Energy consumption of trackbased highspeed trains: maglev systems in comparison with wheelrail systems
 Authors: Fritz E.^{1}, Blow L.^{2}, Kluhspies J.^{3}, Kircher R.^{3}, Witt M.H.^{3}

Affiliations:
 IFB – Institut für Bahntechnik GmbH
 Maglev Transport, Inc
 The International Maglevboard
 Issue: Vol. 4, Issue 3, Suppl. 1 (2018)
 Pages: 134155
 Section: Original papers
 URL: https://journals.ecovector.com/transsyst/article/view/10739
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/transsyst201843s1134155
 Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Background: The energy consumption of a highspeed system is an important part of its total operational costs. This paper compares the secondary energy demand of different wheelrail systems, such as ICE, TGV and Shinkansen, and maglev systems, such as Transrapid and Chuo Shinkansen.
In the past, energy values of systems with different conditions (train configuration, dimension, capacity, maximum speed) were frequently compared. The comparative values were often represented by the specific energy consumption based on passenger capacity and linekilometer values.
Aim: The goal is to find a way to compare the specific energy consumption of different highspeed systems without any distortion of results.
Methods: A comparison of energy values based on normative usable areas inside the highspeed systems will be described and evaluated in this paper, transforming the results to a more distortionfree comparison of energy consumption of different systems.
Results: The results show the energy consumption as an important characteristic parameter of highspeed transportation systems based on an objective comparison and give ranges of expected energy demand of different systems dependent on maximum speed level.
Conclusion: Up to the design speed of wheelrail systems there are slight advantages in terms of energy consumption for the Transrapid maglev. From the perspective of energy consumption under consideration to reduce travel time, highspeed maglev systems represent a promising option for new railway projects. However, a projectspecific system decision must be based on a complete lifecycle cost analysis, including investment cost
Full Text
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy consumption is an important criterion of the operating costs when comparing the operational features of modern HighSpeed railway (HSR) systems for longdistance services. This article presents and compares the energy consumption of selected HSR systems based either on magnetic levitation and long stator motor technology (Maglev systems) or on wheelonrail technology (R/S systems).
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH
The purpose of the study is to achieve an objective and comparative representation of the energy consumptions for the HighSpeed railway systems available in the market. Various railway systems have been compared in the past mostly based on different fundamentals (socalled distorted comparisons), that is, the energy consumption values for vehicles of different lengths, widths and speeds were compared without retroactive calculation on a standardised basis. This study aims to achieve a view that can enable a better result in terms of objectivity.
The focus of the research can be stated as follows:
How much energy, differentiated by speed, is required for a train with a normalised effective area, when it is driven by a certain HighSpeed railway system, R/S system (TGV, ICE, Shinkansen) or Maglev (Transrapid, ChuoMaglev)?
The statements relate to the requirement of secondary energy. This includes the actual traction energy consumption as well as the energy consumption for auxiliary systems (such as for support and guidance, lighting and airconditioning) on board the vehicles. The generation of primary energy, i.e., the underlying primary energy sources, as well as their specific efficiency chains, are not considered in this comparison because these factors depend on country and operatorspecific conditions and it is not possible to generalise.
In addition to operating costs (such as maintenance, operating personnel, insurance, operating and marketing), operational performance aspects also have to be compared. Such factors include designed speed, travel time (between stations), transport capacity and train frequency, and, for system decision in the case of a specific project, a comprehensive life cyclecost analysis, including the investment costs associated with the power supply infrastructure. These additional system aspects are not included in this study, which is confined to the operational aspects of energy consumption.
1.2 RELEVANCE
The topic becomes relevant again especially due to developments in Japan and in the United States of America, where the construction and operation of the Japanese Maglev system L0 has become a concrete topic. A HighSpeed Maglev line is already being constructed between Tokyo and Nagoya in Japan, with an estimated investment of approximately 50 billion € (US $ 62 billion) for the infrastructure. The construction of the same Japanese Maglev system to connect Baltimore and Washington is already in an advanced stage of planning.
2. DATA SOURCES AND COMPARISON CRITERIA
Systems which have been in trial and operational for many years and for which the most possible reliable data is available were selected for the comparative study of energy consumption. This is true for the selected WheelRail systems of Shinkansen, ICE and TGV, as well as the Maglev system Transrapid.
