Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:04pm.
I briefly discussed an idea to reinstate electric locomotives on major rail freight corridors.
The attached photos, taken at Broken Hill last year, show that reinstating the original ex-SRA electric fleet is impossible, given that all but a handful of that fleet is gone forever!
In brief, the NSW electric fleet consisted of:
40 x 46-class (1956-96): 5 preserved (2 operational), the rest scrapped around 1998-99
10 x 85-class (1980-2002): 2 preserved (none operational), majority scrapped or stripped & stowed awaiting scrapping.
50 x 86-class (1983-2002): 4 preserved (2 operational), 4 operational with Silverton for works trains, majority scrapped (see photos).
If our local freight carriers wish to use electric locomotives in mass numbers, they will have to either import suitable dual-voltage (AC/DC) locomotives that run on existing 1500v D/C as well as existing 25K A/C (as per QR) off-the-shelf or build them locally (VERY expensive proposition).
Tax breaks or similar incentives may be necessary to encourage freight carriers to trade-in their overage & clapped-out diesel units for electrics.
Furthermore, electrification needs to be extended to cover Port Botany, Cooks River, future freight handling road/rail interchanges and main lines out to Port Waratah, Muswellbrook, Bathurst & Goulburn plus completion of the Maldon to Dombarton shortcut from the west to the Port.
The present electrified territory (bounded by Lithgow/ Newcastle/ Port Kembla) is simply too small & limited in scope to make mass electric freight haulage viable in this day & age.
And yes, there is the coal-fired electricity debate to consider, but the optioon of electric power that can be adapted to green power in the long term makes electric haulage one to consider. Between "diseasel" and electric power (which is emission-free and relatively noiseless), the latter has to be seen as the lesser of the two evils.
One major sticking point will be funding of electric infrastructure expansion - who provides the funding? PPP/Govt/Carriers/all of the above?
Any further ideas & comments on how this can be achievable??
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:06pm.
I’m not much of an expert on freight but I know that one of the constraints on the existing electrified network (even though Sydney – Newcastle and Sydney – Lithgow are quite long distances) was that operators considered it inefficient to have to stop trains to change locomotives and then have engines waiting around for their next trains.
So it was cheaper (for them) to run diesels right through.
I also understood that the 85 and 86 class locomotives were quite old technology even in their day. You can probably blame the SRA management for that!
Even in Victoria long distance electric haulage was discontinued many years ago. I gather QR is the only network to make long distance use of electric locomotives.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:09pm.
I know the changeover at the "borders" was the biggest argument against electric haulage. Which is why expanding the system is the way to go.
The carriers could (and should have) thought of the traction changeover as a saving in fuel costs, as electrics, with regenerative braking, actually inject current BACK into the overhead, especially on the downhill descents. That was something RIC was too blinkered to even contemplate when they turned the tide against electrics!
If & when the EPA get serious about diesel emissions and noise levels in populated areas (which is REALLY bad on black-smoke-blowing Alco units!) then freight carriers will have to consider electrics in the urban areas or face emission penalties.
There's no way you could return to 85 & 86-class 1980s technology anyhow, the world's moved on. QR Tri-Bo's are closer to world's best practise, even though we're stuck with relatively energy-inefficient 1500v d/c for the forseeable future (I'm no expert on electric currents, but I understand 25 kilowatt a/c is more efficient of the two forms of traction; can any experts elaborate here?)
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:14pm.
R. wrote:
" If & when the EPA get serious about diesel emissions and noise levels
in populated areas (which is REALLY bad on black-smoke-blowing Alco
units!) then freight carriers will have to consider electrics in the
urban areas or face emission penalties."
