A couple of months ago, the Australian Greens got a minor splash in the media with their proposal for a $10 million feasibility study of an inter-capital (which, at least initially, would presumably mean Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney) high speed rail link. I can’t find the confirmation online, but as I understand it, the idea came from the work of the CRC for Rail Innovation, which produced a research report on the idea in early April.
For anybody who’s done the Sydney-Melbourne milk run by plane, the idea has immediate appeal. Once you throw in all the rigmarole surrounding a flight, one and a bit hours on the plane turns into four hours of hassle from CBD to CBD. A high-speed rail link would be pretty close in terms of travel time, and would be infinitely more pleasant. And, let’s face it, fast trains excite the Top Trumps player in all of us (what, you don’t all have a pack sitting in a cupboard at home somewhere?)
But while fast trains might capture the imagination, there are a bunch of other things Australia could do with its rail network, some of which are nicely described in another research report, Transforming Rail: A Key Element in Australia’s Low Pollution Future.
An example:
Standards for rolling stock: Uniform standards for rolling stock, perhaps in line with the US AAR (American Association of Railroads) standards, are highly desirable. These standards would require increasing the width and height of the rail corridor to accommodate larger rolling stock and increasing the strength of the rail track to accept heavier rolling stock. This would remove the current impediment of all new rolling stock having to be redesigned and specially built for the Australian market, which prevents the rail market from responding to market growth, increases equipment costs, reduces competitiveness with road, and delays the introduction of new technology. The current waiting time for a purchase of a new locomotive in the USA is 2 months, compared to 2 years in Australia for equipment based on an older design. Significant productivity and energy efficiency gains from carrying a greater mass per train would also be achieved.
Rolling stock standards and track upgrades to allow us to run internationally-standardized locomotives and freight cars. Hardly as sexy as a VFT, is it? But, in terms of environmental and efficiency benefits, it might (emphasis might) be more effective. It might be that both make sense. Or neither. But the VFT will always get all the attention, the track upgrades relatively little.
While visionary projects like high speed rail are all very well (and I don’t blame the Greens for running with the idea one bit; a feasibility study on the VFT is cheap at the price), boring but worthwhile deserves attention too.
The cost to standardise would be immense, but it may feasible and economic.
Of course, there are local jobs in making locomotives and rolling stock here, that could be lost if we could just get them off the lot from the US. Mind you, they still need maintenance infrastructure to keep them running, so not all jobs would go.
Our locomotives could do with renewal, for example, the 48 class branch line loco’s were old when I was a railie back in the late ’80′s and they are still in service.
There are some interesting designs we could get from the US. I remember seeing a low emmissions/low fuel consumption locomotive at a conference. Instead of storing braking effort as electrical power, like the hybrid cars, they used a big hydraulic reservoir. Much cheaper over the life time as there was no need to replace batteries and the like. The technology was pretty much off the shelf stuff.
The cost to standardise would be immense, but it may feasible and economic.
Of course, there are local jobs in making locomotives and rolling stock here, that could be lost if we could just get them off the lot from the US. Mind you, they still need maintenance infrastructure to keep them running, so not all jobs would go.
Our locomotives could do with renewal, for example, the 48 class branch line loco’s were old when I was a railie back in the late ’80′s and they are still in service.
There are some interesting designs we could get from the US. I remember seeing a low emmissions/low fuel consumption locomotive at a conference. Instead of storing braking effort as electrical power, like the hybrid cars, they used a big hydraulic reservoir. Much cheaper over the life time as there was no need to replace batteries and the like. The technology was pretty much off the shelf stuff.
High Speed trains are necessary for a low carbon future!
High Speed trains are necessary for a low carbon future!
Anyone travelled on the Hume Highway lately? It is just disgusting that all that heavy freight gets put onto dangerous, highly subsidised (through the roads) B-doubles.
There really are massive gains for the taking here with relatively modest investments in old-fashioned rail freight and shipping. Let’s get them done before worrying about bullet trains.
Anyone travelled on the Hume Highway lately? It is just disgusting that all that heavy freight gets put onto dangerous, highly subsidised (through the roads) B-doubles.
There really are massive gains for the taking here with relatively modest investments in old-fashioned rail freight and shipping. Let’s get them done before worrying about bullet trains.
Of course, it’s worth noting that the Greens have also repeatedly called for shifting freight off road and onto rail for many years. The fact that those calls received bugger all publicity while the VFT / HSR proposal received tonnes just goes to confirm the thesis of your post, Robert…
Of course, it’s worth noting that the Greens have also repeatedly called for shifting freight off road and onto rail for many years. The fact that those calls received bugger all publicity while the VFT / HSR proposal received tonnes just goes to confirm the thesis of your post, Robert…
Oh, agreed, Tim. And I wasn’t intending this post to be a criticism of the Greens at all.
Oh, agreed, Tim. And I wasn’t intending this post to be a criticism of the Greens at all.
I think it a valuable idea, obviously, but as the paper points out, putting a price on stationary CO2 emssions but exempting transport would have the effect of prejuding rail transport that was drawing power from the grid.
I think it a valuable idea, obviously, but as the paper points out, putting a price on stationary CO2 emssions but exempting transport would have the effect of prejuding rail transport that was drawing power from the grid.
“…Actually it’s more of a Shelbyville idea”
“…Actually it’s more of a Shelbyville idea”
That’s a pretty easy one to fix, Fran, even if the government keeps its stupid policy to exempt transport fuel from the CPRS.
I’m sure an actual economist could improve on this, but as a first pass, you could figure out what the emissions intensity per tonne-kilometer of road freight is and pay that as a subsidy for rail.
That’s a pretty easy one to fix, Fran, even if the government keeps its stupid policy to exempt transport fuel from the CPRS.
I’m sure an actual economist could improve on this, but as a first pass, you could figure out what the emissions intensity per tonne-kilometer of road freight is and pay that as a subsidy for rail.
I am absolutely amazed by the suggestion to consider importing American rolling stock given that it is wider and higher than existing Australian rail corridors. It might only take 2 months to import rolling stock but it will take years to upgrade the lines to carry it.
It is currently taking RailCorp 3-5 years to build 12km Wodonga bypass, the original track 300km was laid in 6 months in the 1880s. When the project is finished in late 2010 there will still be long sections of single standard gauge track between the Victorian border and Melbourne.
I am absolutely amazed by the suggestion to consider importing American rolling stock given that it is wider and higher than existing Australian rail corridors. It might only take 2 months to import rolling stock but it will take years to upgrade the lines to carry it.
It is currently taking RailCorp 3-5 years to build 12km Wodonga bypass, the original track 300km was laid in 6 months in the 1880s. When the project is finished in late 2010 there will still be long sections of single standard gauge track between the Victorian border and Melbourne.
Not really Robert. Assuming we aren’t going with a comprehensive system of CO2 pricing …
A better idea would be to work out what the cost implications of CO2 in rail transport were and pay them that. After all, it’s not only CO2 that is the problem with road transport.
Better still would be to make road and rail transport pay for their entire footprint on a per unit of distance basis — not just CO2.
Not really Robert. Assuming we aren’t going with a comprehensive system of CO2 pricing …
A better idea would be to work out what the cost implications of CO2 in rail transport were and pay them that. After all, it’s not only CO2 that is the problem with road transport.
Better still would be to make road and rail transport pay for their entire footprint on a per unit of distance basis — not just CO2.
Everything that you are aluding to here, Robert, would require an idelogical shift to “strategic capitalism”. This is the Chinese Communist model. Definitely not the Australian one.
What can strategic capitalism achieve? Here is an example under way right now. You know that I am interested in aircraft. One of my pet preferences is the Epic
elite Jet. Epic Aircraft company designed the Epic LT turbo prop, one of the smartest all composite air vehicles ever designed. A plane that routinely perfroms at 810 kph (jet speed). Because of the global economic crisis Epic was spat out by conventional capitalism and went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. Of the vulture bidders picking over the carcas the court ordered that the company be purchased by the lowest bidder, the Chinese government. Yesterday I learnt that at the moment there is a worldwide shortage of FANUC CNC controllers, and this is because the Chinese government is buying up huge quantities of CNC machines. And why are they doing this? Because they are building an aerospace industry. And the Epic LT is a cash cow practice run which will probably turn up in every tourist venue around the world to compete with the Pilatus Porter.
Our mish mashed capitalistic ideology serves some of the people all of the time, and the rest are fodder. Listening to the average American talking about their standard of living is no advertisement for capitalism, and there but for our mountain of minerals go we.
So changing our rail system? None to Buckleys. A family friend is responsible for all of the track maintenance in the Sydney region (that used to be my grandfather’s job) and my impression is “we can’t keep up with maintanining what we alrady have let alone rebuild it” would be the reaction, but I’ll ask at the next group function. I also have it on my list to ask about Fran’s over rail cycleway, but I want to have a recorder on hand to “get” the reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Aircraft
Everything that you are aluding to here, Robert, would require an idelogical shift to “strategic capitalism”. This is the Chinese Communist model. Definitely not the Australian one.
