑚

𝑅 𝐴 𝐵𝑣 6 7

Where n is the number of wagons, L is the length of a train and v is the speed of a train.
Air resistance:
𝑐 𝐴 8.67 11.10 ∙ 10 𝐿 6 8

𝜌
𝑅 𝑐 𝐴 𝑣 6 9
2

Where 𝜌 is the air density. The annual average temperature in Sweden is 6 ℃

(SWEDEN CLIMATE, 2020), the corresponding air density is approximately 1.269
kg/m3.

For any process of acceleration, cruise and deceleration, the mechanical energy needed
is:
∆𝐸 𝑅 𝑅 ∆𝑥 6 10

Total mechanical energy for a single trip is:

𝐸 𝑥 ∆𝐸 6 11

Where x is the number of process of acceleration, cruise, and deceleration.

6.3.1 Battery trains

For battery trains, nearly 85% of the energy is used for train traction, and 15% is used
for auxiliary systems onboard (Choi et al., 2012). During deceleration, around 60% of
mechanical energy can be recuperated back to batteries. Conversion efficiencies of the
electric motor and electric generator are 90% and 95% respectively (Martinez,
Ebenhack, & Wagner, 2016). The total amount of electricity for a single trip can be
estimated by combing the mechanical energy and efficiencies of energy usage in

56
different parts. According to the research conducted by Andersson (2020) and the
Swedish railway network statement (Trafikverket, 2020). The estimated price of
electricity for the Swedish railway was determined to be approximately SEK 0.607 per
kWh.

Table 7 shows the features of battery trains used to calculate energy consumption for
each line.

Table 7: The features of the battery train

Battery train features

No. wagons 3
Train length (m) 56
Weight (t) 112

Table 8 shows energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost of a single trip for
each line applying all the equations described in section 6.3 of the report.

Table 8: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for battery train

traction energy energy recuperation electricity estimated fuel cost

Line
(kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (SEK)
Fryksdalsbanan 246.9 53.0 269.8 163.6
Mellerud-
109.6 63.0 80.2 48.6
Bengtsfors
Tjustbanan 362.5 125.6 348.2 211.2
Stångådalsbanan 1304.5 187.8 1517.4 920.3
Inlandsbanan
1997.4 121.9 2489.1 1509.7
(North)
Inlandsbanan
855.4 79.9 1038.2 629.7
(South)
Hällnäs-Lycksele 198.6 15.9 243.7 147.8
Kinnekullebanan 410.0 136.8 399.2 242.1
Halmstad-Nässjö 869.7 139.4 997.5 605.0
Vaggerydsbanan 131.9 39.1 133.3 80.9
Bockabanan 74.9 19.5 78.4 47.6
Nässjö-Vetlanda 127.4 26.1 140.5 85.2

57
6.3.2 Hydrogen trains
For hydrogen trains, nearly 85% of the energy is used for train traction, and 15% is used
for auxiliary systems onboard (Choi et al., 2012). During deceleration, around 30% of
mechanical energy can be recuperated back to batteries. The efficiency of fuel cells of
hydrogen trains is 52% (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2019). Conversion
efficiencies of the electric motor and electric generator are 90% and 95% respectively
(Martinez, Ebenhack, & Wagner, 2016). When the mechanical energy and efficiencies
of energy usage in different parts are combined, the total amount of hydrogen fuel for
a single trip can be estimated. According to a study on fuel cell hydrogen trains, the
average price of hydrogen fuel is €5 per kg (Navas, 2018), which is equivalent to SEK
54 per kg.

Table 9 shows the features of hydrogen trains used to calculate energy consumption for
each line.

Table 9: The features of hydrogen train

Hydrogen train features

No. wagons 2
Train length (m) 54.3
Mass (t) 107

Table 10 shows energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost of a single trip for
each line applying all the equations described in section 6.3 of the report.

Table 10: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for hydrogen train

traction energy energy recuperation hydrogen fuel estimated fuel

Line
(kwh) (kwh) (kg) cost (SEK)
Fryksdalsbanan 226.0 25.4 15.6 841.3
Mellerud-
98.7 30.3 5.7 307.8
Bengtsfors
Tjustbanan 336.9 60.3 21.9 1184.2
Stångådalsbanan 1235.8 90.1 88.0 4752.0
Inlandsbanan
1811.1 58.5 133.2 7193.0
(North)
Inlandsbanan
775.2 38.4 56.3 3037.6
(South)

58
 Hällnäs-Lycksele 182.1 7.6 13.3 717.7
Kinnekullebanan 378.5 65.7 24.8 1336.8
Halmstad-Nässjö 815.6 66.9 57.7 3113.1
Vaggerydsbanan 121.8 18.8 8.1 437.3
Bockabanan 69.2 9.4 4.7 252.5
Nässjö-Vetlanda 117.7 12.5 8.2 440.4

6.3.3 Electric trains

For electric trains, nearly 85% of the energy is used for train traction, and 15% is used
for auxiliary systems onboard (ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
PERFORMANCE, 2011). During deceleration, around 12.5% of mechanical energy
can be recuperated back to batteries (CTCN, 2009). Conversion efficiencies of the
electric motor and electric generator are 90% and 95% respectively (Martinez,
Ebenhack, & Wagner, 2016). The total amount of electricity for a single trip can be
estimated through the combination of the mechanical energy and efficiencies of energy
usage in different parts. The estimated price of electricity for the Swedish railway was
determined to be approximately SEK 0.607 per kWh (Andersson, 2020).

Table 11 shows the features of electric trains used to calculate energy consumption for
each line.

Table 11: The features of electric train

Electric train features

No. wagons 3
Train length (m) 70.7
Mass (t) 132.8

Table 12 shows energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost of a single trip for
each line.

59
 Table 12: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for electric train

traction energy energy recuperation electricity estimated fuel cost

Line
(kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (SEK)
Fryksdalsbanan 274.0 13.2 345.1 209.3
Mellerud-
121.1 15.7 142.6 86.5
Bengtsfors
Tjustbanan 403.6 31.2 496.4 301.1
Stångådalsbanan 1457.9 46.7 1859.1 1127.6
Inlandsbanan
2316.4 72.5 2955.5 1792.6
(North)
Inlandsbanan
945.3 47.5 1188.1 720.6
(South)
Hällnäs-Lycksele 220.5 3.9 284.3 172.4
Kinnekullebanan 451.4 34.0 556.2 337.3
Halmstad-Nässjö 970.4 34.6 1233.8 748.4
Vaggerydsbanan 146.7 9.7 182.0 110.4
Bockabanan 83.3 4.9 104.1 63.1
Nässjö-Vetlanda 141.7 6.5 178.8 108.4

6.3.4 Diesel trains

For diesel trains, nearly 85% of the energy is used for train traction, and 15% is used
for auxiliary systems onboard (ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
PERFORMANCE, 2011). The conversion efficiency of the diesel engine is 30%
(Suppes & Storvick, 2016). Energy transmission efficiency is 78%. The mechanical
energy and capabilities of energy usage in different parts, the total amount of diesel fuel
for a single trip can be estimated. The estimated price of diesel is approximately €1.35
per liter (Pocard, 2019), which is equivalent to SEK 14.58 per liter.

Table 13 shows the features of diesel trains used to calculate energy consumption for
each line.

Table 13: The features of diesel train

Diesel train features

No. wagons 2
Train length (m) 54.3
Mass (t) 98

60
Table 14 shows energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost of a single trip for
each line.

Table 14: Energy consumption, fuel consumption and fuel cost for the diesel train

Line traction energy (kwh) diesel fuel (kg) estimated fuel cost (SEK)
Fryksdalsbanan 226.0 114.0 1661.3
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 98.7 49.8 725.7
Tjustbanan 336.9 169.8 2476.2
Stångådalsbanan 1235.8 623.0 9082.9
Inlandsbanan (North) 1811.1 912.9 13310.7
Inlandsbanan (South) 775.2 390.8 5697.7
Hällnäs-Lycksele 182.1 91.8 1338.2
Kinnekullebanan 378.5 190.8 2781.9
Halmstad-Nässjö 815.6 411.2 5994.7
Vaggerydsbanan 121.8 61.4 894.8
Bockabanan 69.2 34.9 508.5
Nässjö-Vetlanda 117.7 59.3 865.2

6.4 Maintenance costs

The unit cost of maintaining a diesel train is €0.79 per km while the maintenance cost
of other trains is €0.72 per km (Navas, 2018). Converting the currency from €to SEK,
the maintenance costs of a diesel train and other trains are SEK 8.532 per km and SEK
7.776 per km, respectively. Normally, the longer distance a train runs the higher cost
of maintaining the train is generated.

The total maintenance costs of trains running on the lines can be determined by the
maintenance costs of trains completing one single trip and the number of single trips.
The equation is:
𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 6 12

Where 𝐶 is the total maintenance costs, 𝑐 is the unit costs of

maintenance per single trip, T is the number of single trips.

6.4.1 Battery trains

For battery trains completing a single trip, the unit costs of maintenance for different
lines are shown in Table 15.

61
 Table 15: Maintenance costs of battery trains after completing a single trip on lines

Line maintenance costs (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 637.6
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 340.6
Tjustbanan 746.5
Stångådalsbanan 1827.4
Inlandsbanan (North) 5800.9
Inlandsbanan (South) 2496.1
Hällnäs-Lycksele 501.6
Kinnekullebanan 940.9
Halmstad-Nässjö 1524.1
Vaggerydsbanan 303.3
Bockabanan 171.1
Nässjö-Vetlanda 287.7

6.4.2 Hydrogen trains

For hydrogen trains completing a single trip, the unit costs of maintenance for different
lines are shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Maintenance costs of hydrogen trains after completing a single trip on lines

Line maintenance costs (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 637.6
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 340.6
Tjustbanan 746.5
Stångådalsbanan 1827.4
Inlandsbanan (North) 5800.9
Inlandsbanan (South) 2496.1
Hällnäs-Lycksele 501.6
Kinnekullebanan 940.9
Halmstad-Nässjö 1524.1
Vaggerydsbanan 303.3

62
 Bockabanan 171.1
Nässjö-Vetlanda 287.7

6.4.3 Electric trains

For electric trains completing a single trip, the unit costs of maintenance for different
lines are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Maintenance costs of electric trains after completing a single trip on lines

Line maintenance costs (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 637.6
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 340.6
Tjustbanan 746.5
Stångådalsbanan 1827.4
Inlandsbanan (North) 5800.9
Inlandsbanan (South) 2496.1
Hällnäs-Lycksele 501.6
Kinnekullebanan 940.9
Halmstad-Nässjö 1524.1
Vaggerydsbanan 303.3
Bockabanan 171.1
Nässjö-Vetlanda 287.7

6.4.4 Diesel trains

For diesel trains completing a single trip, the unit costs of maintenance for different
lines are shown in Table 18.

Table 18: Maintenance costs of diesel trains after completing a single trip on lines

Line maintenance costs (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 699.6
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 373.7
Tjustbanan 819.1
Stångådalsbanan 2005.0

63
 Inlandsbanan (North) 6364.9
Inlandsbanan (South) 2738.8
Hällnäs-Lycksele 550.3
Kinnekullebanan 1032.4
Halmstad-Nässjö 1672.3
Vaggerydsbanan 332.7
Bockabanan 187.7
Nässjö-Vetlanda 315.7

6.5 Track access charges

Track access is a mechanism whereby the manager of the railway infrastructure permits
a railway operator to run passenger or freight trains on its railway tracks (WORLD
BANK GROUP, 2017). The train operators get charged when they operate trains on
rail lines. The track access charge for trains running on Inlandsbanan is SEK 0.008 per
ton-km (Westling & Söderholm, 2019). The track access charge for trains running on
other rail tracks owned by Trafikverket is SEK 0.014 per ton-km (Trafikverket, 2017).

The total track access charges for trains running on a line is the product of track access
charge for a train completing a single trip and the number of individual trips, which can
be expressed as the following equation.
𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 6 13

Where 𝐶 is the total track access charges, 𝑐 is the track access

charge for a single trip. T is the number of single journeys.

6.5.1 Battery trains

For battery trains, the track access charges for a single trip on different lines are
calculated and shown in Table 19.