2.1 SELECTION OF THE RAILWAY SYSTEMS TO EVALUATE AND THE INFORMATION BASIS
The German ICE 3 was chosen due to the solid data availability, even though other developed versions, such as the Spanish Velaro E or the Chinese CRH380A, are in operation. The latest ICE 4 system of DB AG, although it is more modern than the ICE 3 on the whole, was not included in the comparison because the ICE 4 is not completely suitable due to its top speed limit of just 250 km/h.
For the Japanese Maglev system Chuo Shinkansen (Maglev L0), the information from a scientific point of view appears to be remarkably slight, although the first stage of the project, a 290kmline between Tokyo and Nagoya, is already being constructed. A comprehensive technical data fact sheet for the Maglev L0 is so far not available despite the advanced stage of implementation. Hardly any technical specifications are officially available due to the restrictive informationsharing policy of the project leader, Central Japan Railway (JR Central). Partial information can be obtained about the project from other Japanese sources, which, although technically sound, can be mainly attributed to the critics of the Maglev L0 based on the respective arguments. Some information is also available in official letters from the Japanese government or ministries. Other indications can be found occasionally (but not verifiably) in Japanese newspapers and railway magazines.
Because the Maglev L0 is an ongoing project with high market impact, a study which did not try to include the Chuo Shinkansen would make little sense. The following information and calculations pertaining to the Chuo Shinkansen were compiled from several, mainly Japanese, sources [1, 2, 3], and by associating the data referred in them with the few available official statements. By making a comparison with at least the rough data of the previous MLX vehicle, verification can be made in principle as to whether the representation for the Maglev L0, which is based on the same technical system principles, can be regarded as realistic.
2.2 BASIS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION CALCULATION
In principle, the specific energy consumption values for a railway system depend on the technical system design, the maximum speed, and the train configuration for the different application cases. The main reasons for the energy consumption values which are to some extent quite different include:
 the different line characteristics, topography,
 the considered clearance,
 the different train configurations of the railway systems being considered,
 specific operator requirements in terms of fittings (number of seats and comfort), aisle width, luggage storage space and restaurant service, and therefore the maximum total seating capacity,
 the design of the traction system and power supply, particularly in the Maglev systems,
 the different vehicle lengths (which impact driving resistance, vehicle weight),
 the respective operational design speed, and
 number of stations and distance between stations.
The data of the WheelRail systems considered here are shown for 300 km/h (N 700) and 330 km/h (ICE 3). Therefore, the energy can be directly compared among the WheelRail systems and Maglev systems only for this speed range. By including the Velaro E (RENFE series 103) or Velaro CN based on the ICE 3, as well as the Chinese CRH 380A, a comparison at higher speeds up to a maximum of 380 km/h would be possible. Higher speeds of up to 550 km/h in normal operation appear feasible only with Maglev systems based on the long stator drive system.
In the following study, the specific energy consumption for the systems are compared based on the two parameters Wh/Pl/km (conventional representation, according to number of seats) and Wh/m²/km (new, according to surface area, as discussed in section 5).
2.3 OVERVIEW OF KEY FIGURES OF THE SELECTED RAILWAY SYSTEMS
The following railway systems for HighSpeed longdistance services were selected for comparison:
 WheelRail systems:
 ICE 3 (Germany)
 TGV Duplex Dasye (France)
 Shinkansen N 700 (Japan)
 MAGLEV systems
 Transrapid 08 (Germany/China; electromagnetic system  supporting and guiding systems based on attraction  coupled with longstator linear motor)
 Chuo Shinkansen Maglev L0 (Japan; differential flow system for support, guidance and propulsion with 8shaped coils in the track side walls and superconducting magnets in the vehicle)
Table 1. Data relevant for comparing HighSpeed railway systems
 ICE 3  TGV  Transrapid TR 08  Chuo Shinkansen  
Number of cars/sections  8  8  10  4/5  3 to 12 
Number of motors  16  32  8  Linear motor  Linear motor 
Drive power (kW)  16 x 500  32 x 305  8 x 1160  Depends on the project  Depends on the project 
Unloaded weight (t)  455  356  380  226/282  300 
Seats (total)  460  522+24  510  360/446  106 to 704 
Length l (m)  200.7  204.7  200.2  100.5 / 125.3  80 to 299 
Width w (m)  2.92  3.36  2.90  3.70  2,90 
Basic area in m ²  586  688  581  372/464  233 to 867 
Effective area in m²  538  627  533  331/423  156 to 660 
Maximum speed (km/h)  330  300  320  500  550 
For future applications, it must be recognised that both wheelonrail technology and Maglev systems have further potential for development. This applies to WheelRail systems with regard to the efficiency of their drive system, and to Maglev systems with regard to the efficiency of the drives and to power transmission, energy supply and control. Such development potentials are not taken into account in this study so as not to allow for speculative assumptions.