What can strategic capitalism achieve? Here is an example under way right now. You know that I am interested in aircraft. One of my pet preferences is the Epic
elite Jet. Epic Aircraft company designed the Epic LT turbo prop, one of the smartest all composite air vehicles ever designed. A plane that routinely perfroms at 810 kph (jet speed). Because of the global economic crisis Epic was spat out by conventional capitalism and went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. Of the vulture bidders picking over the carcas the court ordered that the company be purchased by the lowest bidder, the Chinese government. Yesterday I learnt that at the moment there is a worldwide shortage of FANUC CNC controllers, and this is because the Chinese government is buying up huge quantities of CNC machines. And why are they doing this? Because they are building an aerospace industry. And the Epic LT is a cash cow practice run which will probably turn up in every tourist venue around the world to compete with the Pilatus Porter.
Our mish mashed capitalistic ideology serves some of the people all of the time, and the rest are fodder. Listening to the average American talking about their standard of living is no advertisement for capitalism, and there but for our mountain of minerals go we.
So changing our rail system? None to Buckleys. A family friend is responsible for all of the track maintenance in the Sydney region (that used to be my grandfather’s job) and my impression is “we can’t keep up with maintanining what we alrady have let alone rebuild it” would be the reaction, but I’ll ask at the next group function. I also have it on my list to ask about Fran’s over rail cycleway, but I want to have a recorder on hand to “get” the reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Aircraft
I can’t help but think that a far cheaper and more useful place to stick fast trains would be between Melbourne, Geelong, and Ballarat. For NSW, you could connect Wollongong, Sydney, and Newcastle. This would allow people to live in satellite cities and still get to work faster than living in the suburbs (especially Sydney). In addition, if they could do these things at a reasonable cost, and not at a cost that multiplies like a rabbit (cf. the recent “fast” train developments in Victoria and similar proposals in Sydney), people might actually think it’s a good idea and support it.
I can’t help but think that a far cheaper and more useful place to stick fast trains would be between Melbourne, Geelong, and Ballarat. For NSW, you could connect Wollongong, Sydney, and Newcastle. This would allow people to live in satellite cities and still get to work faster than living in the suburbs (especially Sydney). In addition, if they could do these things at a reasonable cost, and not at a cost that multiplies like a rabbit (cf. the recent “fast” train developments in Victoria and similar proposals in Sydney), people might actually think it’s a good idea and support it.
It’s not either-or, but both. Fast trains get intercity commuters off the planes and back down to Earth, without the need to find parking places or spend hours in traffic jams while approaching the destination CBD, while heavy freight trains get big trucks off the roads. These are two different transport niches. If we are talking two different designs of train and rail, then so be it. Run them side by side in the same corridor.
Yes, Ballarat, Geelong and Bendigo should be connected to Melbourne (Ballarat is on the way to Adelaide, also), Newcastle and Wollongong to Sydney, Toowoomba and Ipswich to Brisbane, but these are either spurs off from or intermediate stops on the main A-M-C-S-B axis. Get that much connectivity and you have a very large proportion of the population of the country close to the high speed and heavy freight railways.
Still wondering why the Greens’ feasibility study was costed at $10 million, though, which is equivalent to a good few percent of the total Australian Research Council research budget. Is it intended only to employ millionaires, or do they want to build a very, very big train set?
It’s not either-or, but both. Fast trains get intercity commuters off the planes and back down to Earth, without the need to find parking places or spend hours in traffic jams while approaching the destination CBD, while heavy freight trains get big trucks off the roads. These are two different transport niches. If we are talking two different designs of train and rail, then so be it. Run them side by side in the same corridor.
Yes, Ballarat, Geelong and Bendigo should be connected to Melbourne (Ballarat is on the way to Adelaide, also), Newcastle and Wollongong to Sydney, Toowoomba and Ipswich to Brisbane, but these are either spurs off from or intermediate stops on the main A-M-C-S-B axis. Get that much connectivity and you have a very large proportion of the population of the country close to the high speed and heavy freight railways.
Still wondering why the Greens’ feasibility study was costed at $10 million, though, which is equivalent to a good few percent of the total Australian Research Council research budget. Is it intended only to employ millionaires, or do they want to build a very, very big train set?
My beloved Gizmag had this interesting article on what they called “string rail” a system. They say that
On costs the article says that:
My beloved Gizmag had this interesting article on what they called “string rail” a system. They say that
On costs the article says that:
I’m not sure any government anywhere in Oz has much of a handle on just how degraded the rail system is. The line north of Armidale is unused (passenger train stops here and goes no further) – a big, empty, useless corridor that twists and turns up and around the mountains of the north to the QLD border over a hundred broken, falling apart bridges. It has so many switchbacks over the hills you simply marvel at the achievement.
It’d be tough to re-enginer the route itself for heavy transport rail, let alone the investment in replacing all those bridges (or buying land for a route more suitable for heavy trains rather than the tiddly steam stuff it was built for).
Rebuilding the tracks to suit american gauges is a tiny, tiny bit of the cost involved in making inter-state transport links suitable for replacing road trains. You’d have to start with new corridors, period.
I’m not sure any government anywhere in Oz has much of a handle on just how degraded the rail system is. The line north of Armidale is unused (passenger train stops here and goes no further) – a big, empty, useless corridor that twists and turns up and around the mountains of the north to the QLD border over a hundred broken, falling apart bridges. It has so many switchbacks over the hills you simply marvel at the achievement.
It’d be tough to re-enginer the route itself for heavy transport rail, let alone the investment in replacing all those bridges (or buying land for a route more suitable for heavy trains rather than the tiddly steam stuff it was built for).
Rebuilding the tracks to suit american gauges is a tiny, tiny bit of the cost involved in making inter-state transport links suitable for replacing road trains. You’d have to start with new corridors, period.
Yes I saw that one too, John D. It is a fresh twist. I think that I would be suspending the cars from over head rails rather than balancing atop the rails, for a few reasons. Car size would be an issue. but such a system could operate at elevated levels intersecting buildings thereby improving access without great cost. I doubt the $50,000 per kilometre, but the cost would be very much less than inground systems or any of the monorail concepts. The rails would have dips for any significant span so the passengers would have to be ok with the rising and falling as the cars travelled along. Overall a good fresh take on many old themes.
On the rail loadings, the higher the per wheel loading the greater the amount of rail maintenance required. The change to concrete sleepers was a huge improvement, but they cause another problem (that I can’t remember the nature of off hand). Today’s track maintenance machinery does a magnificent job of dressing and rebedding the thousands of kilometres of Australia’s rail track. But the higher axle loadings are meaning that the rails need to be redressed more often, along with the service standard being much higher than for 50 years ago.
Yes I saw that one too, John D. It is a fresh twist. I think that I would be suspending the cars from over head rails rather than balancing atop the rails, for a few reasons. Car size would be an issue. but such a system could operate at elevated levels intersecting buildings thereby improving access without great cost. I doubt the $50,000 per kilometre, but the cost would be very much less than inground systems or any of the monorail concepts. The rails would have dips for any significant span so the passengers would have to be ok with the rising and falling as the cars travelled along. Overall a good fresh take on many old themes.
On the rail loadings, the higher the per wheel loading the greater the amount of rail maintenance required. The change to concrete sleepers was a huge improvement, but they cause another problem (that I can’t remember the nature of off hand). Today’s track maintenance machinery does a magnificent job of dressing and rebedding the thousands of kilometres of Australia’s rail track. But the higher axle loadings are meaning that the rails need to be redressed more often, along with the service standard being much higher than for 50 years ago.
“It’s not either-or, but both”
My reason for them to put in shorter lines first is that I wouldn’t trust either the NSW or VIC government to build a bird-cage, let alone a train line (I imagine many other people wouldn’t either). The VIC government now gives mind boggling large figures for things. For example, the 3 kilometers of track they are laying from South Morang to Epping comes at a cost of approximately $200 million per kilometer, although some of that is for upgrading a few other bits of the line. That also isn’t the final cost, which, based on past history, won’t be anything like quoted (indeed the cost has already increased, so the web site now quotes over $600 million, yet one of the older versions is $358 million and the initial document suggested the cost was 8 million — and I believe we only know that due to FOI rules). So if 3ks of line is this expensive and hard to build for them (hopefully they’ll remember to build tracks so the trains can stop this time, unlike last time), and the cost goes from 8 million to over 600 million, I’d hate to to see them have to deal with 900 kilometers of line. Thus whilst I think fast trains are a great idea (especially built by the French and Japanese governments), you have to consider who is to build them.
