Track Gauge Study Report-Egis

GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD METRO RAIL
TRACK GAUGE STUDY

FINAL REPORT
I DENTIFICATION
Internal
Identification
Project
doc N
Rev.
nb. pages
8205 AA
RG 130449
77 pages
written
Name
Marion PAYET
Laurent VIDAL
Madhav RAO
Pauline BOESPFLUG
Marc FRIAUD
Benoit POINSEAUX
Frdric PERRE
Shival MANCHADA
Sanjeev VERMA
Parta BENARJEE
Dominique HURBIN
Project Identification n
verified
approved
Herv CUGNET
Dominique HURBIN
Function
MRT Engineers / Experts
Rail Technical Manager
Project Manager
date
18/07/2013
19/07/2013
19/07/2013
visa
AQ-21-10-T109-A

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
S OMMAIRE / TABLE OF C ONTENTS

PROJECT GENERAL BACKGROUND ...................................................... 4
OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSIGNMENT ...................................................... 6
MAIN ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................... 7
Metro Rail Network ................................................................... 7
Phases & travel demand.............................................................. 9
Rolling Stock ..........................................................................10
3.3.1 Scenario 1: 3m60, Broad Gauge
3.3.2 Scenario 2: 3m20, Standard Gauge
10
10
Comparison criteria ..................................................................11

ELEVATED & UNDERGROUND LINEAR SECTION ...................................... 12
Impact of structural clearance on linear sections ..............................12
4.1.1 Viaducts
4.1.2 Bridges
4.1.3 Tunnels
12
14
15
Impact of axle load on elevated sections ........................................17

STATIONS .................................................................................. 18
Superstructure ........................................................................18
Equipments ............................................................................20
5.2.1 Stairs, escalators and lifts
5.2.2 Platform Screen Doors (PSD)
20
21
SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 22
Rolling Stock ..........................................................................22
6.1.1 Rolling stock train sets
6.1.2 Technical characteristics
6.1.3 Selection of technology
22
23
24
Depot ...................................................................................25
TRAIN OPERATION PLAN ................................................................ 28
Traffic forecast demand ............................................................28
Capacity study ........................................................................28
7.2.1 Line 1
7.2.2 Line 2
7.2.3 Line 3
7.2.4 Line 4
7.2.5 Line 5
31
32
33
33
34
Operation study.......................................................................36
7.3.1 Travel time
7.3.2 Estimated fleet size for both scenarios
36
36
Operation & maintenance costs ...................................................40
EGIS RAIL juillet 2013

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Turnback time in terminus..........................................................42

7.5.1 General assumptions
7.5.2 Technical assumptions
7.5.3 Technical Headway on line
7.5.4 Headway calculations at terminus stations
42
42
43
44
ENERGY .................................................................................... 53
Two types of energy needs .........................................................53
Energy needs estimation ............................................................53
Traction voltage and collection mode ............................................54
Location of traction substations ...................................................54
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATIONS............................................................ 56
Critical analysis & main assumptions .............................................56
9.1.1 Main assumptions
9.1.2 Items considered for the cost comparison
9.1.3 Comments on DPR cost estimations
56
56
57
Detailed cost comparison ...........................................................58

9.2.1 Elevated alignment
9.2.2 Bridges
9.2.3 Station buildings & underground stations
9.2.5 Depot
9.2.6 Rolling stock
9.2.7 Staggered rolling stock cost estimation
58
58
60
62
63
65
67
CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 69
ADDITIONAL STUDIES .................................................................... 73
Listing of relaxations required in the existing SOD............................73
11.1.1 Minimum radius of curvature
11.1.2 Need for guard rails
11.1.3 Type of ballast-less track best suited for a maximum speed of 110 km
73
73
73
Third rail and Over Head Catenary Systems ....................................74

11.2.1 Comparison
11.2.2 Conclusion
74
76
Assessment of impact of track gauge on the availability of spares for maintenance and
overhaul ....................................................................................76

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
P ROJECT GENERAL BACKGROUND

Gandhinagar-Ahmedabad, i n de mographic-cum-economic t erms, is t he m ost d eveloped r egion of G ujarat.
Ahmedabad - a 60 0 y ear o ld c ity - is th e d istrict h eadquarters a nd th e b iggest c ity o f th e s tate a t p resent.
Gandhinagar is the capital of Gujarat since almost 40 years, also known as the green city. The core of the city
is Assembly Building (Vidhan Sabha) with administrative offices and secretariat surrounding it.
Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad are located 32 km from each other and are well connected through highway, and
the region is rapidly becoming a contiguous urban area.
Ahmedabad is the seventh largest metropolis of India and accounts for around 10% of population of Gujarat. The
city is amongst the fastest growing in the country with a CAGR of 10.1% per annum over the last 7 years - higher
than any other metro. The current population of 58 lakhs (2008-AMC) is likely to reach 110 lakhs by 2035. T he
area o f t he c ity i s l ikely t o i ncrease f rom t he p resent 4 00 sq k ms t o 10 00 sq k ms b y 2 035. T his a rea w ould
incorporate surrounding settlements including the state capital - Gandhinagar to form Greater Ahmedabad. The
proposed G ujarat I nternational F inance T ec-City ( GIFT), Delhi Mu mbai I ndustrial C orridor, S pecial E conomic
Project at Dholera are some of the key drivers for the growth.
Personalized vehicle usage to an extent of 55% of the total modes have led to various urban issues such as traffic
bottlenecks, high pollution levels and a steep increase in fuel consumption in the city. The city of Ahmedabad
has been awarded one of the best planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in the world. Though the city has a
BRT s ystem, i t ha s b een r ecognized t hat no s ingle mode w ould c ater t o t he m obility ne eds o f t he c ity.
Integration of different modes of transport shall be key to satisfy demand of high growth. With the vision of an
efficient, integrated public transport system and improving the quality of life in the city of Ahmedabad, a metro
cum r egional r ail system w as p roposed. T he ob jective of Metro c um R egional R ail is t o p rovide safe, fast and
eco-friendly t ransportation s ervices t o t he p ublic a t t he a ffordable r ates w hile s imultaneously r educing t he
congestion on the roads. Me tro cum Regional Rail Infrastructure is the long term solution to commuting hassles
and historically it has been proved that it will resolve the problem at least for next 100 years.
On 4th February 2010, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) namely, Metro-Link Express for Gandhinagar & Ahmedabad
(MEGA) Company Ltd. was incorporated by the Government of Gujarat to implement Metro Rail Project under the
Companies Act, 1956.
A Detailed Project Report was prepared by DMRC in June 2005. The project has undergone some changes after
the DPR and recently MEGA got a revised project report made for th e Project. T he new DPR is f rom February
2013, from which this study relies upon.
The plan approved by the Government of Gujarat consists of a network of about 82 km planned in two phases
(2018 and 2021). In pursuance of its objective, MEGA has already undertaken significant amount of Planning and
Design of work of various components of the Project (Phase I), as under:
RFP for Rolling Stock has been issued
RFP for sub-structure of viaduct has been issued

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
RFP f or su per-structure o f v iaducts, I ndroda de pot civil w orks, t rack w ork, s ignaling, c ommunication,
PSD, AFC etc. are in progress.
While the above are progressing significantly, the issue of choice of gauge has come up for discussion at the level
of t he G overnment of G ujarat and, notwithstanding t he progress made with t he above, it was d esired t hat an
expert committee of eminent professionals be entrusted with the task of studying the choice of gauge including a
techno-economic study. Accordingly, an expert committee of eminent professionals has conducted the study and
submitted their report.
Following the study report by the expert committee, MEGA has decided to have an external expertise consultant
to c onduct a t echno-economic st udy o n sy stem parameters including specifically track ga uge & rolling stock
width.
Accordingly, ME GA h as s elected E gis to c arry out a t rack g auge c omparative s tudy f or t he G andhinagar an d
Ahmedabad metro rail project.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
O BJECTIVES OF THE A SSIGNMENT

The main ob jective of t he present assignment is to provide a d etailed analysis o f all i mpacts of t he c hoice of
gauge and to compare two widths of Rolling Stock: 3,60m & 3,20m respectively in Broad Gauge (BG = 1676 mm
between rails) and in Standard Gauge (SG = 1435mm)
After definition of the main assumptions, network, phases, travel demand, rolling stock characteristics & train
composition, it is developed a deep analysis of each sub system which is impacted by the choice of gauge.
A comparative cost is then built up from this analysis.
Finally, so me specific is sues not directly related to the choice of gauge are addressed with experts advice on
track & energy.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
M AIN ASSUMPTIONS
Metro Rail Network
The proposed metro rail network connects the cities of Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad. The network includes 5
lines:
Line 1: from Akshardham to APMC

Line 1A: from Akshardham to AEC
Line 1B: from AEC to APMC
Line 2: Memco to Tri Junction
Line 3: Tri Junction to Airport
Line 4: CH3 to Mahatma Mandir
Line 5: Kasturba to GIFT
The elevated and underground sections are described in the following table from the latest alignment:
61.6 km of elevated alignment and
20.2km of underground alignment;
53 stations (42 elevated stations and 11 underground stations).
Table 1 Lines description
S No
1
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Elevated
Elevated
UG
UG (km) Total (km)
(km)
Stations Stations
Line 1A (2018) : Akshardham to A
23.1
0.0
23.1
16 Line 1B (2021): AEC to APMC
0.0
14.7
14.7
0
8
Line 2A: Tri junction to MEMCO
27.5
5.5
33.0
20
3
Line 3: Tri Junction to Airport
1.2
0.0
1.2
1Line 4: CH 3 to Mahatma Mandir
3.7
0.0
3.7
2Line 5: Kasturba to GIFT
6.1
0.0
6.1
3Total
61.6
20.2
81.7
42.0
11.0
81.74
53
Section

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Figure 1 Proposed metro rail network
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Phases & travel demand

The proposed metro rail network is planned in two phases:
Phase 1: 2018 with all lines except line 1B

Phase 2: 2021 Line 1B
The network will therefore be complete by 2021.

Travel demand is taken as per DPR study (Barsyl, Feb 2013), chapter 4.6.3 p 74
Table 2 travel demand in PPHPD
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Rolling Stock
3.3.1 Scenario 1: 3m60, Broad Gauge
Scenario 1 is described as follow:
1676 mm track gauge

3.6 wide rolling stock
22 m long car unit / 44m long for 2 car train / 88m long for 4 car train
50 m platform for a two-car train
94 m platform for a four-car train (3m at each end of the train : 3+88+3)
Capacity (8 pers/m):
2-car train: 800 passengers with 100 seats (12%)

100% motorization
It shall be mentioned that stations length could be optimized compared to DPR assumptions (50m length for 44m
trains), although for comparison purpose, similar assumptions were taken.
3.3.2 Scenario 2: 3m20, Standard Gauge

Scenario 2 is described as follow:
1435 mm track gauge

3.2 wide rolling stock
18 m long car unit / 54m long for 3 car train / 108m long for 6 car train
60 m platform for a two-car train
114 m platform for a four-car train (3m at each end of the train : 3+108+3)
Capacity (8 pers/m)::

66% motorization

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Comparison criteria
Track gauge of 1676 mm h as b een selected for ME GA p roject as it h elps f or u tilization of w ide b ody c oach b y
offering better stability.
The comparison will focus on
infrastructure, which is impacted by the width or the length of the trains (viaducts, tunnels, stations)
and by axle loads
stations, with impacts on structure & equipements
dpot, which is impacted by train dimensions and by turnouts characteristics
train operation & associated maintenance & operation costs, including energy consumption
rollings stock acquisition
Considering the very high need for capacity, MEGA project will be designed & operated to achieve the highest
frequencies. It has been considered for theoreticaol approach, a 90s minimum frequecy on line 1, 2 & 5.
Although, a d esign c heck of m inimum he adway f or e ach l ine & f or b oth s cenarios has b een c onducted a nd
resulted in recommandations to achieve such headway. Although it does not impact the comparative analysis.
Cost e stimation is d erived f rom a bove c omparison & c ompletes t he c riterias, w ith a s pecific f ocus on r olling
stock.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
E LEVATED & UNDERGROUND LINEAR SECTION

