Maglev Derived Systems: An Interoperable Freight Vehicle Application Focused on Minimal Modifications to the Rail Infrastructure and Vehicles

Abstract

Magnetic levitation (maglev) offers unique opportunities for guided transport; however, only a few existing maglev systems have demonstrated their potential benefits. This paper explores the potential of maglev-derived systems (MDS) in conventional rail, focusing on the use of linear motors to enhance freight operations. Such traction boosters provide additional propulsion capabilities by reducing the train consist’s dependence on wheel–rail adhesion and improving performance without needing an additional locomotive. The study analyses the Gothenburg–Borås railway in Sweden, a single-track, mixed-traffic line with limited capacity and slow speeds, where installing linear motors on uphill sections would allow freight trains to match the performance of passenger trains, even under challenging adhesion conditions. Target speed profiles were precomputed using dynamic programming, while a model predictive control algorithm determined the optimal train state and control trajectories. The results show that freight trains can achieve desired speeds but at the cost of increased energy consumption. A system-level cost–benefit analysis reveals a positive impact with a positive benefit-to-cost ratio. Although energy consumption increases, the time savings and reduced CO₂ emissions from shifting goods from road to rail demonstrate substantial economic and environmental benefits, improving the efficiency and sustainability of rail freight traffic.

1. Introduction

Magnetic levitation offers unique opportunities for guided transport systems. Maglev emerged in the 20th century as a concept in which vehicles are supported and guided without physical contact by magnetic forces and propelled along guided tracks by electromagnetic linear motors. The deployment of magnetic levitation technology offers a number of advantages over traditional rail systems and represents a significant advancement in the field of transportation technology. The primary advantage is its ability to achieve significantly higher speeds due to the absence of roll resistance between the train and the track, which enables fast connections between cities that are competitive against air travel. Second, the ride is quieter and more comfortable due to reduced vibrations and noise levels [1]. Third, maglev trains have reduced maintenance costs due to the diminished wear on their components compared to conventional trains. Finally, they are energy-efficient, which can result in reduced operational costs and a diminished environmental impact [2].

For these reasons, maglev technology has been fully developed and tested in several facilities around the world. It has also been implemented since the 1980s, with several successful commercial operations [3] from high-speed systems to urban systems [4].

Despite its many advantages and improved performance indicators compared to conventional rail, only a few existing maglev systems have demonstrated the potential benefits of this technology, and the development of maglev systems has been limited around the world for a variety of reasons. One of the major drawbacks is the need for a specific infrastructure that is incompatible with existing railway systems. For example, the construction of new high-speed transport systems is a major challenge today, especially in Europe, where urban settlements are already consolidated, and a significant number of infrastructures are in operation. Land resources are scarce and expensive, and the fragmentation of responsibilities between local authorities and other public and private stakeholders makes it difficult to plan and implement infrastructures of this scale. This makes it challenging to develop disruptive technologies for fast-track transport projects in the EU that will improve the existing transport system [5].

In this context, the MaDe4Rail project [6] has been promoted by Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking [7] to explore non-traditional and emerging maglev-derived systems (MDS) and assess the technical feasibility and effectiveness of introducing MDS in Europe from a technical–economic performance perspective. A maglev-derived system is an innovative rail transport system based on maglev technologies, such as linear motors and magnetic levitation. It can be a stand-alone system with its own infrastructure and vehicles, or, in principle, it can be integrated into the existing railway infrastructure. The possibility of interoperability is of particular interest for the MaDe4Rail project since the investigation of MDS that could be interoperable within the EU railway network is one of the key objectives of the project.

In this respect, one of the main advantages of MDS is the possibility of reusing existing railway corridors by upgrading their infrastructure to accommodate maglev technology. MaDe4Rail aims to propose and develop technical approaches that allow for integration with the existing railway infrastructure (requiring limited intervention in terms of new infrastructure and minimising civil engineering works) while conceivably running hybrid operations with both MDS and traditional rail services simultaneously on the same corridor.

MaDe4Rail provided a comprehensive technology readiness assessment (TRA) of the technical maturity of the technologies involved in the MDS in its deliverable D6.1 [8]. Based on this TRA, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was then carried out to select the different MDS configurations that would be most appropriate to evaluate for potential deployment on existing railway lines.

The results proposed two types of configurations: “upgraded rail vehicle” and “hybrid MDS”.

The “upgraded rail vehicle” is a track-vehicle MDS that focuses on minimal modifications to the rail infrastructure and vehicles. Tracks would be retrofitted locally, and existing trains or wagons would be retrofitted with linear motor components where necessary to improve propulsion and braking performance, for example, on steep uphill gradients, or to improve traction in low-adhesion conditions. It also enables electric traction in marshalling yards and further enables the automation of individual rolling stock. Vehicle suspension and guidance use the functions of conventional bogies and tracks. This approach maintains vehicle interoperability with the existing rail system and is very likely to allow mixed operations.

The so-called “hybrid MDS” configuration refers to levitating systems compatible with existing railway infrastructure. This configuration includes hybrid MDS based on air levitation or magnetic levitation.

This paper focuses on the “upgraded rail vehicle” configuration and aims to analyse its application feasibility in a specific use case with high potential.

This paper examines the potential of maglev-derived systems when deployed in conventional rail systems. The objective of this study is to examine the potential of linear motors for conventional railways, with a particular emphasis on enhancing freight operations. The utilisation of linear motors as an additional tractive power source serves to diminish the dependence of traction and braking forces on the adhesion available between wheels and rails. Furthermore, it offers a more granular increase in tractive power, which has the potential to enhance the performance of the freight consist without needing an additional locomotive.

A case study will be presented that corresponds to a single-track mixed-traffic line that suffers from limited capacity, slow speeds, and extended travel times. The incorporation of supplementary tractive power in the form of linear motors in uphill sections would enhance the existing line, enabling freight trains to maintain comparable performance and travel times to those of passenger trains, even in challenging situations with limited adhesion. The results demonstrate that freight vehicles with traction boosters can attain the desired speeds and travel times, although this is achieved at the expense of increased energy consumption. However, the time savings and synchronisation possibilities have the potential to yield significant economic benefits, as evidenced by the preliminary cost–benefit analysis.