“It’s not either-or, but both”
My reason for them to put in shorter lines first is that I wouldn’t trust either the NSW or VIC government to build a bird-cage, let alone a train line (I imagine many other people wouldn’t either). The VIC government now gives mind boggling large figures for things. For example, the 3 kilometers of track they are laying from South Morang to Epping comes at a cost of approximately $200 million per kilometer, although some of that is for upgrading a few other bits of the line. That also isn’t the final cost, which, based on past history, won’t be anything like quoted (indeed the cost has already increased, so the web site now quotes over $600 million, yet one of the older versions is $358 million and the initial document suggested the cost was 8 million — and I believe we only know that due to FOI rules). So if 3ks of line is this expensive and hard to build for them (hopefully they’ll remember to build tracks so the trains can stop this time, unlike last time), and the cost goes from 8 million to over 600 million, I’d hate to to see them have to deal with 900 kilometers of line. Thus whilst I think fast trains are a great idea (especially built by the French and Japanese governments), you have to consider who is to build them.
Conrad …
The problem with building fast rail in the conurbations you suggest is that there are already train lines there that are heavily used and the distances involved don’t mean that you get any serious time advantage. You still have to go through suburban areas, so unless you have new train lines running in parallel, you have to slow right down. Building more capacity on the existing lines is going to be hard because there’s not a lot of extra space and there are bottlenecks all the trains have to pass, unless you choose a much less direct route.
At least in respect of Gosford to Sydney, a set of peak/shoulder high speed ferries might be a lot cheaper and make more difference at the margins. I’m less sure that would apply in Geelong-Melbourne’s case, but I suspect it might.
Conrad …
The problem with building fast rail in the conurbations you suggest is that there are already train lines there that are heavily used and the distances involved don’t mean that you get any serious time advantage. You still have to go through suburban areas, so unless you have new train lines running in parallel, you have to slow right down. Building more capacity on the existing lines is going to be hard because there’s not a lot of extra space and there are bottlenecks all the trains have to pass, unless you choose a much less direct route.
At least in respect of Gosford to Sydney, a set of peak/shoulder high speed ferries might be a lot cheaper and make more difference at the margins. I’m less sure that would apply in Geelong-Melbourne’s case, but I suspect it might.
Fran,
they stick in parallel train lines like you are talking about all over France (although it takes years), so it’s certainly possible — and I disagree about the advantage, especially for people that travel every day (which is what you see around Paris — where people commute on fast trains from quite far away everyday). For example, Melbourne to Geelong is about 1 hour by train, and let’s assume it takes you another 40 minutes of travel time to get your work. This means your total time might be 1 hour and 40 minutes, which is bordering on too much for many people. Alternatively, you could from go Melbourne to Geelong in 20 minutes on a fast train (say 30 minutes, if the trains have to change onto normal tracks close the the city). This would give you 1 hour and 10 minutes, which is fine (and common) for many people. If I drive the 10 kilometers in peak hour to my work, for example, it takes 50 minutes. My main concern is that many of the governments of Australia are simply too hopeless to implement anything like this.
Fran,
they stick in parallel train lines like you are talking about all over France (although it takes years), so it’s certainly possible — and I disagree about the advantage, especially for people that travel every day (which is what you see around Paris — where people commute on fast trains from quite far away everyday). For example, Melbourne to Geelong is about 1 hour by train, and let’s assume it takes you another 40 minutes of travel time to get your work. This means your total time might be 1 hour and 40 minutes, which is bordering on too much for many people. Alternatively, you could from go Melbourne to Geelong in 20 minutes on a fast train (say 30 minutes, if the trains have to change onto normal tracks close the the city). This would give you 1 hour and 10 minutes, which is fine (and common) for many people. If I drive the 10 kilometers in peak hour to my work, for example, it takes 50 minutes. My main concern is that many of the governments of Australia are simply too hopeless to implement anything like this.
The current rail paradigm means that railways have become something that is very good at moving large tonnages of materials between automated loading and unloading systems. It is all about specialist rail cars formed into long trains moved by powerful specialist locomotives over long distances. One 1992 Mt Newman train hauled as much as about 200 Groote Eylandt road trains so the only serious alternatives are conveyors and slurry pipelines. Groote has looked at replacing road trains with conveyors or railways and road trains have always come out ahead.
However, the paradigm doesn’t work well when you are talking about smaller loads that cannot be loaded/unloaded directly on/off railcars. The spur lines that used to allow this to happen are long gone. Nor is it suitable for loads that need to be sent more frequently than the weekly train.
Perhaps we should be thinking outside of this paradigm. There is nothing that says a vehicle cannot be fitted with wheels that allow it run on rail or road and there is nothing that says the rail cars have to be linked into a train or that individual rail cars cannot move down a line unmanned. For example, you might have a diesel electric truck that is driven too and from the railway. At the railway it would automatically get itself onto the rail line and then travel electrically to its (rail) destination where it automatically leaves the line and is parked waiting for a driver.
The real question is how do you match the convenience of using trucks?
The current rail paradigm means that railways have become something that is very good at moving large tonnages of materials between automated loading and unloading systems. It is all about specialist rail cars formed into long trains moved by powerful specialist locomotives over long distances. One 1992 Mt Newman train hauled as much as about 200 Groote Eylandt road trains so the only serious alternatives are conveyors and slurry pipelines. Groote has looked at replacing road trains with conveyors or railways and road trains have always come out ahead.
However, the paradigm doesn’t work well when you are talking about smaller loads that cannot be loaded/unloaded directly on/off railcars. The spur lines that used to allow this to happen are long gone. Nor is it suitable for loads that need to be sent more frequently than the weekly train.
Perhaps we should be thinking outside of this paradigm. There is nothing that says a vehicle cannot be fitted with wheels that allow it run on rail or road and there is nothing that says the rail cars have to be linked into a train or that individual rail cars cannot move down a line unmanned. For example, you might have a diesel electric truck that is driven too and from the railway. At the railway it would automatically get itself onto the rail line and then travel electrically to its (rail) destination where it automatically leaves the line and is parked waiting for a driver.
The real question is how do you match the convenience of using trucks?
John D,
Your last item there, is done. There are rail carriages that double as container trailers (I,ve seen them in NSW twice). So when they get to their destination they are unlinked and attached to the connection plate of a road prime mover and then continue by road on road wheels. I don’t know why they are not used widely, but I suspect that the problem is in conflicts of strength. Rail cars need to handle very high tensile and compressive loads from the cars attached to them in the train. This is in direct contrast to the design approach for road freight where light weight is a desired feature. Nothing is that easy when it comes to moving large amounts of heavy material.
Even light weights accumulate to heavy loads. This is the fallacy with Fran’s “light weight cycle way”. For that structure which she imagineered to be 30 metres wide, pedestrian design loadings are 200 Kg per square metre. So when that is accumulated it becomes 200 times 30 times the span (say 50 metres) times the dynamic loading allowance (times 3) times the safety factor (usually 2). Which means that each span of Fran’s “light weight” cycleway would have been required to carry 1,800 tonnes, not a light weight structure at all.
That is the trouble with anything to do with heavy haulage, the figures are really scary. Ignorance really is bliss.
John D,
Your last item there, is done. There are rail carriages that double as container trailers (I,ve seen them in NSW twice). So when they get to their destination they are unlinked and attached to the connection plate of a road prime mover and then continue by road on road wheels. I don’t know why they are not used widely, but I suspect that the problem is in conflicts of strength. Rail cars need to handle very high tensile and compressive loads from the cars attached to them in the train. This is in direct contrast to the design approach for road freight where light weight is a desired feature. Nothing is that easy when it comes to moving large amounts of heavy material.
Even light weights accumulate to heavy loads. This is the fallacy with Fran’s “light weight cycle way”. For that structure which she imagineered to be 30 metres wide, pedestrian design loadings are 200 Kg per square metre. So when that is accumulated it becomes 200 times 30 times the span (say 50 metres) times the dynamic loading allowance (times 3) times the safety factor (usually 2). Which means that each span of Fran’s “light weight” cycleway would have been required to carry 1,800 tonnes, not a light weight structure at all.
That is the trouble with anything to do with heavy haulage, the figures are really scary. Ignorance really is bliss.
Bilb: The problem is that they have to be designed to stand the stresses of being in a train during acceleration and deceleration. (Imagine the potential stresses that could occur in the record 85,000 tonnes of ore Pilbara train.)
What I was talking about is something that travels on its own. In this case the biggest stresses would probably occur on the road, not the railway.
Bilb: The problem is that they have to be designed to stand the stresses of being in a train during acceleration and deceleration. (Imagine the potential stresses that could occur in the record 85,000 tonnes of ore Pilbara train.)
What I was talking about is something that travels on its own. In this case the biggest stresses would probably occur on the road, not the railway.
Rod Eddington’s report to the Bracks government about transport infrastrucutre kinda exploded the myth htat we can put all our freight onto trains. More than 70% of stuff from the Port of Melbourne (Australia’s largest port) goes to somewhere in the Melbourne area. It’s simply not the case that these are bulk carrier items from the hinterland. There aren’t the efficiencies to be gained that people dream about shifting from road to rail.