Impact of structural clearance on linear sections
4.1.1 Viaducts
The structural system of the viaduct consists on a super-structure supported on single cast-in-place RC pier. At
major crossing over, special steel or PS concrete bridges are provided.
The super structures design includes a double track with twin open profiles girders as described in the typical
cross-section from the DPR.
To be mentioned in the functional cross section, that there is no provision for lateral circulation (as in Chennai
type cross section shown below), as emergency evacuation is made by the front of the trains.
Figure 2 Typical cross section for 3.6 wide coach Broad Gauge (DPR)
Figure 3 Chennai type cross section (Egis)
From the DPR typical cross section, cross sections have been developed for both 3.6m and 3.2m wide coach.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Figure 4 Viaduct typical elevated cross section 3.6m wide coach Broad Gauge (Egis)
Accordingly, t he cro ss s ectional a reas o f U -profile g irders f or b oth s cenarios h ave b een c omputed a nd t he
difference in m obtained as follows :
Cross sectional area of twin U-profile girders for BG = 6.59 m2

Cross sectional area of twin U-profile girders for SG = 6.21 m2
Difference in cross sectional area = 0.38 m2
Total linear of viaduct as given in DPR is 63.61km.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Figure 5 Viaduct typical elevated cross section 3.2m wide rolling stock Standard Gauge (Egis)
4.1.2 Bridges
Seven bridges are necessary to cross over the canal, the river or existing national railway tracks:
One 156m long bridge over the canal for Line 1

One 295m long river bridge for Line 2
Three railway bridges for Line 2, 25m, 55m and 169m long.
One 280 m long river bridge for Line 3
One 668 m long river bridge for Line 5
The width of deck slab (superstructure) is affected by the width of the Rolling Stock.
The difference in coach width is 0.4m between both scenarios, accordingly, the reduction in width of deck slab =
0.4 x 2 = 0 .8 m. T he assumption f or t he t hickness o f d eck sl ab is 0 .24 m, w hich me ans t hat t he difference in
quantity of concrete per meter is 0.8 x 0.24 x 1 = 0.192 m3 for Scenario 2.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
4.1.3 Tunnels
Cross sections have been developed for both scenarios with a view to work out the possible impact of structural
clearance, if any when switching from 3.2 m wide vehicle to 3.6m wide vehicle.
The static & dynamic gauge assumptions were taken from DPR reference.
As a reminder, the main assumptions for determining the horizontal & vertical clearance are:
emergency evacuation is made by the front of trains, hence there is no lateral circulation for emergency
evacuation or maintenance purpose
static & dynamic gauge shall be worked out for the rolling stock, we usually make provision for 300 mm
including a safety margin. The impact of curves & cant shall also be taken into account, and finally, the
presence of equipment & cables, laterally, or on tunnel roof.
Considering the typical tunnel cross section (TBM) for MEGA project these points can be summarized by
300 mm minimum horizontal clearance from static gauge
500 mm minimum vertical clearance from static gauge
It shall be mentioned that as per DPR, fans on top of tunnel have not been considered, as ventilation shafts will
be designed & positioned to ensure smoke evacuation in emergency conditions.
Figure 6 Underground cross section 3.6m coach (DPR)

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Figure 7 Underground cross section 3.2 m wide coach (Egis)
The i mpact o n tu nnel th eoretical d iameter i s f rom 5 m60 to 5 m40. A lthough th ere i s a s mall d ifference i n
diameter of tunnels between the scenarios, for comparison purposes, it is assumed that the diameter of tunnels
remains the same as the tunnels in case of recently completed/ongoing metro systems in India have a diameter
between 5.6 m and 5.8 m. Examples being DMRC (5.8 m), CMRL (5.8 m), BMRCL (5.6 m). These tunnels in case of
recently completed/ongoing metros have been/are being executed with width of coaches that range between
2.9 m and 3.2 m.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Tunnel cross section check

Although, possible structural optimization could be analyzed depending on TBM availability or on TBM
procurement strategy.
The below cross section shows functional analysis of the cross section for BG including:
Static Envelope 3m60

Kinematic Envelope 3m90
Structure Gauge 4m20
Maximum Cant 160mm
No ventilation fans
Figure 8 Functional analysis of underground cross section 3.6 m wide coach (Egis)
As we see, with a structure gauge of 4m20, the minimum theoretical tunnel diameter would be 5m40, thus, with
10cm of construction tolerance, a tunnel diameter of 5m60 is correct.
Impact of axle load on elevated sections

While there is a difference of axle load between 3.2m wide coach & 3.6 m coach, it has been recommended to
design load bearing structures for the maximum axle load (i.e. 18 tons), therefore, the foundation and
substructure do not vary.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
S TATIONS
DPR has a provision for five types of station buildings, namely, Type A, B, C, D and E. While Types A t hrough D
represent elevated stations, Type E represents Underground stations. A t otal of 53 stations have been proposed
in the DPR, of which 42 are elevated stations and 11 underground.
Station analysis will consider the main sections below:
Superstructure (according to the length of station)
Equipments: lifts, escalators and platform screen doors
Superstructure
The s tation lengths v ary b etween s cenarios. T he D PR v ersion i ncludes 1 00m l ong p latform f or a ll t he s tations
without any line distinction. This platform length has been optimized to 96 m b ased on the 2-car train set and
platform lengths: a 50m long platform for a 44 m long train set implies a gap between either end of the train and
the end of the platform of 3m as described below:
3m
44 m
3m
50 m
Figure 9 Scenario 1 with 2-car train and 50m platform length
4-car train set > 94 m long platform = 3m + 88m + 3m
3m
88 m
94m
3m
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
3-car train set > 60m long platform = 3m + 54m + 3m

DMC
DMC
TC
54 m
3m
3m
60 m
6-car train set > 114 m long platform = 3m + 108m + 3m

DMC
TC
MC
MC
TC
DMC
108 m
3m
3m
114 m
Below table summarizes platform lengths according to train composition for each line.
Table 3 Train composition and platform length for each line
Scenario 1 (2018-2021)
Line 1*
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Train
composition
2-car train
4-car train
2-car train
2-car train
2-car train
Platform
length
50 m
94 m
50 m
50 m
50 m
Scenario 1 >2026
Train composition
4-car train
4-car train
2-car train
2-car train
2-car train
Platform
length
94 m
94 m
50 m
50 m
50 m
Scenario 2
Train
composition
6-car train
6-car train
3-car train
3-car train
3-car train
Platform
length
114 m
114 m
60 m
60 m
60 m
*Line 1: 2-car train sets until 2021, then 4-car train starting in 2026 implying that the station length will be 50 m
for elevated stations until 2025 to differ investment costs and 94 m in 2026. The 8 u nderground stations will be
built at 94m from the beginning (2018).
For line 2, as mentioned in the operation study included in the present report, 4-car train is necessary from the
beginning considering the forecast of fast increase of demand after initial revenue service.
The c ost estimation w ill consider the final c onfiguration, t hus with definitive p latform l ength ( 94m) for a ll
elevated stations.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Impact of rolling stock scenario is summarized is following table:

Table 4 Additional platform length in Scenario 2
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
94 m
94 m
50 m
50 m
50 m
114 m
114 m
60 m
60 m
60 m
Additional platform
length in Scenario 2
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
Equipments
5.2.1 Stairs, escalators and lifts
The prime purpose of lifts is to provide barrier free access to people with special needs from street to platform.
Assuming that stations are typically stacked as follows
Street level
Concourse level in between street and platform level
Platform level
Review of D PR a ssumptions & a nalysis of im pact of s cenario 2 (114m p latform, 1 8% mo re p assengers t han
scenario 1) :
The number of escalators depends on complexity of the station like
terminal, interchange
typical on road, off road
UG station, elevated
Length of station
Boarding-Alighting passengers
lift is inside the paid area at street level or outside the paid area and AFC gates are at platform level
after alighting from lifts
In each scenario, number of escalators could be different. Hence, without getting into layout details of stations
it is not possible to work out the requirement of escalators.
Generally for simple stations with less passenger load only one direction escalators are provided, i.e. four (4)
numbers ( street t o concourse and concourse t o platform). B ut, f or c omplex stations w ith h igh p assenger l oad
and multiple flows the requirement of escalators can increase.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Additionally, escalators are also to be analysed along with staircase for assessing the egress requirements of a
station. H ence, in a scenario w here station is c omplex in d esign and w ith h igh p assenger l oad, e scalators are
also used as egress element and hence the numbers can vary from case to case.
For c omparison p urposes, it is a ssumed as a t heoretical ap proach that a n ad ditional 1 m o f s taircase w here
required would give the same evacuation time as Scenario 1 (BG). This cost is included in the station building
extra cost (extra platform, +1 m staircase).

The number of Platform Screen Doors (PSD) varies from Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 as they do not have the same
rolling stock composition.
Scenario 1 requires 8 P SD p er s tation f or s hort t rains a nd 16 P SD p er s tation f or l ong trains w hile S cenario 2
requires 9 PSD per station for short trains and 18 PSD per station for long trains as described in the next table.
Table 5 Number of PSD per type of trains
Number of PSD for short trains

(Lines 3, 4, 5)
Number of PSD for long trains
(Lines 1 and 2)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
16
16
18
18
The f ollowing t able shows t he number of P SD required f or e ach line whether it is half height for the elevated
stations or f ull h eight f or t he u nderground s tations. S cenario 2 r equired a n a dditional 100 PSD c ompared t o
Scenario 1 (12.5% increase in quantity).
Nb
stations
Nb PSD per
station
Sc. 1 - 3.6m wide, 88m long
Sc. 2 3.2 m wide, 108m long
Sc1/Sc2
Line 1A
16
16/18
256
288
Line 1B
16/18
128
144
Line 2
23
16/18
368
414
Line 3
8/9
Line 4
8/9
16
18
Line 5
8/9
24
27
800
900
Total
Difference = 100 PSD
It could be mentioned that for line 5, Kasturba Smarak station might be accounted also as a double station would
be needed (that would bring to 4 stations for line 4) although, to be consistent with DPR, the quantities have not
been modified.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
S YSTEM
Rolling Stock
6.1.1 Rolling stock train sets
Trainsets configurations taken into account are based on configurations defined in 2.3:
3 trainsets configurations were considered:

For any trainset configuration, each car has 2 bogies.
2 - Scenario 1: Trainset constituted of 4 wide coaches (3.6m x 22m)
Nota : the d ouble t rain s et w ith 4 d rivers c abin w ill l ead t o d ifficulties f or f ront e vacuation in t unnel o r o n
viaduct, as it will be difficult (or impossible if the driver cabin is maintained) to evacuate the full train in one
side in case of emergency.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
6.1.2 Technical characteristics

Axle loads are given in below table
Table 6 Load characteristics
Tare weight
Trainset constituted by 2 wide cars

(3.6m x 22m)
Trainset constituted by 3 cars
(3.2m x 18m)
(t)
Weight with 8
pass/m (68kg/pass)
(t)
Axle load
8 pass/m
(F)
79 t
133 t
F < 166 kN*
90 t
150 t
F < 125 kN
NB:
Tare weight is given for aluminium lightweight car body vehicles

Loads may vary depending on the car type (Motor car Trailer car)
(*) Design criteria given in DPR include 180 kN axle load
Minimum radius curve are different according to the length of cars, position of bogies & track gauge, as given in
below table.
Minimum curve radius
Trainset constituted by 2 wide cars

(3.6m x 22m)
Trainset constituted by 3 cars
(3.2m x 18m)
Approximately 175m taken in DPR, although under certain

conditions, 120m can be achieved
Approximately 100m
In a ddition, t he f ollowing t echnical d ata are s pecified in o rder t o e valuate t he e nergy c onsumption f or e ach
scenario.
Table 7 Technical characteristics for energy consumption
Air conditioned
Electric power for the rake
Trainset constituted by 2
cars
(total 3.6m x 44m)
Approximately: 160 kW
including cab equipment
Trainset constituted by 3
cars
(total 3.2m x 54m)
Approximately: 180 kw
including cab equipment
Maximum traction power

for the rake
1.500 MW (at the wheel)
e.g. approximately a
continuous electrical power
of 190kW/motor
1.650 MW (at the wheel)
e.g. approximately a
continuous electrical power
of 210kW/motor
Acceleration
max
Deceleration
max
1.1 m/s
1.1 m/s
(1.3 emergency)
1.1 m/s
1.1 m/s
(1.3 emergency)

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
6.1.3 Selection of technology