The outline of the paper is as follows: Section 2 presents a state-of-the-art analysis focused on the propulsion system and the use of linear induction motors for railways and systems that are based on the idea of suspension and guidance with conventional bogies and traction and braking with linear motors. Section 3 presents the main aspects that need to be considered for MDS implementation, including a description of the technology and the main aspects of interoperability. Section 4 describes the operational scenario to be evaluated. Section 5 includes the simulations performed to evaluate the technical feasibility of the proposed solution, and Section 6 presents the economic evaluation. Finally, Section 7 includes the conclusions of this work.

2. State of the Art

The concept of the upgraded MDS vehicle is based on the idea that linear electric motor technology can improve the performance of railway systems by reducing the dependence of the traction and braking efforts on the wheel–rail adhesion available when linear motor technology is applied to conventional rail.

The use of linear induction motors (LIMs) for railways was proposed more than a hundred years ago for conventional vehicles with steel wheels running on steel rails, with equipment mounted on the vehicle and additional structures attached to the track to supplement the motors. Reference [9] shows a detailed evolution of the technologies and systems in this field.

Early practical applications of linear motors on railways include the linear induction motor research vehicle (LIMRV) [10] and the RTV31 [11] and Aerotrain S44 [12] vehicles supported by air levitation.

However, further development of LIMs came with the emergence of pure maglev systems. Extensive research and development work on maglev systems was carried out in Germany, and the Transrapid system entered commercial service in Shanghai in 2004. Transrapid vehicles also use electromagnetic suspension (EMS) but with a long primary linear synchronous motor (LSM) for traction and braking [13]. In Japan, the HSST Linimo urban maglev entered commercial service in 2005, using EMS and a short primary LIM [14]. Japan has also carried out extensive development of a very high-speed maglev system with electrodynamic suspension (EDS) using superconducting magnets and a long primary LIM for traction and braking [15]. South Korea has also developed maglev technology that uses EMS with a short primary LIM [16], and a line at Incheon Airport was opened to passengers in February 2016.

There are several systems currently in operation that are based on the idea of suspension and guidance with conventional bogies and traction and braking with linear motors. The main ones are the Yokohama Municipal Subway 10,000 series [17], the Osaka Municipal Subway 70 series [18], the Sendai Subway Tōzai Line [19], the SkyTrain [20], the Toei Ōedo Line [21], and the Guangzhou metro (Lines 4, 5, and 6) [22].

Recently, a specific innovative ultralight vehicle design was presented in [23], where linear synchronous motor technology is used to significantly reduce the vehicle mass without compromising the ability to provide the required tractive effort. The proposed ultralight vehicle can reduce wheel wear by approximately 40% and shows significant benefits in preventing rolling contact fatigue damage compared to a conventional vehicle.

It is evident from an examination of the current state of the art that there are a number of rail vehicles in operation that utilise linear induction motors as a traction system. But it is also notable that all these vehicles are of the metro type, which typically has high-performance requirements for traction and braking and is also characterised by the need for dedicated infrastructure. This distinguishes them from other rail vehicles because they are not designed to operate on shared infrastructure and therefore lack interoperability.

Another common characteristic is that all these have a current collection system in the form of a pantograph-catenary or electrified third rail, with the stators of the linear motors mounted on the vehicle, and there are no designs in operation with the stators in the track.

At present, there are only a few systems in development that can be considered as the basis for the “upgraded rail vehicle” proposed in the project.

Firstly, MagRail Booster [24] is a permanent magnetic synchronous linear motor with a long stator, with copper windings embedded within the infrastructure. These windings are segmented, and their power supply is controlled by stationary inverters (Figure 1). This type facilitates the expeditious retrofitting of existing wagons and infrastructure with linear motor propulsion while still using conventional bogies for guidance and suspension.

One key advantage of this system is that single booster wagons can operate independently without being connected to the locomotive. Some systems also offer the possibility of alternative electrification without catenary or electric rails. This opens possibilities for new applications in which wagons can be organised into small groups instead of full trainsets controlled from the infrastructure side. This feature is particularly useful in “last mile” operations, such as cargo terminals and industrial facilities, where a high degree of flexibility and automation is desirable.

The system is currently being developed by Nevomo and was tested on a test track in Nowa Sarzyna in the summer of 2023. MagRail Booster technology is also applicable to passenger trains. It helps improve the technical parameters of the existing vehicle designs, allowing for higher acceleration and retardation rates without compromising adhesion utilisation.

The second system is the U-LIM Containers Autonomous Railway Shuttle (U-CARS), developed by TACV Lab [25].

This system is a rail shuttle designed from a standard articulated container wagon with three bogies that offers a transport capacity of four 20′ containers or two 40′ containers, considering a total payload of 105 tons on track at 22.5 t/axle. The system is propelled by U-shaped linear induction motors (U-LIMs) (Figure 2), which can either be carried by the vehicle or installed on the track depending on the length and degree of the slopes to be overcome.

The basic version of the U-CARS uses rails for lateral guidance. A new version of the U-CARS was designed to reduce the empty weight of the vehicle by removing the bogie with independent wheels, and the U-shaped stator of the U-LIM is then used as the guidance mechanism.

3. Selected Technical Solutions

This section includes two main aspects to be considered for MDS implementation. First, a description of the proposed technology for both the vehicle and the infrastructure sides, including the main implications of the linear motor implementation. And second, all the aspects of interoperability that are mainly related to the compatibility of the MDS with existing track infrastructure and the signalling system.

3.1. MDS Technological Basis

For the technological basis of the following assessments, the vehicle propulsion system will be linear motors, while the guidance system will be conventional rail–wheel contact. There are two possible technologies to be considered. The first one is based on the NEVOMO system MagRail Booster [24] and uses a linear synchronous motor, whilst the second option is based on the TACV Lab solution system [25] using U-shaped linear inductive motor technology.

3.1.1. Upgraded MDS Vehicles and Trackside Linear Motors

For the first solution, upgraded MDS vehicles and trackside linear motors allow each wagon to move independently without a locomotive and provide additional traction to trainsets equipped with a certain number of upgraded wagons. Having the stator of the propulsion system on the infrastructure side will have the advantage of being easier to implement in existing freight wagons, which are not currently often equipped with a power system for propulsion purposes, and for retrofitting non-electrified lines.

The upgraded MDS provides additional traction on steep gradients to achieve higher speeds or handle heavier loads for freight trains without needing an additional locomotive. It can also increase speed and capacity by reducing journey times for passenger trains where additional traction is required, allowing higher service frequency. This contributes to greater flexibility and has additional benefits in the form of infrastructure electrification, improved traction control, adhesion that is less dependent on weather and the cleanness of the track, and enabling traffic automation.