Table 19: Track access charges for battery trains on lines

Line track access charges (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 128.6
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 68.7

64
 Tjustbanan 150.5
Stångådalsbanan 368.5
Inlandsbanan (North) 668.4
Inlandsbanan (South) 287.6
Hällnäs-Lycksele 101.1
Kinnekullebanan 189.7
Halmstad-Nässjö 307.3
Vaggerydsbanan 61.2
Bockabanan 34.5
Nässjö-Vetlanda 58.0

6.5.2 Hydrogen trains

For hydrogen trains, the track access charges for a single trip on different lines are
calculated and shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Track access charges for hydrogen trains on lines

Line track access charges (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 122.8
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 65.6
Tjustbanan 143.8
Stångådalsbanan 352.0
Inlandsbanan (North) 638.6
Inlandsbanan (South) 274.8
Hällnäs-Lycksele 96.6
Kinnekullebanan 181.3
Halmstad-Nässjö 293.6
Vaggerydsbanan 58.4
Bockabanan 33.0
Nässjö-Vetlanda 55.4

6.5.3 Electric trains

For electric trains, the track access charges for a single trip on different lines are
calculated and shown in Table 21.
65
 Table 21: Track access charges for electric trains on lines

Line track access charges (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 152.5
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 81.4
Tjustbanan 178.5
Stångådalsbanan 436.9
Inlandsbanan (North) 792.6
Inlandsbanan (South) 341.0
Hällnäs-Lycksele 119.9
Kinnekullebanan 225.0
Halmstad-Nässjö 364.4
Vaggerydsbanan 72.5
Bockabanan 40.9
Nässjö-Vetlanda 68.8

6.5.4 Diesel trains

For diesel trains, the track access charges for a single trip on different lines are
calculated and shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Track access charges for diesel trains on lines

Line track access charges (SEK)

Fryksdalsbanan 112.5
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 60.1
Tjustbanan 131.7
Stångådalsbanan 322.4
Inlandsbanan (North) 584.9
Inlandsbanan (South) 251.7
Hällnäs-Lycksele 88.5
Kinnekullebanan 166.0
Halmstad-Nässjö 268.9
Vaggerydsbanan 53.5

66
 Bockabanan 30.2
Nässjö-Vetlanda 50.8

6.6 Overview of Costs

Generally, the cost of the train of the different alternatives varies with EMU being the
cheapest followed by DMU, hydrogen and BEMU respectively considering the data
from section 6.1, the reason for the higher cost of both BEMU and hydrogen is due to
the new propulsion system which is all aboard the train. The charge of the Lithium-Ion
battery is a significant factor contributing to the overall cost of the vehicle. The same
is valid to a certain extent for the fuel cells. The material components needed to produce
these power units are rare with occurring in low concentrations of 0.01% in the Earth’s
crust, not forgetting that both BEMUs and Hydrogen trains are a new technology
(Notter et al., 2010). Infrastructure wise, the DMU (old or new), the cost would be
approximately the same while the EMU would be the most expensive, followed by
BEMU and hydrogen train, respectively.

In terms of operation, the maintenance and track charge would vary slightly, the fuel
cost for the diesel-fueled trains would be the highest for all the lines while BEMU and
EMU have almost the same lowest price and hydrogen in the middle though this applies
most to Sweden where the cost of electricity is inexpensive.

67
7. Long-term strategy
In this section, the cost of implementing different alternatives from a long-term
perspective is going to be taken into consideration. Since the average lifespan of the
different types of trains mentioned before is 30 years, the period of 30 years is regarded
as the time scale. All calculations, analyses, and discussions in this section regarding
different alternatives are only available within 30 years after starting operation.

7.1 Traffic demand

Traffic volume is a significant factor resulting in the variation of train operating cost.
Usually, the more trips trains must run, the higher the train operating cost including fuel
cost, maintenance cost and track access charges are. According to rail transport
statistics from Statista (Mazareanu, 2020), the passenger volume by rail transport has
been increasing during the past ten years, indicating a positive trend of growth in the
future. In addition, Swedish national train operator SJ pointed out there would be an
annual growth rate of 1% in passenger traffic in an investment programme (Barrow,
2018). Therefore, the annual growth rate of 1% is going to be used to calculate and
predict the long-term cost of operating different types of trains on non-electrified rail
lines.

The present timetable per each line section can be found through such official websites
of Tagtidtabeller, DVVJ (De Vackra Vyernas Järnväg), Inlandsbanan, Jönköpings
länstrafik and so on. Then the annual number of rail trips per each line section could be
counted respectively and shown in Table 23. Assuming the annual growth rate of 1%
in passenger volume is close to the increasing yearly rate of rail trips in order to
maintain the current load factor of and comfort level of a train, the expected annual
number of rail trips per each line section in the 30th year is calculated and shown in
Table 23.

Table 23: The annual number of trips per each line section in the 1st year and 30th year

Annual number of train trips

Line
1st year 30th year
Fryksdalsbanan 9464 12587
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 260 346
Tjustbanan 5512 7331

68
 Stångådalsbanan 6032 8023
Inlandsbanan (North) 140 186
Inlandsbanan (South) 380 505
Hällnäs-Lycksele 4576 6086
Kinnekullebanan 9464 12587
Halmstad-Nässjö 3848 5118
Vaggerydsbanan 2704 3596
Bockabanan 6188 8230
Nässjö-Vetlanda 1612 2144

The annual number of single train trips will be increasing year by year, and the annual
number of trips is expected to increase by 33% in around 30 years.

Of all non-electrified lines, both Fryksdalsbanan and Kinnekullebanan are the busiest
lines with too much passenger traffic, each of them has 26 single trips per day on
average at present. Only the line Mellerud-Bengtsfors, Inlandsbanan (North) and
Inlandsbanan (South) have seasonal passenger traffic, other non-electrified lines have
all-year-round passenger traffic.

7.2 Capital expenditure estimation

Capital expenditure generally refers to the investment of funds or fixed assets,
intangible assets, and deferred assets. This type of asset will last for multiple billing
periods during using process. It needs to be capitalized during using process and
converted into costs in installations. In this project, capital expenditure consists of cost
of buying trains and cost of constructing relevant rail infrastructure.

Firstly, the minimum number and quantity of trains and rail infrastructure that are
needed to ensure the present and future traffic demand can be met could be estimated.
Considering the current train timetables, the non-electrified lines are operating 16 hours
per day on average. Assuming total average running time of each train within a day is
equal to operating hours of a line, the minimum number of trains for each line can be
inferred by total time needed for completing all trips in a day divided by the total
average running time of one train in a day. The time for completing trips incudes time
from origin to destination, layover time and charging time.

69
According to descriptions regarding rail infrastructure of fossil-free alternatives in
section 6.2.1, section 6.2.2, section 6.2.3, the minimum quantity of relevant
infrastructure can be roughly determined when the length of a railway, the number of
trains and the amount of hydrogen fuel consumed per day are known.

The results of the estimation are shown in Table 24.

Table 24: Minimum number of trains and the quantity of rail infrastructure for each line section

Min. Min. quantity of rail infrastructure

Line number BEMU (# of battery Hydrogen (fuel EMU (overhead
of trains packs) in kg/day) lines in km)
Fryksdalsbanan 5 30 630 82
Mellerud-
2 12 30 43.8
Bengtsfors
Tjustbanan 3 18 470 96
(47 km overhead
Stångådalsbanan 6 2110 235
lines)
Inlandsbanan 72 / (56.4 km
2 360 746
(North) overhead lines)
Inlandsbanan 36 / (16.5 km
2 150 321
(South) overhead lines)
Hällnäs-Lycksele 2 12 250 64.5
(8.6 km overhead
Kinnekullebanan 4 990 121
lines)
(24.5 km overhead
Halmstad-Nässjö 5 1490 196
lines)
Vaggerydsbanan 2 12 290 39
Bockabanan 2 12 120 22
Nässjö-Vetlanda 2 12 110 37

The capital expenditure for each line can be estimated by combining the results in the
Table 24 with the unit costs discussed in section 6.1 and section 6.2.

7.3 Operating cost estimation

The operating costs mainly consist of fuel costs, maintenance costs and track access
charges, which is reflected in equation 7-1.
𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 7 1

70
The annual costs of fuel, maintenance and track access for each year can be calculated
based on the following equations.

𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 1 1% 7 2

𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 1 1% 7 3

𝐶 𝑐 𝑇 1 1% 7 4

Where n is the year after implementing fossil-free alternatives. For the first-year n is
equal to 1, the annual number of single trips is the present number of trips.

Based on the equations above, the annual operating costs for each line can be calculated.

In addition to fuel costs, maintenance costs and track access costs, some additional costs
are generated during operation of battery trains and hydrogen trains. The average life
spans of a battery and a fuel cell are both 8 years (Steward et al., 2009; Barrow, 2018),
that means the batteries and fuel cells onboard are supposed to be replaced every 8 years.
Before trains reaching the end of life, all batteries and fuel cells should be changed 3
times. According to study on Battery technology charges ahead (McKinsey, 2012)
conducted by McKinsey company and study on COST FUNCTION FOR
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELL SYSTEMS (Research Institutes of Sweden, 2019)
conducted by Research Institutes of Sweden, the costs of batteries and fuel cells are
estimated and included in overall costs.

7.4 Overall cost estimation

Combining capital expenditure with operating cost of implementing different
alternatives for each rail line section, graphs indicating the total cost variation of rail
transport can be plotted and shown in Figures 20-25.

71
 Figure 20: Costs for Frysksdalsbanan (left) and for Mellerud-Bengtsfors (right)

Figure 21: Costs for Tjustbanan (left) and Stångådalsbanan (right)

Figure 22: Costs for the Inlandsbanan-North (left) and Inlandsbanan-South (right)

72
 Figure 23: Costs for Hällnäs-Lycksele (left) and Kinnekullebanan (right)

Figure 24: Costs for Nässjö-Halmstad (left) and Vaggerydsbanan (right)

Figure 25: Costs for the Bockabanan (left) and the Nässjö-Vetlanda (right)

For all non-electrified lines, the costs of implementing electric trains are the highest
while the prices of implementing other three alternatives change a lot within 30 years.
Sometimes electric trains have lower costs, and occasionally the other two options do
better than electric trains. Comparing the operating expenses of each year, it is evident
that the fuel costs are the main factor that results in the variation in total expenditures.

73
Due to the higher price and lower efficiency of diesel than hydrogen and electricity, the
total costs of implementing diesel trains are always exceeding the total expenses of
hydrogen trains and battery trains after lines crossing. As a result, the total costs of
diesel trains are increasing a lot, generating a significant amount of charges even though
the capital expenditure is quite low.

For the majority of the lines, applying either hydrogen trains or battery trains could be
the best opinion if a long-term train operation is needed.

7.5 Suitability of different alternatives

To explore when and how the total costs could be minimized from a long-term
perspective, a graph reflecting the relationship between the running distance of trains
and the year after implementing alternatives when a specific alternative has the
minimum costs is drawn and shown in Figure 26 below.

Figure 26: Suitability of each alternative under different situations

Each point represents the annual running distance of trains on a line and the
corresponding year when the alternative generates the lowest costs. Apparently, a
regular pattern appears: the left area mainly covers points of diesel trains, the middle
area mainly includes aspects of hydrogen trains, while the right area consists of many
points of battery trains.
74
This graph can be used to determine which alternative only and roughly is optimal when
the time of developing rail transport and actual traffic demand is known. Once the
annual running distance of trains on a line is decided, the longer time trains are running;
the more likely battery trains would be the best choice. If the period of developing rail
transport and running trains is constant, with the increase in the annual running distance
of trains or traffic demand, hydrogen trains would be the optimal alternative early. Then
battery trains will be the winner if the traffic demand is increasing continuously.

7.6 Potentiality of different alternatives

From a long-term perspective, each type of cost can be estimated in overall and share
of each type of cost can be calculated and shown below.

Figure 27: Share of each type of cost for running battery trains

For running battery trains, share of train costs is significantly the highest. With the
expansion of market scale and the development of relevant technology of battery trains,
total costs of running this type of trains will probably decrease when the price of the
train is decreased.

75
 Figure 28: Share of each type of cost for running hydrogen trains

For running hydrogen trains, shares of train costs and fuel costs account for nearly 75%
of the total costs. If the price of this hydrogen train and the hydrogen cost could decrease
in the next few years, there is no doubt that hydrogen trains would be more popular and
attractive since they can help reduce costs a lot.

Figure 29: Share of each type of cost for running electric trains

For running electric trains, the cost of electrifying the line is the major source that
results in huge capital investment. For the non-electrified lines that do not have too

76
much traffic, running electric trains is not sensible even though the operation could last
many decades.

Figure 30: Share of each type of cost for running diesel trains

For running diesel trains, fuel consumption generates too much cost, which extremely
increases the total costs. With the implementation of policies to achieve fossil-free
nation, prices of fossil fuels will probably increase in the future to lead every industry
to use environmentally friendly fuels. According to this inference, the share of fuel
costs would be increasing continuously if decision makers of the rail sector decide to
maintain the operation of diesel trains on non-electrified lines.

77
8. Environmental impact
Improving the ecological efficiency and determining the environmental impact of any
product requires one to know the material composition and the effect of each material
during its life from beginning to end (Meynerts et al., 2018). The environmental impact
assessment of the various alternatives to the existing diesel trains and using the electric
multiple unit trains as the base for comparison will enable one to determine to what
extent would each train type affect the environment and is one of the criteria that is
essential to eventually decide which propulsion system would be ideal for which
particular line. This assessment is expected to help the various stakeholders aware of
the most eco-friendly option and improve where necessary on the individual
components of the systems with the hope to achieve a more ‘greener’ railway sector
eventually.

The life cycle analysis (LCA) is one of the most effective tools used for quantitative
analysis of a product during its lifetime as it evaluates the environmental index of the
materials used (Yu et al., 2012).

