## 4 Result and Discussion  
According to the proposal of study [11], summarized as follows, analyzing the peak hour coefficients on any day during the survey period resulted in 0.8 described as in Figure 3. This coefficient is included in the next calculation for travel demand according to a 1:1 conversion factor. This is the demand for transportation according to the development cycle in each phase; corresponding to Phase 1 (100%), the result is (De-max-1) 23,676 p/h/d, Phase 2 (150%) is (De-max-2) 35,514 p/h/d, and Phase 3 (200%) is (De-max-3) 47,352 p/h/d. Based on the parameters in Table 2, four types of train control signals are included in the analysis: a three-aspect fixed block (i), cab signal (ii), MVB fixed stopping distance (iii), and MVB variable safety distance (iv). The achieved results are described in Table 3[11] and Figure 4, in which type (i) has the minimum station headway time and minimum train separation time, being 126.3713 s and 60.2466 s, respectively. Similarly, type (ii) is 113.3310 s and 48.3310 s; type (iii) is 100.0641 s and 35.0641 s; and finally, type (iv) is the smallest at 93.7184 s and 30.2846 s with a variable safety distance MVB system and automatic train operation (ATO) [11]. The simulation and analysis of results on required transport capacity for each stage of each type of train control signal are studied in [11] and summarized in Figure 5. The desired results are expected to meet the greatest transport demand (\(\text{D}_{\text{e-max}}\)) for the PVD MCS line operation plan with maximum service frequency or headways minimum in a variable safety distance moving-block signaling system. The final result chosen is the minimum station running time and the smallest number of trains/hour of 93.7184 s and 38.4129 trains/hour, providing a carrying capacity of 49,937 p/h/d, greater than the necessary demand, which is De-max-3 47,352 p/h/d [11]. They must be rounded to a whole number of trains per hour, i.e., 100 s (\(\text{H}^{\prime}_{\text{s(min)}}\))--36 trains per hour (\(\text{T}^{\prime}_{\text{s-max}}\)), before designing an efficient and accurate traction power source. With this result, select the train set for the operating plan as shown in Table 4. In Phase 1, operate 100% of transport needs, and train capacity is 658 passengers/train corresponding to a line capacity (\(\text{C}_{\text{L-max},1}\)) of 23,688 p/h/d (more than \(\text{D}_{\text{e-max}-1}\) 23,676 p/h/d); in Phase 2, transport demand increases by 150%, and train capacity is 987 passengers/train, corresponding to a \(\text{C}_{\text{L-max},2}\) of 35,532 p/h/d (more than \(\text{D}_{\text{e-max}-2}\) 35,514 p/h/d); and similarly, Phase 3 (200%) is 1320 passengers/train corresponding to (\(\text{C}_{\text{L-max},3}\)) 47,520 p/h/d (more than \(\text{D}_{\text{e-max}-3}\) 47,352 p/h/d). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Voltage** [**V**]} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Feeding**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Distance [km, L = 1 km)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **L** & **2 L** & **4 L** & **6 L** \\ \hline Un & Single and & 750 & 750 & 750 & 750 \\ \hline Umin & Double & 500 & 500 & 500 & 500 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U\({}_{\text{mu-OCS}}\)} & Single & 553.135 & 497.691 & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Double & & 720.496 & 616.549 & 431.902 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U\({}_{\text{mu-3R}}\)} & Single & 618.180 & 584.688 & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Double & & 742.177 & 703.276 & 627.037 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U\({}_{\text{mu-ROCS}}\)} & Single & 610.908 & 574.993 & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Double & & 739.753 & 693.581 & 605.224 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Minimum \(\text{U}_{\text{min-useful}}\) at pantograph. Figure 4: Simulation results of station headway PVD line. Figure 5: Provide passenger capacity transport in demand of phase on PVD line. Figure 3: Peak hour factor on PVD line. Parameters for traction power supply system design are shown in Tables 5 and 6.