Car body
Both scenarios are based on composite lightweight car body.
Bogies
Each car has 2 bolsterless lightweight bogies with rubber springs as mentioned in the DPR.
Braking system
The brake system is consistent with DPR description which includes:
An electro-pneumatic (EP) service friction brake
A fail safe pneumatic friction emergency brake
A spring applied air-release parking brake
An electric regenerative service brake
Provision of smooth and continuous blending of EP and regenerative braking
Propulsion System Technology
Three phase AC traction drive
Advanced IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor)
Car interior organization

The passenger capacity in both scenarios is maximized with longitudinal seats, the remaining space being used by
standing passengers. Passenger seat to passenger capacity is 12% for scenarios.
Passenger doors
The number of passenger doors differs from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2.
Scenario 1 provides 4 passenger doors per face and per car while Scenario 2 provides 3 passenger doors per face
and per car. With these configurations, minimum dwell time necessary to empty a car at full capacity is similar
for b oth S cenarios ( 36 se c, w ith 1 400mm d oor w idth, c onsidering 3p ass/sec/door). C onsidering t he h igh
frequencies ( 90s) t o b e r eached in op eration, it is r ecommended t o c onduct s pecific s tudies on d oors s ize &
positioning, as well as station platform organization to reach 30s of dwell time.
Table 8 Passenger doors and minimum dwell time
3.6 m wide - 22.5 m long - 12%

seats
Length (m)
Capacity 8 passengers/m
Doors
3.2m wide - 18m long 12% seats
2-CAR TRAIN
4-CAR TRAIN
3-CAR TRAIN
6-CAR TRAIN
44
88
54
108
800
8
1600
16
890
9
1890
18
For b oth scenarios, automatic d oor c losing mechanism w ill b e u sed w ith t he op tion f or t he d river t o manually
control door closing if needed.
Air-conditioning
Each c ar wi ll b e eq uipped wi th t wo-air c onditioning u nits c apable of a utomatically c ontrolling in terior
temperature. Both scenarios meet the same requirements. Cabins will be equipped with air conditioning.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Depot
Based on the DPR, the metro rail network includes three depots: Motera depot also known as the mother depot
located off Motera Stadium station on Line 2, Indroda depot located off Dholakuva station on Line 1 and another
unlocated depot.
The depot analysis is based on the Motera depot. The exercise performed consists on:
Evaluating the existing layout of Motera depot

Estimating the extra length needed to fit 108 m long vehicles from Scenario 2,
The Motera Depot is located along Line 2 Memco Tri Junction next to the Koteshwar temple.
The Koteshwar temple is located on the East end of the depot and therefore could not be displaced. This temple
was therefore maintained at the same location and the depot was reorganized to accommodate these data: same
temple location, same east entry/exit and also same west entry/exit.
The Mot era depot is designed w ith a curve radius of 1 75m (minimum radius for Broad Gauge). I t could b e
optimized i f a 1 20m r adius i s c onsidered, w hile 1 435 mm gauge st ock c an n egotiate a 100m r adius curve. The
Motera depot has to be reorganized to allow longer vehicles (108minstead of 88m) for Scenario 2.
Figure 13 Motera depot - train 88m with track radius of 175m as per DPR
The following characteristics do not change:
The administration location, the delivery track location, the road entry, the test track (1200m) the ETU
workshop and building.
There is the same quantity of stabling track and workshop track

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
There is the same turnout type.

The track gauge was kept as there is little difference in overall surface and it allows for a bigger work
surface.
The minimum radius of the track is 100m for Standard Gauge.
The reorganization of the Motera depot has impacts on:
The stabling area: The two stabling areas (24 trains each) are gathered in the south of the depot.
The heavy repair bay and the inspection bay are gathered in the north of the depot
The train wash, the heavy cleaning shed and the effluent treatment plant (ETP) are located together
next to the stabling
The under floor wheel lathe shed is relocated in the North of the depot after the heavy repair bay tracks
The specialized workshop surface is extended
All the following movements inside the depot are designed with a shunting track (110m long) near the access
ramp:
stabling<->stabling ;
stabling<->heavy repair bay ;
automatic washing machine <-> stabling
The Motera depot was redesigned to accommodate 108 m long vehicles. The additional area needed for Scenario
2 has been estimated in order to update the depot cost.
Figure 14 New organization and additional area needed for scenario 2

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Table 9 Depot comparison
Rolling stock
length
Surface (m)
Track length
(m)
Nb
turnout
Nb train for
comparison
Scenario 1 - 3.6 m wide

cars
Scenario 2 - 3.2 m wide
cars
88 m
201707
15947
52
48
108 m
234140
17300
53
48
difference
+ 20 m
16%
8%
Scenario 2 requires 16% more space for two of the depots.

As Line 1 r equires 1 2 f ewer t rainsets in S cenario 2 , I ndroda de pot ( dedicated t o Line 1 ) would not r equire
additional space.
Figure 15 Motera Depot for Scenario 2 108 m long train sets
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
T RAIN OPERATION PLAN

Traffic forecast demand
The tr affic fo recast d emand is p rovided i n th e D PR. B ased o n th e D PR P 1 71 s huttle s ervices d escription, th e
PPHPD for Line 3 ( Tri Junction Airport) has been recalculated for this shuttle line to be more consistent with
the single track alignment.
Table 10 Traffic forecast demand (PPHPD)
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
2018
8829
24848
2400
3475
3856
2021
22709
30573
3200
4599
7744
2026
27977
39106
4000
7033
16200
2031
34191
49287
4800
9926
25049
2036
41829
61396
6400
12815
30292
2041
49250
74281
8000
16543
34721
Capacity study
The capacity study consists on calculating the service frequency for each line in order to meet the demand. The
ratio d emand/capacity co nsidered a cceptable i s f rom 80 t o 1 10% ( from 8 0% i n 2 018 a nd t o 1 10% i n 20 41, n ot
exceeding 100% in between).
The c apacity i s c alculated w ith a r atio o f 8 p assengers/m. T he ma ximum h eadway i s 10 minutes a nd t he
minimum headway is 90s.
Table 11 Train capacity for each scenario at 8 passengers/m
3.6 m wide - 22.5 m long - 12%

seats
Length (m)
Capacity 8 passengers/m
3.2m wide - 18m long 12% seats
2-CAR TRAIN
4-CAR TRAIN
3-CAR TRAIN
6-CAR TRAIN
44
88
54
108
800
1600
890
1890
The following tables show the capacity study for each line and for each period.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Table 12 Scenario 1 capacity study
SCENARIO 1: 3.6 M 22m 8 PERS/M - HEADWAY TO MEET DEMAND/CAPACITY

2 car train
4 car train
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
Line 1 demand (PPHPD)
8829
22709
27977
34191
41829
Frequency (minutes)
5
2
3
2.5
2
Number of trains/hour
12
30
20
24
30
Capacity (passengers)
9600
24000
32000
38400
48000
Ratio Demand/Capacity
92%
95%
87%
89%
87%

Frequency (minutes)

Frequency (minutes)

Frequency (minutes)

Frequency (minutes)
2018
24848
3.5
17
27429
91%
2018
2400
9.5
6
5053
48%
2018
3475
9.5
6
5053
69%
2018
3856
9.5
6
5053
76%
2021
30573
3
20
32000
96%
4 car train
2026
2031
39106
49287
2
1.5
30
40
48000
64000
81%
77%
2036
61396
1.5
40
64000
96%
passengers
left behind
2041
49250
2
30
48000
103%
2041
74281
1.5
40
64000
116%
10281
2021
3200
9.5
6
5053
63%
2 car train
2026
2031
4000
4800
9.5
9
6
7
5053
5333
79%
90%
2036
6400
7
9
6857
93%
2041
8000
6.5
9
7385
108%
2021
4599
9.5
6
5053
91%
2 car train
2026
2031
7033
9926
6
4.5
10
13
8000
10667
88%
93%
2036
12815
3.5
17
13714
93%
2041
16543
3
20
16000
103%
2021
7744
6
10
8000
97%
2 car train
2026
2031
16200
25049
2.5
1.5
24
40
19200
32000
84%
78%
2036
30292
1.5
40
32000
95%
passengers
left behind
2041
34721
1.5
40
32000
109%
2721

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Table 13 Scenario 2 capacity study
SCENARIO 2: 3.2 M 18m 8 PERS/M - HEADWAY TO MEET DEMAND/CAPACITY

6 car train
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
8829
22709
27977
34191
41829
Frequency (minutes)
9.5
4.5
3.5
3
2.5
6
13
17
20
24
11937
25200
32400
37800
45360
74%
90%
86%
90%
92%
24848
4
15
28350
88%
2021
30573
3.5
17
32400
94%
6 car train
2026
2031
39106
49287
2.5
2
24
30
45360
56700
86%
87%
2036
61396
1.5
40
75600
81%
2041
74281
1.5
40
75600
98%
2400
9.5
6
5621
43%
2021
3200
9.5
6
5621
57%
3 car train
2026
2031
4000
4800
9.5
9.5
6
6
5621
5621
71%
85%
2036
6400
8
8
6675
96%
2041
8000
7
9
7629
105%
3475
9.5
6
5621
62%
2021
4599
9.5
6
5621
82%
3 car train
2026
2031
7033
9926
7
5
9
12
7629
10680
92%
93%
2036
12815
4
15
13350
96%
2041
16543
3.5
17
15257
108%
3856
9.5
6
5621
69%
2021
7744
6
10
8900
87%
3 car train
2026
2031
16200
25049
3
2
20
30
17800
26700
91%
94%
2036
30292
1.5
40
35600
85%
2041
34721
1.5
40
35600
98%
2018
Frequency (minutes)
Airport
Frequency (minutes)
2018
2018
Frequency (minutes)
2018
Frequency (minutes)
2041
49250
2.5
24
45360
109%

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
7.2.1 Line 1
As seen in the previous tables, Line 1 requires either 4-car trains or 6-car trains to match the demand in 2041.
Scenario 2 requires 2.5 minutes headway in 2041 (109% demand/capacity ratio).

Scenario 1 requires 2 min headway in 2041 (103% demand/capacity ratio)
Impact on rolling stock fleet: Scenario 1 requires 64 4-car trains in 2041 and Scenario 2 would require 52
6-car trains in 2041.
Impact on operation costs (reduction of annual km) is detailed in chapter 7.4 .
Line 1 will start operation with 2 car trains, in order to save capital cost on rolling stock and on the 16 elevated
stations to be built for the first phase (they will be build at 50 m length, then extended in 2026 to 100m length)
It w ill a lso a llow starting operation wi th a b etter h eadway wh ich m akes t he s ystem more a ttractive ( 5 m in
headway in 2018, down to 2mn in 2021)
An alternative option for line 1 operation phasing is to start with 4 car trains.
The difference in rolling stock acquisition can be estimated as follows:
34 more cars are needed in 2018 (approx. 250 INR Cr minimum) to reach the same headway (5mn)
although with better comfort for passengers and good capacity reserve.
Although with a 4 mn headway in 2021, it would require the same number of cars, or even 15 cars less
with a 5 mn headway, as 4-car trains with 2 cabins only provide 10% extra capacity.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 14 Comparison between 2-car train composition and 4-car trains for Line 1
2018
Year
2021
2026
2031
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

of cars
of
of cars
of
of cars
of
of cars
of
needed trains/hr needed trains/hr needed trains/hr needed trains/hr
Starting with 2-car
trains
Starting with 4-car
trains (2 cabins
only, extra
capacity)
Delta between the
two options
34
12
128
30
176
20
208
24
40
116
13
148
17
208
24
-6
12
28
7.2.2 Line 2
Line 2 r equires ei ther 4 -car t rains o r 6 -car t rains t o m atch t he d emand o n this l ine. According t o f orecast
demand, Scenario 1 reaches a demand/capacity ratio of 116% with a 1.5 min frequency. About 10 280 passengers
are left behind, when considering 8 passengers/m, which is already a dense ratio.
Scenario 2 requires a 90 s service frequency with a 98% demand/capacity ratio therefore with very little capacity
reserve.
Both scenarios have at term the same rolling stock fleet and annual km.
Quality of service and fare revenue could be optimized by claiming the cabin space and ordering a 4-car train
with only 2 cabins on either side. This would increase the capacity to 1720 passengers per train (+120 passengers
compared to the original 1600 passenger capacity) and would increase by the same the service revenue.
The op timized r olling s tock reaches 9 8% in 2 041 c onsidering t he 8 p assengers/m capacity, and offers b etter
comfort for the passengers.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
This optimized rolling stock scenario, if generalized to Lines 1 and 2, includes several advantages:
Capacity gain of 120 passengers for a 4-car train compared to the original capacity (+8%).
Fare revenue is increased by the same proportion
The rolling stock acquisition strategy could be optimized and more cost-effective
There is no construction phasing for the stations which avoids service interruption or degradation during
operation
Better quality of service as it offers more reserve which translates into a better comfort for the users.
7.2.3 Line 3
Line 3 requires either 2-car trains or 3-car trains. Line 3 is from Tri Junction and the Airport on the single track.
For lines 3, 4 and 5, as the demand should remain low in the first operation years, it is recommended to offer a
minimum 10mn headway for good attractiveness of the system.
Scenario 2 allows for a slightly longer headway (7 min frequency in 2041 instead of 6.5). There are no impacts on
the rolling stock fleet as both scenarios would require the same number of train sets.
7.2.4 Line 4
Line 4 requires either 2-car trains or 3-car trains. Scenario 2 allows for longer headway impacting the operation
costs. In terms of rolling stock, both scenarios require at term the same number of train sets.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
7.2.5 Line 5
Line 5 requires either 2-car trains or 3-car trains, with 109% capacity for scenario 1 & 98% for scenario 2, with a
90 s frequency with a 8 pers/m ratio. Approximately 2700 passengers would be left behind for scenario 1.
Four-car t rain sets c ould be required in S cenario1 in 2 041 to m eet th e demand, but not considered in the
comparison.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Operation study
7.3.1 Travel time
The travel times were calculated for each line based on the following assumptions:
The operating speed is 100kmph