(Not if & when but) when fuel shortages hit (I guess within 2 years, but
it could come earlier), where would you put your priorities when using
the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 (as amended in 2007) to instruct oil
companies to supply following fuels. Assume the year-on-year decline is 4%:
(A) Diesel for trucks to move green cars from Port Kembla to Sydney
(B) Bunker oil for coal export ships
(C) Diesel for trucks bringing veggies from Victoria
(D) Aviation fuel for international flights
(E) Aviation fuel for domestic flights
(G) Diesel for freight locos and intercity trains
(H) Diesel to filling stations for general use
(I) Diesel for SES vehicles
(J) Fuels for Navy, Airforce and Army
(K) Bunker oil for a container ships to China likely to come back with
superfluous electronic gadgets and plastic toys
(L) Diesel for trucks to move components for wind farms to a remote site
(M) Diesel for garbage trucks
(N) Diesel for trucks to haul a precious load of wheat which survived
both drought and floods
(O) Petrol for those unlucky motorists who were caught out sitting on a
gas guzzler and couldn't afford to buy a new green car?
(P) Diesel for busses which were not converted to CNG in time
etc. etc. ???
Peak oil means physical shortages, not just higher oil prices.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:20pm.
Hard to speculate, but I reckon it could be prioritised in this order as the vote-chasing State/Federal Govts would see it....
(O) Petrol for those unlucky motorists who were caught out sitting on a
gas guzzler and couldn't afford to buy a new green car?
(B) Bunker oil for coal export ships
(K) Bunker oil for a container ships to China likely to come back with
superfluous electronic gadgets and plastic toys
(J) Fuels for Navy, Airforce and Army
(C) Diesel for trucks bringing veggies from Victoria
(D) Aviation fuel for international flights
(E) Aviation fuel for domestic flights
(I) Diesel for SES vehicles
(A) Diesel for trucks to move green cars from Port Kembla to Sydney
(M) Diesel for garbage trucks
(H) Diesel to filling stations for general use
(P) Diesel for busses which were not converted to CNG in time
(G) Diesel for freight locos
(N) Diesel for trucks to haul a precious load of wheat which survived
both drought and floods
(Ga) Diesel for intercity trains (probably should put this one last!)
(L) Diesel for trucks to move components for wind farms to a remote
site
Looks a bit cynical, but just tellin' it like it is!
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:41pm.
R.; some principles:
25kV AC requires on board transformers to convert to a lower voltage for traction control, leading to weight and volume penalties on train, however 25kV AC needs far fewer power feed points and uses much lighter overhead wiring/lower pantograph pressures. This latter feature also facilitates higher speed operation.
My expectation would be that the existing suburban area, with its high density MU passener traffic and relatively slow operation, should remain 1500V DC, however the line receptivity needs to be improved to maximise the benefits of regeneration; I understand that voltage swings from about 1100 to 2100 are presently allowed. Beyond the suburban area, I expect that conversion to 25kV AC would be worthwhile, and of course the weight/volume penalties for AC electric locomotives would be of no significance at all. Accordingly, dual voltage trains and locomotives would be needed to cover the DC and AC areas.
I also understand that the OSCARS were specified to be able to be fitted with AC collection and transformers to allow dual voltage operation if it is decided to convert the Newcastle and Lightow lines to AC. I do not know if separate pantographs are envisaged, or just a (compromise) pressure adjustment. I also read recently on railpage that there has been a suggestion to electrify to Bathurst.
On locomotive changes, I can report a recent experience in Europe where a five hour journey from Prague to Nuremberg involved two loco changes; from electric to diesel at Pilzen, and from Czech to German diesel at Furth am Wald.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:43pm.
Thanks P. for the insight...
I can see no need to change the suburban system to a/c, for the sake of change, on that basis. The intercity lines to Newcastle (esp the "speedway" north of Gosford) would certainly benefit, but only if curve & gradient realignments (to reduce the number of twists & turns north of Morrisett) can be done concurrently.
It looks like all new electric subruban & intercity multiple-unit trains (post-Millenniums) are being built to dual-vontage to meet any eventuality.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:46pm.
