Selection of track form in railway tunnel from a life cycle analysis perspective

Abstract

AbstractThe use of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a criterion for decision-making within the rail industry is increasing. The demand for considering this criterion affects the type of decision models acceptable by railway infrastructure managers in the planning, construction, and maintenance of railway assets. The total amount of GHG emitted from a track solution in tunnels during its service life depends on the track form (i.e., ballasted track or ballastless track), the type of construction, maintenance machines used, current traffic profile, and tunnel length. However, the development in the design of ballastless track systems during recent decades to make them environmentally friendly motivates infrastructure managers to rethink and consider the use of the system. This study examines the effect of several design and maintenance factors not adequately addressed in previous research. These factors are (i) the modulus of elasticity of track support affecting the design of track forms, (ii) differences in maintenance and renewal required for track forms in the corresponding line condition, and (iii) recent developments in optimizing the environmental impact of ballastless tracks. The GHG emissions, represented by life cycle carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, are calculated using the climate impact software developed by the Swedish Transport Administration Trafikverket. The result is compared with the estimated emission from the conventional ballasted tracks. The method proposed in this paper is applied in a case study to study the effect of applying the optimized ballastless track system Rheda 2000® in a railway tunnel (the Hallsberg-Stenkumla tunnel) as part of a new line project in Sweden. The model applied in the study is an integral part of an integrated decision support system for effectively selecting track solutions from a lifecycle perspective. The study´s findings are: (i) the life cycle CO2 equivalent emissions by a ballastless track during its life cycle are 10% lower than that of the ballasted track, (ii) the primary total emission driver for both track form solutions is the emissions generated at the manufacturing of rails. (iii) the second important emission factor for the ballasted track solution is the emission from the renewal of the track form during its life cycle, and (iv) the second important emission factor for the ballastless track solution is concrete manufacturing.