The acceleration for fully loaded train is 1.1m/s
The average service braking rate is 1.1m/s
The average dwell time at stations is taken as 30 seconds
Trains run between 5 am and 12pm, all days of the year.
The following table shows the total time and the operating speed for each line.
Table 15 Total time and operating speed
Length (m)
Total time (min)
Operating speed (kmph)
Line 1
Phase 1
23 109
73.8
33.0
Line 1
Phase 2
37 825
111.5
40.3
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
31 941
103.8
36.5
2 217
4.9
19.0
3 692
7.9
21.1
6 076
22.7
31.6
The t ravel t imes h ave b een es timated wi th E gis s oftware Expert T C, t aking i nto a ccount t he d etailed
characteristics of each line as given by MEGA. The operating speed are generally lower than from DPR, resulting
in more important Rolling Stock fleet than from DPR calculations.
For comparison purpose, Egis data were used for both scenarios in order to provide comparable results.
7.3.2 Estimated fleet size for both scenarios

The es timated f leet s ize wa s c alculated b ased on t he f requency d escribed i n t he c apacity s tudy i n o rder t o
better compare the scenarios.
7.3.2.1 Estimated fleet size for scenario 1

At term, Line 1 and Line 2 require respectively 64 and 81 4-car train sets for a total of 145 4-car train sets. Line
3, 4 and 5 require respectively 3, 5 and 18 2-car train sets for a total of 26 2-car train sets. Scenario 1 requires a
total of 171 train sets.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 16 Number of trains required for each period for Scenario 1
Trainsets
4 CAR - 88 m
Line 1
4 CAR - 88 m
Line 2
2 CAR -44m
Line 1
2 CAR -44m
Line 3
2 CAR -44m
Line 4
2 CAR -44m
Line 5
Total 2 CAR trains
Total 4 CAR trains
Total trains
Scenario 1: 3.6 wide 22m long BG

Year
2018
2021
2026
0
0
44
35
40
60
17
64
0
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
12
28
76
19
35
40
104
63
116
123
2031
52
81
0
3
4
18
25
133
158
2036
64
81
0
3
5
18
26
145
171
2041
64
81
0
3
5
18
26
145
171
At term, 632 cars will be necessary for Scenario 1.

Table 17 Numbers of cars required for each period for Scenario 1
Year
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Total CARS
2018
34
140
6
6
10
196
Number of CARS
2021
2026
128
176
160
240
6
6
6
8
12
24
312
454
2031
208
324
6
8
36
582
2036
256
324
6
10
36
632
2041
256
324
6
10
36
632
7.3.2.2 Estimated fleet size for scenario 2

At term, Line 1 and Line 2 require respectively 52 and 81 6-car train sets for a total of 133 6-car train sets. Line
3, 4 and 5 require respectively 3, 5 and 18 3-car train sets for a total of 26 3-car train sets. Scenario 2 requires a
total of 159 train sets.
Table 18 Number of trains required for each period for Scenario 2
Trainsets
Year
6 CAR - 108 m
Line 1
6 CAR - 108 m
Line 2
3 CAR -54 m
Line 3
3 CAR -54 m
Line 4
3 CAR -54 m
Line 5
Total 3 CAR trains
Total 6 CAR trains
Total trains
Scenario 2: 3.2 wide, 18 m long SG

2018
2021
2026
10
29
37
30
35
48
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
17
40
64
85
51
76
102
2031
44
60
3
4
14
21
104
125
2036
52
81
3
4
18
25
133
158
2041
52
81
3
5
18
26
133
159
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
At term, Scenario 2 requires 876 cars.

Table 19 Numbers of cars required for each period for Scenaio 2
Year
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Total CARS
2018
60
180
9
9
15
273
Number of CARS
2021
2026
174
222
210
288
9
9
9
12
18
30
420
561
2031
264
360
9
12
42
687
2036
312
486
9
12
54
873
2041
312
486
9
15
54
876
7.3.2.3 Comparison of fleet size evolution

At term, Scenario 1 requires an additional 12 4-car train sets compared to Scenario 2. In terms of number of
cars, Scenario 2 has 244 more cars than Scenario 1.
Table 20 Comparison in number of train sets
Year
2-CAR
4-CAR
Train sets Scenario 1
Total
3-CAR
6-CAR
Train sets Scenario 2
Total
Delta Scenario 1 - Scenario 2 (trainsets)
Delta Sc1 - Sc2 in number of cars
2018
28
35
63
11
40
51
12
-77
2021
76
40
116
12
64
76
40
-108
2026
19
104
123
17
85
102
21
-107
2031
25
133
158
21
104
125
33
-105
2036
26
145
171
25
133
158
13
-241
2041
26
145
171
26
133
159
12
-244
7.3.2.4 Acquisition strategy

Procurement of rolling stock shall be planned with following constraints:
Delivery shall be planned with anticipation in order to meet sufficient headway for initial revenue
service considering manufacturing delay & commissioning operations
Orders shall be placed with sufficient number of cars, in order to absorb development costs and
industrial manufacturing constraints. Thus initial order should consider 2021 demand as an option of
initial order.
Further orders can be planned every 5 years as the demand increases, but without warranty to get the
same supplier.
The acquisition for Scenario 1 is described in the next table (operation dates are indicated).

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Table 21 Acquisition of cars Scenario 1 with 3m60 wide cars 44m & 90m long
The acquisition for Scenario 2 is described in the next table. Three cars could be acquired only in 2041 but for
the acquisition strategy, those 3 cars will be bought in 2035 to consolidate the bid and avoid fees for only 3 cars
(one train).
Table 22 Acquisition of cars Scenario 2 with 3m20 wide cars, 54m & 108m long
Table 23 Acquisition of cars
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Operation & maintenance costs

The total annual km are strictly commercial kilometres for both scenarios.
At term, Scenario 1 counts 21 219 260 km and Scenario 2 counts 20 207 090 km per year. The difference between
the two scenarios reaches 1million km due to the longer headway that Scenario 2 a llows with its slightly bigger
train capacity.
The annual km are shown in the following table for both scenarios.
Table 24 Annual Km per line
Trainsets
4 CAR - 88 m
4 CAR - 88 m
2 CAR -44m
2 CAR -44m
2 CAR -44m
2 CAR -44m
Total km
Year
Line 1
Line 2
Line 1
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
2018
5 386 211
3 194 527
86 585
144 191
474 596
9 286 110
Trainsets
6 CAR - 108 m
6 CAR - 108 m
3 CAR -54.5m
3 CAR -54.5m
3 CAR -54.5m
Year
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Total km
Delta Scenario 1 - Scenario 2
Scenario 1: 3.6 wide BG

2021
2026
7 285 634
6 202 303 8 067 658
5 477 920
86 585
75 256
144 191
214 265
705 241
1 374 999
12 616 241 17 017 811
Scenario 2:
2018
1 780 283
5 083 091
86 585
144 191
474 596
7 568 746
1 717 364
3.2 wide SG
2021
5 477 920
5 386 211
86 585
144 191
705 241
11 800 148
816 093
2031
8 490 776
8 067 658
2036
9 476 802
9 466 674
2041
9 476 802
9 466 674
89 822
269 516
1 800 805
18 718 576
104 387
311 291
1 800 805
21 159 958
116 526
358 456
1 800 805
21 219 262
2026
6 326 998
7 228 248
86 585
194 052
1 179 838
15 015 720
2 002 091
2031
7 285 634
8 067 658
86 585
258 735
1 534 676
17 233 288
2 884 304
2036
8 490 776
9 466 674
99 532
293 772
1 800 805
20 151 559
1 008 399
2041
8 490 776
9 466 674
113 289
335 547
1 800 805
20 207 091
1 012 171
If we c onsider t otal o peration km over t he f ull p eriod 2 018-2041, it highlights a d ifference o f 32 .7 million k m
between the two scenarios.
Table 25 Total Km ran over 24 years
Trainsets
4 CAR - 88 m Line 1
4 CAR - 88 m Line 2
2 CAR -44m Line 1
2 CAR -44m Line 3
2 CAR -44m Line 4
2 CAR -44m Line 5
Total km
Year
2018>2020
16 158 632
9 583 580
259 755
432 573
1 423 789
27 858 330
Scenario 1: 3.6 wide BG

2021>2025
2026>2030
2031>2035
36 428 168
42 453 880
31 011 517
40 338 289
40 338 289
27 389 600
432 925
376 280
449 109
720 955
1 071 326
1 347 580
3 526 207
6 874 994
9 004 024
63 081 203
85 089 057
93 592 882
Scenario 2: 3.2 wide SG

Trainsets
Year 2018>2020 2021>2025 2026>2030 2031>2035
6 CAR - 108 m Line 1
5 340 849 27 389 600 31 634 988 36 428 168
6 CAR - 108 m Line 2
15 249 272 26 931 054 36 141 242 40 338 289
3 CAR -54.5m Line 3
259 755
432 925
432 925
408 649
3 CAR -54.5m Line 4
432 573
720 955
970 258 1 293 677
3 CAR -54.5m Line 5
1 423 789 3 526 207 5 899 188 7 673 380
22 706 239 59 000 741 75 078 600 86 142 163
Total km
Delta Scenario 1 - Scenario 2 5 152 091 4 080 463 10 010 457 7 450 719
2036>2040
47 384 008
47 333 368
521 937
1 556 455
9 004 024
105 799 792
2036>2040
42 453 880
47 333 368
497 661
1 468 862
9 004 024
100 757 796
5 041 997
2041
Total 24 years
9 476 802 135 742 858
9 466 674 184 646 769
36 973 180
116 526
2 156 531
358 456
5 487 346
1 800 805
31 633 843
21 219 262 396 640 527
2041
Total 24 years
8 490 776 151 738 261
9 466 674 175 459 898
113 289
2 145 202
335 547
5 221 873
1 800 805
29 327 394
20 207 091 363 892 628
1 012 171
32 747 899