8.1 Life cycle analysis

LCA studies are an environmental profile or score list with environmental effects
showing the most significant environmental problems, and at which stage in the life
cycle, the problems occur (Meynertsa et al., 2017). There is existing two types of LCA:

a) Engineering where the energy and emissions from the material and vehicle
manufacture and assembling processes are considered. This is the approach used in
this report as the authors inferred all the information from secondary sources of data
to achieve the needed result.

b) Economic based approach requires the use of life cycle costs to determine the impact.
This approach aims at identifying the economic feasibility of the various
alternatives in relation to sustainability. It requires the use of the life cycle cost
model which according to the study done by Zhang et al., (2016); ‘is a complex
calculation’ that needs specific values of the parameters of which are currently
unavailable at the time of this study.

78
The LCA studies for the alternative fossil-free alternatives are scarce and more so in
the railway industry where the new options of hybrid battery trains and hydrogen fuel
cell trains are modern forms of technology were gathering a significant amount of
information is difficult due to confidentiality issues.

Nevertheless, through much inference from secondary data from the road sector where
several LCA studies have been carried out and relating it to the railway side were used
to develop the comparative LCA analysis of the alternatives.

8.1.1 LCA procedure

The LCA process involves various steps to achieve an ecological impact (Meynertsa et
al., 2017). The first step is setting the boundaries to define the system to be studied for
the case of this report that involves the relevant railcar sub-systems and components of
the different alternatives, the various environmental factors and the life cycle phases.
The phases typically include the following process according to the guidelines of the
ISO 14040 (Meynerts et al., 2018). The comparison study of the environmental impact
in this report will be limited to the propulsion system of the varying alternatives.

1) Raw material extraction.

2) Production and manufacture of the materials and the initial shaping processes for
the unit, (in the case of this study, the LCA will be on the powertrain unit and energy
storage system as it is assumed for the instance of this study to be the only differing
factor among the three alternatives considered in the course of this report and also
to avoid the complexity of an entire rail vehicle system).

3) Use of energy and maintenance activities during operation. (This phase is not
considered in this study due to insufficient information available for both primary
and secondary data as the BEMU, and the hydrogen trains are new technologies that
not yet widely used in the market and information concerning them is company
confidential) and it is assumed that the emissions during operation for the two
aforementioned alternatives are negligible. However, the same cannot be said for
the diesel train where the operation phase is considered through the use of the fuel
79
 consumption calculated earlier in the report and estimating the amount of emissions
produced from the diesel consumed.

4) Recycling and End of life processes (EOL) basing on the following where possible:
 Acidification potential
 Eutrophication potential
 Global warming potential, this will be the most considered impact of climate
change as there is the availability of data
 Environment pollution

According to Yu et al., (2012), ‘LCA studies are complex and often include a level of
uncertainty due to the length and structure of the production chain. In order to determine
the environmental impact, a relationship between the inputs (which include the primary
resources, energy and materials) and the outputs of the life cycle process (which are the
emissions, waste and noise) is needed.’ LCA attempts to create that relationship based
on predetermined scenarios, and while acknowledging the various unknown elements,
the process is summarized by the image as shown in Figure 31 below.

Figure 31: The standard life cycle analysis phases according to ISO 14040

To further relate the standard LCA phases shown in Figure 31 above to the LCA of a
railcar, the system boundaries of a typical railcar need to be set taking the stages in to

80
account for this study. The format of the survey will be similar to the structure system
boundaries used by Meynerts et al.(2018b) during the LCA study of a hybrid train
during the 25th CIRP life cycle engineering conference but adapted for the
circumstances stated in this study. The primary energy sources considered will
hydrogen, diesel and electricity. The production of these would be exciting to consider,
but due to time factors, their input will be inferred from reviewed studies.

The focus will be on the power units of the different train alternative that are; the
lithium-ion battery, fuel cell system and the Internal combustion engine for a diesel
train. All these various activities contribute to the global warming potential of the final
product.

The LCA study in this report will concentrate mainly on the amount of emissions.
According to the IPCC (2007) report, global warming potential (GWP) is an import
impact indicator for climate change (Tagliaferri et al., 2016).The use of data from
various papers where simulations have been done to determine environmental damage
and during the ecological evaluation, the differences of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO equivalent) is the units used.

8.1.2 LCA of Battery trains

Energy storage devices
A battery is an electrochemical energy storage device used in both the hydrogen and
battery electric multiple units. ‘The increase of environmental concern due to issues
such as acid rain, global warming and resource shortage has made secondary
(rechargeable) batteries popular’ (Peters et al., 2017). As the automotive industry gears
towards the more popular electric vehicles, the high demand for rechargeable batteries
has made the price more viable. The secondary cells contain the active substance that
is recharged, have a higher capacity, higher energy density and often can be recycled.
The most common types used are nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH), and Lithium-ion (Li-
ion) and the choice is dependent on the operational needs of the train while running on
a particular line (Thorne et al., 2019).

However, for this report, the LCA study will be focused on the Lithium-ion battery
because according to a survey done by Molyneux et al. (2010), Lithium-ion was more
81
reactive, in the EMU and hydrogen trains the cells present are smaller and mostly used
to start the train while for the hybrid battery trains, the battery is the primary source of
propulsion energy when the BEMU is not operating on the electrified section.

Figure 32: The main components of a lithium-ion battery

The necessary production steps are shown in Figure 32 above attempt to explain the
main components and how they react to form a cell and how several cells form a battery
(Notter et al., 2010). The organic solvent Ethylene carbonate C H O and Lithium
hexafluorophosphate ( LiPF ) together form the base materials used to make the
electrolyte. The primary active element in both the anode and cathode are shelves where
the storage of the positive ions occurs (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017). The positive ions
move in the electrolyte that is contained in the separator; the separator has an additional
role of acting as a barrier between the anode and cathode. In making a single cell, many
layers of the shelves are combined and encased in a protective casing, the simplified
illustration of the reaction is visually displayed in Figure 33. Figure 32 only shows the
later stages of battery production with the presumed cathode material being a product
of reacting Lithium manganese oxide with carbon black, aluminium foil and the most
popular anode being graphite.

82
 Figure 33: A schematic illustration of a Lithium cell adopted from Romare & Dahllöf (2017)

In their report, Notter et al. (2010), provided a detailed explanation of the entire
production process, including the energy consumption and the ecological impact of
each constituent’s trade-offs. The authors also considered the amount of particulate
emissions throughout production.

The material content of Lithium-ion batteries

The components of the fuel cell produce different amount of emissions. The greenhouse
gas emissions are calculated in terms of percentage carbon dioxide-equivalent as shown
in table 25 below as a result of the research adopted from various studies reviewed by
Romare & Dahllöf (2017) that influences the amount of emissions produced using the
three different methods of LCA.

83
 Table 25: The amount of emissions produced per different LCA method used

(Romare & Dahllöf, 2017; Notter et al., 2010; Ambrose & Kendall, 2016; Emilsson & Dahllöf, 2019)

Approximate kg CO2-eq/kg material

Raw material GREET 2016 Ecoinvent version 3.1 GaBi 2016

Aluminium secondary (Cathode) 0.7

Aluminium primary
8
(Cathode)

Carbon black (Anode) 2.5 2.5

Copper primary (Anode) 2.7 3-5 3-4

Copper secondary (Anode) 1-2

Ethylene carbonate (electrolyte) 1

Graphite (Anode) 4.4 1-2 (China grade)

Lithium carbonate from brine (Cathode) 4 2

Lithium hexafluorophosphate
27
(electrolyte)

Steel (Casing) 1.7 1.9

The Table 26 below shows the average sum of the greenhouse gas emissions according
to five different studies adopted from Romare & Dahllöf (2017) for the materials of a
Lithium-ion battery. The variations of the various documents are almost the same in the
case of the carbon black anode or a slight variation, as seen in the steel casing. The
graphite varies more probably due to the difference in the country the studies were
carried out. The electricity mix of the various countries is a contributing factor in the
production and assembly process of most products.

84
 Table 26: The average sum of the GHG according to Romare & Dahllöf (2017) from the various components of

the battery

weight% of the battery with total weight 10- % of CO2-

12kg eq
cathode paste 23-45% 23-50%
anode paste 9-19% 9-11%
separator 2-3% 0.008
substrate cathode (Al)
4-9% 2-49%
Aluminium
substrate anode (cu) copper 1-12% 1-7%
Electrolyte 8-15% 1-2%
cell container, tab and terminals 3-20% 6-12.2%
module and battery packaging 17-23% 4.6-6%
battery management 1-2% 1-20.3%
cooling system 17-20% 3-8%

Each of the calculated greenhouse gas emissions for the different studies differs due to
battery design, LCA design and availability of data and therefore, the range presented
in the table (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017). As observed, the cathode has a higher
percentage of battery weight and produces a higher percentage emission. The range for
the battery management system is more extensive than that of the cathode. The cathode
is significantly skewed range from 2-49 due to differing composition across the various
studies (Ambrose & Kendall, 2016).

According to Ellingsen et al. (2014), Kim et al. (2016) and Romare & Dahllöf (2017),
the manufacturing stage requires a significant amount of energy and produces
approximately 45-60% of the total emissions battery’s life cycle (Amarakoon et al.,
2013; Nordelöf et al., 2019; Romare & Dahllöf, 2017).

The studies so far are all considering electric cars where the battery sizes are small, and
the energy storage requirement is less than that of a train especially a typically regional
train that would run along the suggested un-electrified lines. The demand for increased
storage potential could mean more cells or redesigning the cells to contain more active
85
material. A larger pack requires the supporting and structural elements like aluminium
and steel that makes the overall weight of the BEMU increase; this causes an increase
in emissions during production (Ellingsen et al., 2017).

The percentage increase of greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the increased

energy storage that would be needed to mean the railway demand could be estimated
roughly from the study that was performed by Ambrose & Kendall (2016) and
presented in Romare & Dahllöf (2017) as the probable greenhouse gas emissions per
kWh increased with the increase in battery storage energy as shown in Figure 34.

Figure 34: The relationship between the increase in battery capacity to the amount of CO2 emissions (Ambrose &

Kendall, 2016).

Of the components, it is the anode and cathode with foils, together with the electronics
and casing that have the most impact. Larger packs, as shown in the graph in Figure 34
above, exhibit more significant emissions, the scaling seems mostly linear with the
current manufacturing data but needs further study when more data is available. This is
the assumption used to create the correlation between the automotive data used in the
various studies to relate to the railway side.

Recycling
According to official statement issued by European Parliament, Council of the
European Union (European Parliament, 2000) and the report issued by Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket, 2011), they have stipulated that
85% of materials need to reuse or be recyclable. The higher the recycling rate the easier
86
is it to lower the impact of the battery production to the environment. The most used
method is pyrometallurgy however, hydrometallurgy is less resource intensive. The
disadvantage is that it is impossible to recover all the material without combining with
other methods. The graph below Figure 35 shows the various stages of recycling using
hydrometallurgy with data from the table in Romare & Dahllöf (2017) and data from
Elwert et al. (2016).

Figure 35: The amount of emissions produced during recycling (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017).

As shown in the Figure 35 above, dismantling of the cell overall has a positive impact
on the environment with the carbon emissions-equivalent being the highest during
hydro processing. Combining the information from the raw material extraction of the
battery components, the battery production and manufacturing and including the
recycling stage would provide the ideal overall life cycle of a typical Lithium-ion
battery displayed in Table 26, the results used are for the automotive sector but as
previously stated the increase in emissions due battery size are mostly linearly. It is
possible to infer these results in the railway sector. Using the most likely values from
Romare & Dahllöf (2017), the Table 27 below displays the life cycle stages, battery
components and their related impact via greenhouse gas emissions while the graph in
Figure 31 provides a visual representation of life cycle stages and their probable total
based on a 235kg battery from Ellingsen et al. (2014) and Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011).
Assuming the battery capacity of the train is 500kWh, the estimated emissions would
be the multiplication of average emissions and battery capacity:
87
 782.8kg CO2-eq/ kWh×500 kWh =391400kg CO2-eq

Table 27: Life cycle impact of each battery component (Romare & Dahllöf, 2017).

Kg CO2-eq/kWh battery
Raw material
Battery material Manufacturing
component mining and Recycling and reuse
production and assembling
processing
Anode 2-11 7-25
Cathode 7-18 13-20
Electrolyte 4.0 4-13
Separator <0.5 1
Cell case <0.1 1
Battery case 4-13 10-25
Cooling 0-3 2-6
Battery
management <1 4-30
system
Pyro: 15 (currently
most common)
Total 18.6-50.6 42-121 20-110
Hydro: -12 (most
preferred)
Average 34.2 81.5 65 15
Total average
195,7 kg CO2 per kWh
per kWh
Emissions per
train (500kWh) 391400kg CO2-eq
over 30 years
Overall average
782.8 kg CO2 per kWh
over 30 years

The Figure 36 below shows the average expected emissions per life cycle stage, as seen
below the manufacturing and assembly is the most pollutant stage followed by
production and while recycling (pyrometallurgy is most commonly used) and extraction
contribute almost the same amount of emissions. The only way to ease the impact at
the end of life stage is to adopt the use hydrometallurgy, which is better environmentally
though difficult and expensive but not enough to offset the effect of the production
stage. Companies in Sweden, such as Northvolt are attempting to overcome this
challenge by first using green electricity which is widely available in Sweden due to
hydropower stations and nuclear energy. The operation stage is not included in this

88
study as there are insignificant emissions recorded during operation for a battery-
electric multiple unit train.