2.4 SELECTION OF POTENTIAL APPLICATION ROUTES
This comparison of energy consumption values is based on the following potential application routes:
 Berlin  Hamburg, approx. 290 km, 3 stops, railway systems considered: Transrapid, ICE 3 [10];
 Berlin  Budapest, approx. 900 km, 8 stops, railway systems considered: Transrapid, ICE 3 [11];
 Leipzig  Dresden, approx. 110 km without stops, railway systems considered: MLX (predecessor of Chuo Shinkansen L0), Transrapid, ICE 3, [9]. Here, the Japanese Maglev system MLX is operated on an openair, aboveground section, in contrast to the current Chuo Shinkansen system, for which operation is planned almost exclusively in tunnels during its first commercial application. Data are available only for tunnel sections for the current Chuo Shinkansen system. These values may be updated with current vehicle and route data from a JR Central source, but so far no recent publications are available;
 Rio de Janeiro  Campinas, approx. 510 km, 6 stops, railway systems considered: Transrapid, ICE 3 [12];
 Zuiderzeelijn (Netherlands), about 180 km, 8 stops, railway system considered: Transrapid [13];
 Rhine  Rhone, 140 km, 2 stops, railway system considered: TGV [8].
Only energy consumption values for socalled cruising in the tunnel are available for the current Japanese Maglev system Chuo Shinkansen [1]. An average energy consumption value on the Tokaido HSR line [14], as well as some energy consumption values during cruising [1], are available for the Japanese wheelonrail system N 700.
3. PRESENTATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESULTS
Energy parameters for different railway systems can be determined with high accuracy using simulation calculations. Simulation methods allow train operation profiles, including the electric drive and power calculations by specifying the operation, route, vehicle and drive system configurations. These simulations also allow appropriate plausibility checks for railway systems. The specific energy consumption values mentioned in this article are based mainly on simulation results. Typical applicationspecific speed profiles, which essentially consist of the driving states of acceleration, cruising and retardation/braking, are taken into account. In particular, the acceleration and braking processes that have significant impact on the energy parameters of the systems are taken into account. Owing to poor information availability for some systems, it is also necessary to use static calculations for constant speed (socalled cruising) and adapt it computationally if other reliable data are not available. Based on the graphical representation of these data, bandwidths can be determined for the specific energy consumption of HighSpeed systems depending on the approach.
The conventional approach based on 'energy consumption per seat and kilometre' will be amended in chapter 5 to include a new, more practical representation based on the actual systemtypical effective area of HighSpeed railway systems. The criterion of effective area can enable better retroactive computation and a more realistic mathematical comparison of different technologies and systems.
3.1 BASIS OF THE COMPARISON
Since absolute energy consumption representations may apply only for specific trips with a specific train configuration, and the transport capacity of the railway systems in question may significantly differ from one another, the question is how to compare without much distortion. Firstly, a representation commonly used in the industry is shown.
One usual, conventional form of representation is to compare the energy consumption values per seat and for onekilometre distance depending on the speed.
Such a conventional comparison commonly used in industry is, however, not considered sufficient from the perspective of the authors, as it is strongly dependent on individual operating requirements such as comfort and mixing ratio — the number of seats can be compared in almost any configuration, which influences almost any statement on energy consumption per seat. For example, the decision alone regarding the sizes of the 1st class and 2nd class sections calculated for the systems being considered has a considerable effect on the subsequent result of the comparison [15].
Therefore, the authors have chosen a new form of representation: comparing the specific energy consumption with respect to the systemtypical effective area of the railway systems and a 1km distance based on speed. They feel this approach provides a significantly better method of representation without much distortion.
The comparison of the energy consumption is made at the medium voltage level in the substation, for example, 15 kV in the ICE 3/20 kV in the Transrapid system. Different measuring points/interfaces are marked accordingly.
The basic setup of the power supply and drive structure of the WheelRail systems and Maglev systems based on the long stator motor technology (Transrapid, Chuo Shinkansen) is shown in Fig. 1. Whereas all the drive components are inside the vehicle in the WheelRail system, the main drive components such as the route cable system, switching points and long stator winding are arranged along the track or directly on the track in the case of the Maglev system.