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
As d escribed in op eration study 7.2.1 and i n 7.2.2, t he b road g auge s cenario c ould b e op timized w ith
approximately 10% capacity increase by adopting 4-car trains with only 2 drivers cabins. Thus the difference in
operation headway between the two scenarios would be nil & scenario 1 & 2 would have equal number of running
kilometres, i.e. up to 20 Million annual kilometres in 2041 or total 363.9 Million kilometres for 24 year period.
Thus operation cost shall not be considered.
Scenario 1 has fewer cars running than Scenario 2 and therefore the annual km by car running is lower than for
Scenario 2, which implies a lower maintenance cost.
Globally, scenario 2 requires +44% km per car for a 24 year period, or +42% km/car per year for 2041.
Table 26 Annual km per cars
Year 2018>2020
2021>2025
2026>2030
2031>2035
2036>2040
Scenario 1
88 033 924
188 185 441
323 711 028
352 770 102
401 034 337
Scenario 2
129 889 081
339 964 185
428 564 489
488 725 859
571 635 130
Delta Sc 1 - Sc 2
-41 855 156
-151 778 744 -104 853 461 -135 955 757
-170 600 794
Year
2041
Total 24 years
Scenario 1
80 325 474
1 434 060 306
Scenario 2
114 493 620
2 073 272 364
Delta Sc 1 - Sc 2
-34 168 146
-639 212 058
For comparison purpose we will consider partial maintenance costs @ 5 INR/km/car. It has been considered also
from I ndian M etro ne tworks i n o peration t hat a hi gher f requency o f m aintenance i s r equired o n w heels a nd
brakes of trailers than for driving cars. Thus an average 4.5 INR/km/car is considered for Scenario 1 which has
only motorized cars and also will have only one or two types of car, where scenario 2 has 3 types.
It shall be mentioned that the cost given does not represent total maintenance cost, but only costs affected by
the change of gauge.
The next table shows the difference between both scenarios in terms of maintenance costs.
Table 27 Difference in maintenance cost in INR
Year
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Delta Sc 1 - Sc 2
2018>2020
2021>2025
2026>2030
2031>2035
396 152 660 846 834 483 1 456 699 628 1 587 465 459
649 445 403 1 699 820 923 2 142 822 445 2 443 629 293
-253 292 744 -852 986 440 -686 122 817 -856 163 834
2036>2040
1 804 654 515
2 858 175 652
-1 053 521 137
2041
361 464 633
572 468 102
-211 003 469
Total 24 years
6 453 271 378
10 366 361 819
-3 913 090 441

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Turnback time in terminus

This chapter intends to estimate the minimum operational headway and verify that 90s is achievable for the lines
1, 2 and 5.
7.5.1 General assumptions

Minimum headway indicated in the DPR is considered as being operational , meaning it takes into account an
operational margin. In the following, we assume that the operational margin is taken approximately at 10% and
will c heck t he a dequacy o f t he o perational s cheme t o t he t echnical he adway ( operational he adway m inus
operational margin):
Operational Headway
Technical Headway
1.5 min = 90 s
80 s
2 min
110 s
3 min
160 s
7,5 min
400 s
In the frame of the following analysis, we will check that the minimum headway is ensured for a train of 108 m
(longest rake in the frame of our study), for platform length of 114 m.
If shorter rakes shall be considered (4-cars sets of 88 m, 3-cars sets or 2-cars sets) stopping point can be adapted
to ensure the most optimized turn back e.g. middle point of the station for 2-cars sets and the headway would
be also ensured. Although station design shall be made in accordance, particularly platform doors positioning.
Assumption is taken that there is no sectioning constraints coming from the tunnel ventilation (e.g. imposing a
maximum of one train per ventilation section); thus only the terminus configuration are considered for checking
the minimum headway.
Automatic Train Control System is a fully featured CBTC with unattended train operation (UTO).
7.5.2 Technical assumptions

The following technical assumptions were taken:
For the purpose of calculations, gradients and curves are not considered.
Maximum design speed = 110 kmph
Maximum operating speed = 100 Kmph
Acceleration for fully load train = 1.1 m/s
Average service braking rate from 100 kmph to standstill for fully loaded train on level track = 1.1 m/s
(which seems high for metro rail)
Average emergency braking rate from 100 kmph for fully loaded train on level tangent track = 1.3 m/s
Rake length for 2-Cars Sets = 45 m (DPR)
Rake length for 4-Cars Sets = 88 m (DPR)

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Rake length for 4-Cars Sets = 108 m (scenario 2 from present study)
Terminus station dwell time for lateral platforms configuration = 20 sec (assumed value)
Maximum dwell time in congested station = 30s
As a first approach, time for turning back the train, including interlocking time = 10 sec (could be
decreased down to 5 s)
As a first approach, Maximum Speed on turnout 1/8.5 = 35 kmph
Limited speed value in terminus areas = 50 kmph (assumed value)
Distance between tracks = 9 m (assumed value)
Stopping point 10 m from the end of the platform
Distances in interlocking areas are extracted from the excel file TO and Station details_20_04_2013.xls
7.5.3 Technical Headway on line

The f ollowing c alculations a ssume t hat t he m inimal t echnical he adway o n l ine i s no t i nfringing t he m inimal
technical he adway d esired. Checking t his a ssumption w ould r equire f urther i nvestigation ( implying study o f
ridership in stations and more detailed train characteristics).
As a first approach, minimum technical headway on line could be computed as followed.
Minimum technical headway on line corresponds to the minimum delay between two rakes in nominal conditions
of running. It shall be calculated at the level of the station with the longest dwell time.
Until the first rake (R1) has not left the station, the second rake (R2), shall remain at a safe braking distance, to
be able to stop with normal service brake rate upstream from the station (we consider a stopping point located
30 m before the front of the platform).
R1 and R2 are thus separated by:
A half rake (57 m) run at 100 km/h (1.6 s)
27.8 m of braking reaction time (1 s)
350 m braking distance at 1.1 m.s- (25 s)
30m between stopping point upstream from platform
57 m from beginning point and half point platform
144 m between half point platform and liberation point of the platform (the distance of 30m distance
may be decreased, if further fine tuning would be necessary)
Total distance between R1 and R2 = 670 m.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
As soon as R1 has liberated the station, R2 can run the 670 distance m without braking:
174 m at 100 kmph in 6.2 s
Braking time until stopping point in station of 25 s
Accelerating time from stopping point in station up to the liberation point of the station of 16s
To this time of 47.2 s we add the maximum dwell time, which is assumed to be 30s?
This 30s is a critical figure: station configuration should be adapted to ensure that this is the maximum, as
well as rolling stock doors size & positioning, rolling stock interior design (position of seats, poles). This
figure should be checked with detailed studies, considering 8p/m2 & detailed rolling stock & station
configuration.
Thus the minimal technical headway on the line is estimated at 80s, which is highly linked to the braking rate
(1.1m/s).
7.5.4 Headway calculations at terminus stations

In the following chapter, headway means technical headway.
7.5.4.1 Line 1
The technical headway to be ensured is 80s.
Terminus Akshardham (elevated)

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Travel times
Time to travel from platform 1 to A = 28.6 s
Time to turn back (automatically) = 10 s
Time to travel from A to platform 2 = 30.5 s
Time to travel from platform 1 to B = 31.3 s
Time to travel from B to 2 = 28 s
Headway verification
0.0
28.6
69.1
79.1
Train 1
time of departure of T1 from P1
towards TA
time of arrival of T1 on TA
time of arrival of T1 on P2
time of route autorisation for P1TA
Train 2
80.0

towards TA
89.1 time of departure of T1 from P2

104.4 time of liberation of P2
108.6 time of arrival of T2 on TA
149.1 time of arrival of T2 on P2
Conclusion for Akshardham: the technical headway of 80 s is not infringed by the terminus configuration.
Terminus APMC
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Travel times
Time to travel from platform 1 to B = 38 s
Time to travel from B to 2 = 31.5 s
Verification of headway
0.0
33.4
43.4
62.0
72.0
Train 1
towards TA
time of departure from of T1
from TA towards P2
time clearance of the shunting
area
Train 2
80.0

towards TA

123.4 time of departure of T2 from TA

Conclusion for APMC: the technical headway of 80 s is not infringed by the terminus configuration.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
7.5.4.2 Line 2
Terminus Memco
Travel times
Time to travel from B to 2 = 35.1 s
Verification of headway
0.0
35.7
45.7
64.7
74.7
Train 1
towards TA
time of departure of T1 from TA
towards P2
time of clearance of shunting
area by T1
Train 2
80.0

towards TA

Conclusion for Memco: the technical headway of 80 s is not infringed by the terminus configuration.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Terminus Koteshwar/Tri Junction
Running time from track 1 to platform 2 = 45.2 s

Dwell time = 20 s
Running time from platform 2 to clear the shunting area (at a first approach, distance between fouling point and
point end is taken as 35m) = 27.9 s
Time to authorize the route track 1 P2 = 10 s
Total turn back time = 103 s.
Conclusion for Tri Junction: The t echnical he adway of 8 0 s on L ine 2 i s not achieved b ut it w ould almost b e
achievable with a distance of 10 m instead of 277 m with a turn back times of 81.7s.
7.5.4.3 Line 3
The technical headway to be ensured is 160 s.
Terminus Tri Junction
The configuration of the terminus is not clear.
Terminus Airport

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Running time from track 1 to platform 2 = 23.6 s

Dwell time = 20 s
Running time from platform 2 to clear the shunting area (at a first approach, distance between fouling point and
point end is taken as 35m) = 17 s
Time to authorize the route track 1 P2 = 10 s
Total turn back time = 70.7 s.
Conclusion for Airport: the technical headway of 160 s is not infringed by the terminus configuration.
7.5.4.4 Line 4
The c onfiguration in cludes on e t rack in C H3 a nd b etween s tations, w ith p ossibility t o s table in s tations
Pathikashram and Mahatma Mandir, but not in CH3.
Between CH3 and Pathikashram, distance is 1 060 m. If we assume that maximum authorized speed is 25 kmph
(minimum assumption), time to travel to CH3 and backwards plus dwell time of 30 s is 342 s.
Conclusion: the technical headway of 400 s on Line 3 will be respected, if cross-overs are sufficiently far from
stations Pathikashram and Mahatma Mandir (to clear as soon as possible the single track).
7.5.4.5 Line 5
Terminus Kasturba Smarak

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Travel times
Time to clear the shunting area= 17.2 s
Time for route P1-TB authorization = 10 s
Turn-back time = 93.8 s.
Conclusion for Kasturba Smarak: the technical headway of 80 s on line 5 is not achieved with Kasturba Smarak
configuration (would be achievable with a distance below 130m).
Terminus GIFT City
The Gift City terminus has the same configuration as for Akshardham or Memco, but the distances between end
of platform and cross-over in the file are not relevant, and could not be used for this exercise.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
7.5.4.6 Conclusion minimum headway feasibility check

The following table summarizes the different conclusions for each line and further recommendations are given to
achieve minimum headways.
Table 28Minimum headway feasibility conclusions
Line
1
Operational Headway Technical Headway

1.5 min
80 s
Conclusion
Achievable.
1.5 min
80 s
Not Achievable
3 min
160 s
Achievable for Airport
7,5 min
400 s
Achievable
3.5 min
190 s
Not Achievable
1.5 min
80 s
Not Achievable
Recommendations
Cross-over
Koteshwar/Tri Junction
to be largely shifted
If cross-overs are
sufficiently far from
stations Pathikashram
and Mahatma Mandir (to
clear as soon as possible
the single track)
Cross-over Kasturba
Smarak to be largely
shifted
Distances for GIFT City to
be checked.
1.
Comments on assumptions that impact the above analysis :

Assumption regarding the maximum speed on cross-over shall be confirmed
2.
Average braking value seems high for steel wheel
3.
Assumption o f 3 0s f or max imum d well t ime i n mo re c ongested st ations i s t o b e e nsured b y t he s tation

configuration
Recommendation for improvement of turnback time

The diamond crossing is not compulsory for ensuring the minimum headway
We could suggest another scheme, as follows. Cross over in front of the station could be used for catching up
the turning time in case of delay (instead of turning back behind the station)
Diamond cross-over though could be justified only by stabling facilities on both tracks.
Conclusions & recommendations :
Line 4: should be equipped with an additional crossing area, or with double track. Otherwise,
double units or 4-car / 6-car trains would be needed to meet the demand with a 7.5 mn frequency
in 2041.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Line 2 & 5: could be solved by an adequate positioning of track cross-over. (to be checked with
other constraints from the project)

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
E NERGY
Two types of energy needs
Two types of energy needs must be taken into account in a metro project:
energy devoted to traction
energy devoted to auxiliary devices
The f ollowing c hapters on ly d eal w ith e nergy d evoted t o t raction ( auxiliary, i. e. e levators, e scalators,
ventilation, lighting are not fully linked with the choice that is to be made between the scenarios)
Energy needs estimation

This estimation includes traction needs & auxiliary needs (HVAC) and has been carried out with the following
assumptions for both scenarios:
slopes are not taken into account;
Depot & stabling areas are not taken into account.
Table 29 Traction yearly energy needs
Traction yearly energy needs (GWh) depot excluded