Which is not to say there shouldn’t be a lot more investment in rail infrastructure and intermodal hubs (“inland ports”) and the like. Less B Doubles up the Hume can only be a good thing.
Rod Eddington’s report to the Bracks government about transport infrastrucutre kinda exploded the myth htat we can put all our freight onto trains. More than 70% of stuff from the Port of Melbourne (Australia’s largest port) goes to somewhere in the Melbourne area. It’s simply not the case that these are bulk carrier items from the hinterland. There aren’t the efficiencies to be gained that people dream about shifting from road to rail.
Which is not to say there shouldn’t be a lot more investment in rail infrastructure and intermodal hubs (“inland ports”) and the like. Less B Doubles up the Hume can only be a good thing.
It all comes back to intense regional planning cockup that Australia specialises in.
It all comes back to intense regional planning cockup that Australia specialises in.
If I had to some serious freight rail built in a hurry, and I had the corridor, I’d subcontract it to Rio or BHP. They’re among the largest builders and operators of rail in the world, let alone Australia.
If I had to some serious freight rail built in a hurry, and I had the corridor, I’d subcontract it to Rio or BHP. They’re among the largest builders and operators of rail in the world, let alone Australia.
I don’t think you can get trucks off the road completely, but you can certainly minimise them.
Having distribution hubs – I think there’s one outside of Wodonga – allows small items of freight to be shipped to a central location en masse and then broken up for further distribution.
My understanding of VFTs – and why governments who promise them don’t deliver them – is that the speeds they travel at mean that certain cambers of exising rail lines don’t cater for them (basically, they don’t go around corners very well).
When the Vic govt went to build a VFT line between Melbourne and Ballarat (from memory) they realised that having to straighten out bends to allow these trains meant not only the realignment of current tracks (necessitating the purchase of adjoining land) but rebuilding tunnels and bridges – both hideously expensive.
So for a VFT between (say) Sydney and Melbourne, you’re talking the acquisition of new land (and if it’s compulsory acquisition, as in some cases it’s bound to be, you’re talking a very long, drawn out legal process, filled with ‘Castle’ style angst), building new tracks from absolute scratch (down to ground level), creating new cuttings and (very likely) building new bridges and tunnels.
Costs a motza, for fairly minimal benefits.
Freight, on the other hand, is slower. It can use existing lines with minimal upgrades (which the Feds are going to do between Wodonga and Geelong). One freight train can replace scores of trucks, with huge carbon savings.
Comparitively, in terms of the environment and the economy, you’d go for freight every time.
I don’t think you can get trucks off the road completely, but you can certainly minimise them.
Having distribution hubs – I think there’s one outside of Wodonga – allows small items of freight to be shipped to a central location en masse and then broken up for further distribution.
My understanding of VFTs – and why governments who promise them don’t deliver them – is that the speeds they travel at mean that certain cambers of exising rail lines don’t cater for them (basically, they don’t go around corners very well).
When the Vic govt went to build a VFT line between Melbourne and Ballarat (from memory) they realised that having to straighten out bends to allow these trains meant not only the realignment of current tracks (necessitating the purchase of adjoining land) but rebuilding tunnels and bridges – both hideously expensive.
So for a VFT between (say) Sydney and Melbourne, you’re talking the acquisition of new land (and if it’s compulsory acquisition, as in some cases it’s bound to be, you’re talking a very long, drawn out legal process, filled with ‘Castle’ style angst), building new tracks from absolute scratch (down to ground level), creating new cuttings and (very likely) building new bridges and tunnels.
Costs a motza, for fairly minimal benefits.
Freight, on the other hand, is slower. It can use existing lines with minimal upgrades (which the Feds are going to do between Wodonga and Geelong). One freight train can replace scores of trucks, with huge carbon savings.
Comparitively, in terms of the environment and the economy, you’d go for freight every time.
Agreed, wilful. It can’t do everything. Indeed, it’s never going to be as big a deal in Australia as it is in the US and Europe when most of Australia’s population lives within spitting distance of a major seaport.
That said, given the congestion on Melbourne’s roads, it strikes me as not impossible that urban freight rail may become more attractive over time. In the very long term, automated underground tube freight railways might also become attractive in some places.
Agreed, wilful. It can’t do everything. Indeed, it’s never going to be as big a deal in Australia as it is in the US and Europe when most of Australia’s population lives within spitting distance of a major seaport.
That said, given the congestion on Melbourne’s roads, it strikes me as not impossible that urban freight rail may become more attractive over time. In the very long term, automated underground tube freight railways might also become attractive in some places.
Have a look at freight trams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
http://europeforvisitors.com/germany/cars/vw-transparent-factory-photos-4.htm
Have a look at freight trams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
http://europeforvisitors.com/germany/cars/vw-transparent-factory-photos-4.htm
This debate has been had on Crikey and a number of other forums, not the least of which was CEDA.
Rail infrastructure needs to be upgraded, reinforced etc., regardless of whether you go for more freight, high-speed passenger transport, or whatever. The majority owners of rail infrastructure in the eastern states are QR and Asciano, both private companies. Anyone want to spend taxpayer money boosting those companies’ bottom line with the warm inner glow of “the national interest” as your only reward? Though not.
There’s the whole question of the route:
* Let’s keep in mind Sydney can’t run a rail line from Parramatta to Epping, and I won’t talk about public transport to the outer suburbs if you won’t. And if there’s somewhere with an even better transport system that Sydney’s, it’s Melbourne.
* If you want to build a whole new rail line from Sydney to Melbourne, let’s assume you want to put it out through the industrial suburbs of Sydney’s southwest and basically follow the existing rail line to Canberra. Would you leave the station at Kingston or put it at Parliament House, a massive bomb target if ever there was one, or maybe tunnel under the Holy Grail (maybe you could address that city’s terrible public transport while you’re at it)?
* Where do you go from there? The most efficient route would be to tunnel under the Snowys. You’d put stations under the snowfields and emerge somewhere around Mansfield, through to Melbourne’s industrial suburbs around Dandenong, and thence to CBD Melbourne and maybe the Port. Stuff Gundagai and Albury and Wagga and Shepparton, they have airports and a highway.
* Look at where trucks go from and to. Then consider whether these areas are served by rail lines. Then consider why government should drive a series of small companies out of business in order to profit a couple of large ones. What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* 30% of passengers using Sydney Airport are going to either Canberra or Melbourne. You create a route for what bushies call “the SCAM axis” (Sydney, Canberra And Melbourne) and you cut Macquarie Airport’s revenues by at least that amount as well as set aside the whole question of Sydney’s second airport. What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* Seaborne freight will, under Morris Iemma’s “vision”, be making more use of Wollongong and Newcastle. Should we just run high-speed freight between NSW – Newcastle, Sydney & Wollongong – and everywhere else can wait?
* A minor earth tremor or terrorist incident – hell, a kid with a coin – can cause derailments that are expensive in terms of money and life. Aircraft is the safest form of transport we have. Again, what sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* The Murray-Darling river system is in crisis and you’re playing trains? What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
This debate has been had on Crikey and a number of other forums, not the least of which was CEDA.
Rail infrastructure needs to be upgraded, reinforced etc., regardless of whether you go for more freight, high-speed passenger transport, or whatever. The majority owners of rail infrastructure in the eastern states are QR and Asciano, both private companies. Anyone want to spend taxpayer money boosting those companies’ bottom line with the warm inner glow of “the national interest” as your only reward? Though not.
There’s the whole question of the route:
* Let’s keep in mind Sydney can’t run a rail line from Parramatta to Epping, and I won’t talk about public transport to the outer suburbs if you won’t. And if there’s somewhere with an even better transport system that Sydney’s, it’s Melbourne.
* If you want to build a whole new rail line from Sydney to Melbourne, let’s assume you want to put it out through the industrial suburbs of Sydney’s southwest and basically follow the existing rail line to Canberra. Would you leave the station at Kingston or put it at Parliament House, a massive bomb target if ever there was one, or maybe tunnel under the Holy Grail (maybe you could address that city’s terrible public transport while you’re at it)?
* Where do you go from there? The most efficient route would be to tunnel under the Snowys. You’d put stations under the snowfields and emerge somewhere around Mansfield, through to Melbourne’s industrial suburbs around Dandenong, and thence to CBD Melbourne and maybe the Port. Stuff Gundagai and Albury and Wagga and Shepparton, they have airports and a highway.
* Look at where trucks go from and to. Then consider whether these areas are served by rail lines. Then consider why government should drive a series of small companies out of business in order to profit a couple of large ones. What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* 30% of passengers using Sydney Airport are going to either Canberra or Melbourne. You create a route for what bushies call “the SCAM axis” (Sydney, Canberra And Melbourne) and you cut Macquarie Airport’s revenues by at least that amount as well as set aside the whole question of Sydney’s second airport. What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* Seaborne freight will, under Morris Iemma’s “vision”, be making more use of Wollongong and Newcastle. Should we just run high-speed freight between NSW – Newcastle, Sydney & Wollongong – and everywhere else can wait?