P. wrote: "On locomotive changes, I can report a recent experience in Europe where a five hour journey from Prague to Nuremberg involved two loco changes; from electric to diesel at Pilzen, and from Czech to German diesel at Furth am Wald"
Loco changes in Europe at border crossings have a long tradition. Different technical standards are the main reason. Dual voltage/frequency locos improved the situation markedly, especially between Italy/France/Belgium/Netherlands/Germany but it took a long time to iron out all problems.
1500 V DC Netherlands, France
3000 V DC Belgium, Italy
15 KV AC 16 2/3 Hz Germany, Switzerland, Austria
25 KV AC 50 Hz France, Luxemburg
While researching for multi voltage & frequency locos I found this video with a Taurus loco (suitable to run in all European countries) pulling an intermodal trailer cum container train:
The East-West rail connections in Europe were neglected for decades because of the iron curtain. Trains would stop an hour at the border, sniffer dogs looking for spies and escapees in the undercarriages and roof cavities. At the height of the cold war, all passengers would be forced to disembark with all their luggage and pass through customs & passport control in well guarded sheds and then re-board the same train. Communist party bosses were positioned in the railway departments where they commanded engineers to manage the rail operation to party requirements. That culture took long time to dismantle.
What is still not understood by commenters here is that there will be physical shortages of diesel. So the choice will be to run a train even with a vintage electric loco (if available) to Newcastle or no train at all. Energy costs will skyrocket and will become more important than labour cost. Even time will matter less. So this cost structure which has evolved over decades will go into reverse gear.
I have noted R.'s guess how priorities will be set.. However, when the crunch time comes ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES WILL PREVAIL over individual wishes of motorists. The NRMA will scream but there will be little choice. The first bush fire out of control for lack of diesel for tanker trucks, the first patient to die for lack of petrol for an ambulance, the first food shortages in the shops etc. etc. will make it clear to everyone that times will be changing
Yesterday in the train I met someone who WISHED PEAK OIL TO COME SOON so that alternatives are developed. It took me the whole trip to the city to explain it's not so easy....
The general public is TOTALLY UNAWARE of what's coming.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:11pm.
I would have to agree with G.'s assessment, and add that QR is now probably saving the best part of 200 million litres a year through use
of its modern 25,000 volts AC equipment.
Dear old State Rail has persisted with 1500 volts DC which was advanced technology in 1915 when favoured by Bradfield.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:18pm.
Sheessh! I would not know where to start but with any argument like this, it’s like gas vs diesel buses or whatever, I’d say by all means look at it but remember the real focus should be on the freight/passengers NOT on the system already.
That is, there are so many new lines needed it would seem a waste of scarce funding to go back and rebuild something we already have.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:23pm.
We might need to demonstrate the benefits of electrified rail in order to get any more of it....An argument for electrification could be made for those freight corridors in residential areas - less local pollution, less noise...and should tie in with calls for emissions controls.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:24pm.
My point exactly, I would think the effort would be better spent trying to get freight currently on trucks (in residential areas for example) moved onto diesel freight trains before you devote yourself to then converting diesel freight trains into electric freight trains.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:26pm.
And my point is that you are going to get a hell of a lot of opposition to such movements if you don't deal with the emissions problem. I've lived behind a freight line in Dulwich Hill...the particulates are extraordinary. Any extravagant expansion of the freight movements will need to be accompanied by higher standards for vehicle emissions. Any standard at all would be a start!
But in line with the long-term prospects for the availability of diesel, we should also be looking to electrification to solve this problem of local emissions. Both arguments will need to be made if communities are to be kept on the safe side.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:29pm.
On one hand I agree with G. - incremental changes (with a long-term view) are always best rather than reinventing the wheel staright off.
But "diesel" emissions can't be ignored either, same with noise pollution. I like the idea of minimum "local emissions" standards and financial penalties for their breach. It could be the best catalyst for these carriers to switch to cleaner power, including the "Green Goat" technology that AG wrote about in HoW some time ago.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:31pm.
So long as the same rules apply for trucks and trains (on a tonneage basis) then this should still favour trains.
However sometimes when blanket ‘rules’ get applied across all modes the result can be the opposite of what was originally well intended.