The linear motor fulfils two distinct functions: propulsion and braking. During forward motion, the linear motor operates in a conventional manner, providing traction. Conversely, when braking is required, the linear motor reverses its operation, converting the train’s kinetic energy into electrical energy that can then be fed back into the electrical grid. The versatility of linear motors allows them to be employed for a variety of braking scenarios, including service braking, fast braking, and regenerative braking. In a conventional vehicle, emergency braking is provided by an independent system. Given the heightened safety standards required for emergency braking, it is unlikely that common-cause failure will occur in conjunction with normal braking. While the linear motor can meet the performance requirements for normal and emergency braking, it may not be suitable for both applications. To address this, the system incorporates friction-based braking, utilising conventional brakes that directly engage with the railway wheels. This comprehensive braking strategy ensures redundancy and operational safety, enabling the vehicle to halt promptly and efficiently in the event of electromagnetic braking system malfunctions.

The mechanical structure of a retrofitted vehicle integrates a classic freight wagon or passenger coach with a linear motor. Figure 3 shows a configuration for a freight wagon.

The linear motor incorporated into the upgraded conventional vehicle with MDS technologies is a linear synchronous motor (LSM). This electric machine comprises two main components: the mover, which is a set of NdFeB permanent magnets (passive, non-powered) arranged in a Halbach array mounted on the vehicle, and the stator (active, powered), which is a three-phase winding installed on the track. The permanent magnets installed beneath the wagon (as illustrated in Figure 3) serve as the mover of the linear motor and are integral to generating the vehicle’s propulsion force.

The position of the magnets can be adjusted manually or automatically to ensure the proper width of the gap between the linear motor and the mover, depending on the specific configuration of the use case and the infrastructure situation. The standard suspension system utilises existing railway wheels to maintain stability during operation. These wheels provide stability and ensure precise guidance along the track, facilitating controlled movement, even weight distribution, and eliminating lateral swaying.

The sample implementation method of the MDS components on conventional infrastructure uses a linear motor in the middle of the rails (Figure 4).

In the cross-section, conventional elements like sleepers (1), rails (2), and a linear motor (3) between the rails are installed. The configuration must be designed such that the UIC structure gauge is respected (the green dashed line is the structure gauge) to guarantee geometrical interoperability.

A schematic drawing in Figure 5 depicts the architecture of the power supply chain from the MV grid to the stator.

To improve the efficiency of the drive system, the stator is divided into shorter pieces called sections. This division allows for the use of smaller converters and supplying only specific sections, i.e., the sections on which the vehicle is located. A separate substation with a power electronic converter supplies each section. This division is shown in Figure 6.

In each section, one vehicle can be moved individually. Section lengths define the minimum distance between vehicles; for example, in stations or areas with a lower speed and higher density, the sections are shorter than on open network lines with bigger distances between vehicles. Each section needs its own inverter station, so the length of the section decision is based on operational–economic analysis made case by case.

The train control and management system (TCMS) monitors the vehicle’s position on the track and manages the amount of additional propulsion force depending on the specific situation and the sections and segments of the linear motor stator where the vehicle is positioned. Consequently, the vehicles themselves must be equipped with a minimal set of sensors used for the safety, control, and guidance systems.

Thus, the propulsion system consists of a stator installed between the existing rails attached to the sleepers or slab track, a mover equipped with permanent magnets attached to the vehicles, a control centre to command the linear motor, and reversing stations in the infrastructure to supply the necessary power to the linear motor.

3.1.2. Upgraded MDS Vehicles Based on U-LIMs

U-linear induction motor (U-LIM) propulsion systems have also been designed for special applications such as linear boosters, high-acceleration launchers, and high-power linear brakes. This type of linear motor offers high thrust-to-weight and power-to-weight ratios, which are critical criteria for motors in magnetic levitation or air cushion systems. Several prototypes of these U-LIM machines have been tested and validated on a full-size Grenoble wheel (6 m), reaching a speed of 300 km/h with a power of 1 MW [26].

The U-LIM is a linear induction motor with a radial electromagnetic field, the inductor is composed of a magnetic core of rectangular sections, and the windings are an annular type that do not have a coil head. The armature is U-shaped, made with a thickness of steel for the return of the magnetic field sliding from pole to pole and a conductive layer of copper or aluminium for the circulation of induced currents. On the open face of the U, the inductor is provided with an electromagnetic screen that opposes the leakage of the electromagnetic field.

As illustrated in Figure 7, the U-LIM armature is fixed to the wagon structure, and the inductor is fixed to the ground on the track sleepers. The wagon can carry a load of 12 m in length, with the armature mass reaching 1500 kg. This represents less than 2% of the maximum load capacity of a wagon on bogies.

The geometry of the U-shaped armature has the disadvantage of 2D guidance (lateral and in height) but with several decisive advantages, such as a compact electromagnetic design, a high-efficiency LIM, high thrust–mass and thrust–volume LIM ratios, and great compatibility of the U-shaped armature with different levels of wear on the wagon wheels.

Considering the electrical supply of the three-phase windings of the inductor fixed on the track, the U-LIM must be powered by each section by a three-phase converter of the PWM type, controlled at variable frequency and voltage depending on the speed of the wagons and the thrust to be applied to each wagon, as seen in Figure 8.

For the reinforcement function in a freight train (for example, a 30-car train composition), it seems mandatory that in areas of steep gradient and acceleration, additional thrust be applied to each wagon so as not to apply excessive stress on the couplings.

3.2. Compatibility of the MDS with Existing Track Infrastructure

The maglev-derived system should meet the geometric clearance requirements, which are specific to the loading gauge of each line and country. Additionally, the MDS must not interfere geometrically with trackside equipment, such as switches, balises, axle counters, and level crossings. The interoperability must always be secured in both directions. This means that upgraded vehicles must be able to use tracks that are not equipped (e.g., if such vehicles are running in a classical train pulled by a locomotive), and non-equipped vehicles must be able to roll over upgraded infrastructure with an installed propulsion system in the middle of the rails. This interoperability of the systems is essential for almost all possible use cases mentioned before.

As an example, Figure 9 shows the static vehicle gauge (Gl1) (1), kinematic vehicle gauge (Gl2) (2), and construction limit gauge for all types of structure gauges (3) with a drawn cross-section of the MagRail Booster vehicle and infrastructure. The mover (4) and the stator of the linear motor (5) are also marked.