Figure 36: The total average emissions per life cycle stage

8.1.3 LCA of Hydrogen trains

Fuel cells
Fuel cells are the new alternative type of energy system to be used in the transport sector,
especially the low-temperature fuel cells that are suitable for trains and cars (Pehnt,
2001). Invented in 1838 and first used by NASA, they were considered to be 52% more
efficient by 2011 as the capacity increased (Parker, 2007). The most commonly known
uses are the alkaline fuel cells for space shuttles, as mentioned earlier, and siemens
proton exchange membrane (PEM) for underwater shuttles (Simons & Bauer, 2015).
They are considered the optimal solution to the rapid start and high-power density
necessary for train operation. A first hydrogen-electric vehicle (HEV) is comprised of
approximately four different components of which a hydrogen train has the fuel cells,
hydrogen tank and lithium-ion battery differing from an electric multiple unit train
(Hwang et al., 2013). The battery of a BEMU is approximately 500kWh, but that of the
hydrogen is slightly smaller with a 220kW capacity as it is not the main propulsion
component; this LCA will concentrate on the hydrogen tank and the fuel cell as the
differing technology and add the emissions from the Li-ion battery for this LCA
analysis as the remaining components will be considered similar to the other
alternatives. Figure 37 shows the fuel cell, while Figure 38 displays the weight
distribution of the various parts of a fuel cell. The environmental impact of fuel cell
production is determined by the three main components (Pehnt, 2001):

89
 I. Gas diffusion layers (GDL both cathode and anode) which accounts for 40% of all
the global warming potential of a fuel cell LCA.
II. Catalyst on carbon support contributes to 20% of the emissions.
III. The bipolar plate also takes 20%, and the remaining 20% is often due to membrane
production and electricity production. The type of electricity production is
dependent on the kind of mix, and this is of an advantage as more than 80% of the
electricity supply in Sweden is mostly due to hydroelectricity and nuclear energy
(Swedish Institute, 2020).

Figure 37: The fuel cell schematic typically used in a hydrogen train (Föger, 2008).

The cells are stacked in series and parallel to form a fuel cell stack and several of these
forms a fuel cell module. As seen in Figure 37, the input side of the cell needs the fuel
(hydrogen) and the air supply (Föger, 2008).

90
Figure 38: Weight distribution within the fuel cell using a baseline scenario of a hydrogen vehicle (Evangelisti et

al., 2017)

The global warming potential of a fuel cell stack vary according to the studies carried
out but with some such as Simons and Bauer (2015), Evangelisti et al. (2017) and Notter
et al. (2015) having similar values. The graph below displays the variations between
the four studies of the GWP during the Fuel cell life cycle.

Figure 39: The various different results on the global warming potential of the fuel cell at the manufacturing stage

(Evangelisti et al., 2017)

Considering the components in Figure 38 and the LCA results in Figure 39 from various
studies and using the fuel cell hot spot analysis that was used in Evangelisti et al. (2017)
to estimate the average emissions per component.

91
Figure 40: The average amount of emissions due to the various components of the fuel cell stack during their life

cycle (Berger, 2017)

The average quantity of fuel cells estimated to be needed in a hydrogen train is

approximately 400kW (Berger, 2017) using the average emissions from the studies and
from Figure 40 to calculate the approximate emissions per train. Generally, the
production process of a fuel cell according to the study done by Pehnt (2001) is
predicted to a more negative impact on the environment than any other stage of the life
cycle with the fuel cell stack and the batteries have the most impact as shown in the
table below. The table displays the theoretical global warming potential calculated
using the features of the hydrogen train used in this study. Table 28 includes the
emissions from the fuel cell, lithium-ion battery (220kW) and the hydrogen tank. The
fuel cells are estimated to be four to be used over the thirty-year life span of a train as
the expected life span of a fuel cell stack is 8 years. The same applies for the Lithium-
ion battery, whereby the train requires four different batteries as their average life span
is eight years

Table 28: The estimated global warming potential of the train over its life

amount of emissions (kg total emissions over 30

hydrogen train components
CO2-eq) years
fuel cell (4 cells) 18 660 74 640
hydrogen tank (4) 2000 8000
Lithium-ion battery (220kWh)
37 114 148 456
(4 batteries)
total emissions from
57 774 231 096
components
92
The sum of emissions from adding up all the components and considering the other
systems constant is approximately 57 774 kg CO2-eq and to total emissions over the
entire life span of the hydrogen train considering the number of times the components
need to be replaced is as shown in the table above.

Like the BEMU, the hydrogen train is considered to have almost no emissions during
operation, and therefore this study did not include the operation stage during the LCA
analysis of the hydrogen train.

8.1.4 LCA of diesel trains

For ease of comparison, the LCA will assume to use the characteristics of the LINT 54.
The LINT 54 is similar in build to the hydrogen Coradia iLint (a version of LINT 54
but using hydrogen fuel cells for propulsion) (ALSTOM, 2020). The LINT 54 is
consists of two carriages like the Y31 currently in use on the identified non-electrified
lines in the case study known as Krösatågen. The LINT 54 is accessible in both
Germany and Denmark, countries with almost similar railway standards as Sweden
(Alstom, 2019). The LINT family of trains has three engines with rated power lying in
the range of 315-390 kW and seating capacity between 150 and 180 seats (nordbayern,
2019). As stated earlier, the 100-tonne Coradia LINT 54 DMU is the same as the
hydrogen and battery train in build with the only exception being the propulsion system
which is the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) diesel engine rating 390 kW powered
by axles that is the focus of the LCA (Parker, 2007).

An ICE diesel engine has been the central propulsion system for all forms of
transportation since the 20th century begun (Gustafsson & Johansson, 2015). The
environmental impact of an ICE diesel engine is mainly determined by the electrical
power and the materials. The electrical power will be due to the amount of diesel fuel
consumed and the system’s efficiency to convert to motion. The system boundary of
the diesel engine is like that of the battery and fuel in line due to similarity in make with
Figure 18 and 19 of this report. The most glaring difference with the other propulsion
systems is that unlike the battery and hydrogen where the production and manufacturing
stage carries the most onerous burden on the GWP of the entire system with the
operation phase producing almost negligible amounts of emissions; the reverse is valid
93
for the ICE diesel engine. According to Li et al. (2013), Li et al. (2014), MacLean &
Lave (2003) and several other studies related to the environmental impact of ICE
engines to the environment, it is estimated that the operation phase contributes almost
97.65% of the entire life cycle emissions as shown in the pie-chart in Figure 41 below.

Figure 41: GWP of the various stages of the life cycle of a typical ICE diesel engine unit (Li et al., 2013) and

(MacLean & Lave, 2003)

The percentages shown in Figure 41 only vary slightly from study to study as both Li
et al. (2014)-China and MacLean & Lave (2003)-USA got similar results despite using
different case study vehicles with the transportation not included though estimated to
less than 0.1%.

Considering the main constituents of a typical ICE engine is steel, cast iron, aluminium
and alloy; rubber is also present but the global warming potential for rubber is almost
negligible (Li et al., 2013), the raw material mining and extraction have the second-
highest impact with 0.89% of which cast iron and aluminium have the most impact to
the environment as summarized from the various studies in Figure 42 below and
therefore more attention is needed to find alternative means for producing these
products. The data used to draw the graph in Figure 42 was from Li et al. (2013) where
the authors considered a WD615.87 diesel engine with a rated power of 213 kW and a
comparison was made with the diesel engine of the LINT 54 of rated power 390 (Parker,
2007).

94
 Figure 42: GWP comparison between the diesel engines of the Lint 54 and WD615.87 with considering the raw

materials.

Despite the different rated power, the emissions produced during the raw material stage
roughly similar and behave almost the same from component to component with Cast
iron have the most negative impact for the two ICE diesel engines and alloy having the
least impact on the environment. During manufacturing and assembly, each engine
components requires a certain amount of energy consumed to be assembled and form
the engine. Taking the emissions produced from the studies and the average emissions
produced manufacturing is approximately 0.9 kg CO2-eq using the same assumptions
used to calculate the emissions produced during the raw material phase and the finding
the average from MacLean & Lave (2003), Li et al. (2013), Li et al. (2014) and Hawkins
et al. (2011).

According to MacLean & Lave (2003) in the attempt to determine the amount of the
emissions produced by taking into account the fuel consumption and distance travelled,
the following equation was used to determine the GWP during the operation phase
where the diesel engine efficiency was considered to be 35%.
GWP FC ∗ trips ∗ ave. emissions 8 1

Where GWP is the amount of kg CO eq produced, FC is the amount of fuel

consumed per trip on the various lines in Litres (L) as calculated in section 6.3.4 of this
report. Trips represents each line has a varied number of expected trips to occur over a
30-year period (life span of a train vehicle) as estimated in section 7 of this report.
95
Ave.emissions is the average amount of emissions produced by a typical ICE engine
per Litre. (kg CO eq/L) being estimated to be 4.40905 kg CO eq/L (Andersen
et al., 2019). The estimated total amount of emissions to be produced per railway line
for are in Table 29 below.

Table 29: The calculated emissions produced during operation on the various non-electrified lines

fuel consumed number of trips average. total operation

Lines
(L)/trip for 30 years/train emissions/L emissions/train
Fryksdalsbanan 113.9 67098.0 4.4 33709316.0
Mellerud-
49.8 4521.0 4.4 992256.3
Bengtsfors
Tjustbanan 169.8 63902.0 4.4 47850804.5
Stångådalsbanan 623.0 34965.0 4.4 96039342.0
Inlandsbanan
912.9 2435.0 4.4 9799769.7
(North)
Inlandsbanan
390.8 6608.0 4.4 11386010.0
(South)
Hällnäs-Lycksele 91.8 79577.0 4.4 32201922.5
Kinnekullebanan 190.8 82289.0 4.4 69225804.6
Nässjö-Halmstad 411.2 26767.0 4.4 48522776.0
Vaggerydsbanan 61.4 47023.0 4.4 12724275.1
Bockabanan 34.9 107609.0 4.4 16545818.5
Nässjö-Vetlanda 59.3 28033.0 4.4 7334536.7

As displayed in Table 29 above, it was noted all lines with seasonal traffic such as the
Mellerud-Bengtsfors and both the Inlandsbanan have lower emissions than the other
tracks where the passenger traffic is all year round. The length of the lines is also a
factor that influences the amount of emissions estimated the various lines as the more
distance covered the more fuel consumed and the higher the emissions expected.

The end of life stage involves both the recycling and refurbishment of almost 86% of
the raw material components where the energy used is calculated using electricity
consumption. Swedish-produced electricity has greenhouse gas emissions of around
13g CO eq/kWh (Energi Företagen, 2017). The power consumed to recycle the
main components is alloy and steel-600kWh, cast iron-560kWh and aluminium-
400kWh, these are the values used to calculate the total emissions produced.
TE electricity consumed ∗ mass of material ∗ electricity Erate 8 2

96
Where TE is the total emissions produced during the end-of-life process of the various
material components of the ICE engine, and Erate is the emissions produced from the
electricity to recycle or dispose of them.

Table 30 summarizes the life cycle of the ICE diesel engine, like the pie chart in figure
27, the operation phase produces the most emissions approximately 99.7% of the entire
emissions. This does not include the emissions that occur during transportation that
depending on the means used may be estimated to be less than 0.04% according to the
study done by Li et al. (2013) in China. The table displays for only one ICE engine, the
DMU would require three engines, and therefore, the overall emissions as will be
displayed in section 8.2 will take that factor into consideration. The fuel production is
another aspect of the operational phase that is not considered due to the complexities
involved concerning point of origin, refining and transportation of the diesel, there exist
several variables that are required to estimate the impact of fuel production on the LCA,
therefore would require a separate study.