For example a colleague often reminds me that the (rather skewed) implementation of the Waterfall Inquiry, which made trains slower and therefore less time-competitive with cars, will actually result in more deaths on the road because it encourages people to drive more.
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:35pm.
G. wrote: "So long as the same rules apply for trucks and trains (on a tonneage basis) then this should still favour trains."
Good. Love it when that happens!
"However sometimes when blanket ‘rules’ get applied across all modes the result can be the opposite of what was originally well intended."
Yeah, yeah...
"For example a colleague often reminds me that the (rather skewed) implementation of the Waterfall Inquiry, which made trains slower and therefore less time-competitive with cars, will actually result in more deaths on the road because it encourages people to drive more."
Ah. But there is a subtle weirdness about road fatalities that gets in the way of comparisons...far fewer people have died as a result of train accidents, but when an accident occurs it is front page news...car accidents and fatalities happen all the time and are rarely front page news...
So two things are happening:
1. There is an assumption that trains are more dangerous generally - after all nobody seriously suggests that we change the speed limit to avoid car accidents (although we probably should)
2. we are inured to road fatalities (but fascinated by train wrecks...oh the humanity...)
Submitted by ets_admin on 23 January 2008 - 1:48pm.
In 1930-31 the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RR opened its Morris and Essex Division 3000vDC electrification for its suburban trains working to Hoboken Terminal, across the Hudson river from New York City. Passengers transferred to railroad owned ferries and the "Hudson Tubes" rapid transit to reach Manhattan.
This system ran with the same rolling stock and traction supply system from 1930 to 1983, passing through railway company mergers and bankruptcies unchanged, becoming eventually, in 1976 a part of Conrail and operated by the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
By the early seventies it was obvious the entire setup was "life expired" (ratshit) and Something Had To Be Done. De-electrifying and running diesels instead was politically unacceptable, so the opportunity of making the system compatible with the nearby ex-Pennsylvania RR Northeast Corridor electrification was taken.
Built in the 30s, this used 11000v AC at 25Hz, but NJ DOT picked a similar 25kv AC system to Queensland Rail, but at the US 60Hz frequency. Train mounted transformers and rectifiers allow for dual-voltage operation of rolling stock which permits direct operation into Penn Station New York for the first time.
The conversion required complete replacement of the rolling stock, overhead wiring and substations, and increased clearances around the higher-voltage equipment. This was carried out while the DC powered trains continued to operate, and unsurprisingly the original completion date of 1978 wasn't met, and the cost blew out from around $345 million to over $1 billion by the time it was finished.
A similar conversion of the 1915-19 vintage Mount Royal Tunnel 2400vDC system and related suburban lines in Montreal took place in the mid-90s to replace ancient loco hauled and MU rolling stock with modern AC powered MU cars similar to those in Perth and Brisbane. Cost, $420 million. Again, big bucks and a systemwide closedown while the conversion took place.
The New Jersey coversion involved about 130km of routes to convert, Montreal around 30km. NJDOT took 10 years of planning and construction, AMT 6 years. How long for the Cityrail electrified network, particularly as structural clearances would need considerable increases for safety with 25kvAC on a system with a much tighter structure/loading gauge than both North American examples given here. Cityrail has about 1700 track-kilometres under wire excluding proposed extensions. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this one.
Electric Rail Freight
I briefly discussed an idea to reinstate electric locomotives on major rail freight corridors.
The attached photos, taken at Broken Hill last year, show that reinstating the original ex-SRA electric fleet is impossible, given that all but a handful of that fleet is gone forever!
In brief, the NSW electric fleet consisted of:
40 x 46-class (1956-96): 5 preserved (2 operational), the rest scrapped around 1998-99
10 x 85-class (1980-2002): 2 preserved (none operational), majority scrapped or stripped & stowed awaiting scrapping.
50 x 86-class (1983-2002): 4 preserved (2 operational), 4 operational with Silverton for works trains, majority scrapped (see photos).