3.3. Interoperability Needs and Compatibility of the MDS with the Existing Signalling System

In Europe, most modern lines are equipped with the ETCS Level 2 system, which represents state-of-the-art railway signalling technology in the main lines. The signalling system is based on several consolidated concepts, including the utilisation of a train detection system for the identification of trains along the line, the deployment of Eurobalise for the verification of train positioning along the designated route, and the integration of radio communications.

The integration of MDS vehicles within the existing infrastructure may potentially impact the operation of the signalling system and must be compatible with it. The primary interferences identified in the project between the MDS technology and the existing signalling system are the compatibility between signalling components on the track and MDS components, such as the linear motor, and the electromagnetic interferences generated by the linear motor on signalling components.

Regarding the first issue, the installation of the linear motor in the centre of the existing track interferes with the balises. Several potential solutions have been identified, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages, and further investigation will be necessary to determine the optimal balance between cost and performance.

A possible solution is to introduce a gap in the linear motor installed on the track (stator) (Figure 10). Depending on the distance between the balises, the linear motor can be interrupted for a short distance, ensuring that interaction with the mover is not lost and does not interfere with the operation of the balise. As an advantage, this solution is straightforward to implement. Conversely, potential disadvantages include the possibility of electromagnetic (EM) interference with the balise, local degradation of traction performance, and the necessity of analysing for interference with switches.

Regarding the impact of electromagnetic (EM) interferences, an analysis of maglev systems indicates that EM radiation from the linear motor falls within acceptable limits for passengers and aligns with international safety guidelines [27,28].

Nevertheless, it cannot be guaranteed that the solution will not produce electromagnetic interference with the existing signalling components on the track. The definitive assessment of the impact can only be obtained through a comprehensive testing programme conducted under all the requisite operational conditions. In the interim, some preliminary evaluations have been conducted for the project, which will inform future investigations and studies and help to prepare the following homologation and standardisation process for such groundbreaking new technology.

4. Operational Scenario to Be Evaluated and Context Analysis

As mentioned before, upgraded MDS consist of conventional rail vehicles where a linear motor is introduced as a supplement to the traction/braking, while the guidance and rolling are performed with conventional wheels. Incline pushers (also called uphill boosters or, simply, boosters) can help to provide additional traction force for trains to overcome steep uphill gradients and even acquire high acceleration.

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the benefits of using a linear motor as a supplement to a train’s traction/braking. For this purpose, a use case that corresponds to a real-life problem has been defined. This use case is based on the fact that short but pronounced gradients often affect the maximum load of a complete freight train or the maximum speed that a passenger train can reach. This may result in lower accelerations and a lower running speed with a consequent increase in journey time, a reduction in train load/weight, or the necessity of additional locomotives (where additional locomotives often run from origin to destination, even when they are only needed in specific areas), resulting in additional operational costs. The upgraded MDS technology is an interesting solution for these cases where additional traction is required in specific areas, solving the problem at much lower costs by using the existing infrastructure without the need to use additional locomotives or to look for new and much more costly construction solutions, such as tunnels or bridges, to reduce steep gradients that require higher traction capacity.

The validation use case for the analysed technology that was selected corresponds to the study of the railway line linking the cities of Gothenburg and Borås, in Sweden (Figure 11). This route is one of Sweden’s largest commuting areas, and as the existing railway is not a competitive alternative to road traffic in terms of travel time and number of departures, commuting in the region is mainly made by car or bus nowadays. In the following paragraphs, a description of the main features of the infrastructures and services in the region will be given for the road mode and the railway mode, as well as how the upgraded MDS technology can improve the use of the railway mode in the region.

Today, the main infrastructure system in the Gothenburg–Borås area consists of Road 40 and the Coast-to-Coast railway line, which continues to Kalmar and Karlskrona, passing through Borås, Värnamo, Alvesta, Växjö, and Emmaboda, among other places. Travel in the area is dominated by cars, the majority driving on Road 40, a four-lane motorway between Gothenburg and Borås. Driving end-to-end takes between 40 and 65 min. The road is an important connection in the west–east direction and has regional importance for commuting. It is also of national importance for long-distance freight and passenger transport. The large car and bus traffic causes congestion on both the main roads and in the cities. Inside central Gothenburg, it is so crowded that it is not possible to increase the number of buses in peak traffic, which in the long run prevents the exchange of skills and labour in the region.

Long-distance freight transport takes place to a large extent to and from the Port of Gothenburg via Route 40 and the Coast-to-Coast line. The railway includes transport for the automotive industry between Gothenburg and Olofström and container traffic between Vaggeryd and the Port of Gothenburg via Värnamo.

As for passengers, the Coast-to-Coast line is served by regional trains on the Göteborg–Kalmar route and Västtågen on the Gothenburg–Borås route. The SJ AB (Swedish state-owned passenger train operator) trains run directly between Gothenburg and Borås, while Västtågen (SJ AB regional franchise in West Götaland) stops at all intermediate stations on the route.

The characteristics of the existing railway line between Gothenburg and Borås are as follows:

• Standard track, 71.7 km in length
• Maximum speed of 140 km/h, varying along the different sections of the line
• The maximum gradient of the line is 17‰
• Rail traffic (trains per day): 13 two-way passenger trains, 7 one-way freight trains
• Lane flow: approximately 500,000 net tonnes of goods per year (for the Gothenburg–Limmared section, in which the Gothenburg–Borås line is located). For passengers, there are 0.4 million arrivals per year (excluding Gothenburg and Liseberg) and approximately 67,500 commuters on the Gothenburg–Borås route. Therefore, a total of 9.5 million work trips are estimated to take place annually.
• Five municipalities on the route: Gothenburg, Mölndal, Härryda, Bollebygd, and Borås, with 8 stations of interest.

Therefore, the existing railway line connecting Gothenburg and Borås is an electrified, curvy, single-track, which has limitations in capacity, speed, and travel time. In fact, in the Swedish National Plan for the Transport System for 2018–2029 [29], the entire line from Gothenburg to Kalmar and Karlskrona is highlighted as deficient in terms of capacity, punctuality, and robustness. This is because the line operates long-distance (or interregional), regional, and local services in mixed traffic with freight vehicles, which are not capable of maintaining maximum speed on different sections of the line.