Fig. 1. Basic setup of the energy supply structure for the Maglev system (long stator) and for the wheelonrail system with the respective interfaces
The projectspecific design of trackside infrastructure has a significant influence on operational performance and flexibility, the equipment costs, the energy parameters of the system, and therefore the energy costs in the case of the long stator system. In a WheelRail system, the performance data and efficiency curves of the drive system are defined largely by the train configuration regardless of the route.
The specific energy consumption values were calculated under various boundary conditions (vehicle configurations, route characteristics, average distance between stations, and technical system design for the Maglev system). With this information, the specific energy consumption values from various project plans were used especially for the Maglev system, which are based on different technical system designs of the drive and power supply components. Specifying boundary conditions allows a range of energy consumption values to be determined (see section 6).
3.2 COMPARISON OF DRIVING RESISTANCES
An important factor for the energy consumptions of HighSpeed railway systems is the driving resistance, or the resistance that has to be overcome by the system for vehicle movement. Driving resistance consists of the vehicle resistance, the track resistance and acceleration resistance.
 The vehicle resistance is crucial for the energy consumption, especially in the upper speed range. This includes rolling resistance (linear function of the weight), the air resistance (linear function of the speed) and the aerodynamic driving resistance (quadratic function of speed) in the case of the WheelRail system. In the case of Maglev system, the vehicle resistance consists of the linear generator resistance (depending on the decoupled power and speed), the Eddy current resistance (socalled 'magnetic roller friction') and the aerodynamic driving resistance (quadratic function of speed);
 The track resistance depends on the gradients and bending (sag and crest) of the track;
 The acceleration resistance is proportional to the vehicle weight and acceleration.
The following Fig. 2 shows the vehicle resistances of the HSR systems being studied for specific train configurations having similar seating capacities.
Fig. 2. Driving resistance curves of the considered WheelRail and Maglev systems on an openair section
What is notable here is the very high resistance of the Chuo Shinkansen [1] at 100 km/h, which is due to the large magnetic resistance of an EDS system (electrodynamic system) at the beginning of levitation (the system is still supported on wheels up to about 100 km/h).
4. SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON A CONVENTIONAL BASIS (SEATKM)
The Japanese Shinkansen N 700 records the maximum value for WheelRail systems at speeds up to 300 km/h. At a constant speed of 300 km/h, it has a specific energy consumption of 28 Wh/Pl/km (Watt hours per seat and per kilometre) [1]. With this driving condition of constant inertia (speed), the energyintensive acceleration processes of a typical speed profile are missing. For real N 700 speed profiles with a maximum speed of 285 km/h [14], the mean specific energy consumption is about 70 Wh/Pl/km in spite of a comparatively high number of seats (1,123 seats in 16 cars and 546 seats in 8 cars [6, 7]), which is therefore higher than the comparable values of other systems at 300 km/h, and which would again be higher at 300 km/h for the N 700.
Fig. 3 shows the specific secondary energy consumption of the considered systems with reference to 1 seat and a 1km distance (Wh/Pl/km) depending on the respective maximum speed.
Fig. 3. Conventional representation:
Specific energy consumption of the HRS systems being considered per seatkm (Wh/Pl/km) based on the projects under study. Note on distortion: Different vehicle sizes and seat numbers are being compared. The speed range below 250 km/h is not shown.
If Maglev systems are operated with short vehicles (e.g., TR with 3 sections), then the drive efficiency is reduced compared to trains with 5 or more sections, depending on the system. In the case of simultaneous use on routes with short distances between stations, and consequently many acceleration and braking sections in the total speed profile, relatively high specific energy consumption values are expected, as shown in the Zuiderzeelijn project (average distance between stations about 20 km [13]). High specific energy consumption values are also expected for routes that are topographically challenging, as in the Rio de Janeiro (sea level)  Campinas route (685 m above sea level [12]).
The comparison of the energy consumption values at 330 km/h is shown in the following Fig. 4 separately for different WheelRail and Maglev systems. At this maximum speed, the Transrapid (5 section vehicle Hamburg  Berlin route) has the lowest energy consumption with 45 Wh/Pl/km, and the ICE 3 has the highest energy consumption on the same route with 59 Wh/Pl/km (+ 31 % compared to Transrapid). It is worth noting here that the Transrapid has just a 7 % higher energy consumption at 430 km/h (+ 30 % higher max. speed) with 63 Wh/Pl/km than the ICE at 330 km/h on the same route.
Fig. 4. Specific energy consumption in Wh per seatkm (Wh/Pl/km) at 330, 430 and 500 km/h (conventional representation).