If our local freight carriers wish to use electric locomotives in mass numbers, they will have to either import suitable dual-voltage (AC/DC) locomotives that run on existing 1500v D/C as well as existing 25K A/C (as per QR) off-the-shelf or build them locally (VERY expensive proposition).
Tax breaks or similar incentives may be necessary to encourage freight carriers to trade-in their overage & clapped-out diesel units for electrics.
Furthermore, electrification needs to be extended to cover Port Botany, Cooks River, future freight handling road/rail interchanges and main lines out to Port Waratah, Muswellbrook, Bathurst & Goulburn plus completion of the Maldon to Dombarton shortcut from the west to the Port.
The present electrified territory (bounded by Lithgow/ Newcastle/ Port Kembla) is simply too small & limited in scope to make mass electric freight haulage viable in this day & age.
And yes, there is the coal-fired electricity debate to consider, but the optioon of electric power that can be adapted to green power in the long term makes electric haulage one to consider. Between "diseasel" and electric power (which is emission-free and relatively noiseless), the latter has to be seen as the lesser of the two evils.
One major sticking point will be funding of electric infrastructure expansion - who provides the funding? PPP/Govt/Carriers/all of the above?
Any further ideas & comments on how this can be achievable??
Constraints
I’m not much of an expert on freight but I know that one of the constraints on the existing electrified network (even though Sydney – Newcastle and Sydney – Lithgow are quite long distances) was that operators considered it inefficient to have to stop trains to change locomotives and then have engines waiting around for their next trains.
So it was cheaper (for them) to run diesels right through.
I also understood that the 85 and 86 class locomotives were quite old technology even in their day. You can probably blame the SRA management for that!
Even in Victoria long distance electric haulage was discontinued many years ago. I gather QR is the only network to make long distance use of electric locomotives.
G.
Maybe QR are onto something?
I know the changeover at the "borders" was the biggest argument against electric haulage. Which is why expanding the system is the way to go.
The carriers could (and should have) thought of the traction changeover as a saving in fuel costs, as electrics, with regenerative braking, actually inject current BACK into the overhead, especially on the downhill descents. That was something RIC was too blinkered to even contemplate when they turned the tide against electrics!
If & when the EPA get serious about diesel emissions and noise levels in populated areas (which is REALLY bad on black-smoke-blowing Alco units!) then freight carriers will have to consider electrics in the urban areas or face emission penalties.
There's no way you could return to 85 & 86-class 1980s technology anyhow, the world's moved on. QR Tri-Bo's are closer to world's best practise, even though we're stuck with relatively energy-inefficient 1500v d/c for the forseeable future (I'm no expert on electric currents, but I understand 25 kilowatt a/c is more efficient of the two forms of traction; can any experts elaborate here?)
R.
Not if, but when, we all start to get serious...about peak oil
R. wrote:
" If & when the EPA get serious about diesel emissions and noise levels
in populated areas (which is REALLY bad on black-smoke-blowing Alco
units!) then freight carriers will have to consider electrics in the
urban areas or face emission penalties."
(Not if & when but) when fuel shortages hit (I guess within 2 years, but
it could come earlier), where would you put your priorities when using
the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 (as amended in 2007) to instruct oil
companies to supply following fuels. Assume the year-on-year decline is 4%:
(A) Diesel for trucks to move green cars from Port Kembla to Sydney
(B) Bunker oil for coal export ships
(C) Diesel for trucks bringing veggies from Victoria
(D) Aviation fuel for international flights
(E) Aviation fuel for domestic flights
(G) Diesel for freight locos and intercity trains
(H) Diesel to filling stations for general use
(I) Diesel for SES vehicles
(J) Fuels for Navy, Airforce and Army
(K) Bunker oil for a container ships to China likely to come back with
superfluous electronic gadgets and plastic toys
(L) Diesel for trucks to move components for wind farms to a remote site
(M) Diesel for garbage trucks
(N) Diesel for trucks to haul a precious load of wheat which survived
both drought and floods
(O) Petrol for those unlucky motorists who were caught out sitting on a
gas guzzler and couldn't afford to buy a new green car?