This scenario could benefit from the introduction of incline pushers, where additional power is introduced on uphill sections in order to achieve an increase in the capacity and efficiency of mixed traffic lines. An MDS with upgraded rail vehicles and linear motors trackside is introduced for freight trains. This upgrade of the existing line with the introduction of uphill boosters aims to allow heavy freight trains to maintain maximum speed and a travel time similar to those of passenger trains, even in difficult situations with limited adhesion. Compared with constructing a new line with lower inclines, this solution presents lower costs and provides the required operational parameters specifically and only where needed. Moreover, this scenario will not alter the current management of the line in terms of traffic control and safety. Furthermore, the rolling stock can be used as it is today with full compatibility, as implementing the booster can be viewed as an upgrade to the existing rolling stock.

5. Performance Analysis of the Proposed Solution

The objective of this section is to evaluate and demonstrate the benefits of using linear motors as incline pushers by applying them to a use case that corresponds to a real-life problem.

This scenario involves the analysis of the existing line between the cities of Gothenburg and Borås with rail vehicles upgraded with MDS technology. The existing line has mixed traffic operation due to differences in the maximum speed between freight and passenger trains. The main objective of this scenario is to evaluate whether it is possible to use freight trains with incline pushers in order to give them a similar performance to the passenger trains with which they will share mixed traffic.

The main characteristics of the line are shown in

Table 1. Actual line characteristics and main parameters.

Parameter	Value
Number of stations	8
Length	71.7 km
Maximum speed	140 km/h
Maximum gradient	17‰

and Figure 12.

5.1. Analysed Configurations

To assess this scenario, possible MDS vehicle configurations will be evaluated with respect to two basic configurations of conventional rail vehicles with the characteristics of the ones that are currently running on the line under study: a freight train and a passenger train.

Table 2. Actual freight train characteristics and main parameters.

Parameter	Value
Mass	1284 ton
Length	484 m (locomotive + 30 wagons)
Power	5600 kW
Traction/brake maximum force	±320 kN

shows the main characteristics and main parameters of the actual freight train.

On the other hand,

Table 3. Passenger train (Regina commuter train) to be compared with the freight train.

Parameter	Value
Mass	161.2 ton
Length	53.9 (2 coaches)
Power	1590 kW
Traction/brake maximum force	±107 kN

includes the main characteristics of the passenger train (Regina commuter train) to be used as a reference to compare with the freight train and to try to have similar tractive behaviour in terms of reaching maximum speed and travel time.

Figure 13 presents the traction curves and rolling resistances for both the passenger and freight trains. In this figure, for a railway line with the established gradients (17‰), the freight train only reaches 85 km/h while the passenger train can reach up to 140 km/h. These circumstances mean that, in this situation, it is not possible to make mixed passenger and freight traffic without impairments because of the differences in maximum speeds. The objective of this scenario is to propose an MDS solution for the freight train that allows it to reach 140 km/h.

In order to analyse different MDS configurations, two booster options have been considered to provide sufficient performance to achieve the desired speed and travel time:

• Option 1 (Regina imitation): A booster that allows the freight train to imitate Regina’s behaviour. The total traction capabilities of the freight train are modified to 850.6 kN and 12,407 kW.
• Option 2 (140 km/h limitation): A booster that allows the freight train to imitate Regina’s behaviour but accounts for the 140 km/h limit speed. The total traction capabilities of the freight train are modified to 850.6 kN and 10,805 kW.

These two options are shown below (Figure 14):

5.2. Simulation Model

The model defining the train motion of this work is based on the principles of longitudinal train dynamics (LTD). Hence, the train is considered a point mass with one degree of freedom, where the traction/brake system, rolling resistances, air intake, aerodynamic drag, and slope and curve resistances are applied. The dynamic equations that are considered are as follows:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\dot{s}=v\\ M\dot{v}=-A-Bv-C{v}^2-F_e+F\end{array}\right.$$

(1)

$$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\dot{x}=f_t(x,u)\\ x\left(k+1\right)=x\left(k\right)+\Delta t·f_t\left(x\left(k\right),u\left(k\right)\right) with x={\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s& v& F\end{array}\right)}^T\end{array}\right.$$

(2)

where s (m) and v (m/s) denote the position and train speed, respectively, F (N) is the driving/braking force, $F_e (\mathrm{N})$ is the resistance force due to the track, M (kg) is the train’s mass, $A (\mathrm{N})$ is a term that includes the rolling resistance plus the bearing resistance, $B (\mathrm{N}\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{m})$ is a coefficient related to the air intake, and $C (\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{s}}^2/{\mathrm{m}}^2)$ is the aerodynamic coefficient.

The resistance force $F_e$ includes two components, $F_g$ and $F_R$, which are defined as follows:

$$F_e=F_g+F_R$$

(3)

$$F_g=-Mg\times slope$$

(4)

$$F_R=-M\times 6/R$$

(5)

where $F_g (\mathrm{N})$ is the component of the gravity force due to the slope of the track, slope (m/m) is the slope of the track, $g (\mathrm{m}/{\mathrm{s}}^2)$ is the acceleration of gravity, $F_R (\mathrm{N})$ is the resistance in the curve, and $R (\mathrm{m})$ is the radius of the curve.

The values of the slope and R depend on the line profile and the position s of the train on the line and are, therefore, known at each time.

5.3. Maximum Allowable Line Speeds

A dynamic programming (DP) approach has been used to precompute the optimal speed profile for the train [30]. This speed profile is employed as a constraint by the control system, ensuring that the train always operates within the prescribed speed limits.

Due to the phenomenon of inertia, the train cannot travel at maximum speed at all times. The maximum speed represents both a target and a constraint for the train’s movement.