* A minor earth tremor or terrorist incident – hell, a kid with a coin – can cause derailments that are expensive in terms of money and life. Aircraft is the safest form of transport we have. Again, what sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
* The Murray-Darling river system is in crisis and you’re playing trains? What sort of country do you think we’re living in here?
Andrew …
1. I personally don’t care if adverse conditions for airports are created.
2. I don’t know whether a high speed passenger rail link from Sydney to Melbourne makes sense economically or environmentally. I rather doubt it, but if it did make sense and were affordable, see (1). That’s the kind of country I’d like to live in.
3. Ditto for driving small trucking firms out of business subject to feasibility. That’s the kind of country I’d like to live in.
Andrew …
1. I personally don’t care if adverse conditions for airports are created.
2. I don’t know whether a high speed passenger rail link from Sydney to Melbourne makes sense economically or environmentally. I rather doubt it, but if it did make sense and were affordable, see (1). That’s the kind of country I’d like to live in.
3. Ditto for driving small trucking firms out of business subject to feasibility. That’s the kind of country I’d like to live in.
dd@3 and John D@20: one of the key costs in production involves handling. When you put an item on a truck in Melbourne and you unload it at Sydney, it is handled twice: loaded and then unloaded. What you’re proposing is to handle it numerous times: once at the start, then to the rail station, have it sit in the rail yard, then put it on the train, then offloaded from the train, sit in another rail yard (maybe transferred at a junction along the way), then loaded onto a truck for local delivery. More costly handling, less secure: a non-solution.
Fran@6: you’d put wind turbines and solar along the route, and use the tunnelling to tap into geothermal.
So?
Ute Man@15: see my point above for Albury and Shepparton and apply it to Werris Creek and Stanthorpe.
Chester@25: those companies outsource rail construction and have a clear payoff for doing so. As stated above, the payoff for a Sydney-Melbourne rail line isn’t clear. If I had to some serious freight rail built in a hurry, and I had the corridor, I’d still want a business case.
Fran@30: like most people, I regard your personal preferences as irrelevant but it would be nice if there were some congruity between what pleases you and what suits others. Have some appreciation of political tectonics, the absence of which abandons this debate to people like you and Robert Merkel furiously agreeing that things can and should be transported by bicycle.
dd@3 and John D@20: one of the key costs in production involves handling. When you put an item on a truck in Melbourne and you unload it at Sydney, it is handled twice: loaded and then unloaded. What you’re proposing is to handle it numerous times: once at the start, then to the rail station, have it sit in the rail yard, then put it on the train, then offloaded from the train, sit in another rail yard (maybe transferred at a junction along the way), then loaded onto a truck for local delivery. More costly handling, less secure: a non-solution.
Fran@6: you’d put wind turbines and solar along the route, and use the tunnelling to tap into geothermal.
So?
Ute Man@15: see my point above for Albury and Shepparton and apply it to Werris Creek and Stanthorpe.
Chester@25: those companies outsource rail construction and have a clear payoff for doing so. As stated above, the payoff for a Sydney-Melbourne rail line isn’t clear. If I had to some serious freight rail built in a hurry, and I had the corridor, I’d still want a business case.
Fran@30: like most people, I regard your personal preferences as irrelevant but it would be nice if there were some congruity between what pleases you and what suits others. Have some appreciation of political tectonics, the absence of which abandons this debate to people like you and Robert Merkel furiously agreeing that things can and should be transported by bicycle.
Andrew: I was talking quite specifically about using a truck that can drive on both rail and road so you load it once then use road and rail to get to the destination where you unload it once. The attraction of using rail as part of the mix is that the rail part can be pure electric and fully automated so that drivers are only needed for the road part. It also means that the trucks avoid the mechanical stresses of being part of a train. Quality rail lines have very low rolling resistance.
You need to step outside your limited vision of what rail can be.
Andrew: I was talking quite specifically about using a truck that can drive on both rail and road so you load it once then use road and rail to get to the destination where you unload it once. The attraction of using rail as part of the mix is that the rail part can be pure electric and fully automated so that drivers are only needed for the road part. It also means that the trucks avoid the mechanical stresses of being part of a train. Quality rail lines have very low rolling resistance.
You need to step outside your limited vision of what rail can be.
Yeah, but trying something for the first time should be left to small scale experiments. Oddly, that’s where the truck-train autoloading systems seem to have started and stopped. Not sure why, not convinced Australia is a good place to perform the first large scale experiment. IMO we’re better off working out how to get fast(er) trains in and out of Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra without having to pay through the nose. It looks to me as though that would be the most expensive part of the fast train system – a tunnel from way out west into the Sydney CBD would be 30km or so, with the alternative being compulsory acquisition of a strip 200m or more wide in a nice straight line over the same distance. Given the trauma involved with the recent the road tunnels in Sydney and Melbourne I’m not convinced actual construction time would be under 10 years for the tunnels, but at least that’s faster than the litigation time for the surface option…
Yeah, but trying something for the first time should be left to small scale experiments. Oddly, that’s where the truck-train autoloading systems seem to have started and stopped. Not sure why, not convinced Australia is a good place to perform the first large scale experiment. IMO we’re better off working out how to get fast(er) trains in and out of Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra without having to pay through the nose. It looks to me as though that would be the most expensive part of the fast train system – a tunnel from way out west into the Sydney CBD would be 30km or so, with the alternative being compulsory acquisition of a strip 200m or more wide in a nice straight line over the same distance. Given the trauma involved with the recent the road tunnels in Sydney and Melbourne I’m not convinced actual construction time would be under 10 years for the tunnels, but at least that’s faster than the litigation time for the surface option…
Andrew E said:
Pardon??? Are you trying at humour?
You haven’t established that what I’ve said wouldn’t please others or why this would be relvant here even if it might not. How many people like trucks on roads or want a second airport or care whether the existing airports we have stay overloaded so they will make more money.
You are an odd fellow.
Andrew E said:
Pardon??? Are you trying at humour?
You haven’t established that what I’ve said wouldn’t please others or why this would be relvant here even if it might not. How many people like trucks on roads or want a second airport or care whether the existing airports we have stay overloaded so they will make more money.
You are an odd fellow.
JohnD,
Practicle examples
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/moving_nyc_trash_from_trucks_t.html
Notice the loading ramp..
http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/e7ba14765/en/max/1440/900/Vonsvans01022.jpg?format=jpg%2Cpng%2Cgif&ctf=0?format=jpg,png,gif&loadexternal=1
…but also the higher profile.
This has the configuration that I was looking for. it is called the “trailerail bimodal trailer” on page 10. remove the Quotes and cut and paste link to internet explorer to download pdf.
“http://www.patrec.org/old_patrec/conferences/PATREC%20Seminar%20Papers/Seminar%201%2023Oct03%20Road%20Intermodal%20GHG/Road%20Rail%20GGH%20seminar%2023-10-03.pdf”
And here is another link with some history information
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrailer”
and another with more photographs
“http://www.ardp.net/topic186.html”
I do like this concept which appears to hover on the edge of commercial success. It would be interesting to know what the operating issues are.
JohnD,
Practicle examples
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/moving_nyc_trash_from_trucks_t.html
Notice the loading ramp..
http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/e7ba14765/en/max/1440/900/Vonsvans01022.jpg?format=jpg%2Cpng%2Cgif&ctf=0?format=jpg,png,gif&loadexternal=1
…but also the higher profile.
This has the configuration that I was looking for. it is called the “trailerail bimodal trailer” on page 10. remove the Quotes and cut and paste link to internet explorer to download pdf.
“http://www.patrec.org/old_patrec/conferences/PATREC%20Seminar%20Papers/Seminar%201%2023Oct03%20Road%20Intermodal%20GHG/Road%20Rail%20GGH%20seminar%2023-10-03.pdf”
And here is another link with some history information
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrailer”
and another with more photographs
“http://www.ardp.net/topic186.html”
I do like this concept which appears to hover on the edge of commercial success. It would be interesting to know what the operating issues are.
Andrew, if you look at the research paper from the rail CRC, there are already indicative routes sketched out.
I can pretty much guarantee you that a under-the-Snowys route is a no-go. The tunneling costs would be gargantuan (remember, trains don’t like hills and corners) and the environmentalists would (rightly) go bananas at you.
In any case, if we’re only talking about freight (and possibly 200 km/h Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne passenger trains, which aren’t true HSR but would be a considerable improvement over what we have now). we don’t need a completely new rail line.
As for making private companies richer, there’s always the chance to recover some of the costs from them. Furthermore, in any case, a consequence of doing the right thing for society is some private companies disproportionately benefit. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the right thing.
Andrew, if you look at the research paper from the rail CRC, there are already indicative routes sketched out.
