| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 30/9search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
simont141
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 12, 2003
Last Visited: Sep 8, 2008
Location: Adelaide
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:47 pm
|
I don't know why people think that electrification is the saviour in terms of reducing emissions, climate change, blah blah blah.
Can anyone provide evidence that it is? I have certainly tried and all the evidence suggests that it is no better than running diesel trains. In fact if you factor into the equation the amount of energy required to build the infrastructure for electrification, it comes out much worse.
In fact the best long term option would be to run diesels on biodiesel, but even that has problems like growing more crops, etc. The efficiency of biodiesel is still up in the air but is advocated by many scientists.
If you don't believe me, have a read of Delivering a Sustainable Railway - White Paper CM 7176 published by the Dept for Transport in the UK. Part of it discusses widespread electrification versus other options in terms of emissions.
|
|
 |
FieldShunt74
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Last Visited: Sep 8, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:11 pm
|
| simont141 wrote: | | I don't know why people think that electrification is the saviour in terms of reducing emissions, climate change, blah blah blah. |
I wouldn't say it necessarily was advantageous for emission reductions on it's own. If you powered such a scheme purely from coal fired power stations it might be worse than diesel locos. That doesn't have to be the case though, the electricity can come from multiple sources in whatever proportions are deemed acceptable. It's a bit harder to run a diesel loco on 40% coal, 30% solar, 20% nuclear and 10% wind power (and to change those proportions daily). Even in the case of a 'bad coal' powered scenario, at least we own the coal and don't have to import it.
Another advantage of electrification would be that locomotive power output would no longer be constrained by the weight and size of the prime mover you can mount on a loco frame. Range, weight and the amount of fuel you can carry also stop being a factor.
|
|
|
Golconda
Locomotive Driver
Joined: May 09, 2006
Last Visited: Jul 17, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:59 pm
|
This electric business is just plain silly.
Diesels are fairly efficient and use a fairly low quality and relatively cheap to produce petroleum fuel.
Shifting road to rail freight will save energy in a minimum 3:1 ratio on a ton km basis.
To do that we need faster transits, dedicated alignments, improved alignments, more and more convenient intermodal terminals and really good customer service. It might help to price the jugernaughts of the road effectively.
The good news is we are doing some of these things already.
Next on the list might be progressive grade separation and crossing protection. It may not be rails faults but drivers are dumb and getting dumber. Larger volumes of faster, longer, and heavier trains is going to lead to more and increasing crossing carnage.
I don’t know where sparks fit in the list but they are close to the end. Perhaps in 100 years when we are 100% nuclear and battery trucks shift containers the last few km’s to their factory?
|
|
|
Draffa
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Last Visited: Sep 7, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:27 am
|
| Golconda wrote: | | Diesels are fairly efficient |
If you call 35-40% 'efficient', then yeah, sure.
| Quote: | | and use a fairly low quality and relatively cheap to produce petroleum fuel. |
Which is getting harder to obtain. US$120/barrel this week.
| Quote: | | Shifting road to rail freight will save energy in a minimum 3:1 ratio on a ton km basis. |
Diesel Truck to Diesel Train is about 3 - 4:1, yes. Electrifying the trains gives you another 4 - 5:1 improvement.
|
|
|
Golconda
Locomotive Driver
Joined: May 09, 2006
Last Visited: Jul 17, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:35 am
|
Oil prices may be "high" but in a historical context they are not as high as one might think.
$120 in 2007 terms is $35 in 1980 terms.
http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/calc.go
That is about the same price as some of the earlier spikes.
Increased fuel costs are having some effect, but fuel prices are still not the largest part of the ownership costs of a car, nor are they having more than an incremental effect on driving behavior.
If you want to save fuel you need to wiegh the cost benifit;
X billion to increase rails share of the frieght task through a range of improvements to alighment, grades, speed train paths and customer service.
Y billion to make the existing rail infrastructure more efficient.
|
|
|
Draffa
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Last Visited: Sep 7, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:23 am
|
| Golconda wrote: | | nor are they having more than an incremental effect on driving behavior. |
Which is why I think it's insanity to even consider reducing the Excise.  In fact, increase it (although a Carbon Tax will probably do that for us)!
|
|
|
Hendo
Train Controller
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Last Visited: Sep 8, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:02 pm
|
| Golconda wrote: | Oil prices may be "high" but in a historical context they are not as high as one might think.