For each train, the DP problem can be formulated as follows:

$$J_{i\to N_s}^{*}(v_i)=\underset{u}{\min } q(v_i,u_i)+J_{i+1\to N_s}^{*}(v_{i+1})$$

(6)

where:

$$q\left(v_i,u_i\right)={‖v_i-v_{lim}\left(s_i\right)‖}_{{K_V}_{DP}}+{‖\left(v_i-v_{lim}\left(s_i\right)\right)+\left|v_i-v_{lim}\left(s_i\right)\right|‖}_{{K_L}_{DP}}$$

(7)

subject to:

$$v_{i+1}=\sqrt{v_i^2+{\displaystyle \raisebox{1ex}{$2\Delta s\left(-A-B{v}_i-C{v}_i^2-F_e-u_i\right)$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$M$}\right.}}$$

(8)

$$-{M a}_{br}\le u_i\le {M a}_{dr}$$

(9)

$$-P_{br}\le v_i·u_i\le P_{dr}$$

(10)

$$0\le v_i\le v_{lim}\left(s_i\right)\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\forall i=N_s-1,\dots ,1$$

(11)

$$v_{N_s}=v_f$$

(12)

$$J_{N_s\to N_s}^{*}(v_{N_s})=\left\{\begin{array}{c}0\hspace{1em}if\hspace{1em}{v}_N\le v_{lim}\left(s_{N_s}\right)\\ \infty \hspace{1em}otherwise\end{array}\right.$$

(13)

The different terms in the cost function (6–7) have the following meaning: $J_{i\to N_s}^{*}(v_i)$ corresponds to the cost function used to solve the DP problem, $N_s$ represents the number of points of the space discretization, ${K_V}_{DP}\ge 0$ represents the weight penalizing the output deviation from the maximum allowed speed, ${K_L}_{DP}\ge 0$ represents the weight penalizing overshooting the maximum allowed speed, and $v_{lim}$ (as represented in Figure 15) is the maximum speed at each point $s$ on the line.

Equation (8) is the space discretization model of (1, 2) using a trapezoidal formula. Expressions (9, 10) represent the input constraints in the force and power, where $a_{br}$ and $a_{dr}$ denote the maximum traction/braking acceleration, $P_{br}$ and $P_{dr}$ denote the maximum power for traction/braking, and (11) represents the speed constraints. Equation (12) is the terminal constraint, and (13) represents the initial condition for the cost function (6). Figure 15 shows the optimal speed profile for the train, $v_{DP}\left(s\right)$, obtained by solving (6). This represents the maximum speed that can be reached at any given point along the line, in accordance with the prevailing maximum speed limits.

5.4. Simulation of the Trains Running on the Railway Line

A model predictive control (MPC) approach is proposed to simulate the behaviour of the trains running on the railway line. According to the receding horizon principle, at each time step the MPC algorithm computes the optimal control and state trajectories to solve a finite horizon optimisation problem.

For the formulation of the MPC, a prediction horizon $\left[t,t+N_p\right]$ is considered at time t. The notation $x_{t+k|t}$ represents the state vector at time $t+k$, predicted at time $t$, obtained by starting from the current state $x_{t|t}=x\left(t\right)\equiv x_t$, and $u_{·|t}=\left[u_{\mathrm{t}|t},\dots ,u_{{t+N}_p-1|t}\right]$ denotes the unknown input variables (traction/braking force, in this case) to be optimised.

The objective of the control for each train is to move the train as fast as possible while satisfying the state and input constraints. Therefore, the optimisation problem can be formulated as follows:

$$\underset{u_{·|t}}{\mathit{min}} J=\sum _{k=\mathrm{t}}^{t+N_p}{K}_V^l·‖1-v_{k|t}/v_{max}‖+\sum _{k=t}^{t+N_p-1}{K}_J·‖j_{k|t}/j_{max}‖$$

(14)

subject to:

$$x_{k+1|t}=f(x_{k|t},u_{k|t})$$

(15)

$$x_{t|t}=x_t$$

(16)

$$0\le v_{k|t}\le v_{lim}(s_{k|t})$$

(17)

$$-j_{max}\le j_{k|t}\le j_{max}$$

(18)

$$-M{a}_{br}\le u_{k|t}^l\le M{a}_{dr}$$

(19)

$$-P_{br}\le v_{k|t}·u_{k|t}\le P_{dr}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\forall k=t,\dots ,t+N_p-1$$

(20)

$$0\le v_{t+N_p|t}\le v_{DP}\left(s_{t+N_p|t}\right)$$

(21)

where:

$${j_l}_{k|t}=(F_{k+1|t}-F_{k|t})M/\Delta t$$

(22)

The cost function $J$ (14) has several dimensionless coefficients: $K_V\ge 0$ represents the weight penalizing the output deviation from the maximum allowed speed, and $K_J\ge 0$ represents the weight penalizing the input jerk. In (14), $v_{max}$ represents the maximum nominal speed in the line, and $j_{max}$ denotes the maximum jerk.

Equation (15) represents the system dynamics updates for the discrete-time model obtained from (1, 2). The initial state is set in (16). Equation (17) corresponds to the velocity constraint $v_{lim}$. Equation (18) represents the limitation of the jerk defined in (22) and obtained from (22). The input constraints (19, 20) include the limitation of maximum driving and braking force and the power limitation for driving and braking.

Equation (21) is a terminal constraint. The upper bound on the speed $v_{DP}\left(s\right)$ is obtained from the solution of the DP optimisation problem (6) (Figure 15). This terminal constraint is employed in order to ensure that the speed at which the train is travelling is always within the parameters of the permitted speed limit. By limiting the train speed below $v_{DP}$ at the terminal time step, it is guaranteed that the train has a feasible speed trajectory that persistently obeys the speed limit.

The solution to optimisation problem (14) is $u_{·|t}$. The first time-step solution of this vector ($u_{\mathrm{t}|t}$) is introduced in dynamics (1) in order to estimate the train position at the following time step and therefore simulate the train movement.

5.5. Simulation Results

The behaviour of the different vehicles on the line described in Figure 12 has been simulated using the model presented in the previous section. The following figures show the obtained results.

Figure 16 includes the travel time versus train position diagram on the railway line. This type of diagram is typically used in line capacity analysis. As can be seen, for the same route and with the same stops, the current freight train today is much slower and needs more time to make the journey. In contrast, the proposals for upgraded vehicles with boosters achieve very similar performance to the passenger train considered as a reference, overlapping the curves.

Figure 17 shows the speed and longitudinal acceleration of individual railway vehicles at each point of the journey. On the left-hand side, it is shown as a function of travel time, and on the right-hand side, as a function of kilometre point.

In these plots, it can be seen again how the behaviour of the options with the booster is very similar to that of the passenger train, while the current freight train needs a longer travel time and has less traction/braking capacity and consequently lower traction and braking accelerations, which results in a considerably slower train.

Figure 18 includes the traction/braking requirements in terms of force and power for the different considered configurations. Here, the same trend can be seen again. As the current freight vehicle has less traction/braking capacity, it will need a longer travel time and consume less energy than the two configurations considered for the booster.