I can pretty much guarantee you that a under-the-Snowys route is a no-go. The tunneling costs would be gargantuan (remember, trains don’t like hills and corners) and the environmentalists would (rightly) go bananas at you.
In any case, if we’re only talking about freight (and possibly 200 km/h Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne passenger trains, which aren’t true HSR but would be a considerable improvement over what we have now). we don’t need a completely new rail line.
As for making private companies richer, there’s always the chance to recover some of the costs from them. Furthermore, in any case, a consequence of doing the right thing for society is some private companies disproportionately benefit. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the right thing.
Andrew E wrote:
The rail line from Armidale to Wallangara might as well be a cobbled roman road Andrew E. It’s fascinating historically but has been unused for decades. Wallangarra to Stanthorpe has a hobby steam train on it once a month which is also fascinating but really drives home the point that even the bits of line that are still maintained are little more than museum pieces.
North of Stanthorpe – occasional freight but the industry there has almost completely shifted to tourism, so it’s a waste of money and probably unsuited for passenger cars anyway. Not sure about Werris Creek.
I tend to think that the whole “revival of rail” movement in Australia is essentially backward looking nostalgia. I mean, there is a shopping centre in Armidale that was built on the grounds of a coal gasifying works that used to supply the town with gas for street lighting. Coal from the Hunter was moved by rail up here for the purpose. I hope nobody thinks that is a good idea anymore.
As for double handling – that’s what containers were invented for. If we need more container handling facilities to utilise rail for dry goods then that’s what we should build, but trucks are more convenient, especially for fresh/frozen freight or live freight.
Andrew E wrote:
The rail line from Armidale to Wallangara might as well be a cobbled roman road Andrew E. It’s fascinating historically but has been unused for decades. Wallangarra to Stanthorpe has a hobby steam train on it once a month which is also fascinating but really drives home the point that even the bits of line that are still maintained are little more than museum pieces.
North of Stanthorpe – occasional freight but the industry there has almost completely shifted to tourism, so it’s a waste of money and probably unsuited for passenger cars anyway. Not sure about Werris Creek.
I tend to think that the whole “revival of rail” movement in Australia is essentially backward looking nostalgia. I mean, there is a shopping centre in Armidale that was built on the grounds of a coal gasifying works that used to supply the town with gas for street lighting. Coal from the Hunter was moved by rail up here for the purpose. I hope nobody thinks that is a good idea anymore.
As for double handling – that’s what containers were invented for. If we need more container handling facilities to utilise rail for dry goods then that’s what we should build, but trucks are more convenient, especially for fresh/frozen freight or live freight.
Bilb: Thanks for the links.
There are a number of alternatives that can be used to increase the use of existing lines. Clearly there has been a lot of progress in the field of improving the efficiency of getting goods on to variations of the conventional train. (One or more locomotives pull a string of “wagons” down the line.) Fine if you are pulling lots of wagons/day from one place to another but not so good for locations that rarely have enough traffic to send out trains on a regular basis and/or justify the capital expenditure to install efficient loading/unloading equipment.
All that I am arguing is that, for lower volume locations/commodities that we may be able to extend the economic range of rail by running individual “wagons” down the line instead of trains. We may be able to set up a simple siding that allows a vehicle that can run on rail or road to be injected on or out of the rail system. In addition there is no obvious reason why the vehicle could not do the rail bit without a driver and avoid the need for a cab that a driver can stay in from Sydney to Melbourne. The added advantage of this single unit approach is that the “wagon” can be much lighter because it doesn’t have to withstand the stresses of being part of a long train.
This of Bilb’s provides data comparing emissions from rail and road transport. There is a strong case for extending the economic range of rail, particularly if we are talking about electrified lines.
Bilb: Thanks for the links.
There are a number of alternatives that can be used to increase the use of existing lines. Clearly there has been a lot of progress in the field of improving the efficiency of getting goods on to variations of the conventional train. (One or more locomotives pull a string of “wagons” down the line.) Fine if you are pulling lots of wagons/day from one place to another but not so good for locations that rarely have enough traffic to send out trains on a regular basis and/or justify the capital expenditure to install efficient loading/unloading equipment.
All that I am arguing is that, for lower volume locations/commodities that we may be able to extend the economic range of rail by running individual “wagons” down the line instead of trains. We may be able to set up a simple siding that allows a vehicle that can run on rail or road to be injected on or out of the rail system. In addition there is no obvious reason why the vehicle could not do the rail bit without a driver and avoid the need for a cab that a driver can stay in from Sydney to Melbourne. The added advantage of this single unit approach is that the “wagon” can be much lighter because it doesn’t have to withstand the stresses of being part of a long train.
This of Bilb’s provides data comparing emissions from rail and road transport. There is a strong case for extending the economic range of rail, particularly if we are talking about electrified lines.
Did you check out Patrec’s website
http://www.patrec.org/
JohnD? I think that there is a lot more there, in the same direction from where RobertM was coming.
Did you check out Patrec’s website
http://www.patrec.org/
JohnD? I think that there is a lot more there, in the same direction from where RobertM was coming.
Andrew E @ 29:
Until next month, at least, QR is a government-owned corporation. Ascanio does not own any rail infrastructure on the Australian mainland. Infrastructure (i.e. the track itself, signalling systems, the rail corridor and all its appurtenances) on the mainland (except for South Australia, the Pilbara and Comalco’s line at Weipa) are the responsibility of government bodies (Rail Infrastructure Corporation & the Australian Rail Track Corporation & WestNet Rail).
In regards to High Speed Rail (what used to be called “VFT” in Australia), a recent report by the Rail CRC states that the population on the eastern seaboard is now such that a HSR passenger service is economically viable for the Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne corridor.
Such trains, as has been found overseas, work best if they have their own dedicated corridor and track and don’t have to mix it with suburban services and goods trains. They also should be grade separated (either by bridge or tunnel) at road crossings to ensure the security of the corridor.
The problem with earth tremors has been dealt with overseas. The Shinkansen in Japan has an earthquake-detection system that cuts power at the first sign of a tremor, bringing all trains on the system to an automatic stop.
I’m not familiar with the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne aspect, but I could see a possible Brisbane-Sydney route with its terminii at Brisbane’s Roma Street and Sydney’s Central, leaving Roma Street and entering a tunnel at South Brisbane to emerge beside the Pacific Motorway near Mount Gravatt and roughly following the motorway to Helensvale from where it would parallel the QR Gold Coast line until its first station at Coolangatta Airport. From there it would take a coastal route with stations at Ballina, Coffs Harbor and Newcastle before linking up with the existing infrastructure somewhere around Redfern (the corridor into Sydney itself would be predominantly tunnels and viaducts).
As for rail freight, well, that’s something I know a little bit about as I get paid to drive freight trains betwixt Brisbane and Toowoomba.
In short, much of the rail infrastructure is in drastic need of upgrade. In Queensland, Brisbane’s suburban system is in good condition, as are the coal lines in Central Queensland. Outside of those areas it’s a bumpy ride with frequent speed restrictions due to heat or track conditions. QR’s “Main Line” between Ipswich and Toowoomba was built in the 1870s and still runs largely on the original formation. Westbound freight trains can run at up to 80km/h along this track, but in sections like between Rosewood and Grandchester or Laidley to Forest Hill, you’d be mad to take a train through at more than 60km/h.
The Qld/NSW interstate line isn’t all that much better. Technically, we already have a High Speed (passenger) Train running that line in the NSW Countrylink XPT, with a designed cruising speed of around 200km/h. But the longest straight on the line between Newcastle and the Qld border is 2km long, and the XPT’s travel time between Brisbane and Sydney is slower than a Greyhound bus.
Wholesale adoption of US standards for rollingstock probably isn’t the answer. For a start, an adoption of US standards would rule out electrification and commit Australia to a future of diesel-hauled trains.
Most of the world, strangely enough, have railways with loading gauges that aren’t compatible with the US. As far as I’m aware, much of the Australian standard-gauge loading gauges are very similar to the United Kingdom’s, whilst QR’s Cape Gauge (3’6″) network is almost interchangable, in regards to loading gauges, with Japan, South Africa, New Zealand and much of China (which operates on a slightly narrower track gauge than Queensland’s Cape Gauge).
The CRC report cited by the original poster states that it would be a cheap option if we adopted the US loading gauges so we could buy new locos “off the shelf” from the US. For three Australian states (Qld, Tasmania and WA), to do so would mean a total redesign of the railway network from Cape Gauge to Standard Gauge and require expensive land resumptions in the inner cities to widen the rail corridor to accommodate the wider gauge. I would argue that an opportunity exists for a manufacturing industry, designing and producing up-to-date locomotives and rollingstock that is within Australian loading gauges and suitable to be exported to countries with similar limitations.