$120 in 2007 terms is $35 in 1980 terms.
http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/calc.go
|
Golconda,
Given we are talking about the USD price per barrel, you also need to factor in the exchange rates, in 1980 dollars, I believe the AUD was worth about $1.15 USD, today it is around .94 USD, which makes todays AUD barrel price 127.428 AUD and in 1980 about $38 AUD, if the overseas barrel rate is not considered.
I am not sure when we tied our prices to the Singapore spot market, but lets say 1980, in which case the barrel prices was about $32 USD, which was an price of $28.83. Using the RBA calculator for 1979-2007 (it doesn't allow 2008) it will give you a comparative price of AUD $106.02, so oil today is more 20% more expensive (AUD $21.40), in which case the price is high.
cheers,
Hendo
|
|
|
Golconda
Locomotive Driver
Joined: May 09, 2006
Last Visited: Jul 17, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 6:35 am
|
On a US dollar scale the price is close to previous highs. You are right that in local currency the price is slightly higher than previous highs.
But on an infrastructure scale, the price will be high when it makes real, lasting changes to behaviours in the frieght and private transport sectors. I suspect that price is something like $US 200-300 a barrel.
|
|
|
simonl
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Last Visited: Sep 3, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 11:43 pm
|
|
Kevin Rudd mightn't be asking the right question here, but at least he's asking A question. Hopefully, he'll be told it's not the answer, and he should build the Centennial, Wentworth and Hoare deviations instead.
|
|
|
Myrtone
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Last Visited: Aug 31, 2008
Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:09 am
|
| FieldShunt74 wrote: | | Another advantage of electrification would be that locomotive power output would no longer be constrained by the weight and size of the prime mover you can mount on a loco frame. Range, weight and the amount of fuel you can carry also stop being a factor. |
But it is constrained by the power supply system, espcially with the current electrification system in both Melbounre and Sydney. 1500v DC can be limiting. Many electrified railway networks that began at this voltage or at 3kv DC have since converted to 25 kv AC, as is happening today in the Netherlands.
|
|
|
Draffa
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Last Visited: Sep 7, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
MD
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Last Visited: Sep 1, 2008
Location: Canbera
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:19 am
|
Yes, all the wrong questions are being asked.
The question that should be asked but wont be is what do we have to do to The Melb - Sydney line to reduce the average costs of actually sending freight by rail to less than 2 c per ntk, which is what it is in the US and needs to be here to cause any shift from road back to rail.
Ask yourself this question.
Rail between Adelaide to Perth has 82% market share, and Melb to Sydney has 10%.
Whats differant about these 2 routes.
|
|
|
FieldShunt74
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Last Visited: Sep 8, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:51 pm
|
| Myrtone wrote: | | FieldShunt74 wrote: | | Another advantage of electrification would be that locomotive power output would no longer be constrained by the weight and size of the prime mover you can mount on a loco frame. Range, weight and the amount of fuel you can carry also stop being a factor. |
But it is constrained by the power supply system, espcially with the current electrification system in both Melbounre and Sydney. 1500v DC can be limiting. Many electrified railway networks that began at this voltage or at 3kv DC have since converted to 25 kv AC, as is happening today in the Netherlands. |
Lets get one thing straight, any future Sydney-Melbourne electrification will have to be 25kvAC (or better). No one's going to electrify over that kind of distance with DC in this day and age. They can have separate freight lines in the metropolitan areas or they can have dual voltage locos and tippy-toe under the existing 1.5kvDC. Given 25kvAC for most or all of the route, you could have some seriously chub inducing locos and never give the power supply a second thought. Phwarrrr!
|
|
|
simonl
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Last Visited: Sep 3, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:20 pm
|
| MD wrote: | Rail between Adelaide to Perth has 82% market share, and Melb to Sydney has 10%.
Whats differant about these 2 routes. |
Could it be:
2 drivers are required to Perth
Terminal costs are less important as the distance is longer
The market is less sensitive to transit time as it is not nearly overnight
The Hume highway is dual carriageway about 2/3 of the way
Curves
Grades
|
|
|
mjja
The Ghost of George Stephenson & Moderator
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Sep 6, 2008
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:31 pm
|
|
Simont141, did you take into account the supply chain involved in getting the fuel to the loco? Energy is required to transport diesel, and the emissions put out by the refinery have to be taken into account.
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
Councillor, ARHS Vic Div
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