(P) Diesel for busses which were not converted to CNG in time
etc. etc. ???
Peak oil means physical shortages, not just higher oil prices.
M.
Speculation on priorities (grim humour)
Hard to speculate, but I reckon it could be prioritised in this order as the vote-chasing State/Federal Govts would see it....
(O) Petrol for those unlucky motorists who were caught out sitting on a
gas guzzler and couldn't afford to buy a new green car?
(B) Bunker oil for coal export ships
(K) Bunker oil for a container ships to China likely to come back with
superfluous electronic gadgets and plastic toys
(J) Fuels for Navy, Airforce and Army
(C) Diesel for trucks bringing veggies from Victoria
(D) Aviation fuel for international flights
(E) Aviation fuel for domestic flights
(I) Diesel for SES vehicles
(A) Diesel for trucks to move green cars from Port Kembla to Sydney
(M) Diesel for garbage trucks
(H) Diesel to filling stations for general use
(P) Diesel for busses which were not converted to CNG in time
(G) Diesel for freight locos
(N) Diesel for trucks to haul a precious load of wheat which survived
both drought and floods
(Ga) Diesel for intercity trains (probably should put this one last!)
(L) Diesel for trucks to move components for wind farms to a remote
site
Looks a bit cynical, but just tellin' it like it is!
R.
Some Principles...
R.; some principles:
25kV AC requires on board transformers to convert to a lower voltage for traction control, leading to weight and volume penalties on train, however 25kV AC needs far fewer power feed points and uses much lighter overhead wiring/lower pantograph pressures. This latter feature also facilitates higher speed operation.
My expectation would be that the existing suburban area, with its high density MU passener traffic and relatively slow operation, should remain 1500V DC, however the line receptivity needs to be improved to maximise the benefits of regeneration; I understand that voltage swings from about 1100 to 2100 are presently allowed. Beyond the suburban area, I expect that conversion to 25kV AC would be worthwhile, and of course the weight/volume penalties for AC electric locomotives would be of no significance at all. Accordingly, dual voltage trains and locomotives would be needed to cover the DC and AC areas.
I also understand that the OSCARS were specified to be able to be fitted with AC collection and transformers to allow dual voltage operation if it is decided to convert the Newcastle and Lightow lines to AC. I do not know if separate pantographs are envisaged, or just a (compromise) pressure adjustment. I also read recently on railpage that there has been a suggestion to electrify to Bathurst.
On locomotive changes, I can report a recent experience in Europe where a five hour journey from Prague to Nuremberg involved two loco changes; from electric to diesel at Pilzen, and from Czech to German diesel at Furth am Wald.
P.
Interesting...
Thanks P. for the insight...
I can see no need to change the suburban system to a/c, for the sake of change, on that basis. The intercity lines to Newcastle (esp the "speedway" north of Gosford) would certainly benefit, but only if curve & gradient realignments (to reduce the number of twists & turns north of Morrisett) can be done concurrently.
It looks like all new electric subruban & intercity multiple-unit trains (post-Millenniums) are being built to dual-vontage to meet any eventuality.
R.
No dual voltage requirement yet...
Just one point of clarification. I am not aware of any intention for the PPP trains to be convertible to dual voltage.
P.
Sounds like a problem
Is that something we should be highlighting? It looks like being set up for dual voltage is a useful thing...
LM
P. wrote: "On locomotive
P. wrote:
"On locomotive changes, I can report a recent experience in Europe where a five hour journey from Prague to Nuremberg involved two loco changes; from electric to diesel at Pilzen, and from Czech to German diesel at Furth am Wald"
Loco changes in Europe at border crossings have a long tradition. Different technical standards are the main reason. Dual voltage/frequency locos improved the situation markedly, especially between Italy/France/Belgium/Netherlands/Germany but it took a long time to iron out all problems.