For long stator systems, it is also necessary to take into account that the synchronous internal voltage (reverse voltage), which varies with the weight, and therefore with the typical system effective area, is not proportional to the power and the energy consumption. The aspect of internal voltage therefore has to be properly determined when calculating the specific energy consumption based on a standardised area, assuming a certain train/vehicle configuration.
For the Japanese Maglev system Chuo Shinkansen, the specific energy consumption at a cruising speed of 300 km/h in the tunnel is 54 Wh/Pl/km [1]. This value is in the same range as values for the ICE 3, based on speed profile simulations. It must be pointed out that the aerodynamic resistance coefficients increase, especially when going through tunnels, as compared to openair routes, which inevitably leads to higher energy consumption values for all railway systems.
The energy consumption values of the two Maglev systems, Transrapid and Chuo Shinkansen, on an openair route are comparable at a maximum speed of 450 km/h – Transrapid with 76 Wh/Pl/km (Berlin – Budapest route [11]) and 71 Wh/Pl/km (Leipzig – Dresden route [4]) and Chuo Shinkansen with 78 Wh/Pl/km. The specific energy consumption of 99 Wh/Pl/km mentioned by S. Abe [1] is significantly higher for the Chuo Shinkansen at a cruising speed of 500 km/h in the tunnel, based on the TokyoOsaka route. This high value is essentially due to the increase in driving resistance, which increases by 15 to 20 % from 450 km/h to 500 km/h on an openair route (Fig. 2). Moreover, the additional aerodynamic driving resistance component due to the tunnel route assumes considerably higher values that need to be overcome by the drive system. Based on the information available for the Japanese Maglev system, it is assumed that most of the route (approx. 80 %) is through the tunnel, and the higher values are therefore realistic.
5. SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO TYPICAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVE AREA (NEW APPROACH)
To answer the question of how energy consumption depends on operating speed for a system with standardised effective area for a specific HighSpeed railway system (TGV, ICE, Shinkansen, Transrapid or Chuo Maglev), the seatbased approach is not adequate, as the available effective area also depends on the technology used. The previous approach based on 'Wh per seat and kilometre' will therefore be amended and extended to include a new, more practical representation based on the actual systemtypical effective area of HighSpeed railway systems.
APPROACH
 The first step is to define and calculate the systemtypical effective areas of the different systems under consideration (section 5.1);
 The second step is to standardise the results mathematically to a common reference: an effective area of 500 m² (section 5.2).
5.1 DEFINITION OF 'SYSTEM TYPICAL EFFECTIVE AREA'
Railway systems can be distinguished based on the ratio of basic technical area (length x width, in m²) to the effective area. To determine the effective area, all the technical areas required by the system – and essential for the system operation – have to be deducted from the basic technical area.
In the case of WheelRail trains, the essential system areas at present are the driver's cabs; in the case of automated Maglev systems, e.g., the unusable areas of the crash zones, the (empty) driver cabs or the technical installations in the interior. In contrast to these technical system installations (and their respective space requirement), air conditioning systems, restaurant kitchens, sanitary equipment, etc., form part of optional installations, are omitted, because they can be configured based on the choice of the operator.
The calculation of systemtypical effective areas of the HighSpeed railway systems being considered is shown in Table 1 as defined below:
Table 2. Definition of systemtypical effective area of HighSpeed railway systems
Effective area calculation  
ICE, TGV, Shinkansen N 700  TR 08 (Maglev)  Chuo Shinkansen Maglev L0 
Calculated basic area  Calculated basic area  Calculated basic area 
· ICE = 538 m² · TGV = 533 m²; · N 700 = 627 m²  · TR 08 = 331/423 m²  · 156 to 660 m² 
Sources: · TGV Duplex Dasye [8] · ICE 3: Manufacturer details  Sources: [4] and manufacturer details  Sources: 
An alternative criterion of comparison, which may specifically appear to be useful for freight transport applications, is the energy consumption per tonne and kilometer depending on the speed. However, this criterion is not used in this study because we are considering passenger traffic and not the transport of heavy loads, as in container transport. None of the established HighSpeed railway systems is designed for transporting heavy goods. However, transport of light goods or mail transport is possible.
5.1.1 EFFECTIVE AREA AND SEATING DENSITY OF THE CHUO SHINKANSEN MAGLEV L0
To clarify the available data (based on Japanese sources [1, 2, 3] an overview of the values determined for the Maglev L0 is first shown in Table 3, because this system appears to be the least scientifically documented.
