Corridor report 01
One business trip, several defensible choices. We show how timetables, total journey time, occupancy and data quality change a travel decision — and what a Farleda pilot should test.
BERLIN HBF → MÜNCHEN HBF
A better decision starts with comparable inputs.
Independent Farleda analysis of public sources. Not a commissioned customer pilot, a partnership with the named organisations or evidence of emissions actually avoided.
24.10.2026 · 07:37–11:43 · [S1]
Historical DB distance · [S2]
Scope and price agreed individually
01 / Decision context
Scenario: one person travels from the Berlin urban area to an appointment in Munich. They want to arrive on time, work en route and understand the climate implications. This is a designed use case, not an observed customer journey.
The DB page lists a direct ICE service on 24 October 2026: Berlin Hbf 07:37 → Munich Hbf 11:43, taking 4 h 06 min. Page snapshot 17 October, retrieved 18 October 2026. Date, availability and changes must be checked with the operator before travelling. [S1]
The 623 km rail reference comes from the historical DB VDE 8 factsheet; the 588 km road reference from the ADAC summary card. The rail distance is an analytical assumption, not a measured distance for the particular service above. The two sources do not use identical door addresses. [S2, S3]
A long direct rail service and a plausible car alternative expose trade-offs in total time, working opportunities, cost, occupancy and emissions boundaries. A German corridor fits the geographical scope of the UBA average factors. Cross-border application needs different inputs.
02 / Reproducible comparison
Reference calculation per person, one-way main leg: distance × emissions factor ÷ 1,000. It uses UBA averages for Germany in 2024, not measurements of this ICE or output from the Farleda app model. [S4]
| Option | km | g CO₂e/pkm | kg CO₂e/person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long-distance rail · reference | 623 | 26 | 16.2 |
| Car fleet mix · 1.4 people | 588 | 164 | 96.4 |
| Car fleet mix · 1 person¹ | 588 | 229.6 | 135.0 |
| Car fleet mix · 2 people¹ | 588 | 114.8 | 67.5 |
| Car fleet mix · 4 people¹ | 588 | 57.4 | 33.8 |
| Electric car · 4 people¹ | 588 | 24.5 | 14.4 |
623 × 26 ÷ 1,000 = 16.198 kg for long-distance rail; 588 × 164 ÷ 1,000 = 96.432 kg for the car fleet mix at average occupancy. The difference is 80.234 kg. Rounding happens only for display. This compares scenarios; it is not a saving attributable to Farleda.
¹ Car sensitivity holds the vehicle factor inferred from the average constant: 164 × 1.4 = 229.6 g/vehicle-km; electric car: 70 × 1.4 = 98. Divide by the selected passenger count. This is a simplification, not a measurement of a specific car. At four occupants, the electric-car scenario is 14.4 kg per person, below the rail reference.
03 / Time and decision quality
Comparing only train time and driving time leaves parts of the trip out. The additions below are disclosed planning assumptions, not values taken from the timetable sources.
| Component | Rail | Car |
|---|---|---|
| Published main leg [S1, S3] | 4 h 06 min | 5 h 46 min |
| Access / egress (assumption) | 20 + 20 min | – |
| Station buffer (assumption) | 15 min | – |
| Break / parking and walk (assumption) | – | 30 + 15 min |
| Total for this planning scenario | 5 h 01 min | 6 h 31 min |
The difference holds only with these additions and no further delay. Source endpoints differ; this is not a measured door-to-door comparison. A pilot must use identical addresses, a travel date, individual buffers and documented disruptions.
Seat availability, connectivity, luggage, accessibility and onward transport should be checked before recommending an option. We do not automatically count time on a train as productive work or monetise it here. Missing accessibility information must remain explicitly unknown.
The emissions table covers main legs only. The access and egress added to the time scenario are not included in that emissions total. Flying, coaches and full journey costs require further consistent inputs and are outside this first analysis.
04 / Farleda’s contribution
Farleda is developing the connecting software between mobility data, planning and traceable emissions information. The benefit comes from stakeholders being able to inspect the same inputs, sources and limitations.
| Stakeholder | Contribution within an agreed pilot | How to assess the benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Travellers | Compare options with duration, changes, assumptions and sources. | Task completion, understanding and time to choose. |
| Railway operators | Carry an explainable option through to an agreed booking hand-off. | Hand-off correctness; usage kept separate from confirmed bookings. |
| Infrastructure partners | Expose missing or stale station/connection information in a defined data case. | Coverage, freshness and correct unknown states. |
| Employers / travel teams | Document choices using consistent comparison rules. | Reproducibility; no automatic ESG or audit approval. |
| Research / public bodies | Set hypotheses and evaluation rules before testing. | Repeatable findings; behaviour change studied separately. |
Capture the travel date and priorities; compare available connections with their source timestamps; pass the selected option to the agreed operator channel; record the decision inputs used. Missing fares, accessibility details or realtime data remain visible. The reference cases determine whether this chain works correctly.
The code includes journey planning, route comparisons, modelled emissions and HMAC-signed planning records. The public website presents a product preview; it does not prove a production partner integration. This UBA benchmark is separate from the app model. Factors, distances, person basis and boundaries must be reconciled before combining their outputs.
A booking hand-off is not a ticket purchase; a purchase is not evidence of travel. A Passport signature checks data integrity, not travel or avoided emissions. Ridership growth, time savings and modal shift remain hypotheses to test.
05 / From report to pilot
Proposed scope: one corridor, one agreed data connection, one results view and 20 jointly defined reference cases. Start and price are agreed individually; no partner commitment or business outcome is implied.
Name a sponsor, data contact and subject-matter owner. Agree data rights, identical endpoints, model and acceptance criteria. Freeze 20 cases in advance: 10 standard journeys, 5 missing/stale-data cases and 5 occupancy, powertrain or accessibility variants. This is a technical sample, not representative market evidence.
Implement the agreed connection and view. Record source, timestamp, distance, person basis, factor and result for each case. Proposed acceptance: all 20 calculations reproducible, all 5 adverse cases correctly labelled, no critical unresolved defect. Agree the criteria contractually before starting.
Observe whether participants understand the options and their limits. Disclose sample sizes and denominators; do not claim causal effects without a suitable comparison group. Deliver a final report with data gaps, remedial work, operating costs and a costed follow-on proposal. Continue, remediate within a limit or stop.
Pricing on request; free traveller beta access is separate from an enterprise pilot. The partner weighs integration and support effort against observed value. Farleda assesses repeatability and viable operation. Ticket retail, safety-critical control and 24/7 service are not automatically included.
Source register
Source review: 18 October 2026. Historical distance, dated timetable example and annual factors describe different periods. The CSV includes inputs, formulas and sources. External sources retain their respective rights. Cite the version, retrieval date and boundary when referring to this analysis.
Retrieved 18 October 2026. Page snapshot 17 October 2026, 00:21: direct service on 24 October 2026, 07:37–11:43, 4 h 06 min. Dated example, not a live timetable.
Historical route factsheet: 623 km for the ICE Sprinter via Halle, Erfurt and Nuremberg. Used only as a reference distance, not confirmation of a particular train’s routing in 2026.
Retrieved 18 October 2026. Summary card: 588 km, 5 h 46 min; body text: 587 km. We use the rounded 588 km. City-to-city, not identical door addresses to the railway; not measured driving time.
26 g CO₂e/passenger-km for long-distance rail, 164 g for the car fleet mix, 70 g for electric cars; car occupancy 1.4. Operation including energy supply, using average German electricity. Vehicle production and infrastructure excluded.
Bring a corridor, a question and a data contact. Together we can define a testable pilot.
Loading page