1500 V DC Netherlands, France
3000 V DC Belgium, Italy
15 KV AC 16 2/3 Hz Germany, Switzerland, Austria
25 KV AC 50 Hz France, Luxemburg
While researching for multi voltage & frequency locos I found this video with a Taurus loco (suitable to run in all European countries) pulling an intermodal trailer cum container train:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF37dU8UAZw
look here for details:
http://www.vandierenmaritime.nl/equipment/
In Austria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlj8q15ej7M
The East-West rail connections in Europe were neglected for decades because of the iron curtain. Trains would stop an hour at the border, sniffer dogs looking for spies and escapees in the undercarriages and roof cavities. At the height of the cold war, all passengers would be forced to disembark with all their luggage and pass through customs & passport control in well guarded sheds and then re-board the same train. Communist party bosses were positioned in the railway departments where they commanded engineers to manage the rail operation to party requirements. That culture took long time to dismantle.
What is still not understood by commenters here is that there will be physical shortages of diesel. So the choice will be to run a train even with a vintage electric loco (if available) to Newcastle or no train at all. Energy costs will skyrocket and will become more important than labour cost. Even time will matter less. So this cost structure which has evolved over decades will go into reverse gear.
I have noted R.'s guess how priorities will be set.. However, when the crunch time comes ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES WILL PREVAIL over individual wishes of motorists. The NRMA will scream but there will be little choice. The first bush fire out of control for lack of diesel for tanker trucks, the first patient to die for lack of petrol for an ambulance, the first food shortages in the shops etc. etc. will make it clear to everyone that times will be changing
Yesterday in the train I met someone who WISHED PEAK OIL TO COME SOON so that alternatives are developed. It took me the whole trip to the city to explain it's not so easy....
The general public is TOTALLY UNAWARE of what's coming.
M.
Time to take another look at rail
I would have to agree with G.'s assessment, and add that QR is now probably saving the best part of 200 million litres a year through use
of its modern 25,000 volts AC equipment.
Dear old State Rail has persisted with 1500 volts DC which was advanced technology in 1915 when favoured by Bradfield.
Regards, P.
Costs of system-wide changes...
Just to throw someting else into the mix....
Has anyone attempted to cost a system-wide changeover from 1500v d/c to 25 k/v a/c? Are the efficiencies worth pursuing?
R.
Maybe not...
Sheessh! I would not know where to start but with any argument like this, it’s like gas vs diesel buses or whatever, I’d say by all means look at it but remember the real focus should be on the freight/passengers NOT on the system already.
That is, there are so many new lines needed it would seem a waste of scarce funding to go back and rebuild something we already have.
G.
Electrification Does Double Duty
We might need to demonstrate the benefits of electrified rail in order to get any more of it....An argument for electrification could be made for those freight corridors in residential areas - less local pollution, less noise...and should tie in with calls for emissions controls.
LM
More rail freight needed first...
My point exactly, I would think the effort would be better spent trying to get freight currently on trucks (in residential areas for example) moved onto diesel freight trains before you devote yourself to then converting diesel freight trains into electric freight trains.
One step at a time.
G.
Chicken and Egg argument...
And my point is that you are going to get a hell of a lot of opposition to such movements if you don't deal with the emissions problem. I've lived behind a freight line in Dulwich Hill...the particulates are extraordinary. Any extravagant expansion of the freight movements will need to be accompanied by higher standards for vehicle emissions. Any standard at all would be a start!
But in line with the long-term prospects for the availability of diesel, we should also be looking to electrification to solve this problem of local emissions. Both arguments will need to be made if communities are to be kept on the safe side.
LM
Can't ignore emissions...
On one hand I agree with G. - incremental changes (with a long-term view) are always best rather than reinventing the wheel staright off.
But "diesel" emissions can't be ignored either, same with noise pollution. I like the idea of minimum "local emissions" standards and financial penalties for their breach. It could be the best catalyst for these carriers to switch to cleaner power, including the "Green Goat" technology that AG wrote about in HoW some time ago.
R.