Scenario 1: 3.6 wide, 22m long BG
2018
2026
2041
L1 A
30
L1 B
242
340
L2
198
320
533
L3
4
4
4
L4
4
8
11
L5
11
30
61
Total
247
603
949
Traction yearly energy needs (GWh) depot excluded
Scenario 2: 3.2 wide, 18 m long SG
2018
2026
2041
L1 A
66
L1 B
267
375
L2
218
353
588
L3
4
4
4
L4
4
8
13
L5
13
34
67
Total
306
666
1 047
Scenario 2 energy consumption is 10% higher than Scenario 1.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Estimation of energy c onsumption over 24 years c an be estiamted from this analysis to 14388 GWh for BG and
16144 GWh for SG.
Table 30 Energy consumption over 24 years
Scenario 1 BG (GWh)
Scenario 2 SG (GWh)
Difference in energy consumption
2041
24 years
949
1047
98
14388
16144
1756
Energy needs are not linked with the choice of the traction voltage neither than with the collection mode.
Traction voltage and collection mode

The tr action v oltage m ust c omply w ith th e I EC 60 850 st andard. 750 V DC, 1 500 V DC, 3000 V DC and 25 k V A C
comply with this standard. Please refer to chapter 11.2 , the following table gives a first overview of solutions.
Table 31 Collection mode overview
Forth rail
Third rail
Catenary
750 VDC
Only some metro worldwide
Convenient. Many metros
worlwide
1500 VDC
3000 VDC
25 kV AC
Convenient. Some metro

worlwide (China, Germany) an
interesting solution.
Flexible Will imply feeders along the line May imply feeders along the line
Rigid (ROC)
Convenient
Convenient
Convenient
Convenient
It can be said that 1500 VDC would be more adapted to the traction needs for MEGA projects, it would also allow
to reduce the number of substations. Fourth rail is a very interesting option as it disconnects the rail from the
traction system & supresses the risk for stray currents, which is high for viaducts & tunnels structures. Although
its use has been very limited up to now and it would lead to difficulties to consider together 1500 VDC & 4th rail.
Location of traction substations

The location of traction substation is linked with:
the traction v oltage ( the h igher th e tr action v oltage th e h igher i s th e d istance b etween a djacent
substations).
the downgraded modes to be considered
The following table highlights this point with line 1.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
2018
Table 32 Location of traction substations
Line 1A (2018) : Akshardham to AEC

1 Akshardham
2 Sachivalaya
3 Police Bhavan
4 CH 3
5 Info City/ Indroda
6 Dholakuva
7 Randesan
8 Raysan
9 PDPU
10 Kasturba Smarak
11 Koba Circle
12 Tapovan Circle
13 New CG Road
14 Visat
15 Sabarmati
16 AEC
Total Length
Scenario 1: 3.6 wide, 22m long BG

Qty of 4 car Qty of 2 cars Power Power needs
Interstation Qty of 4 car Qty of 2 cars
trainsets @ trainsets @ needs @
@ normal
distance trainsets @ trainsets @
Kp
normal
normal peak hour operation
(m)
peak hour. peak hour.
operation. operation.
(kW)
(kW)
317
0
0.2
0.1
260
130
2073
1756
1.1
0.6
1440
720
3126
1053
0.7
0.3
864
432
4693
1567
1.0
0.5
1285
643
6593
1900
1.2
0.6
1559
779
7574
981
0.6
0.3
805
402
9275
1701
1.1
0.6
1395
698
10323
1048
0.7
0.3
860
430
11335
1012
0.7
0.3
830
415
13531
2196
1.4
0.7
1801
901
14517
986
0.6
0.3
809
404
17027
2510
1.6
0.8
2059
1029
19324
2297
1.5
0.7
1884
942
20731
1407
0.9
0.5
1154
577
21946
1215
0.8
0.4
997
498
23109
1163
0.8
0.4
954
477
23109
15
7.5
18 956
9 478
Yearly
Location of Location of
energy
750 VDC 1500 VDC
needs
substations substations
(MWh)
902
X
X
4 995
2 995
X
4 457
5 404
X
X
2 790
4 838
X
2 981
2 879
X
X
6 246
2 805
7 139
X
X
6 534
4 002
X
3 456
3 308
X
X
65 731
As per the previous table (line 1- scenario 1- 2018, and two right hand side columns) 8 traction substations are
required to power line 1 if the traction voltage is 750 VDC. With a higher level of traction voltage, i.e. 1500 VDC
only 5 traction substations are required.
With a 25 kV AC voltage we may need only 2 traction substations.
All these points have to be confirmed by a traction simulation.
Conclusion:
The global line power needs remains the same, so less traction substation implies that each substation is more
powerful. Scenario 2 would require either more substations or the same amount but more powerful substations.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
C APITAL C OST ESTIMATIONS

Critical analysis & main assumptions
9.1.1 Main assumptions
While assessing the cost impacts for the comparative study, the following assumptions have been made, most of
these are from the DPR:
June 2012 price level as given in the DPR has been considered except for Rolling Stock, where prices
have been taken as feb 2013.
When necessary conversion rate for Euro to INR has been taken as 70, which is consistent with the USD
to INR conversion rate @ 54.08 taken in the DPR (recent inflation in May, up to 10% not taken into
account)
Alignment includes :
Elevated Section DPR has a provision for superstructure with 11.05 m wide twin open profile Ugirders carrying two tracks with reduced deck width for 3.2 m wide coachs
Underground Section Bi tube tunnel Assumed that tunnel diameter for both scenarios remains the
same
At Grade Section mainly at the entry to Depot not considered as the impact is marginal.
Elevated and Underground Stations:
Provisions for elevated station costs are in addition to the cost of viaduct which is considered under
alignment. The rate covers cost of station structures, platforms, coverings and electrical and
mechanical works, excluding lifts and escalators, provision for which has been made separately.
Length of stations has been taken as 96 m for BG and 114 for SG.
Permanent Way: Ballastless track (and Ballasted tracks in the Depot)
Depots: Three (3) depots have been considered at Indroda Circle, Motera and APMC-Sarkhej.
Rolling Stock: fleet considered as per train operation plan analysis.
9.1.2 Items considered for the cost comparison

The cost estimation has been worked out for the following items, for which there an impact of the choice of
gauge:
1.1: Alignment - elevated

1.4: Bridges
2: station buildings
2.2: Platform Screen Doors
3: Depot
8: Rolling Stock
The following items have not been considered as the impact of choice of gauge is marginal or nil:

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
1.2 Alignment - underground

1.3: approach to depots
2.3: automatic fare collection
2.4: E&M
4.1: ballast less track for elevated alignment
5: Traction and power supply
6: Signaling and Telecom
7: Misc, utilities, road work etc
9.1.3 Comments on DPR cost estimations

The price of the platforms for Lines 3, 4, 5 have been considered in DPR with 100m length, although it is never
required to operate 88m trains on these lines. Hence it is updated in our analysis to 50 m length.
Rolling stock quantity has been evaluated quoted up to 2041, although it was only considered up to 2021 in the
DPR.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Detailed cost comparison

9.2.1 Elevated alignment
Since load bearing structures are to be designed for 20 T axle load for both Broad 3.6m wide and 3.2m wide
vehicles, the quantities in foundation and sub-structure do not vary. However, the width of u-profile girder for
Standard Gauge will get affected as detailed in 4.1.1. :
X-sectional area of twin U-profile girders for 3.6m wide coach =6.59 m2
X-sectional area of twin U-profile girders for 3.2m wide coach =6.21 m2
Difference in X-sectional area = 0.38 m2
Cost ratio for deck structure (PS concrete) = 29000 INR/m3
Total difference in cost per meter length of twin U-profile girders = 28000x0.38 = INR 11000/m or 1.1
INR crore /km
The difference in cost for elevated alignment is therefore 63.61 x 1.1 = 70 crore.
For the underground alignment, the diameter of tunnels remains the same between the two scenarios. In case
the diameter of tunnels varies between the two scenarios, then the additional impact will be on the diameter of
the bore itself, meaning more quantities of excavated material & concrete filling.
Table 33Elevated alignment cost
Item
Sl. No.
1
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 SC1 3.6m BG 3.6 wide cars 3.2 wide cars Sc 2 3.2m SG
Alignment Total
Elevated alignment (included single line)
Underground
Cost
Cost
5397
2966
2431
5327
2896
2431
9.2.2 Bridges
There is an impact on the width of deck slab in this case which is calculated as follows:
Width of coach in case of BG = 3.6 m

Width of coach in case of SG = 3.2 m
Difference in coach width = 3.6 3.2 = 0.4 m
Accordingly, the reduction in width of deck slab = 0.4 x 2 = 0.8 m.
Assumed mean thickness of deck slab as 0.24 m.

Saving in quantity of concrete per meter = 0.8 x 0.24 = 0.192 m3
Cost ratio for deck structure (PS concrete) = 29000 INR/m3
Cost Delta
70
70
0
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Total difference in cost per meter length of twin U-profile girders = 28000x0.192 = INR 5380/m or 0.54
INR crore /km
Accordingly, the saving in cost for each bridge is worked out as follows:
Table 34Bridge cost saving
Bridge
Length
Cost ratio INR/ m
Cost impact INR
Line 1A Canal Bridge
156 m
5400
842 400
Line 3 River Bridge
280 m
5400
1 512 000
Line 5 River Bridge
668 m
5400
3 607 200
Line 2A Railway Bridges 2 Nos
55 m + 25 m
5400
432 000
Line 2A River Bridge
295 m
5400
1 593 000
Line 2B Railway Bridge
169 m
5400
912 600
Total
8 899 200
(0.89 INR Crore)
Total saving in cost on account of reduction in width of deck of bridges is 0.89 INR crore.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
9.2.3 Station buildings & underground stations

The cost of length of platform for an elevated station has been estimated with 2 different approaches
Figure 16 Platform level for type A station
Cost estimation per floor area of station gives a high range price for an increase in platform length, as a sma ll
platform extension does not impact the whole superstructure of the station building.
Cost / m2 for type A station works out to 0.53 Lakh/m2 or 4.2 Lakh/m with 4 metre wide platforms.
In case of Kochi Metro, we have estimated at detailed design level the additional cost for increase in platform
length, the additional cost was 4.16 Lakh/m.
Thus we consider a high value of 5 Lakh/m as the platform width in this case is slightly bigger than in the Kochi
metro.
The cost of additional length of platform in case of an underground station is worked out as follows:
A pro-rata of DPR cost has been considered in this case as the cost of an underground station with 100 m long
platform i s estimated to 100 cro re as p er t he D PR, it works o ut t o 1 c rore p er additional meter l ength o f
platform. Ac cordingly, a t otal of Rs. 9 4 crore has b een assumed as t he c ost o f a U G st ation w ith 94 m l ong
platform (Scenario 1) and Rs. 114 crore for a underground station with 114 m long platform (Scenario 2).
Table below shows station estimation with 94 m length platforms for scenario 1.
Stations cost has been derived also for lines 3, 4 and 5 to 50 m long platforms.
The total cost for S cenario 1 in stations (elevated & underground is 1618 crore compared to 1712 crore in the
DPR version.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 35 Detailed cost of station buildings Scenario 1

Line 1A
Line 1B
Sl. No.
Item
Unit
Rate
Qty
Total
Rate
Qty
2.0 Station Buildings (rates changed for decreased PF lengths)
2.1 Civil Work
Type A
Each
13.82
5.00 69.10
13.82
0.00
Type B
Each
13.82
7.00 96.74
13.82
0.00
Type C
Each
17.97
3.00 53.91
17.97
0.00
Type D
Each
14.98
1.00 14.98
14.98
0.00
Type E
Each
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.00
8.00
Sl. No.
2.0
2.1
Total
Line 2
Qty
Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
752.00
13.82
13.82
17.97
14.98
94.00
110.56
110.56
0.00
29.96
282.00
8.00
8.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
Line 3 AEC to Airport Line 4 CH3 to Mahatma Mandir Line 5 Katurba to GIFT City
Rate
Qty
Total
Rate
Qty
Total
Rate
Qty
Total
Station Buildings (rates changed for decreased PF lengths)
Civil Work
Type A
Each
11.62 2.00
23.24
11.62
0.00
0.00
11.62
2.00
23.24
Type B
Each
11.62 0.00
0.00
11.62
1.00
11.62
11.62
0.00
0.00
Type C
Each
15.77 0.00
0.00
15.77
0.00
0.00
15.77
0.00
0.00
Type D
Each
12.78 1.00
12.78
12.78
1.00
12.78
12.78
1.00
12.78
Type E
Each
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Item
Total
Gross
Total
0.00
0.00
226.14
218.92
53.91
83.28
1034.00
Unit
Total per
item
1616
Scenario 2 proposed coach length is 18 m, therefore the requirement for length of platform for lines 1 & 2 is 114
m, whereas for lines 3, 4 & 5, the requirement is 60 m. Therefore table below shows derived stations costs.
Table 36 Detailed cost of station buildings Scenario 2
Line 1A
Sl. No.
2.0
2.1
Item
Unit
Rate
Station Buildings
Civil Work (rates changed for additional PF lengths)
Type A
Each
Type B
Each
Type C
Each
Type D
Each
Type E
Each
Qty
14.82
14.82
18.97
15.98
0.00
Total
5.00
7.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
Line 3 AEC to Airport