Table 30: The amount of emissions produced by the ICE diesel engine of its life cycle

raw material
Lines production operation EOL total (ton CO2-eq)
extraction

Fryksdalsbanan 0.9 0.9 33 709.3 0.7 33 711.8

Mellerud-Bengtsfors 0.9 0.9 992.3 0.7 994.8

Tjustbanan 0.9 0.9 47 850.8 0.7 47 853.3

Stångådalsbanan 0.9 0.9 96 039.3 0.7 96 041.8

Inlandsbanan (North) 0.9 0.9 9 799.8 0.7 9 802.3

Inlandsbanan (South) 0.9 0.9 11 386.0 0.7 11 388.5

Hällnäs-Lycksele 0.9 0.9 32 201.9 0.7 32 204.4

Kinnekullebanan 0.9 0.9 69 225.8 0.7 69 228.3

Nässjö-Halmstad 0.9 0.9 48 522.8 0.7 48 525.3

Vaggerydsbanan 0.9 0.9 12 724.3 0.7 12 726.8

Bockabanan 0.9 0.9 16 545.8 0.7 16 548.3

Nässjö-Vetlanda 0.9 0.9 7 334.5 0.7 7 337.0

97
8.2 Overall Environmental impact
Comparing the results from the LCA of all the power units of the various different train
alternatives and including the fuel consumption for the diesel train during the operation
stage, provides a rough estimate of the possible environmental impact of each train
during the course of its life cycle. The primary assumption is that for both hydrogen
and battery during operation is that there are almost no emissions. The graph in figure
29 confirms the hypothesis that both battery and hydrogen trains are more
environmentally friendly despite the different characteristics of the various lines. On
average, the hydrogen train is more eco-friendly compared to the battery, but on certain
lines like the Ståndådalsbanan, the difference is slight between hydrogen-battery and
hydrogen-EMU approximately 960 000 and 1 390 000 kg CO2-eq while diesel would
produce 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions in comparison as seen in Figure 39.

There were expectactions for the shorter lines; the Mellerud-Bengtsfors,

Vaggerydsbanan, Bockabanan and Nässjö-Vetlanda to display generally fewer
emissions while figures 39 and 40 show that is true but also both the Inlandsbanan lines
have almost the same amount of emissions as Vaggerydsbanan, Bockabanan and
Nässjö-Vetlanda, this may be due to the Inlandsbanan having seasonal passenger traffic
instead of all year round. The Mellerud-Bengtsfors line showed a reasonably even
global warming potential of 23.6%, 23.2%, 30.6% and 22.6% for the BEMU, hydrogen,
DMU and EMU respectively. This may be due to factors such as the short length of the
line of 44 km and the seasonal traffic experienced.

The BEMU over the course of 30 years displayed significantly higher emissions due to
the production of the battery as it is shown to be the most CO2 intensive phase. The
DMU produces the most greenhouse gas emissions with the exception of the Mellerud-
Bengtsfors. The electric multiple unit (EMU) chassis was used as the basis for all the
other trains with only the power unit swapped out per alternative. The Figures 43 and
44 show the comparison of all the other options reviewed in sections 8.1.2, 8.1.3 and
8.1.4 to the electric multiple units described in section 5.3 and 6.3.3 of this report.
According to studies done by Åkerman (2011), Schwab Castella (2009), Lin (2019) and
Stripple & Uppenberg (2010), an estimation of the possible emissions of the EMU
would approximately be 8 448 000 kg CO-eq.

98
The overall amount of emissions for the 30 years are calculated by:
EI Tco Tcar ∗ number of train sets 8 3

EI- the environmental impact of each alternative in kgCO eq on the line.

Tco- total emissions due to the power unit components in kgCO eq
Tcar- is the emissions for the other railcar systems without including the power unit in
kg CO eq .

The number of train sets needed on the various lines was estimated and used in both
chapters 6 and 7 were used to determine the impact of multiple alternatives and draw
the graph shown in Figures 43 and 44. The graph clearly displays the negative effect of
diesel trains (DMU) to the environment. The fossil-free alternatives of electric, battery
and hydrogen have a much less impact than the diesel.

Figure 43: The overall environmental impact of the different train alternatives along the unelectrified lines for

thirty years (expected life span of the train vehicle)

99
 Figure 44: The environment impact of each alternative in terms of % to the other options

According to the results in this report, the DMU is the least favored train propulsion
system to use on all the 12 unelectrified lines due to the high amount of emissions while
the EMU, hydrogen and BEMU are preferred in the descending order respectively.

100
9. Evaluation of alternatives
In the previous three sections, the performance of other options in terms of different
aspects on different lines was measured and estimated. For decision-makers, they can
easily consider the effect of a single factor when implementing alternatives on a specific
line, and they can get access to detailed information. However, sometimes decision-
makers must stand at a relatively high level to evaluate and make decisions based on a
holistic thinking pattern, instead of the main focus on different parts separately. In this
case, it is necessary to establish an evaluation system to analyze and evaluate the overall
effect of the implementation of policies, strategic plans and projects. An evaluation
system based on the AHP model is supposed to be established, evaluating and rating
different rail transport alternatives scientifically and reasonably.

9.1 Establishment of an evaluation system

For a complex system or a multi-criteria decision-making problem, people should pay
more attention to all components comprehensively instead of only a few parts that are
important from their perspective. In an evaluation system, all available alternatives and
criteria that can reflect the main features and performance of other options should be
introduced to the system. In addition, the requirements should be scientifically selected
to make sure they do have a significant impact, and they are explained reasonably.
Several pieces of principles probably need to be followed.

(1) Systematism
Most railway projects involve many stakeholders who are concerned with different
aspects; it would be optimal to provide each stakeholder with the possibility of
achieving maximum benefits without too much negative impact on them. Therefore,
the evaluation system should reflect the overall characteristics and catch the main
factors that would affect stakeholders, making sure the decision making is holistic and
convincing.

(2) Consistency
The evaluation system needs to be consistent with the overall goal of decision making.
The system should be able to help to achieve the overall goal, rather than obstructing
the way to goal by introducing irrelevant and opposite criteria to the system.

101
(3) Measurability
The evaluation system needs to be a scientific and convincing tool for decision-makers,
the performance of alternatives in terms of criteria is expected to be measurable no
matter what approaches are applied to find evidence to support decision-makers. In
addition, it would be better if the process of data collection is simple and convenient.

(4) Independence
All criteria must be independent of each other, making sure each measure has its own
specific effect on decision making. Otherwise, the impact of standards is biased due to
the internal correlation of criteria among dependent criteria.

According to the Swedish parliament, a fossil-free nation will be achieved in the middle
of this century, at that time, the environment is expected to get much better than now.
To some extent, this vision not only represents the government’s attitude but also the
expectations of people since everyone is hoping to live in an environment with less
pollution.

For the rail sector, advanced rail technology is essential since it can lead to better
performance of rail transport. In addition, both train operators and railway managers
would like to save costs and get more profits in order to maintain positive growth when
developing rail transport. Meanwhile, they have to make contributions to help with
Swedish fossil-free vision.

For decision-makers of the rail sector, they would prefer to make forward-looking
decisions rather than mainly concentrate on immediate benefits, achieving sustainable
development of rail transport in the future.

Considering the characteristics of an evaluation system and the overall goal of the
project, specifications of rail technology, investments and costs, environmental impact
and long-term strategic plans are supposed to be included to evaluate the overall effect
when implementing each alternative. However, the selected models of four rail vehicle
alternatives in section 5.5 are at the same class and have similar characteristics as well
as running performance, making no discernible difference in decision-makers’
102
preference. Therefore, only three criteria of costs, environmental impact and long-term
strategic plans are included in the evaluation system. Since the three principles are
independent and the performance of alternatives in terms of these criteria can be
scientifically measured as discussed in the previous section 6, section 7 and section 8,
these three criteria are selected to evaluate alternatives. The Figure 45 below shows the
4-level evaluation system regarding rail vehicle alternatives.

Figure 45: The evaluation system regarding rail vehicle alternatives

In this system, two levels of criteria are built. The main criteria consist of costs,
environmental impact and long-term strategy. Under the main criteria, costs consist of
train costs, infrastructure costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and track access charges;
long-term strategy consists of short-term plan, mid-term plan as well as long-term plan.
The reason why there are no sub-criteria under environmental impact is measurement
of environmental impact is modularized and the impact could be existing at each stage
of a train’s life cycle, so it would be quite difficult to specifically measure partial
environmental impact at a certain stage of a whole life cycle. Four alternatives are
respectively battery trains, hydrogen trains, electric trains, and diesel trains.

9.2 Evaluation of rail transport alternatives

After establishing the evaluation system, comparison matrices are created. The
comparison matrix of criteria can be written as:
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
𝐴 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 9 1
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎

Where the value of each component in matrix A represents the relative importance of
any two criteria. The comparison matrix of sub-criteria under costs can be written as:
103
 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
⎡𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ⎤
⎢𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ⎥
𝐴 ⎢ ⎥ 9 2
⎢𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ⎥
⎣𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ⎦

Where the value of each component in the matrix 𝐴 represents the relative
importance of any two sub-criteria under costs.

The comparison matrix of sub-criteria under long-term strategy can be written as:
𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙
𝐴 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 9 3
𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙

Where the value of each component in the matrix 𝐴 represents the relative
importance of any two sub-criteria under a long-term strategy.

Then, convert the 3 3 comparison matrix of criteria into a 9 9 comparison

matrix including all requirements and sub-criteria by combining with the comparison
matrices of sub-criteria, making sure all conditions and sub-criteria can be evaluated at
the same level. After conversion, the final comparison matrix is:
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙
⎡𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙
⎤
⎢𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙
⎥
⎢𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ⎥
∙
⎢ ⎥
𝐴′ ⎢ 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ ⎥ 9 4
⎢𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ ⎥
⎢ 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎∙ 𝑎 ∙ ⎥
⎢𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ ⎥
⎣𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ ⎦

Where the value of each component in matrix 𝐴′ represents the relative importance of
any two criteria or sub-criteria at the same level after conversion.

All the components in the matrices represent subjective values, which are typically got
from experts and decision-makers based on their attitudes. The scale of these values is
also mentioned and explained in section 3.

104
Afterwards, apply equations 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 in part 3, the criteria weight vector 𝑤 can be
got:
𝑤
⎡𝑤 ⎤
⎢𝑤 ⎥
⎢𝑤 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
𝑤 ⎢𝑤 ⎥ 9 5
⎢𝑤 ⎥
⎢𝑤 ⎥
⎢𝑤 ⎥
⎣𝑤 ⎦

The weight of alternatives in terms of each criterion or sub-criteria can be calculated by

repeating the above steps. But the difference between calculating the importance of
standards and the influence of other options is the values in the comparison matrices of
alternatives are objectively measured and supported by a lot of specific data instead of
subjectively given by people based on their opinions. Since the options are evaluated
based on criteria analyzed and calculated in section 6, section 7 and section 8, the
performance of alternatives in terms of standards can be measured directly from the
corresponding calculation results before.

According to a theory of scales of measurement (Stevens, 1946), data can be classified

into four categories, including nominal data, ordinal data, interval data and ratio data.
Ratio data could reflect the degree of difference between values, multiplication and
division can be carried out when comparing costs to know how much difference the
benefits exactly have. The difference can be measured in a linear relationship. In
addition, ratio scale has an absolute zero point, that means zero is equivalent to none.
In terms of ratio data, the relative importance of them can be objectively measured in a
linear proportional relationship.

Looking at the calculation results of costs and environmental impact, they belong to
ratio data. Multiplication and division could be applied to them as a linear relationship
to reflect the difference, so the relative performance of alternatives can be simply but
objectively got based on ratio scale measurement.

105
Eventually, the alternatives can be graded after finishing the calculations of the weight
of criteria and the importance of other options in terms of standards. The choice which
has the highest weight is believed as the best option.

9.3 Results of the evaluation

Among all non-electrified railway lines in Sweden, Stångådalsbanan has relatively high
traffic demand, and long rail route, the effect of implementing different alternatives is
expected to differ significantly. Therefore, take Stångådalsbanan as a case to present
the whole process including detailed calculations. As for other lines, although the same
process is applicable only the final results are shown briefly.

Through the interviews with some professionals working in the rail sector, an essential
attitude was collected. For most rail projects, the costs are the most critical factor to be
considered, and the prices are twice as important as environmental impact. The long-
term development strategy is less vital than costs but should be paid more attention than
ecological implications. The relative importance of criteria is shown in Table 31. This
evaluation was an amalgamation of various opinions from interviews held with
personnel from companies such as Alstom, Bombardier and Trafikverket.

Table 31: Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria

Criteria costs environmental impact long-term strategy

9 9
costs 1
5 7
5 5
environmental impact 1
9 7
7 7
long-term strategy 1
9 5

Under costs, the investments on trains and infrastructure are mostly considered. Then,
the expenditure on fuel is supposed to be included. Maintenance costs and track access
charges are not as high as others. The relative importance of sub-criteria under costs is
shown in Table 32.

106
 Table 32: Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criterion (costs)

Sub-criterion train infrastructure fuel maintenance track access

(costs) costs costs costs costs charges
9 3 9
train costs 1 3
8 2 2
infrastructure 8 4 8
1 4
costs 9 3 3

2 3
fuel costs
3 4
maintenance 2 1
costs 9 4
1 3 2
1 2
1
3 3

track access 1 3 1 3
1
charges 3 8 2 2

Long-term strategy with different time periods makes a massive difference on the future
development of a company. A forward-looking idea is useful to help a company go
further, but due to uncertainty of the future that is far from now; the short-term plan is
more realistic than long-term plan an excellent example of unpredictability is the 2020
COVID-19 situation which globally has adversely affected the transport sector among
others. To some extent, the mid-term plan is dependent on the beginning and the end of
a certain period, so it might not be so crucial as a long-term plan and short-term plan.
The relative importance of sub-criteria under the long-term strategy is shown in Table
33.