Should be same rules for trains and trucks
So long as the same rules apply for trucks and trains (on a tonneage basis) then this should still favour trains.
However sometimes when blanket ‘rules’ get applied across all modes the result can be the opposite of what was originally well intended.
For example a colleague often reminds me that the (rather skewed) implementation of the Waterfall Inquiry, which made trains slower and therefore less time-competitive with cars, will actually result in more deaths on the road because it encourages people to drive more.
G.
G. wrote: "So long as the
G. wrote:
"So long as the same rules apply for trucks and trains (on a tonneage basis) then this should still favour trains."
Good. Love it when that happens!
"However sometimes when blanket ‘rules’ get applied across all modes the result can be the opposite of what was originally well intended."
Yeah, yeah...
"For example a colleague often reminds me that the (rather skewed) implementation of the Waterfall Inquiry, which made trains slower and therefore less time-competitive with cars, will actually result in more deaths on the road because it encourages people to drive more."
Ah. But there is a subtle weirdness about road fatalities that gets in the way of comparisons...far fewer people have died as a result of train accidents, but when an accident occurs it is front page news...car accidents and fatalities happen all the time and are rarely front page news...
So two things are happening:
1. There is an assumption that trains are more dangerous generally - after all nobody seriously suggests that we change the speed limit to avoid car accidents (although we probably should)
2. we are inured to road fatalities (but fascinated by train wrecks...oh the humanity...)
I think it may be the scale...
LM
Blood is newsworthy...but trainwrecks are better...
Reporting the Road Toll figures on the news desensitises people to the carnage.....
"75 people killed in NSW this summer, which is 20% down on last year's road toll...."
As if that's great news....? I guess it's more newsworthy than saying that no-one died on the rail system nationally this summer (ho-hum)....!
R.
I'm with L...
Yeah, I'm with L. (... intellectually speaking ... ) on this issue
FM.G
Two Examples of Converting an old DC traction supply to AC.
In 1930-31 the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RR opened its Morris and Essex Division 3000vDC electrification for its suburban trains working to Hoboken Terminal, across the Hudson river from New York City. Passengers transferred to railroad owned ferries and the "Hudson Tubes" rapid transit to reach Manhattan.
This system ran with the same rolling stock and traction supply system from 1930 to 1983, passing through railway company mergers and bankruptcies unchanged, becoming eventually, in 1976 a part of Conrail and operated by the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
By the early seventies it was obvious the entire setup was "life expired" (ratshit) and Something Had To Be Done. De-electrifying and running diesels instead was politically unacceptable, so the opportunity of making the system compatible with the nearby ex-Pennsylvania RR Northeast Corridor electrification was taken.
Built in the 30s, this used 11000v AC at 25Hz, but NJ DOT picked a similar 25kv AC system to Queensland Rail, but at the US 60Hz frequency. Train mounted transformers and rectifiers allow for dual-voltage operation of rolling stock which permits direct operation into Penn Station New York for the first time.
The conversion required complete replacement of the rolling stock, overhead wiring and substations, and increased clearances around the higher-voltage equipment. This was carried out while the DC powered trains continued to operate, and unsurprisingly the original completion date of 1978 wasn't met, and the cost blew out from around $345 million to over $1 billion by the time it was finished.
A similar conversion of the 1915-19 vintage Mount Royal Tunnel 2400vDC system and related suburban lines in Montreal took place in the mid-90s to replace ancient loco hauled and MU rolling stock with modern AC powered MU cars similar to those in Perth and Brisbane. Cost, $420 million. Again, big bucks and a systemwide closedown while the conversion took place.
The New Jersey coversion involved about 130km of routes to convert, Montreal around 30km. NJDOT took 10 years of planning and construction, AMT 6 years. How long for the Cityrail electrified network, particularly as structural clearances would need considerable increases for safety with 25kvAC on a system with a much tighter structure/loading gauge than both North American examples given here. Cityrail has about 1700 track-kilometres under wire excluding proposed extensions. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this one.
Cheers, T.