Sl. No.
2.0
2.1
Item
Unit
Station Buildings
Civil Work (rates changed for additional PF lengths)
Type A
Each
Type B
Each
Type C
Each
Type D
Each
Type E
Each
Rate
12.12
12.12
16.27
13.28
0.00
Qty
Rate
74.10
103.74
56.91
15.98
0.00
24.24
0.00
0.00
13.28
0.00
Rate
14.82
14.82
18.87
15.28
114.00
12.12
12.12
16.27
13.28
0.00
Qty
Total
0.00
12.12
0.00
13.28
0.00
Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
912.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
Total
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
Line 2
Qty
Line 4 CH3 to Mahatma Mandir

Total
2.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
Line 1B
Qty
14.82
14.82
18.97
15.98
114.00
Total
8.00
8.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
Line 5 Katurba to GIFT City

Rate
12.12
12.12
16.27
13.28
0.00
Qty
Total
2.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
24.24
0.00
0.00
13.28
0.00
Gross Total
241.14
234.42
56.91
87.78
1254.00
118.56
118.56
0.00
31.96
342.00
Total per
item
1874
In conclusion, the increase in cost for 114m length platforms required for scenario 2 is roughly estimated to 258
crores and is mainly derived from the cost of underground stations.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 37 Station cost comparison
Sl. No.
2.0
Item
Station Buildings
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
Cost
Cost
1616
1874
226
219
54
83
1034
241
234
57
88
1254
Cost Delta
-258
-15.00
-15.50
-3.00
-4.50
-220.00

The number of Platform Screen Doors (PSD) varies from Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 as they do not have the same
rolling stock composition. In the DPR, the unit rate is per station (2 crore per station) and the rate for PSDs in
case of both elevated and underground stations has been considered the same in the DPR block cost estimate.
For the comparison between scenarios, the rates and quantities as given in the DPR have been adopted and a 13%
increase in quantity has been adopted for Scenario 2 (6-car trains) as it requires an additional 100 PSD compared
to Scenario 1 (as detailed in 5.2.2)
The additional cost for Scenario 2 is 13% x 6 crore (total cost of PSD for Scenario 1) = 0.78 INR crore
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
9.2.5 Depot
The Motera depot was redesigned to accommodate vehicles 108 m l ong and 100 m track radius for the standard
gauge s tock. T he c ost i ncrease w as th erefore c alculated o nly f or th e M otera d epot b ut th e u nit r ate w as
appropriately increased for t he other depots in the cost estimation of Scenario 2 b ased on the unit rates from
the DPR.
Table 38 Depot critical analysis results
Rolling
stock
length
Surface
(m)
Track
length (m)
Nb turnout
Nb train for
comparison
Scenario 1 - 3.6 m wide cars
88 m
201707
15947
52
48
Scenario 2 - 3.2 m wide cars
108 m
234140
17300
53
48
20%
16%
8%
DELTA
Table 39 Depot items to update from DPR version
The following table is the typical cost breakdown of a metro depot. We estimated the cost increase for both
scenarios based on this distribution.
Table 40 Depot cost distribution
Civil Work, land, parking lots,

Buildings (stabling, wash,
administration)
Track
Turn out
Energy
Maintenance
Total
a s et o
distribution
38%
44%
7%
5%
6%
100%
The increased surface of 16% is estimated at an additional 21 crore to accommodate the extra length of vehicles
needed for 108m vehicles. Stabling, workshop, specialized workshops, maintenance area increase by 20%
compared to the DPR scenario. The track length increases by 8% for Scenario 2 compared to the DPR layout. The
additional turnout has been estimated at 4 crore.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Finally, Motera Depot adapted to 108 m long trains in SG (Scenario 2) would cost 412 crore, which represents an
increase in cost of 18% compared to the DPR.
Table 41 Depot cost analysis
For Indroda Depot, which is dedicated to line 1, the extension in length of the trains will be compensated by a
smaller number of trains (-12 trains), so there is no impact on Depot Cost.
For Depot #3 (unlocated) we apply the same ratio (+18% in cost)
The total cost for the depots for Scenario 2 is 904 crores, which represents a 13% increase compared to Scenario
1
Table 42 Depot cost summary (INR crore)
Sl. No.
Item
Cost
3.0
Depot
Motera
Indroda
Third depot
800
Cost
350
225
225
904
Cost Delta
413
225
266
-103.50
-63.00
0.00
-40.50

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
9.2.6 Rolling stock

9.2.6.1 Cost computation by train
The estimation cost is performed on Indian MRTS benchmark completed with an analytic analysis of main vehicle
parts.
1- Indian metro benchmark approach
The assumptions taken to calculate the price of Broad gauge & Standard gauge are:
The side walls of both 3.2 m wide cars and 3.6 m wide cars will be practically the same.
The under frame, roof and two end walls become wider by 400 mm for BG.
The main components like bogies, brake system, couplers, gangways and traction equipment do not get
affected due to the marginal increase in width.
To cater to the high acceleration required (1.1 m/s ) high capacity traction motors and traction system
will be needed for both cars
The braking force goes up as the mass of the vehicle as well as the declaration required would be
higher. (Maximum Deceleration emergency braking 1.3 m/s)
The HVAC output will be an average 60 kW for 18m car and 80 kW for 22m (as per surface/volume ratio.
(Thus 180 kW for SG 3-car train & 160 kW for BG 2-car train).
Other items remain the same.
The interior paneling area will increase on roof and end walls. No change in side walls.
Two DMC cars to provide 100% Traction.
Cost estimates take into account an average price for 2m90 x 22m car of 10.02 INR crores including taxes.
Standard Gauge vehicle is 18m x 3.2m, it has 9.7% less surface. Although some elements are not affected by the
variation of d imensions, i. e. b ogies, n umber of d oors, c abins c ouplers, AT P s ystem h ence t he c ost im pact is
divided by 2. SG 18mx3.2m car is then estimated to 9.05 INR crore.
Broad Gauge vehicle is 22m x 3m60, it has 24.1% more surface. For the same reasons, the cost impact is limited
to 12.05%, and BG 22mx3.6m car is estimated to 11.22 INR crore.
This d oes n ot in clude d evelopment c osts a s ME GA p roject c an b e c onsidered a s a m ajor op portunity f or
manufacturers and also BG 3.6m cars body already exist widely in India on suburban rail network.
These costs have to be considered as an average for the overall quantity to be delivered to MEGA project (over
600 cars for the 24 years period)
It shall b e mentioned also that t here is a h igh v ariation b etween manufacturers d epending on t heir marketing
strategy for each tender. As a recent example, for Kolkatta Rolling Stock procurement, the prices observed could
vary from a factor x2 in the same tender.
Although for comparison purposes we will consider above estimations.
Cost in the table below are given on a year 2013 base

Costs do not take into account the INR devaluation of approximately 10% since the beginning of May
2013.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
The last column of the table above shows the cost per passenger of 2 cars rake and of 3 cars rake
The cost estimation results are described in the next table, with indicative cost per passenger.
Table 43 Cost estimation per car
cost evaluation
per car
BG - 22m x 3.6m
11.22 INCR
SG - 18m x 3.2m
9.05 INCR
Table 44 Cost estimation per rake

cost evaluation
per rake
cost
passenger
per
BG 2 cars rake: 44m x 3.6m
22.44 INCR
0.028
INCR/passenger
BG 4 cars rake: 88m x 3.6m
44.88 INCR
0.028
INCR/passenger
SG 3 cars rake: 54m x 3.2m
27.15 INCR
0.030
INCR/passenger
SG 6 cars rake: 108m x 3.2m
54.30 INCR
0.030
INCR/passenger
9.2.6.2 Cost estimation of scenarios

The f ollowing tables s how t he c ost e stimation f or S cenario 1 which is total 7091 INR crore for 632 c ars & f or
scenario 2 which is total 7928 INR crore for 876 cars.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 45 Scenario 1 rolling stock cost estimation in INR crore up to 2041 fleet
Sl. No.
Item
Unit
8.0
Rolling Stock
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Line 1A
Qty
Rate
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
Total
381
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
total
Line 1B
Qty
Rate
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
Unit
8.0
Rolling Stock
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
total
140
20
80
84
0
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
67
0
22
0
22
6
0
2
0
2
6.00
Total
1571
224
898
942
0
324.00
Line 4 CH3 to Mahatma Mandir Line 5 Katurba to GIFT City

Rate
Qty
Total
Rate
Qty
Total
67
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
222.00

Rate
Qty
Total
Item
Line 2
Qty
Rate
0
1055
539
359
539
0
94
48
32
48
34.00
Sl. No.
Total
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.22
112
22
135
135
0
10
2
12
12
0
10.00
Gross
Total
2199
1302
1593
1436
561
7091
36.00
Table 46 Scenario 2 rolling stock cost estimation in INR crore up to 2041 fleet
Line 1A
Sl. No.
Item
Unit
8.0
Rolling Stock
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Rate
Line 1B
Qty
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Total
543.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
total
Rate
Qty
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Unit
8.0
Rolling Stock
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
Each car
total
Rate
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Qty
Line 4 CH3 to Mahatma Mandir

Total
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rate
0.00
1031.70
434.40
380.10
434.40
Qty
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
252.00

Item
Total
0.00
114.00
48.00
42.00
48.00
60.00
Sl. No.
Line 2
Rate
81.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Qty
Total
9.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
3.00
15.00
81.45
0.00
27.15
0.00
27.15
180.0
30.0
78.0
72.0
126.0
Total
1629.00
271.50
705.90
651.60
1140.30
486.00
Line 5 Katurba to GIFT City
Rate
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Qty
15.00
3.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
54.00
Total
135.75
27.15
108.60
108.60
108.60
Gross Total
2470.65
1330.35
1276.05
1140.30
1710.45
7928
Nota : years are only indicative, considering that rolling stock fleet is increased every 5 years with 1 step ahead
anticipation in terms of rolling stock fleet needs calculated in 7.3.2 Estimated fleet size.
9.2.7 Staggered rolling stock cost estimation

The following table shows the staggered cost estimation for each scenario. (low & high range):
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 47 Rolling stock fleet cost estimation
2018
2021
2026
2031
2036
2041
Total
Scenario 1 - Number of cars
196
116
142
44
134
632
Scenario 2 - Number of cars
273
147
141
126
189
876
Scenario 1 Cost (INR Crore)
2200
1300
1600
500
1500
7100
Scenario 2 Cost (INR Crore)
2500
1300
1300
1100
1700
7900
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
C ONCLUSION
Cost summary are presented for
Infrastructure & system
Rolling stock
Operation& maintenance
Infrastructure & system summary

The main cost impact of reduction of coach width & use of standard gauge is,
Costs savings on viaducts, although with very limited impact related to the overall cost of infrastructure
as underground section is not affected. Thus the impact is limited to 2.3% of elevated section cost, or
1.3% of total alignment.
Costs increase on stations, with a quite significant impact, as the length of stations is increased by 21%
(94m -> 114m) and cost in increased by 15.9%.
Costs increase in Depot by 7% due to the increased length of trains
Total impact on infrastructure & system (excepted Rolling Stock) of reduction of coach width & use of
standard gauge is cost increase of 304 INR crores, i.e. +2.46 % of infrastructure & system cost
(exc.RS)
Table 48 Infrastructure and system cost comparison
Sl. No.
1
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.0
4.1
5.0
6.0
7.0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 SC1 3.6m BG Item