Table 3. Effective area and seating density of the Chuo Shinkansen Maglev L0
Length  Width in m  = Basic area in m²  Effective area in m²  Seats  Minimum seats calculated  Maximum seats calculated  
Bow section (BS)  28  2.9  81.2  about 50  24  24  24 
Middle car (MW)  24.3  2.9  70.47  about 56  58 to 68  58  68 
10 MW + 2 BS  299  2.9  867.1  about 660  604 to 704  628  728 
The actual available effective area of the Maglev L0 is reduced by about one quarter, based on the assumptions measured at technical basic area of the Maglev L0.
5.2 COMPARISON OF RAILWAY SYSTEMS BY SYSTEM TYPICAL EFFECTIVE AREA
5.2.1 ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE WHEELRAIL SYSTEMS BASED ON SYSTEM TYPICAL EFFECTIVE AREA
For realistic clearances of N 700 with a maximum speed of 285 km/h [14], the specific energy consumption is 60 Wh/m²/km with respect to the typical system effective area. This is partly much higher than the values of comparable WheelRail systems at 300 km/h: ICE 3 routes Berlin – Budapest (35 Wh/m²/km, [11]) and Rio – Campinas (51 Wh/m²/km [12]).
5.2.2 ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE MAGLEV SYSTEMS BASED ON SYSTEMTYPICAL EFFECTIVE AREA
When comparing the Maglev systems at a maximum speed of 330 km/h, as well as at 450 km/h, the values are almost the same for the Japanese and the German system (see Table 4). The very high and constant value of the Japanese system at 500 km/h is mainly due to the high aerodynamic resistance in tunnels, in addition to the high driving resistance of the vehicle.
Table 4. Energy consumption of the Maglev systems, calculated based on systemtypical effective area for different applications
 Leipzig – Dresden  Leipzig – Dresden  Berlin – Budapest  constant 500 km/h 
Chuo Shinkansen  51 Wh/m²/km  75 Wh/m²/km    112 Wh/m²/km 
TR 08  51 Wh/m²/km  75 Wh/m²/km  83 Wh/m²/km   
In general, it can be seen that the energy consumption values across systems (based on the typical system effective area) become similar when compared to the specific energy consumption values based on the number of seats. Fig. 5 illustrates this situation.
Fig. 5. Specific energy consumption per m²km of systemtypical effective area at 330 km/h and 500 km/h.
The differences in the energy consumption values between the discussed systems are less than 10 % up to 330 km/h.
5.2.3 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
None of the considered systems has any significant advantages in terms of energy consumption based on the criteria of effective area. Thus, samespeed energy consumption is therefore not a relevant criterion for any decision for or against a certain high speed railway system.
Project and operatorrelated specifications, such as seating densities and the mix of 1st and 2nd class, are not considered when determining the specific energy consumption based on the effective area. Fig. 6 shows the calculated results of the specific energy consumption based on the respective effective area for several applications. From the authors' point of view, this is a more realistic and therefore preferable approach compared to the conventional method.
Fig. 6. Specific energy consumption of the HSR systems being considered in Wh per m²km (system typical effective area) for various applications (projects).
Comment: The speed range under 250 km/h is not shown here for purposes of better readability.
5.3 SYSTEM COMPARISON BASED ON A CALCULATED STANDARDISED EFFECTIVE AREA
To compare the HSR systems being considered on the same systemtypical effective area, the energy consumption values are based on 500 m² of the systemtypical effective area per vehicle for all systems. This value was chosen by taking into account the systemtypical effective area of the systems in this study (see the summary in Table 1).
Fig. 7 shows the specific energy consumption of various HSR systems based on a typical system effective area of 500 m² per system at a maximum speed of 330 km/h, taking into account the abovementioned inherent property of the long stator drive system. This representation now allows statements about the specific energy consumption for different railway systems with a systemtypical effective area of 500 m². For the applications shown in Fig. 7, the specific energy consumption of the HSR systems are comparable between 45 Wh/m²/km and 55 Wh/m²/km. The long stator systems have an approximately 10 – 15 % higher specific energy consumption than the comparable WheelRail systems (330 km/h).