Table 33: Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criterion (long-term strategy)

Sub-criterion (long-term strategy) long-term plan mid-term plan short-term plan

7 7
long-term plan 1
5 9
5 5
mid-term plan 1
7 9
9 9
short-term plan 1
7 5

107
Combine comparison matrices of criteria and sub-criteria making them at the same level;
a comprehensive comparison matrix is formed, as shown in Table 34 below.

Table 34: Pairwise comparison matrix of all criteria and sub-criteria

track long- mid- short-

train infrastruc fuel maintenan environment
All criteria access term term term
costs ture costs costs ce costs al impact
charges plan plan plan

train 9 3 9 81 243 243 27

1        3         
costs 8 2 2 140 196 140 28

infrastruct 8 4 8 18 54 54 6
  1    4           
ure costs 9 3 3 35 49 35 7

fuel 2 3 27 81 81 9
    1  3  2         
costs 3 4 70 98 70 14

maintenan 2 1 1 2 9 27 27 3
      1           
ce costs 9 4 3 3 70 98 70 14

track
1 3 1 3 27 81 81 9
access         1         
3 8 2 2 140 196 140 28
charges

environme 140 35 70 70 140 15 5

          1    3   
ntal impact 81 18 27 9 27 7 3

long-term 196 49 98 98 196 7 7 7

            1     
plan 243 54 81 27 81 15 5 9

mid-term 140 35 70 70 140 1 5 5

              1   
plan 243 54 81 27 81 3 7 9

short-term 28 7 14 14 28 3 9 9
                1 
plan 27 6 9 3 9 5 7 5

As discussed at the beginning of this section, the overall goal of having fewer costs and
less environmental impact is followed. The relative importance of two alternatives is
inversely proportional to the ratio of the two actual values in terms of costs or
environmental impact. Comparing two alternatives, if an alternative has lower costs or
lower environmental impact, this alternative has a better performance than the other
one, which means this alternative is more preferred. The relative importance of
108
alternatives in terms of each criterion or sub-criteria is measured and as shown in Table
35.

Table 35: Pairwise comparison matrix of alternatives in terms of each criterion

Battery Hydrogen Electric Diesel

Ratings Alternatives
trains trains trains trains
Battery trains 1 0.846 0.769 0.8

train Hydrogen trains 1.182 1 0.909 0.946

0.137
costs Electric trains 1.3 1.1 1 1.041
Diesel trains 1.25 1.057 0.961 1
Battery trains 1 0.196 5 0.196

infrastructure Hydrogen trains 5.102 1 25.515 1

0.122
costs Electric trains 0.2 0.039 1 0.039
Diesel trains 5.102 1 25.515 1
Battery trains 1 5.164 1.225 9.872

fuel Hydrogen trains 0.194 1 0.237 1.912

0.092
costs Electric trains 0.816 4.219 1 8.057
Diesel trains 0.101 0.523 0.124 1
Battery trains 1 1 1 1.097

maintenance Hydrogen trains 1 1 1 1.097

0.031
costs Electric trains 1 1 1 1.097
Diesel trains 0.911 0.911 0.911 1
Battery trains 1 0.955 1.185 0.875

track access Hydrogen trains 1.047 1 1.241 0.916

0.046
charges Electric trains 0.844 0.806 1 0.738
Diesel trains 1.143 1.092 1.355 1
Battery trains 1 0.982 0.956 33.55

environmental Hydrogen trains 1.018 1 0.972 34.17

0.238
impact Electric trains 1.046 1.028 1 35.11
Diesel trains 0.03 0.029 0.028 1

long-term Battery trains 1 1.306 1.942 1.828

0.111
plan Hydrogen trains 0.766 1 1.486 1.399

109
 Electric trains 0.515 0.673 1 0.941
Diesel trains 0.547 0.715 1.062 1
Battery trains 1 1.126 2.121 1.471

mid-term Hydrogen trains 0.888 1 1.884 1.306

0.079
plan Electric trains 0.471 0.531 1 0.693
Diesel trains 0.68 0.766 1.443 1
Battery trains 1 0.886 2.364 0.994

short-term Hydrogen trains 1.129 1 2.669 1.122

0.144
plan Electric trains 0.423 0.375 1 0.42
Diesel trains 1.006 0.891 2.379 1

The weight of criteria and the weight of alternatives in terms of different standards are
calculated and shown in Table 36.

Table 36: Total weight of each alternative

Alternatives
Criteria weight
Battery Hydrogen Electric Diesel
trains trains trains trains

train costs 0.137 0.211 0.25 0.275 0.264

infrastructure
0.122 0.088 0.447 0.018 0.447
costs

fuel costs 0.092 0.474 0.092 0.387 0.047

maintenance costs 0.031 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.232

track access
0.046 0.248 0.26 0.209 0.283
charges
environmental
0.238 0.323 0.329 0.338 0.01
impact

long-term plan 0.111 0.354 0.271 0.182 0.193

110
 mid-term plan 0.079 0.329 0.292 0.155 0.224

short-term plan 0.144 0.281 0.317 0.119 0.283

Total weight 0.286 0.294 0.223 0.197

From the results, hydrogen trains are the highest-weighted alternative; battery trains get
a very close result to hydrogen trains even though they do not get the highest weight;
comparing other options with hydrogen trains and battery trains, both electric trains and
diesel trains have low loads but diesel trains have worse performance than electric trains.

As a result, running hydrogen trains on Stångådalsbanan would be the optimal choice

while continuing to run diesel trains on this line is the worst option from an overall
perspective.

Performing the same steps then the total weight of alternatives on each line can be
calculated and shown in Table 37.

111
 Table 37: Results of all non-electrified lines

Battery Hydrogen Electric Diesel

Line Optimal choice
train train train train
Fryksdalsbanan 0.306 0.285 0.223 0.186 Battery train
Mellerud-Bengtsfors 0.256 0.334 0.179 0.231 Hydrogen train
Tjustbanan 0.327 0.278 0.209 0.186 Battery train
Stångådalsbanan 0.286 0.294 0.223 0.197 Hydrogen train
Inlandsbanan (North) 0.262 0.312 0.170 0.256 Hydrogen train
Inlandsbanan (South) 0.272 0.312 0.176 0.240 Hydrogen train
Hällnäs-Lycksele 0.310 0.282 0.208 0.200 Battery train
Kinnekullebanan 0.306 0.288 0.218 0.188 Battery train
Halmstad-Nässjö 0.284 0.296 0.211 0.209 Hydrogen train
Vaggerydsbanan 0.302 0.278 0.207 0.213 Battery train
Bockabanan 0.280 0.285 0.224 0.211 Hydrogen train
Nässjö-Vetlanda 0.273 0.291 0.203 0.233 Hydrogen train

For each line, the alternative that has the highest weight is the best option. In overall,
diesel trains and electric trains are not suitable for such non-electrified lines in Sweden
from a long-term perspective. Of all non-electrified lines for passenger traffic, battery
trains are the most suitable alternative for 5 lines, while hydrogen trains are the optimal
alternative for other 7 lines.

112
10. Conclusion and discussion
10.1 Conclusion
1) In terms of unit costs, battery trains and hydrogen trains are more expensive than
diesel trains and electric trains, while the infrastructure cost for electric trains is much
higher than others. Electricity is the cheapest fuel while hydrogen and diesel are
expensive, the actual cost of fuel is dependent on actual operation due to the huge
differences of conversion efficiency of powertrain systems and running distance.

2) In terms of long-term strategy, battery trains, hydrogen trains and diesel trains are
likely to be the optimal alternatives for different time periods while running electric
trains is never a good choice due to too much investment needed to build the catenary
system. For non-electrified lines that are either shorter or have less traffic, operating
hydrogen trains instead of diesel trains would be more feasible from a long-term
perspective; for lines with busy traffic and huge passenger volume, running battery
trains is currently more economic than hydrogen trains. If the price of hydrogen fuel
reduces by 50% as experts forecasted, hydrogen trains will be more economically
feasible than other alternatives on 80% of the non-electrified lines.

3) In terms of environmental impact, no matter which fossil-free train is used, the

amount of emissions along the whole life cycle is less than that of the diesel train. In
other words, the diesel trains should be replaced by fossil-free trains in the near future
to reduce the emissions.

4) Considering the overall effect of implementing different alternatives when applying

AHP model, battery trains and hydrogen trains would be the optimal options, if these
two types of trains are be operated in Sweden, the share of each of the two alternatives
is almost equal. Electric trains and diesel trains reach two extreme points: either
produce huge amount of costs or huge amount of emissions, respectively. Therefore,
electric trains and diesel trains are according to this analysis, the least favorable for the
Swedish non-electrified railway.

113
10.2 Discussion
Generally, the most preferred train propulsion alternative is the electric multiple unit
train, but as stated earlier, the cost of the infrastructure installation makes it
uneconomical to implement unless offset by high demand. The alternative until now
has been diesel-fueled trains (DMUs) on this short, low demand passenger traffic lines.
However, this report has displayed that with the use of the AHP model, that hydrogen-
fueled trains and battery bi-mode operated trains (BEMUs) are a viable alternative to
replace the old DMUs as shown in Table 37. The BEMU and hydrogen-fueled trains
are often cheaper than both the DMU and EMU considering both the cost and long-
term strategy from chapters 6 and 7.

In terms of environmental impact, both hydrogen trains and the BEMU had
significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions in comparison to diesel-fueled trains. The
two alternatives on average except for Mellerud-Bengtsfors contributed less than 15%
of the emissions in contrast to the DMU that had 70% of CO2 emissions. The EMU
also had a lower adverse impact of approximately 15%. This value varies from country
to country depending on the electricity mix, for most Nordic countries the electricity is
produced from renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro and nuclear, hence the
low emissions from the EMU trains. The same may not apply to countries’ whose
electricity is mainly coal-based.

Hydrogen production while not considered in this report is a cause for concern as
presently about 50 million tons of hydrogen is yearly produced via petroleum and
ammonia refining (Parker, 2007). Of all the methods used for hydrogen production, the
electrolysis method is the most environmentally friendly as it does not produce
significant if any amounts of carbon dioxide and the by-products of the process is
mainly steam. Hydrogen reforming is second to being eco-friendly by providing
approximately 57grams of CO2 per MJ, but the by-product is also water. These two
processes are heavily influenced by the electricity mix of the country, in Nordic
countries, due to most electricity being produced by renewable methods makes these
two methods ideal and slightly cheaper. The third method that involves diesel and
methane, while the most widely used and cheap is estimated to produce an expected
74grams of CO2 per MJ. The byproducts of this method are equally as harmful,
including nitrogen oxides and particulate materials whose impact on the environment
114
range from acidification to general environmental and health degradation. Depending
on the method used while producing hydrogen, the transportation means to the refueling
stations, the passengers carried, distance covered by the vehicle in kilometers would
change the environmental impact of the hydrogen train as a fossil free alternative.
Hydrogen-fueled trains are also a very popular choice as more research is done to
improve their performance and speed. These trains may soon compete with the
traditional EMUs at least on the regional line side.

As further development is made concerning the battery manufacturing and end-of-life

processes, there may be a possibility that Battery operated bi-modal trains could be used
as possible stop gaps towards electrification on these regional lines. The Lithium-ion
batteries are currently the most prevalent chemical energy storage device, but other types
exist like the Ni-hydride and the Lithium-air batteries that could be potential replacements
and change the ranking of the alternatives. The same could be applied to the fuel cell, as
technology advances, the cost of production could be lowered making the hydrogen trains
more attractive option than EMU.

10.3 Further research

 The complete cost-benefit analysis pre-study of each line individually can be
performed to help decision makers understand if a fossil-free rail project is worth
to be invested and paid more attention on. Considering both passenger and freight
traffic.

 Considering the environmental impact in fuel production, implementing fossil-free

alternatives can be considered and analyzed not only from transport aspect but also
from the aspect of national energy structure.

 Comparison analysis of the results from Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process

method and those from AHP method used in this report can be applied in the future
to explore and evaluate alternatives better.

