|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General information
|
|
|
General criteria
|
|
|
Environmental criteria
|
|
|
Economic criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - fix costs: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - running costs: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
Energy and thus running costs would be more predictable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - fix costs: none |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - running costs: unchanged |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scale effects: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortisation: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
|
|
Overall rating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall potential: promising |
|
|
|
|
Time horizon: short-term |
|
|
|
|
|
A standardised set of reference cycles for energy efficiency of rolling stock would increase comparability and thus transparency of manufacturers' specifications. This would enhance competition in this field. Although not useful in all purchasing projects, reference cycles are a promising short-term instrument to make energy performance more relevant in railway procurement. |