Andrew E @ 29:
Until next month, at least, QR is a government-owned corporation. Ascanio does not own any rail infrastructure on the Australian mainland. Infrastructure (i.e. the track itself, signalling systems, the rail corridor and all its appurtenances) on the mainland (except for South Australia, the Pilbara and Comalco’s line at Weipa) are the responsibility of government bodies (Rail Infrastructure Corporation & the Australian Rail Track Corporation & WestNet Rail).
In regards to High Speed Rail (what used to be called “VFT” in Australia), a recent report by the Rail CRC states that the population on the eastern seaboard is now such that a HSR passenger service is economically viable for the Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne corridor.
Such trains, as has been found overseas, work best if they have their own dedicated corridor and track and don’t have to mix it with suburban services and goods trains. They also should be grade separated (either by bridge or tunnel) at road crossings to ensure the security of the corridor.
The problem with earth tremors has been dealt with overseas. The Shinkansen in Japan has an earthquake-detection system that cuts power at the first sign of a tremor, bringing all trains on the system to an automatic stop.
I’m not familiar with the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne aspect, but I could see a possible Brisbane-Sydney route with its terminii at Brisbane’s Roma Street and Sydney’s Central, leaving Roma Street and entering a tunnel at South Brisbane to emerge beside the Pacific Motorway near Mount Gravatt and roughly following the motorway to Helensvale from where it would parallel the QR Gold Coast line until its first station at Coolangatta Airport. From there it would take a coastal route with stations at Ballina, Coffs Harbor and Newcastle before linking up with the existing infrastructure somewhere around Redfern (the corridor into Sydney itself would be predominantly tunnels and viaducts).
As for rail freight, well, that’s something I know a little bit about as I get paid to drive freight trains betwixt Brisbane and Toowoomba.
In short, much of the rail infrastructure is in drastic need of upgrade. In Queensland, Brisbane’s suburban system is in good condition, as are the coal lines in Central Queensland. Outside of those areas it’s a bumpy ride with frequent speed restrictions due to heat or track conditions. QR’s “Main Line” between Ipswich and Toowoomba was built in the 1870s and still runs largely on the original formation. Westbound freight trains can run at up to 80km/h along this track, but in sections like between Rosewood and Grandchester or Laidley to Forest Hill, you’d be mad to take a train through at more than 60km/h.
The Qld/NSW interstate line isn’t all that much better. Technically, we already have a High Speed (passenger) Train running that line in the NSW Countrylink XPT, with a designed cruising speed of around 200km/h. But the longest straight on the line between Newcastle and the Qld border is 2km long, and the XPT’s travel time between Brisbane and Sydney is slower than a Greyhound bus.
Wholesale adoption of US standards for rollingstock probably isn’t the answer. For a start, an adoption of US standards would rule out electrification and commit Australia to a future of diesel-hauled trains.
Most of the world, strangely enough, have railways with loading gauges that aren’t compatible with the US. As far as I’m aware, much of the Australian standard-gauge loading gauges are very similar to the United Kingdom’s, whilst QR’s Cape Gauge (3’6″) network is almost interchangable, in regards to loading gauges, with Japan, South Africa, New Zealand and much of China (which operates on a slightly narrower track gauge than Queensland’s Cape Gauge).
The CRC report cited by the original poster states that it would be a cheap option if we adopted the US loading gauges so we could buy new locos “off the shelf” from the US. For three Australian states (Qld, Tasmania and WA), to do so would mean a total redesign of the railway network from Cape Gauge to Standard Gauge and require expensive land resumptions in the inner cities to widen the rail corridor to accommodate the wider gauge. I would argue that an opportunity exists for a manufacturing industry, designing and producing up-to-date locomotives and rollingstock that is within Australian loading gauges and suitable to be exported to countries with similar limitations.
Thanks for the informed comments, Terangeree.
I suppose my question here is if our gauges are “almost” interchangeable with other countries, wouldn’t it be worth going all the way and being interchangeable?
I wouldn’t hold my breath for a train manufacturing industry here, either. Nobody is going to invest in Australian manufacturing with the dollar at its current levels. We might wish it otherwise, but it’s the case.
Thanks for the informed comments, Terangeree.
I suppose my question here is if our gauges are “almost” interchangeable with other countries, wouldn’t it be worth going all the way and being interchangeable?
I wouldn’t hold my breath for a train manufacturing industry here, either. Nobody is going to invest in Australian manufacturing with the dollar at its current levels. We might wish it otherwise, but it’s the case.
Robert,
All I am is an accredited journalist and full-time train driver. Not being a railway engineer, I can’t say with any authority that Australian railway loading gauges are directly interchangable with those overseas. But, from my understanding, our standard gauge systems are historically very very close in loading gauges to those in Europe (a few second-hand european diesel locomotives were imported for use in Australia in the last decade, whilst locos from the US are restricted to the mining lines in the Pilbara and Cape York).
In Queensland, the newer locomotives (2800-class diesels, 4000-class diesels and the 3800-class electrics) and coal waggons are all built to standard-gauge loading gauges and are pretty effectively restricted to the central Qld coal lines (the 2800-class is restricted to the Brisbane-Cairns line and the Townsville-Mount Isa line, and can’t go any further west in SE Qld than Redbank), leaving the rest of the state with 30+year-old equipment.
From what I’ve seen in my travels, Japan’s Cape Gauge system (which is everything that’s not the Shinkansen) is as near as damnit identical to Queensland’s loading gauge. It isn’t all that well known, nor is it well publicised, but Queensland’s Electric Tilt Train is an almost exact copy of JR Shikoku’s 8000-class EMU, with the main difference being that it’s wired for a 25,000v supply.
On the manufacturing side, I agree that it’d be close to impossible to start a manufacturing industry in Australia. My employer often justifies the age of the locos I drive with the explanation “the manufacturers just won’t build them for our loading gauge”, and yet proceeds to reduce the Queensland locomotive stock by exporting active locos to SE Asia, South America and Western Australia. The Redbank Railway Workshops have the capability to design and build new locomotives and rollingstock, and there are also well-established construction firms in Maryborough and further north.
Robert,
All I am is an accredited journalist and full-time train driver. Not being a railway engineer, I can’t say with any authority that Australian railway loading gauges are directly interchangable with those overseas. But, from my understanding, our standard gauge systems are historically very very close in loading gauges to those in Europe (a few second-hand european diesel locomotives were imported for use in Australia in the last decade, whilst locos from the US are restricted to the mining lines in the Pilbara and Cape York).
In Queensland, the newer locomotives (2800-class diesels, 4000-class diesels and the 3800-class electrics) and coal waggons are all built to standard-gauge loading gauges and are pretty effectively restricted to the central Qld coal lines (the 2800-class is restricted to the Brisbane-Cairns line and the Townsville-Mount Isa line, and can’t go any further west in SE Qld than Redbank), leaving the rest of the state with 30+year-old equipment.
From what I’ve seen in my travels, Japan’s Cape Gauge system (which is everything that’s not the Shinkansen) is as near as damnit identical to Queensland’s loading gauge. It isn’t all that well known, nor is it well publicised, but Queensland’s Electric Tilt Train is an almost exact copy of JR Shikoku’s 8000-class EMU, with the main difference being that it’s wired for a 25,000v supply.
On the manufacturing side, I agree that it’d be close to impossible to start a manufacturing industry in Australia. My employer often justifies the age of the locos I drive with the explanation “the manufacturers just won’t build them for our loading gauge”, and yet proceeds to reduce the Queensland locomotive stock by exporting active locos to SE Asia, South America and Western Australia. The Redbank Railway Workshops have the capability to design and build new locomotives and rollingstock, and there are also well-established construction firms in Maryborough and further north.
Some history.
http://www.infobluemountains.net.au/rail/horse-ass.htm
Some history.
http://www.infobluemountains.net.au/rail/horse-ass.htm
And here is another explanation.
“Everyone seems to agree that this odd track size did originate in England from a railway pioneer named George Stephenson who used the 4 feet 8-1/2 inch track gauge when building the first public rail line, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, in 1830.
Why he chose this odd size is a matter of conjecture. Some historians maintain that the rails were originally laid 5 feet apart on top of wagon wheel ruts, but because the early edge rails were 1.75 inches across the top and early trains ran on the inside edges, Mr. Stephenson had to subtract 3-1/2 inches for the railroad car wheel spacing making them 4 feet 8-1/2 inches. As railroad track technology improved so that the train wheels ran on top of the tracks, the tracks were moved closer to fit the rail car widths. Still others maintain that Mr. Stephenson originally designed the track gauge to measure 4 feet 8 inches, but during construction, he added in an extra half inch to allow for a little more leeway between rails and wheel flanges.
How ever the 4 foot 8-1/2 inch track gauge happened, it’s clear that the Roman military specification for “Chariots, War, Two-Horse” had nothing to do with it. While many things “standardized” today were first documented in either military or federal specifications – four-inch spacing of faucet’s for lavatories, standard sizes for floor tiles, rules for statistical sampling – someone else gets credit for track gauge spacing. Many believe that once an urban legend makes it to the Internet, it can never be undone. Perhaps. But we in the standards community have a reputation for requiring data to support contentions, and then challenging the data. So challenge the legend – when confronted with the chariot story, email back the truth. Just maybe we can knock this one legend off the tracks – whatever gauge they may be.”