 A simulation analysis to determine the effect of the possible change in demand of

the other modes of transport due to the introduction of these alternatives in the
various regions.
115
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, P., & Kjeang, E. (2015). Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen
fuel cell passenger vehicles in different Canadian provinces. International Jou
rnal of Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.147
Adamson, D. K.-A. (2007). “2007 Niche Transport Survey.” In Fuel Cell Today.
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/surveys/2007-Niche-Transport 1.pdf%
0A%0A
Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat. (n.d.). Swedes harmed by air pollution | Airc
lim. NO. 3 OCTOBER 2018. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://www.
airclim.org/acidnews/swedes-harmed-air-pollution
Åkerman, J. (2011). The role of high-speed rail in mitigating climate change - Th
e Swedish case Europabanan from a life cycle perspective. Transportation Re
search Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trd.2010.12.004
Alfieri, L., Iannuzzi, D., Mottola, F., Pagano, M., & Roscia, M. (2019). Battery-B
ased Energy Storage Systems for Catenary-Free Electric Trains. 2018 IEEE I
nternational Conference on Electrical Systems for Aircraft, Railway, Ship Pro
pulsion and Road Vehicles and International Transportation Electrification Co
nference, ESARS-ITEC 2018, 6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESARS-ITEC.2018.86
07588
Alstom. (2018). Alstom Coradia iLint. Alstom. https://www.alstom.com/our-solutio
ns/rolling-stock/coradia-ilint-worlds-1st-hydrogen-powered-train
Alstom. (2020). Alstom signs first contract for battery-electric regional trains in G
ermany | Alstom. Alstom Press Release and News. https://www.alstom.com/p
ress-releases-news/2020/2/alstom-signs-first-contract-battery-electric-regional-tr
ains-germany
Amarakoon, S., Smith, J., & Segal, B. (2013). Application of Life-Cycle Assessm
ent to Nanoscale Technology: Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles - A
pril 24, 2013. https://doi.org/EPA 744-R-12-001
Ambrasaite, I., Barfod, M. B., & Salling, K. B. (2011). MCDA and risk analysis
in transport infrastructure appraisals: The Rail Baltica case. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.0
8.103
Ambrose, H., & Kendall, A. (2016). Effects of battery chemistry and performance
on the life cycle greenhouse gas intensity of electric mobility. Transportatio
n Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 47, 182–194. https://doi.org/1
0.1016/J.TRD.2016.05.009
Andersen, M. H. G., Johannesson, S., Fonseca, A. S., Clausen, P. A., Saber, A.
T., Roursgaard, M., Loeschner, K., Koponen, I. K., Loft, S., Vogel, U., & M
116
 øller, P. (2019). Exposure to Air Pollution inside Electric and Diesel-Powere
d Passenger Trains. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(8), 4579–458
7. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06980
Andersson, K. B. (2020). Trafikverkets elprisrapport 2020-02. https://doi.org/2020-
02-elprisrapport.pdf
Arcola Energy. (2019). FCH–Shift2Rail study highlights potential for Euro hydrog
en trains. Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2019(6), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-285
9(19)30230-5
Atanasova -Pachemska, T., Lapevski, M., & Timovski, R. (2015). MULTICRITE
RIA ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION APPLICATION OF THE AHP IN
THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF THE BEST MATHEMATICAL SOFT
WARE SOLUTIONS.
Berger, R. (2017). Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
Applications for Regions and Cities 2. https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/FCH Docs/171127_FCH2JU_BCs Regions Cities_Consolidated Tech Intr
o_Rev. Final FCH_v11 %28ID 2910585%29.pdf
Bombardier. (2015). UNITED KINGDOM ELECTROSTAR electrical multiple un
it in operation on British railways ALTERNATIVE DRIVE CONCEPTS FO
R ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS. www.bombardier.com
Borda-de-Água, L., Barrientos, R., Beja, P., & Pereira, H. M. (2017). Railway ec
ology. In Railway Ecology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/1
0.1007/978-3-319-57496-7
Button, K. (2008). Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising
World The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport Activity
Past trends and future perspectives. November, 1–40. https://www.oecd.org/gr
eengrowth/greening-transport/41373470.pdf
Caedz corporation. (n.d.). "Hydrail: Preliminary Proposal.”. Lallo Communications
Design. Retrieved January 30, 2020, from http://www.interstatetraveler.us/As
sociates/Marjorie.Hoeh/CAEDZ-Webfiles/cpii_07-hydrotrain03.php.htm%0A%
0A
Carlos Navas. (2017). Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and Hydrog
en Applications for Regions and Cities. https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/defaul
t/files/171121_FCH2JU_Application-Package_WG1_Trains%20%28ID%20291
0561%29%20%28ID%202911647%29.pdf
Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transpor
t Geography, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008
Chapter 4 EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY CONVERSION. (2016). https://personal.e
ms.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter4.pdf
Choi, M., Kim, S., & Seo, S. (2012). Energy Management Optimization in a Batt
ery/Supercapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage System. IEEE Transactions on Sm
117
 art Grid, 3(1), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2011.2164816
Chou, C. C. (2010). AHP model for the container port choice in the multiple-port
s region. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 18(2), 221-232. https://
www.mendeley.com/catalogue/29ae6323-0456-3625-9684-e7b1d8f209c7/
CH2M HILL Canada Limited, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance Inc., &
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. (2018). Regional Express Rail Program Hydr
ail Feasibility Study Report. http://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/announcement
s/hydrail-resources/CPG-PGM-RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_R1.pdf
CTCN. (2009). Regenerative braking for trains. https://www.ctc-n.org/content/rege
nerative-braking-trains
Dai, Q., Kelly, J. C., Gaines, L., & Wang, M. (2019). Life cycle analysis of lithi
um-ion batteries for automotive applications. Batteries. https://doi.org/10.3390
/batteries5020048
Danner, M., Vennedey, V., Hiligsmann, M., Fauser, S., Gross, C., & Stock, S. (2
017). Comparing Analytic Hierarchy Process and Discrete-Choice Experiment
to Elicit Patient Preferences for Treatment Characteristics in Age-Related M
acular Degeneration. Value in health . The Journal of the International Societ
y for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(8), 1166–1173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.022.
Dhanushkodi, S. R., Mahinpey, N., Srinivasan, A., & Wilson, M. (2008). Life cy
cle analysis of fuel cell technology. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 11
(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.200800109
Doyle, A., & Muneer, T. (2017). A case study for Northern Europe. In Electric
Vehicles: Prospects and Challenges (p. 45). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.10
16/B978-0-12-803021-9.00010-0
Dr. Kerry-Ann Adamson. (2007). “2007 Niche Transport Survey.” Fuel Cell Toda
y. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/surveys/2007-Niche-Transport 1.pd
f%0A%0A
DW. (2019). “Driving a hydrogen-powered car in Denmark.” DW, 1. https://www.
dw.com/en/driving-a-hydrogen-powered-car-in-denmark/a-49172769
East Japan Railway company. (2006). Development of the World’s First Fuel Cell
Hybrid Railcar. East Japan Railway Company. https://www.jreast.co.jp/e/pres
s/20060401/
Ellingsen, L. A. W., Singh, B., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). The size and range e
ffect: Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. CONCAWE
Review, 2017, 6. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054
010/pdf
Elwert, T., Goldmann, D., Römer, F., Buchert, M., Merz, C., Schueler, D., & Sut
ter, J. (2016). Current developments and challenges in the recycling of key c
omponents of (Hybrid) electric vehicles. In Recycling (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 2
118
 5–60). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling1010025
E. Mazareanu. (2020). Volume of passenger rail transport in Sweden from 2006 t
o 2018.https://www.statista.com/statistics/437091/passengers-transported-by-rail
-in- sweden-in-million-passenger-kilometres/
Energi Företagen. (2017). Energibranschens klimat-och miljöpåverkan. https://ww
w.energiforetagen.se/globalassets/energiforetagen/statistik/energiaret/energiaret2
016_miljo_27-september.pdf
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PROGRAMME. (2011). https:
//iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/T11_Rail_Transport_v3_final_gs06062011.pdf
European Parliament. (2000). DIRECTIVE 2000/53/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PA
RLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on end-of life vehicles. https://eur-le
x.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0053
Evangelisti, S., Tagliaferri, C., Brett, D. J. L., & Lettieri, P. (2017a). Life cycle a
ssessment of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system for passenger
vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 4339–4355. https://doi.org/10.10
16/J.JCLEPRO.2016.11.159
Fragiacomo, P., & Piraino, F. (2019). Fuel cell hybrid powertrains for use in Sout
hern Italian railways. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(51), 2793
0–27946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.09.005
Fuel Cells Bulletin. (2006). “Japanese fuel cell rail vehicle in running tests.” “Jap
anese Fuel Cell Rail Vehicle in Running Tests.,” ISSN 1464-2859. https://do
i.org/10.1016/S1464-2859(06)71254-8
Gattuso, Domenico & Restuccia, Antonio. (2014). A Tool for Railway Transport
Cost Evaluation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 111. 549-558. 1
0.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.088.
Galen J. Suppes, Truman S. Storvick. (2016). Sustainable Power Technologies an
d Infrastructure. Academic Press, ISBN 9780128039090.
Gerssen-Gondelach, S. J., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2012). Performance of batteries for
electric vehicles on short and longer term. Journal of Power Sources, 212, 11
1–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.03.085
Ghaviha, N. (2016). ENERGY OPTIMAL OPERATION OF ELECTRIC TRAINS
DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVER ADVISORY SYSTEM [Mälardalen Univ
ersity]. https://doi.org/Mälardalen University Press Licentiate these number 37
Gustafsson, M., Lindén, J., Tang, L., Forsberg, B. (Umeå U., Orru, H. (Umeå U.,
Åström, S., & Sjöberg, K. (2018). Quantification of population exposure to
NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 and estimated health impacts. https://doi.org/978-91-
88787-60-6
Gustafsson, T., & Johansson, A. (2015). Comparison between Battery Electric Ve
hicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles fueled by Electrofuels From
an energy efficiency and cost perspective [Chalmers University of Technolog
119
 y]. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/218621/218621.pdf
Hata, H. (1998). Railway Technology Today 4 (Edited by Kanji Wako) What Dri
ves Electric Multiple Units? Evolution to AC Motors. In Japan Railway & T
ransport Review (Vol. 17).
Hoffrichter, A., Hillmansen, S., & Roberts, C. (2016). Conceptual propulsion syst
em design for a hydrogen-powered regional train. IET Electrical Systems in
Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-est.2014.0049
Hwang, J.-J., Kuo, J.-K., Wu, W., Chang, W.-R., Lin, C.-H., & Wang, S.-E. (201
3). Lifecycle performance assessment of fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int
ernational Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(8), 3433–3446. https://doi.org/10.1
016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.12.148
Institution of Mechanical Engineers.(2019). THE FUTURE FOR HYDROGEN T
RAINS IN THE UK. https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/th
e-future-for-hydrogen-trains-in-the-uk
Iversen, A. (2017). En jämförande förstudie av fossila drivmedel för Inlandsbanan
s persontrafik [Mid Sweden University]. https://doi.org/OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mi
un-33120
Jing, L., Chen, B., Zhang, B., Li, P., & Zheng, J. (2013). Monte Carlo simulation
-aided analytic hierarchy process approach: Case study of assessing preferred
non-point-source pollution control best management practices. Journal of Env
ironmental Engineering (United States), 139(5), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.10
61/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000673
Josephine Cordero Sapién. (2018). Transdev Orders 64 Stadler FLIRT 160 Trains
to Operate on Hanover S-Bahn Network. https://railway-news.com/transdev-6
4-stadler-flirt-160-trains/
Johnsson, F., Kjärstad, J., & Rootzén, J. (2019). The threat to climate change mit
igation posed by the abundance of fossil fuels. Climate Policy, 19(2), 18. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1483885
Keith Barrow. (2018). Battery train energises race to replace diesel. https://www.r
ailjournal.com/in_depth/battery-train-energises-race-to-replace-diesel
Kiker, G. A., Todd, À., Bridges, S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkovjj, I.
(2005). Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Deci
sion Making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2), 9
5–108.
Kumru, Mesut & Kumru, Pınar. (2014). Analytic hierarchy process application in
selecting the mode of transport for a logistics company. Journal of Advanced
Transportation. 48. 10.1002/atr.1240.
Khalili, S., Rantanen, E., Bogdanov, D., & Breyer, C. (2019). Global transportatio
n demand development with impacts on the energy demand and greenhouse
gas emissions in a climate-constrained world. Energies, 12(20), 54. https://do
120
 i.org/10.3390/en12203870
Li, T., Liu, Z. C., Zhang, H. C., & Jiang, Q. H. (2013). Environmental emissions
and energy consumptions assessment of a diesel engine from the life cycle
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 53, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.04.034
Lin, J., Cheng, S., Li, H., Yang, D., & Lin, T. (2019). Environmental Footprints
of High-Speed Railway Construction in China: A Case Study of the Beijing-
Tianjin Line. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public He
alth, 17(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010105
MacLean, H. L., & Lave, L. B. (2003). Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile/Fu