3.6 wide cars 3.2 wide cars Sc 2 3.2m SG
Cost
Cost
Cost Delta
Alignment Total
5397
5327
70
Elevated (incl. single line)
2966
2896
70
Underground
2431
2431
0
Approach to Depots at surface
22.00
22.00
0.00
Bridge
208
207.2
0.80
Station Buildings
1616
1874
-258
Platform Screen Doors
106
120
-14
Automatic Fare Collection
199
199
0
E&M
265
265
0
Tunnel E&M
281
281
0
Depot
800
904
-104
Ballastless track for elevated
1009
1009
0
Traction and Power Supply
1063
1063
0
Signalling & Telecom
1014
1014
0
Misc.
374
374
0
Total Infrastructure and System
12354
12658
-304

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Figure 17 Cost breakdown Infrastructure & systems (without RS)
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Rolling stock summary

Table below summarizes costs computed in chapter 9.2.6,
Table 49 Rolling stock range of cost for 3.6m and 3.2m width
Cost in INR
crore
3.6m wide BG 22 m
3.2m wide SG 18 m
11.22
9.05
The effect of having 38% more cars has a major impact on scenario 2 cost for rolling stock, even if unit cost is
lower for SG coaches (18mx3m20). Thus the cost impact is 837 INR crores or -11.8% on total cumulated fleet for
2041.
Table 50 Rolling stock cost summary for 2041 cumulated fleet
Scenario 1 : BG - 3.6m x 88 m
Scenario 2 : SG - 3.2m x 108 m
number of
cars
Cost / car
(INR crore)
Cost / rake
(INR crore)
Total cost
(INR crore)
632
876
11.22
9.05
22.44
27.15
7091
7928
Capex summary
It appears in conclusion, that
rolling stock has the main impact on the cost comparison, with an extra cost of 837 INR crores strongly
related to the number of cars necessary for SG scenario;
cost reduction on viaducts is compensated by extra costs on stations buildings, with a total extra cost
for structures of 304 INR crores for SG scenario.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Table 51 Total Capex
Total Infrastructure and system

Total rolling stock
Total project cost
Scenario 1 - Scenario 2 DELTA in crore

3.6 wide cars 3.2 wide cars
12354
12658
-304
7091
7928
-837
19445
20586
DELTA in %
-2%
-12%
-1141
-6%
Operation & maintenance costs

The op erating c osts a re considered s imilar in both scenarios if t he same c apacity i s r eached by optimizing
trainsets as described in 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.
Maintenance costs are higher for scenario 2 as per assumptions taken:
Table 52 Maintenance costs
Year
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Delta Sc 1 - Sc 2
2018>2020
2021>2025
2026>2030
2031>2035
396 152 660 846 834 483 1 456 699 628 1 587 465 459
649 445 403 1 699 820 923 2 142 822 445 2 443 629 293
-253 292 744 -852 986 440 -686 122 817 -856 163 834
2036>2040
1 804 654 515
2 858 175 652
-1 053 521 137
2041
361 464 633
572 468 102
-211 003 469
Total 24 years
6 453 271 378
10 366 361 819
-3 913 090 441
Difference is 21.1 INR crore/year for 2041 or total 391.3 INR crores for 24 year period,
SG Scenario has also a higher energy consumption, as shown in chapter 8, which is 10% more than for BG scenario
if we consider the same operation headways (Mean nominal traction power per train is 10% higher for SG)
Total cost of energy consumption over 24 years is estimated to 7194 INR crores for BG and 8072 INR crore for SG.
Difference over 24 years period is 878 INR crore (assumption 5INR per kWh)
Table 53 Cost of energy consumption
Scenario 1 BG (INR Crore)

Scenario 2 SG (INR Crore)
Cost difference (INR Crore )
2041
475
524
49
24 years
7194
8072
878

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
A DDITIONAL STUDIES
Listing of relaxations required in the existing SOD
11.1.1 Minimum radius of curvature
The minimum radius with broad gauge permitted by Indian Railways is 145m [see (1) report of expert committee
for selection/choice of gauge], an absolute minimum of 120 m could be acceptable [see (1)].
The minimum radius with UIC gauge in Chennai SOD is: 100 m in depot, 120 m in elevated and at grade sections,
and 200 m in underground section.
Main consequence is in depot with a lot of consecutive changes of way with curves and contra curves in a quite
narrow space where every meter could be useful to keep inside the property and could reduce the capacity of
vehicle storage or maintenance lines. As the same way turnouts in B.G. need a significant additive length versus
turnouts in S.G. with consequences on capacity and maintenance.
At termini, the length of return route with turnouts in B.G. could slightly increase the time for the operation.
11.1.2 Need for guard rails

Consideration should b e g iven in t he d esign of a b ridge carrying t he r ailway f or t he p ossible e ffects of a t rain
being derailed on it, or on the immediate approaches to it.
Guard rail is a Derailment Containment Provision (DCP) and typically a flat bottom rail.
According to HMRI Railway Safety Principles and guidance, suitable means should be provided to contain the
wheel of derailed vehicles. Robust kerbs are considered to be a suitable means of containment.
A small up stand wall could be used instead of guard rail.
11.1.3 Type of ballast-less track best suited for a maximum speed of 110 km
The advantages of ballastless track are in general reduction of maintenance and a higher stability of the track.
Some ballastless tracks are used for high speed train in Germany and in Japan.
For t racks o n b ridge o r i n t unnel, b allastless t rack re duce t rack s tructure h eight and weight. The higher
construction costs of th e tr ack are balanced by reductions of t he infrastructures, and also b y r eduction of
maintenance cost without disturbing the operations.
Ballast on bridges could be d estabilizing by the mixt of d urst and heavy rains f alls, and need a particular high
level of ballast cleaning and track lining.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
Third rail and Over Head Catenary Systems

The goal of this chapter is to compare the current collection systems. The two main systems are the third rail
system and the overhead catenary system.
Also two other systems are mentioned in this chapter for information: the rigid catenary system and the fourth
rail system.
The rigid catenary system has been developed for specific locations where the classic overhead catenary systems
cannot be installed or increase the global cost of the project.
The fourth rail system has been developed for special cases where the electrical insulation of the track rails is
difficult to achieve or enhancing safety is required.
11.2.1 Comparison
The comparison of the third rail system and the overhead catenary system falls on different aspects. First we will
compare the technical means and then deal about the other subjects.
The technical aspects are the exploitation figures, the electrical point of view and then the interfaces with the
other systems.
11.2.1.1 Exploitation requirements

One important parameter for the exploitation is the headways. This item depends of the maximum speed that
the rolling stock shall reach.
With the third rail system, the maximum speed for the rolling stock is about 100 km per hour. On its side, the
overhead catenary system allows much higher speeds (i.e. 350 km per hour).
So if the rolling stock requires to run with a higher speed than 100 km per hour, this shall exclude the third rail
system option.
11.2.1.2 Electrical parameters

One other important parameter which has to be considered for the electrical analysis is the resistance of the
electrical circuit. The supplying circuit includes the third rail or the overhead catenary. So the resistance of the
chosen system i s important. The t hird r ail l inear r esistance is l ower t han t he l inear r esistance o f an o verhead
catenary.
Indeed, it is easier (cheaper) to increase the cross section of an element located at the ground level than an
element ( the c atenary c able) h anged o n poles. I f t he c atenary c able c ross s ection i s i ncreased, i t r equires t o
strength its mechanical supports.
The rigid catenary offers a good alternative but as exposed before, its investment cost has to be considered.
One important electrical parameter to consider for the capitation mode choice is the traction voltage.
The t hird r ail s ystem is t ypically l imited t o 1. 5 k V v oltage in d irect c urrent. I n c omparison, t he ov erhead
catenary allows higher voltages, such as 25 kV in alternative current.
Depending on the project, the voltage level can be already selected and if too high, then imposes the supplying
system selection.

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
8205AA_RG130449_C
11.2.1.3 Safety
This item involves also some security requirements such as the fire resistance or the safety protection of the
workers and of the passengers.
The f ire r esistance i s m uch hi gher w ith t he third r ail s ystem. I f this o ne i s e xcluded, r igid c atenary c an b e
adopted, instead of classical overhead catenary. But its investment cost is higher.
Safety protection is also important, especially in case of passenger evacuation in a tunnel part. A third rail at the
track l evel, a t a 750V or 1.5kV p otential i s o bviously a r eal d anger f or human h ealth an d s hall b e fatal if
emergency cut off means are not activated.
11.2.1.4 Space reservation

Also t he overhead c atenary system r equires a n i mportant d istance up t o t he r olling stock. This i s e specially
constraining in tunnel part. Indeed, a tunnel having a bigger diameter cost more than one with a smaller. On
another h and, a th ird r ail system c osts m ore th an a n o verhead c atenary one. S o, th e e xtra c ost o f a b igger
diameter t unnel ha s to b e c ompared wi th t he ex tra c ost b etween t he o verhead c atenary a nd t he t hird r ail
modes.
This depends among others on the length of the tunnel parts compared to the whole length of the network. But
as we know, sub structure costs are generally higher than the cost of the collection system. The investment costs
have to be surveyed as a whole.
11.2.1.5 Operation Costs

Another it em t o c onsider i s t he operation costs. T he t hird r ail s ystem requires l ess m aintenance t han t he
overhead catenary system. I ndeed, the t hird rail is constituted b y a unique fixed mechanical e lement. Even if
the mechanical strengths t hat it supports are higher t han t hose applied on t he catenary, it s s olid c onstitution
without any moving part allows it to resist easier. On the contrary the overhead catenary includes many mobile
elements. A nd m oreover th e c atenary c able itself i s ti ght w ith h igh s trength. F inally th e v ariable s trength
induced by the pantograph has a bad consequence on the overhead catenary system as a whole.
11.2.1.6 Fourth rail system

In addition, if the overhead catenary system is not chosen and if the voltage is direct current one, the third rail
system can be enhanced in adopting a fourth rails system. With this system, the return current is not running in
the track rails but in a fourth rail. The stray currents control is then easily and the electrical insulation between
the track rails and the ground is not required.
In addition f ourth r ail c apitation mode makes s ignaling d evices c onnections in dependent w ith p ower on es. But
this system is quite complex (positive and negative poles related to earth).
11.2.1.7 Rolling stock

Furthermore, other arguments have to be considered. Major ones is the rolling stock.
8205AA_RG130449_C

TRACK GAUGE STUDY
Considering the cost of the rolling stock compares with the cost of the current collection mode, the rolling stock
shall l ead t he d ecision. A lso i n c ase o f a n e xisting r olling s tock, yo u ha ve t o k eep ho mogeneous a nd t hen
continue with the same as existing.
11.2.2 Conclusion
The fo llowing ta ble s ums u p th e d ifferent i tem to ta ke into a ccount. I t gi ves a n o verview o f th e s urvey to
perform for the system selection.
Table 54 Current collection systems comparaison
Legend: + means low ++, means medium, +++

means high; in comparison with the other
alternative
Investment costs
Maintenance costs
Fire resistance
Safety
Electrical distance with workers and
passengers
Civil works constraints
Substation design constraints
Stray currents existence
Rail to earth voltage existence
Worldwide proven experience
Third Rail
Catenary
Forth rail
Rigid
Flexible
++
+
+++
+++
+
+++
++
+
+++
+
++
+
+++
+++
+
+
++
+
+++
+
+++
0
0
+
+
+
++
+
++
++
+
++
+
++
As we can see the choice for the supplying system, between the third rail one and the overhead catenary system
can be induced by exploitation requirements, technical strengths, investment costs, exploitation costs,
Fourth rail is a very interesting option as it disconnects the rail from the traction system & supresses the risk for
stray currents, which is high for viaducts & tunnels structures. Although its use has been very limited up to now
and it would lead to difficulties to consider together 1500 VDC & 4th rail as both need specific design.
Assessment of impact of track gauge on the availability of spares for

maintenance and overhaul
It could be considered that there is no impact as there is already BG & SG Rolling Stocks in operation in several
networks in India. Although if a new rolling stock is designed specifically for the project, some spare parts could
have limited availability or be limited to few manufacturers.
GA
ANDHINAGAR
R AHMEDABA
AD METRO RA
AIL
TR
RACK GAUGE
E STUDY
8205AA
A_RG130449_
_C
M ODDIFICATIO
ONS TRA
ACKING
Rev.
A
Written by
Marion PA
AYET
Date
28 /06/2013
Modificatio
ons tracking
g
First issue Draft versionn
Marion PA
AYET
16 /07/2013
Integrated remarks
r
from MEGA sent for
f review
Marion PA
AYET
18 /07/2013
Completed energy cons uumption esti mates

m
& UG
cross section checking

Track Gauge Study Report-Egis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Track Gauge Study Report-Egis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD METRO RAIL