Fig. 7. Specific energy consumption per m²km at 330 km/h to 500 km/h, calculated for a typical system effective area of 500 m² per system
The specific energy consumption for different applications can also be calculated in kWh/km based on a standardised systemtypical effective area of railway systems (500 m²):
Table 5. Specific energy consumption in kWh/km for standardised effective area of 500 m² per system, mathematical comparison for different applications
 Application being considered  Average specific energy consumption 
Transrapid  Hamburg – Berlin, 330 km/h  26 kWh/km 
Transrapid  Hamburg – Berlin, 430 km/h  36 kWh/km 
Transrapid  Leipzig – Dresden, 450 km/h  41 kWh/km 
Chuo Shinkansen  Leipzig – Dresden, 330 km/h  27 kWh/km 
Chuo Shinkansen  Tokyo – Nagoya – Osaka, 500 km/h  85 kWh/km (cruising) 
ICE 3  Hamburg – Berlin, 330 km/h  23 kWh/km 
TGV Duplex  Rhine – Rhone, 320 km/h  22 kWh/km 
Due to the strong projectspecific and designspecific influences on the energy consumption, particularly in case of the Maglev systems, the results shown in Fig. 7 and Table 5 cannot be generalized for other applications. Nevertheless, the specific data derived can be used as a reference for estimating the energy consumption values for comparable projects with the same levels of speed.
5.3.1 RESULTS
By referring to the already mentioned incomplete information and uncertainties, the considered HighSpeed railway systems can be mathematically compared based on a standardised effective area (here: 500 m²). The results are the best possible approximation to reality with the mentioned restrictions.
Further detailed representations may be possible only if the respective manufacturers and operators of HighSpeed railway systems provide additional, verifiable technical parameters of the railway systems or energy consumption data from implemented applications for scientific analyses.
6. SUMMARY
In the past, HighSpeed railway systems were often compared based on Wh/Pl/km with regard to their energy consumption. The previously published comparisons could be interpreted in many different ways because the systems being considered have very different characteristics when compared directly (basic area, effective area, or weights). In order to objectively compare railway systems, the comparison should be carried out on a uniform basis. In this study, the comparison was carried out based on the same systemtypical effective area. The electrical energy required for operating a highspeed system has been investigated with a standardised effective area depending on the speed, based on a certain HighSpeed railway system (TGV, ICE, Shinkansen, Transrapid and Chuo Maglev).
Comparative statements about the specific energy consumption always depend on the route and the application, owing to various systemrelated properties of the railway systems under consideration. An accurate evaluation of the energy consumption of the systems is only possible when based on the same boundary conditions (route, clearance, maximum speed, vehicle configuration, etc.). However, based on the data available at present, and considering existing information and missing data, the energy consumption of various railway systems can be approximately compared.
For a comparative assessment of the specific energy consumption values of the railway systems being studied, it also makes sense to specify ranges for these values. In general, the range of the specific energy consumption increases due to the increase in driving resistance and the associated power consumption, which characteristically increases with the maximum speed. Various other operational and technical design parameters also influence the specific energy consumption.
Based on the existing data, the following ranges are, in principle, available for the specific energy consumption of HighSpeed railway systems:
 The specific energy consumption of HighSpeed WheelRail systems is in the typical system speed range between 300 to 330 km/h  40 Wh/Pl/km (ICE 3) and 70 Wh/Pl/km (N 700) or between 35 Wh/m²/km (ICE 3) and 60 Wh/m²/km (N 700);
 The specific energy consumption of the Maglev systems Transrapid and MLX/Chuo Shinkansen is in the speed range from 330 km/h to 500 km/h  between 45 Wh/Pl/km (TR) and 100 Wh/Pl/km (Chuo) or between 50 Wh/m²/km (TR) and 110 Wh/m²/km (Chuo);
 Based on a calculated standardised systemtypical effective area of 500 m² per railway system, specific energy consumption values between 22 kWh/km (TGV) and 27 kWh/km (Chuo) are obtained for the railway systems being studied at a maximum speed of 330 km/h;
 Based on a calculated standardised systemtypical effective area of 500 m² per Maglev system, specific energy consumption values between 36 kWh/km (TR) and 85 kWh/km (Chuo) are obtained for the Maglev systems in the speed range between 430 to 500 km/h.
CONCLUSION
This comparison of HighSpeed railway systems shows that if the same speed range up to 330 km/h is considered, none of the systems being studied shows significant advantages in terms of energy consumption. At this designed speed, which is currently the limit of a reasonable operational application of WheelRail systems, there are slight advantages in terms of energy consumption, at least for the Transrapid. In addition, only HighSpeed Maglev systems can be operated economically at significantly higher speeds.
Since the Japanese Maglev system between Tokyo and Nagoya is almost entirely operated along a tunnel route, the energy consumption for the ChuoShinkansen system is considerably higher due to the very high tunnel resistance in the HighSpeed range when compared to the previous Transrapid projects, which were mostly elevated or groundlevel routes without long tunnel sections.
