Electrification of all main railways in Australia

GeoffThomas · Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:46 am

There is a proposal to electrify 38,000 miles of railway in America, the very informative background and supporting info has much relevance to Australia, and to my personal interest that the electrification of the Queensland line from Rockhampton to Cairns be given higher priority.
This is the link to the article,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301
I think the arguments apply to many other areas in Australia as well.
Any feedback on the article and it's relevance to the Rockhampton to Cairns electrification and others would be appreciated.
Regards,
Geoff Thomas.
Kuranda. Qld.

awsgc24 · Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:50 am

Electrification of ALL railways in Australia is simply not going to happen, as traffic densities do not justify this.

More limited proposals might include:

Hunter Valley NSW for coal.
Some diesel coal lines in Qld.
Kiama to Nowra (as it is a loose end)
Sydney to Melbourne (but please wait until resignalling and track rationalisation including 1800m refuges are done).
Adelaide Metro
Melbourne Metro extensions.
Pilbara?

GeoffThomas · Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:36 am

Dear Minister, I am not up to speed on the Australian railway system, although many years ago, (37 to be exact) I was working as a shunter then a guard, - even then it was noticeable that freight was moving to trucks, - mind you part of that was bureaucratic indifference to customers' needs, but if nothing was to change I could see that the railways could not justify major expansion.
However, as the article points out, Peak Oil does change the situation, if the fuel price increases and increases, as we have seen, then the economics will shift, - and it would be better to be prepared.
The other factor is that Australia is being bled dry by the purchase of overseas oil, freight should go away from trucks and back to trains, but the trains should go away from diesel as well.
Do you know if anyone has done some research on what would be the point at which efficient trains will overtake trucks as the major freight option nationally?
Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.
Kuranda. Qld.

alstom_888m · Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:13 am

So that's the problem. With the current pollies attitude, we WON'T be adequately prepared.

Reliable, Economical, Safe, By Rail.

Away for Summer. Won't be on RP.

simonl · Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:27 pm

37M · Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:12 am

Here in Victoria we have a reputation for un-electrifying lines , unless they are part of the suburban network.

BDA · Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:26 pm

The best economic outcome is to have decent rail alignments before you even think about electrification - I suppose we could have the concrete sleepered electrified railways and then realise the alignments are RS .

One thing at a time , better alignments - on concrete sleepers - to realise shorter journey times with better fuel consumption .

I don't think I'd panic or idealise about peak oil if I were you , the eco nazis in this world either hug trees or hug multi national bonuses . Carbon trading taxes are a rort , if the seas aren't rising then neither are the hairs on the back of my neck . Kev (and that moron Al Gore) may be able to fool some of the people some of the time ...
Global warming - spare me . The lefty kelp eaters love to froth about it but their attention seeking pantomines don't stand up to proper scientific research . NASA makes it their business to know more than the average news reader about what's really going on - strange that political interference (budget threats) uphold political spin .

fabricator · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:37 am

When (not if BDA) Oil becomes the biggest expense in the transporting of goods, trains will still be profitable. Simple reason being one 600hp loco can haul far more tonnage than one 600hp truck. Then you have the savings from fewer people required to drive a train vs 50 trucks.

Adelaide Metro is being electrified, well in 2012 due to a slight capacity/redundancy issue with the CBD's power grid, which needs fixing first.

Not sure what would be better though:
1. Electrify interstate lines
2. Fewer but longer passing loops (join two loops together), to use less fuel
3. Alternative fuels (Hydrogen for example)

Personally I'd like to see high speed electric trains on the Port Augusta - Perth line. Long straight sections of track, few towns, the true tyranny of distance. Could pick up some records if really high speed trains were chosen.

E1109 · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:51 am

bevans · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:05 am

bevans · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:08 am

bingley hall · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:51 am

Pressman · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:13 pm

Interesting to note that this proposal calls for electrifying 36,000 of 177,000 miles of track, thats just 20% of the tracks!
Do you really save so much? The extra supply capacity must be generated somehow and somewhere. They talk of windfarms along the mainlines, but you'll find there is a lot more to it than just placing a few wind generaters here and there.
Will freight customers (and the general public) accept "sorry the train is delayed because the wind isn't blowing today" as an excuse for non arrival of shipments

Some of the comments are interesting.
There is the usual splatter of "This bridge or that tunnel doesn't have sufficient clearance!" (Seems they have the same mindset as some railpagers!)
Best one I think is the guy saying HVAC and LVAC is a dinosaur and they would be best to use LVDC overhead! Rolling Eyes

And don't forget the one that intermates all this electrification will cause copper prices to rise so much faster than oil prices

Cheers,
Tony
Still drying out the falcoon after the now imfamous creek incident!http://tony33.fotopic.net

MD · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:20 pm

Have you ever wondered why WA isnt part of the national Electricity Market, given that it would only need around a 2500 KM power cable to connect WA to the eastern power grid.

GeoffThomas · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:28 am

Interesting to note that this proposal calls for electrifying 36,000 of 177,000 miles of track, thats just 20% of the tracks!

Hi Tony, below are the figures from the Oil Drum article, - admittedly I do not know what the "Pareto Principle" is.
It is part of the reason that this article is a good base for this discussion because so much work has already gone into it that practical aspects can be considered.
Cheers,
Geoff Thomas

PS, Wind turbines feed into the national grid, they are just part of the mix, so the grid does not go down when the wind slows.
G

"The USA has 177,000 miles of railroads, with the Department of Defense classifying 32,421 miles as strategic (STRACNET). These selected rail lines correlate closely, but not exactly, with what are considered “main line” railroads. DoD only selected one rail line when two main lines parallel and a few main lines are not considered strategic. 36,000 miles should cover all of the main lines.

The Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) suggests that the 36,000 miles of main line railroad should carry 80% of the railroad ton-miles, and burn 80% of the fuel (there being no electrified freight lines in the USA), or 185,000 barrels/day"[/quote]