It should be noted that Figure 18 shows the total force required to move the train under the required conditions. This force includes both the traction/braking force provided by the conventional electric system of the train and the force provided by the booster, which is considered to assist in both traction and braking in this case.

It is interesting to segregate this force from the one provided by the booster. This force is represented in Figure 19.

In Figure 19, the booster only carries force at certain moments of the journey when the conventional traction/braking is not sufficient. The peaks are related to the points where more acceleration and/or braking is demanded and coincide mostly with the entrances and exits of the stations. These circumstances occur mainly in acceleration or braking manoeuvres, and not when the vehicle maintains a more or less constant speed. This means that the booster can be limited to some sections of the line to optimise the practical implementation of the system.

In addition, if the 30 wagons of the freight train have a booster and the system needs to provide a maximum booster force of 500 kN for the entire convoy (approximately), each booster should provide 17 kN/booster (in case a booster is installed on each wagon). It is also possible to reduce the number of wagons equipped with a booster within the 30-wagon freight train: in this case, the booster of each wagon should provide larger forces in order to be able to reach the same 500 kN maximum booster force. For example, if only 20 wagons of the freight train have a booster, each booster should be able to provide a maximum force of 25 kN/booster.

In any case, similar results in terms of behaviour and travel time can be obtained with shorter freight trains equipped with boosters, and therefore the total booster force required will be lower than what was required in these results. This means that shorter trains can be used if the total booster force is required to remain below a certain practical limit.

Finally, and in order to have elements to evaluate the use of this technology, Figure 20 is included, where the energy consumption during the whole journey is evaluated. Two values have been calculated, one for a system without regenerative braking and the other with regenerative braking.

If we compare travel time and energy consumption, we can observe that, thanks to the booster, the freight train can behave similarly to the Regina train (Option 1) and achieves a travel time of 54 min. Thus, travel time is reduced by nearly 10 min (−15%) with respect to freight travel without a booster (64 min). However, consumption increases to 517.89 kWh (+23%) without energy recovery and only 111.10 kWh (+5%) with energy recovery. This last value is the one considered in the cost–benefit analysis.

When Option 1 is limited in power to account for the maximum speed of the line (Option 2), travel time is close to 54 min, but the energy consumption increases only up to 467.14 kWh (+21%), which saves 10% with respect to Option 1 and 83.34 kWh (+3.8%) with energy recovery. These results are summarised in Figure 21.

These results are very promising as a significant reduction in travel time is achieved for the freight train, bringing it on par with the passenger train that it will run with in mixed traffic without impairments between different train types.

Regarding energy consumption, although it is higher than in the original freight train and the power is considerably higher, the total consumed energy is not relatively high because it is compensated for by the potential increase in capacity and the shorter journey time compared with the original train.

6. Economic Cost–Benefit Analysis

The objective of this section is to perform a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of the analysed use case in order to assess its economic impact. The study focuses on analysing the specific economic impact of implementation projects for this use case. To achieve this, a comparative analysis between a reference scenario (an existing freight train running on the existing line) and a project scenario (an upgraded MDS freight train running on the existing line) was conducted considering various economic performance indicators, such as economic net present value (ENPV), benefit–cost ratio (B/C), and internal rate of return (IRR).

The CBA was conducted following the European Commission (EC) guidelines [31,32]. The abbreviation m EUR is used to refer to millions of euros [33].

More detailed information for this analysis can be found in [6].

6.1. Design Inputs for the CBA

In order to conduct a CBA and facilitate a comparison between the reference scenario and the project scenario, a number of assumptions have been made regarding different modes of transport (rail and road).

In terms of rail traffic, the number of trains per day is composed of 13 double-trip passenger trains and 7 single-trip freight trains. The total volume of goods transported per year via this route is estimated at 500,000 tonnes (Gothenburg–Limmared), with approximately 0.4 million arrivals per year (excluding Gothenburg and Liseberg). It is not anticipated that the line will become a bottleneck in 2024; however, mixed traffic operations may have an impact on the robustness of operations. The case does not consider an increase in the total amount of goods transported. Therefore, the reduction in travel time is the only factor influencing capacity increase.

In terms of road traffic, the route is served by bus 100, which has frequent departures, occurring every five minutes during peak traffic. Additionally, bus services 101 and 102 provide supplementary coverage. The proportion of total travel on the route accounted for by public transport is 25%, with buses representing 97% of this figure. The majority of passenger commuting currently occurs between Gothenburg and Mölndal, extending to the Landvetter, which is home to Sweden’s second-largest airport. Regarding freight services, no shift in demand has been considered in relation to the existing demand of 3,652,500 tonnes per year.

6.1.1. Investment Costs—CAPEX

In this scenario, implementing the linear motor on the station tracks is not a necessary consideration given that the higher acceleration can only commence when the final wagons have passed the station switch. Consequently, no further implementation on the passing and crossing tracks in stations will be contemplated. Therefore, with a line length of 71.10 km, minus 4.80 km of flat line section resulting from the simulations, this will lead to 66.30 km of linear motor implementation in total.

For this study, the LSM system MagRail Booster from Nevomo will be the technological basis for the following estimations. The estimated hardware cost per kilometre for the linear motor in the selected configuration for this study is 3.25 m EUR for a single track. Furthermore, additional planning and deployment costs of 0.25 m EUR are incurred during the installation of the linear motor. Consequently, the total investment costs for the infrastructure component amount to 232.05 m EUR, calculated as follows: 66.3 km × (3.25 + 0.25 m EUR).

On the vehicle side, the cost of retrofitting freight wagons with Mover magnets and the necessary system components is estimated at EUR 36,000 per wagon. In order to guarantee the required tractive force for this use case, the freight trains (1 locomotive, 30 wagons, 1300 t) need 20 equipped wagons in the train. This leads to costs of 20 wagons × 36,000 EUR (720,000 EUR) per trainset. The assumption is that all seven trains running on this line per day are configured as different trainsets from different destinations, and all seven need to be fully equipped with 20 wagons. This leads to total investment costs of 7 trainsets × 720,000 EUR (5.04 m EUR) for the vehicle part.