el Options. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(23), 5445–5452. https:
//doi.org/10.1021/es034574q
Marin, G. D., Naterer, G. F., & Gabriel, K. (2010). Rail transportation by hydrog
en vs. electrification - Case study for Ontario Canada, I: Propulsion and stor
age. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(12), 6084–6096. https://do
i.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.098
Mats Westling & Björn Söderholm. (2019). Järnvägsnätsbeskrivning Inlandsbanan
T 20. https://inlandsbanan.se/sites/default/files/Bilder-anvand/Dokument/nst-11
69-v.2.0_jarnvagsnatsbeskrivning_inlandsbanan_t_20.pdf
McKinsey. (2012). Battery technology charges ahead. https://www.mckinsey.com/b
usiness-functions/sustainability/our-insights/battery-technology-charges-ahead#
Meyer, G. (VDI/VDE I. + T. G. C. R. T. ), Bucknall, R. (University C. L., Wate
rborne Transport), Breuil, D. (EIGSI L. R., Aeronautics Rail Transport), Affe
nzeller, J. ( A. L., Beaumel, L. (EGVIA), Bergstein, M. (Scandlines), Coppi
n, O. (Valeo), Faye, I. (Bosch), Hildermeier, J. (Transport & E., Isikveren, A.
(Safran), Perlo, P. (IFEVS), Pfluger, J. (FEV), Ricardo, D. S., Thulin, N.
(Volvo), & Grand, P. (Iveco). (2017). Electrification of the Transport System
Studies and reports. https://doi.org/B-1049 Brussels
Meynerts, L., Brito, J., Ribeiro, I., Peças, P., Claus, S., & Götze, U. (2018). Life
Cycle Assessment of a Hybrid Train - Comparison of Different Propulsion S
ystems. Procedia CIRP, 69, 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.
035
Meynerts, L., Götze, U., Claus, S., Peças, P., & Ribeiro, I. (2017). Concept of Int
egrated Life Cycle Assessment and Costing - Application to the Case of Des
igning a Hybrid Train. Procedia CIRP, 61, 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2016.11.241
Mike Forster & Palo Alto. (2017). Caltrain 2.0 - Hydrogen Fuel Cell EMUs. http:
//www.mikeforster.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Caltrain-2.0-Hydrogen-Fuel
-Cell-EMUs-Mike-Forster-v2.0.pdf
Miller, S., Collet, C., Morel, J., & Lepelletier, C. (2020). A complete range of e
121
 mission-free traction drives. Alstom, 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97811074
15324.004
Molyneux, J., Bird, H., Rasalingham, T., & Bradbury, T. (2010). Battery-Powered
Trains. In Trl.Co.Uk. https://doi.org/PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR5
51 Battery
Mohr, S. H., Wang, J., Ellem, G., Ward, J., & Giurco, D. (2015). Projection of
world fossil fuels by country. Fuel, 141, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fu
el.2014.10.030
Mwambeleko, J. J., & Kulworawanichpong, T. (2017). Battery electric multiple u
nits to replace diesel commuter trains serving short and idle routes. Journal o
f Energy Storage, 11, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2017.01.004
Mwambeleko, J. J., Kulworawanichpong, T., Zhang, J., Zhong, D., Zhao, M., Yu,
J., Lv, F., Kwast-Kotlarek, U., & Hełdak, M. (2019). Evaluation of the cons
truction and investment process of a high-pressure gas pipeline with use of t
he trenchless method and open excavation method. Analytic Hierarchy Proce
ss (AHP). Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/en
12030466
Nagaura, Y., Oishi, R., Shimada, M., & Kaneko, T. (2017). “Battery-powered dri
ve systems: Latest technologies and outlook.” “Battery-Powered Drive Syste
ms: Latest Technologies and Outlook.,” 48(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/Vol. 48
No. 1 2015
Naturvårdsverket. (2011). Recycling and disposal of electronic waste : health haza
rds and environmental impacts. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvard
sverket/Publikationer/ISBN/6400/978-91-620-6417-4/
NetworkRail. (2015). Batteries included: Prototype battery-powered train carries p
assengers for first time. NetworkRail Media Centre. https://www.networkrail
mediacentre.co.uk/news/batteries-included-prototype-battery-powered-train-carri
es-passengers-for-first-time
Niggemann, J., & Betreuender. (2009). Indicators for sustainable development of r
ural municipalities-Case studies: Gagnef and Vansbro (Dalarna, Sweden) Zus
ammenfassung Diese Arbeit trägt zu der Diskussion über Nachhaltigkeitsindi
katoren für die oft. https://uol.de/fileadmin/user_upload/biologie-geoumwelt/do
wnload/DA_Niggemann.pdf
Nordelöf, A., Romare, M., & Tivander, J. (2019). Life cycle assessment of city b
uses powered by electricity, hydrogenated vegetable oil or diesel. Transportat
ion Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trd.2019.08.019
Notter, D. A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., & Althaus,
H.-J. (2010). Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact o
f Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(17), 6550–655
122
 6. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903729a
Oguztimur, S. (2020). WHY FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APP
ROACH FOR TRANSPORT PROBLEMS?
Oluwabukola, M., Shoewu, O., & Olatinwo, S. O. (2013). A Conceptual Design o
f Analytical Hierachical Process Model to the Boko Haram Crisis in Nigeria.
Information and Knowledge Management, 3(3), 9–19. www.iiste.org
Panagiotis, P., Pazarskis, M., Karakitsiou, A., & Vaia, D. (2018). Modeling an A
nalytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) assessment system for municipalities in Gre
ece with public accounting of austerity. Journal of Accounting and Taxation.
, 10.(10.5897), 48-60. https://doi.org/JAT2018.0300.
Parker, S. A. (2007). Is hydrogen the answer? Cogeneration and Distributed Gene
ration Journal, 22(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15453660709509110
Pehnt, M. (2001). Life-cycle assessment of fuel cell stacks. In International Journ
al of Hydrogen Energy (Vol. 26). www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene
Peng, F., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Li, Q., & Dai, C. (2014). “System integration of Chi
na’s first proton exchange membrane fuel cell locomotive”. International Jour
nal of Hydrogen Energy., ISSN 0360-3199., 39(25). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.i
jhydene. 2014.01.166.
Politis, S., Klumpp, M., & Celebi, D. (2010). Analytical Hierarchy Process in Su
pplier Evaluation. 16th International Working Seminar on Production Econo
mics, Conference Proceedings, 3(January 2010), 411–424.
Poulikidou, S., Heyne, S., Grahn, M., & Harvey, S. (2019). Lifecycle energy and
greenhouse gas emissions analysis of biomass-based 2-ethylhexanol as an alte
rnative transportation fuel. Energy Science and Engineering, 7(3), 851–867. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.315
Railway gazette international. (2012). Fuel cell locomotive trial. Railway Gazette
International. https://www.railwaygazette.com/business/fuel-cell-locomotive-tria
l/36784.article
Railway technology. (2020). Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEM
U), Esses. Railway Technology. https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/
independently-powered-electric-multiple-unit-ipemu-essex/
Railway technology news. (n.d.). "Stadler to deliver hydrogen-powered train to S
BCTA.”. 2019. https://www.railway-technology.com/news/stadler-deliver-hydr
ogen-powered-train-sbcta/
Research Institutes of Sweden. (2019). COST FUNCTION FOR AUTOMOTIVE
FUEL CELL SYSTEMS. https://energiforsk.se/media/26378/11-automotive-fu
el-cell-systems-hans-pohl.pdf
Romare, M., & Dahllöf, L. (2017). The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Gre
enhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries. In IVL Swedish Environ
mental Research Institute (Issue C). https://doi.org/978-91-88319-60-9
123
Ruf, Y., Zorn, T., Akcayoz De Neve, P., Andrae, P., Erofeeva, S., & Garrison, F.
(2019). Study on the use of fuel cells & hydrogen in the railway environme
nt. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/implementation-tasks/environment/items.html?ci
d=96&id=2921
Saaty, T. L. (2002). Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Scienti
a Iranica. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590
Schwab Castella, P., Blanc, I., Gomez Ferrer, M., Ecabert, B., Wakeman, M., Ma
nson, J. A., Emery, D., Han, S. H., Hong, J., & Jolliet, O. (2009). Integratin
g life cycle costs and environmental impacts of composite rail car-bodies for
a Korean train. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(5), 429–4
42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0096-2
Shanmugam, K., Tysklind, M., & Upadhyayula, V. K. K. (2018). Use of Liquefie
d Biomethane (LBM) as a Vehicle Fuel for Road Freight Transportation: A
Case Study Evaluating Environmental Performance of Using LBM for Operat
ion of Tractor Trailers. Procedia CIRP, 69, 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2017.11.133
Simons, A., & Bauer, C. (2015). A life-cycle perspective on automotive fuel cells.
Applied Energy, 157, 884–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.04
9
Solar impulse foundation. (2020). Solutions to the energy crisis: how to achieve s
ustainable energy? Solar Impulse Foundation. https://solarimpulse.com/energy-
crisis-solutions
Sroka, Z. J., Heda, R., & Romanowicz, M. (2018). Effects of changes of injectio
n timing on selected parameters of combustion process in a diesel engine fue
lled with fuels of different properties. IOP Conference Series: Materials Scie
nce and Engineering, 421(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/421/4/042075
Statistics Sweden, E. accounts and E. (n.d.). Greenhouse gas emissions from the
Swedish economy increased in the second quarter of 2019. Statistical Agency
and Producer. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://www.scb.se/en/findi
ng-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/environment/environmental-accounts-and-
sustainable-development/system-of-environmental-and-economic-accounts/pong
/statistical-news/environmental-accounts--emissions-to-air-q2-2019/
Stadler AG. (2019). norsketog-type74. Norske Tog. https://www.norsketog.no/en/tr
ains/type74-1
Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103 268
4, 677-80 .
Steffen Møller-Holst. Federico Zenith. Magnus Thomassen. (2019). Analyse av alt
ernative driftsformer for ikke-elektrifiserte baner. https://sintef.brage.unit.no/si
ntef-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2627911/Final%2bversjon%2b2%2b%25281%
2529.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
124
Steward, D., Saur, G., Penev, M., & Ramsden, T. (2009). Lifecycle cost analysis
of hydrogen versus other technologies for electrical energy storage (No. NRE
L/TP-560-46719). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (Un
ited States).
Stripple, H., & Uppenberg, S. (2010). Life cycle assessment of railways and rail t
ransports-Application in environmental product declarations (EPDs) for the B
othnia Line. www.ivl.se,
Sven, T., Sawyer, S., Schäfer, O., Pregger, T., Simon, S., & Naegler, T. (2015).
Energy [R]evolution: A SUSTAINABLE WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 20
15. www.petiteplanete.org
Sweden - Energy Union and innovation | Mobility and Transport. (n.d.). Retrieved
March 10, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/scoreboard
/countries/sweden/energy-union-innovation_en
Swedish Institute. (2020). Energy use in Sweden. https://sweden.se/nature/energy-u
se-in-sweden/
SWEDEN CLIMATE. (2020). https://en.climate-data.org/europe/sweden-105/
Tagliaferri, C., Evangelisti, S., Acconcia, F., Domenech, T., Ekins, P., Barletta,
D., & Lettieri, P. (2016). Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid
vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach. Chemical Engineer
ing Research and Design, 112, 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHERD.201
6.07.003
Thorne, R., Amundsen, A. H., & Sundvor, I. (2019). Battery electric and fuel cell
trains: Maturity of technology and market. https://doi.org/TOI Report 1737/2
019
Trafikverket. Network Statement 2020. https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/ope
rations/Operations-railway/Network-Statement/network-statement-2020/
Trafikverket. (2017). Operating on the railways 2017. https://www.trafikverket.se/c
ontentassets/af0d4dd9a29c42d79111848adbf2dc27/100795_operating_on_the_ra
ilways_2017.pdf
US railcar company. (n.d.). Diesel Multiple Unit. 19. https://www.sec.gov/Archive
s/edgar/data/1534155/000153415516000067/ex1031yorkpalntusrailcaramer.pdf
van Essen, H. (2008). The environmental impacts of increased international road
and rail freight transport. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Devel
opment, November. http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/41380
980.pdf
Yang, F., Xie, Y., Deng, Y., & Yuan, C. (2018). Considering Battery Degradatio
n in Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis of Electric Vehicles. Pro
cedia CIRP, 69, 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.12.008
Yang, Z., Wang, B., & Jiao, K. (2020). Life cycle assessment of fuel cell, electri
c and internal combustion engine vehicles under different fuel scenarios and
125
 driving mileages in China. Energy, 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.
117365
Yoshida, H. S. K. S. H. H. K. (2012). Special edition paper: Assessment of the
Vehicle System in Catenary and Battery-powered Hybrid Railcar System. htt
ps://www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/tech/pdf_23/Tec-23-17-20eng.pdf
Yu, Y., Wang, X., Wang, D., Huang, K., Wang, L., Bao, L., & Wu, F. (2012). E
nvironmental characteristics comparison of Li-ion batteries and Ni-MH batteri
es under the uncertainty of cycle performance. Journal of Hazardous Material
s, 229–230, 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.06.017
Zeng, Z., Maio, F. Di, Zio, E., & Kang, R. (2017). A hierarchical decision-makin
g framework for the assessment of the prediction capability of prognostic me
thods A hierarchical decision making framework for the assessment of the pr
ediction capability of 1 prognostic methods 2. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 231(1). htt
ps://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X16683321ï
Zenith, D. F., Möller-Holst, D. S., & Thomassen, D. M. (2017). INNOVATIVE P
ROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS BASED ON SINTEF is Scandinavia’s largest in
dependent research organization. Alternative Railway Electrification in Norwa
y, 20. http://media.greenhighway.nu/2018/01/Steffen-Möller-Holst-SINTEF.pdf
Zhang, W., Li, J., Xu, L., Ouyang, M., Liu, Y., Han, Q., & Li, K. (2016). Comp
arison study on life-cycle costs of different trams powered by fuel cell syste
ms and others. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(38), 16577–165
91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.032

126
TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-20394

www.kth.se