On the whole, this study shows that HighSpeed Maglev systems can be objectively considered to be operationally advantageous and useful transport systems from the perspective of energy consumption, especially in the area of HighSpeed transport exceeding 300 km/h. If the objective is to reduce travel time and thereby achieve a high speed of a transport system, then HighSpeed Maglev systems represent a promising option from an energy consumption point of view, which should always be included in the planning stage of railway projects.
From the perspective of the authors, the planning of HighSpeed routes is therefore complete, futureoriented and nondiscriminatory only if all the possible railway system options are considered. A system decision, which is also based on the power or energy related aspects, should be open to different technologies and should therefore include HighSpeed Maglev systems right from the beginning.
About the authors
Eckert Fritz
IFB – Institut für Bahntechnik GmbH
Author for correspondence.
Email: ef@bahntechnik.de
ORCID iD: 000000033422227X
Dipl.Ing.
Germany, DresdenLarry Blow
Maglev Transport, Inc
Email: larry@maglevtransport.com
B. Sc., President
United States, 09 Anderson St. SE, 200, Marietta, GA 30060Johannes Kluhspies
The International Maglevboard
Email: jok@maglevboard.net
ORCID iD: 0000000160899853
Prof. Dr. habil. Dr. h.c., full Professor
Germany, DeggendorfRoland Kircher
The International Maglevboard
Email: rk@maglevboard.net
ORCID iD: 0000000288078915
Dr., DiplPhys
Germany, DeggendorfMichael H. Witt
The International Maglevboard
Email: mikewitt@tonline.de
DiplWi.Ing.
GermanyReferences
 エネルギー問題としてのリニア新幹線 [Abe Sh. Linear Shinkansen as energy problem. Science (KAGAKU). 2013;83(11):12901300. (In Japanese)].
 超電導リニアの新型車両の概要について. [JR Central (Tokai). Press Release 26 Oct 2010. (In Japanese)].
 リニア。あっさり「５００キロ」突破、揺れは…「地上最高 速」体. [Mainichi Shinbun: 22 September 2014. (In Japanese)].
 IFB  Institut für Bahntechnik. Comparison of vehicle dynamics and energy consumption of trackbased electrical transport systems. IFB Report No.: 04/511400/241 1, 2004, unpublished.
 JTB Publishing. The Shinkansen Type book. 2016, 344 p.
 電車編成表(2009夏). [Tankan JR, JRR, May 2009, ISBN 9784330069098. (In Japanese)].
 電車編成表(2010夏). [Tankan JR. JRR, May 2010, ISBN 9784330143101. (In Japanese)].
 Bosquet R, Vandanjon P, Coiret A, Lorino T. Model of HighSpeed Train Energy Consumption. In World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2013;7(6):767771.
 German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing. LCC System Comparison Study: Dornier Consulting. 2003.
 IFB  Institut für Bahntechnik. TU Berlin: Energy consumption of the Transrapid and ICE 3 railway systems Hamburg  Berlin. IFBReport No.: 98/BeB/82, May 1998, unpublished.
 Sächsisches Staatsministerium des Innern. Comparative studies of HighSpeed systems in the transport corridor of Berlin – Saxony – Prague – Vienna – Bratislava – Budapest. Final report SIC! – Module: IPE, TU Dresden, IFB  Institut für Bahntechnik GmbH, Obermeyer AlbisBauplan GmbH, March 2007.
 IFB  Institut für Bahntechnik: TAV Brasil, Campinas  São Paulo  Rio de Janeiro, Review of operational and economic results, IFB – Report No.: 509310, Sep 2010, unpublished.
 Dutch Ministry of Transport. Feasibility study Maglev AmsterdamGroningen "Zuiderzeelijn": Dornier Consulting, 2006.
 特集新しい新幹線を創り出す技術 [Shikoku N. Acceleration of Tokaido Shinkansen and Central Shinkansen by the Superconducting Linear. Nihon Kikai Gakkai Shi. Japanese Machinery Academic Conferences Journal. 2017;170. (In Japanese)].
 Klühspies J. Future aspects of European mobility. Perspectives and limits of innovative Maglev systems. Köln; 2008.
 Japan Rail West [Internet]. Shinkansen Nozomi 700 type: Seat layout map. Available at https://www.jrodekake.net/train/nozomi_700/seat.html. 18 Dec 2017.