Prior to the installation of the MDS components, it is necessary to undertake a series of general measurements. The infrastructure must be aligned with the specifications of the operational system. Furthermore, 41 curves with a radius below 400 m should be examined to ascertain whether the track is sufficiently stable to accommodate the increased speeds and acceleration of freight trains. It is possible that the 15 curves with radii below 300 m may necessitate the undertaking of specific analyses or inspections. However, it is not possible to estimate the costs of these efforts in the context of this study, given that the condition of the route is unknown. Nevertheless, the additional costs of 100,000 EUR that would be incurred for the necessary studies and inspections have been incorporated into this analysis.

Unforeseen costs will inevitably arise in construction projects. In order to accommodate this, a basic surcharge of 3% has been applied to all previous cost blocks. Consequently, the total of the unexpected costs amounts to 7.12 m EUR, which must be recognised.

6.1.2. Operational and Maintenance Costs—OPEX

Over time, assets naturally deteriorate due to use, environmental factors, and aging. For estimating yearly maintenance costs, different factors can be considered. An estimated yearly 2.5% of the total investment in regular maintenance is required to keep these assets in good working condition, addressing issues before they escalate into more significant, costlier problems. This percentage is widely accepted across various industries, from real estate to manufacturing, as a reliable standard.

This leads to additional yearly costs of 0.025 × 232.05 m EUR = 5.80 m EUR/year for the maintenance of the new hardware in the infrastructure and 0.025 × 5.04 m EUR = 0.13 m EUR/year for the retrofit parts in the rolling stock.

Furthermore, regarding the annual operational expenditure associated with energy consumption, the energy price for Sweden, as referenced in [34], is considered to be 0.065 €/kWh. The energy cost was calculated by applying the aforementioned price to the increased energy consumption of 111.1 kWh/train, derived from Section 5.5 (Simulation Results) of this paper and based on the assumption of seven trains per day. Based on these data, the annual calculated energy cost is 0.015 m EUR/year.

6.1.3. Direct Benefits and Externalities

The travel time saving was calculated based on the analysis conducted in Section 5.4, which is a 10 min/ton reduction applied to the demand of 3,652,500 tons/year.

The VOT (average value of time) is considered to be 4 €/hour.

The CO₂eq emissions reduction was determined by calculating the balance between the increase in the energy consumption by 111.1 kWh/train and the saved energy consumption from the road (in this case, it does not exist since no induced demand was considered), so the difference is negative. The CO₂ equivalent (CO₂eq) emission factor applied in the calculation is 0.013, which accounts for the resources of the electricity production in Sweden. In order to calculate the CO₂eq cost, and in line with the EC’s technical guidance, a shadow cost for the value of CO₂eq (actualised to 2024) was used, recently established as the best estimate of the cost of achieving the temperature target of the Paris Agreement. The value is 151 €/t CO₂eq.

6.2. Economic Cost–Benefit Analysis Results and Sensitivity Analysis

Table 4. Different costs used for the CBA.

Concept	Cost (in m EUR)
Investment Costs	Hardware Costs for the Linear Motor	232.05
	Rolling Stock	5.04
	Other Costs	0.10
	Un-expected Cost	7.12
Operation and Maintenance Costs	Rolling Stock Operation and Maintenance	0.13
	Infrastructure Maintenance MDS	5.80
Direct Benefits and Externalities	Travel Time Saving	472.91
	Vehicle Operation Cost Saving	-
	Externalities	−0.05

summarises all the different costs used for the CBA.

In accordance with the European Commission guidelines [31,32], the following values for ENVP, B/C, and IRR were derived (

Table 5. Economic performance indicator results summary.

ENPV [million €]	B/C	IRR
9.33	1.04	3.31%

).

The study therefore concludes that freight trains can overcome steep gradients more efficiently by integrating a linear motor, thus matching their speed to that of passenger trains and improving overall line capacity. Reducing freight journey times makes rail an increasingly attractive option, especially for time-sensitive goods. Despite an increase in energy consumption, which increases OPEX, the overall benefits, including time savings and reduction in negative externalities, outweigh the installation costs of the upgraded MDS, resulting in a B/C ratio of more than 1. This scenario therefore highlights the potential for more efficient mixed-traffic operations, making rail services more attractive and sustainable.

7. Conclusions

This work presents the potential of maglev-derived systems when used in conventional rail systems. The work focuses on using linear motors for conventional rail, specifically to increase the capabilities of freight operations. Using linear motors as an additional tractive power source reduces the dependence of traction and braking forces on the adhesion available between wheels and rails. It also provides a more granular increase in tractive power that can enhance the performance of the freight consist without needing an additional locomotive.

The study analysed the railway line connecting Gothenburg and Borås in Sweden, a single-track mixed-traffic line that suffers from limited capacity, slow speeds, and extended travel times. The introduction of additional tractive power in uphill sections in the form of linear motors would upgrade the existing line, allowing freight trains to keep their performance and travel time similar to those of passenger trains, even in difficult situations with limited adhesion. Optimal speed profiles were precomputed using a dynamic programming (DP) approach, and the running characteristics of the trains were calculated using a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm that computes the optimal control and state trajectories at every time step. The results show that a freight vehicle with traction boosters can reach the desired speeds and travel times, increasing its energy consumption.

To understand the benefits of this technical solution at a system level, a cost–benefit analysis was carried out. A comparative analysis between the existing freight train running on the existing line and the upgraded MDS freight train running on the existing line was carried out following the European Commission guidelines. Considering investment costs (CAPEX), operational costs (OPEX), and the generated externalities, the study shows a positive impact with a benefit-to-cost ratio of B/C = 1.04.

A technological upgrade of an existing line will never have the same capacity effect as a completely new line or an additional track, but the studied scenario demonstrates how freight trains can more efficiently tackle steep inclines by integrating linear motors, which increases the capacity of the existing line with mixed traffic by increasing the speed of the freight consists to match that of the passenger trains.

This higher speed requires a higher energy consumption for these trains, but the time savings and the synchronisation possibilities have a huge economic potential, as shown in the preliminary cost–benefit analysis. Extra costs from installing the system, added energy consumption, and the development of new procedures are compensated by the travel time reduction and subsequent modal shift in goods traffic, which reduces the CO₂ emissions from road freight operations. Due to the higher investment costs associated with the linear motor as an infrastructure-focused solution, it is best suited for enhancing the performance of lines with high capacity or quality demands and specific infrastructural bottlenecks, where the additional traction can help improve traffic flow. The scenario highlights the potential for increased attractiveness and efficiency of mixed-traffic rail operations, with a substantial impact on goods transport sustainability.