And here is another explanation.
“Everyone seems to agree that this odd track size did originate in England from a railway pioneer named George Stephenson who used the 4 feet 8-1/2 inch track gauge when building the first public rail line, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, in 1830.
Why he chose this odd size is a matter of conjecture. Some historians maintain that the rails were originally laid 5 feet apart on top of wagon wheel ruts, but because the early edge rails were 1.75 inches across the top and early trains ran on the inside edges, Mr. Stephenson had to subtract 3-1/2 inches for the railroad car wheel spacing making them 4 feet 8-1/2 inches. As railroad track technology improved so that the train wheels ran on top of the tracks, the tracks were moved closer to fit the rail car widths. Still others maintain that Mr. Stephenson originally designed the track gauge to measure 4 feet 8 inches, but during construction, he added in an extra half inch to allow for a little more leeway between rails and wheel flanges.
How ever the 4 foot 8-1/2 inch track gauge happened, it’s clear that the Roman military specification for “Chariots, War, Two-Horse” had nothing to do with it. While many things “standardized” today were first documented in either military or federal specifications – four-inch spacing of faucet’s for lavatories, standard sizes for floor tiles, rules for statistical sampling – someone else gets credit for track gauge spacing. Many believe that once an urban legend makes it to the Internet, it can never be undone. Perhaps. But we in the standards community have a reputation for requiring data to support contentions, and then challenging the data. So challenge the legend – when confronted with the chariot story, email back the truth. Just maybe we can knock this one legend off the tracks – whatever gauge they may be.”
Oh no, not that hoary old chestnut about equine posteriors.
Early, pre-industrial revolution, railways in the UK had gauges ranging from 10″ to over five feet between rails.
The Great Western Railway (UK) originally had a 7′ track gauge, whilst Ireland’s “standard gauge” remains today at 5’3″.
And in Australia, the NSW Government initially employed an Irishman as Chief Engineer who decided that NSW would use the Irish standard of 5’3″ for a track gauge.
The colonies of Victoria and South Australia were also on the cusp of introducing railways, so they decided to follow NSW’s lead and thus get a discount from the UK manufacturers from ordering in bulk and also economise through the three colonies having a shared basic standard for their railways.
So Melbourne and Adelaide put in their orders, and their initial locos, rollingstock and rails were on the ships en-route when New South Wales Railways’ original Chief Engineer was replaced by a Scotsman, who decided that 5’3″ was a stupid idea and that New South Wales ought to work with 4’8.5″ like the railways back in Scotland (ref: “When We Rode The Rails”, Patsy Adam-Smith).
Cape Gauge (3’6″) in Australia is for different reasons. In South Australia it was introduced as an economic measure to enable planned and promised new lines to be built during an economic slump that made Broad Gauge too expensive. In Queensland, Cape Gauge was adopted because it was the most suitable for ascending mountain ranges like the Great Dividing Range’s Toowoomba Escarpment. And in Western Australia, it was considered the most affordable option for laying track over the distance and terrain required and remain within the budget for the Colonial government.
Track gauge (the distance between the rails), by the way, is completely different from loading gauge. “Loading gauge” is the limit beyond which the physical size of the equipment cannot go due to structures such as signal posts, bridges, tunnels and platform faces.
Oh no, not that hoary old chestnut about equine posteriors.
Early, pre-industrial revolution, railways in the UK had gauges ranging from 10″ to over five feet between rails.
The Great Western Railway (UK) originally had a 7′ track gauge, whilst Ireland’s “standard gauge” remains today at 5’3″.
And in Australia, the NSW Government initially employed an Irishman as Chief Engineer who decided that NSW would use the Irish standard of 5’3″ for a track gauge.
The colonies of Victoria and South Australia were also on the cusp of introducing railways, so they decided to follow NSW’s lead and thus get a discount from the UK manufacturers from ordering in bulk and also economise through the three colonies having a shared basic standard for their railways.
So Melbourne and Adelaide put in their orders, and their initial locos, rollingstock and rails were on the ships en-route when New South Wales Railways’ original Chief Engineer was replaced by a Scotsman, who decided that 5’3″ was a stupid idea and that New South Wales ought to work with 4’8.5″ like the railways back in Scotland (ref: “When We Rode The Rails”, Patsy Adam-Smith).
Cape Gauge (3’6″) in Australia is for different reasons. In South Australia it was introduced as an economic measure to enable planned and promised new lines to be built during an economic slump that made Broad Gauge too expensive. In Queensland, Cape Gauge was adopted because it was the most suitable for ascending mountain ranges like the Great Dividing Range’s Toowoomba Escarpment. And in Western Australia, it was considered the most affordable option for laying track over the distance and terrain required and remain within the budget for the Colonial government.
Track gauge (the distance between the rails), by the way, is completely different from loading gauge. “Loading gauge” is the limit beyond which the physical size of the equipment cannot go due to structures such as signal posts, bridges, tunnels and platform faces.
There is no comment in this, Terangeree, I am exploring what is existing in relation to every where else. So far it seems that the “standard guage” is very much that. I was looking to see if the US trans continental multi engined gas turbine powered 3 mile long trains ran on a different guage. But it does not seem to be the case.
http://frontierindia.net/alm/russia-develops-the-world%E2%80%99s-most-powerful-gas-turbine-locomotive/156/
http://electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot.com/2009/06/worlds-most-powerful-hybrid-locomotive.html
Or what is considered to be big and powerful. And why would there be a need for such equipment.
It seems that the main routes are standardised for rail width at least. So the discussion has to be about increasing the clearences to improve the payload to rolling stock ratio in order to reduce fuel consumption (CO2 emissions). However to increase axle loads the rails thenselves may have to be replaced as well with rails with more durable running faces.
I imagine that the entire evaluation would be mess of situational requirements and special interests. Not a simple decision. Unless there is some unified or overiding objective, as could be achieved with strategic capitalism. This is the advantage of a single interest rail operation such as one servicing an iron ore deposit.
There is no comment in this, Terangeree, I am exploring what is existing in relation to every where else. So far it seems that the “standard guage” is very much that. I was looking to see if the US trans continental multi engined gas turbine powered 3 mile long trains ran on a different guage. But it does not seem to be the case.
http://frontierindia.net/alm/russia-develops-the-world%E2%80%99s-most-powerful-gas-turbine-locomotive/156/
http://electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot.com/2009/06/worlds-most-powerful-hybrid-locomotive.html
Or what is considered to be big and powerful. And why would there be a need for such equipment.
It seems that the main routes are standardised for rail width at least. So the discussion has to be about increasing the clearences to improve the payload to rolling stock ratio in order to reduce fuel consumption (CO2 emissions). However to increase axle loads the rails thenselves may have to be replaced as well with rails with more durable running faces.
I imagine that the entire evaluation would be mess of situational requirements and special interests. Not a simple decision. Unless there is some unified or overiding objective, as could be achieved with strategic capitalism. This is the advantage of a single interest rail operation such as one servicing an iron ore deposit.
Agree Robert. Anyone who’s done the Hume as often as I have (especially at night)is struck by the numbers of trucks going up and down to Sydney. The waste and road damage is incomprehensible.
Doesn’t mean we can’t have both of course, tracks dont take up much room.
Agree Robert. Anyone who’s done the Hume as often as I have (especially at night)is struck by the numbers of trucks going up and down to Sydney. The waste and road damage is incomprehensible.
Doesn’t mean we can’t have both of course, tracks dont take up much room.
I think, Oldskeptic, that many of those trucks are providing overnight delivery for a broad range of product categories. The economics of it make it viable to have one driver per 40 tonne (and less) payload because courier charges allow for 50cents per kilogramme for an intercity run. So that trip could be worth from $5000 to $20,000 dollars to the transport operator.
High speed rail would make more sense if it recognised that there is a combined goods and passenger market for the 5 hour or less intercity run. If rail focused on that reality and serviced that need then most of those trucks would disappear form view very quickly.
I think, Oldskeptic, that many of those trucks are providing overnight delivery for a broad range of product categories. The economics of it make it viable to have one driver per 40 tonne (and less) payload because courier charges allow for 50cents per kilogramme for an intercity run. So that trip could be worth from $5000 to $20,000 dollars to the transport operator.
High speed rail would make more sense if it recognised that there is a combined goods and passenger market for the 5 hour or less intercity run. If rail focused on that reality and serviced that need then most of those trucks would disappear form view very quickly.
The only HSR freight operation in the world is in France, which has a couple of TGV sets dedicated to the postal service.
I don’t think HSR would be necessary for rail freight. An upgrade to existing track to increase average speeds to slightly more than trucks are legally capable of doing would be sufficient. At present, the trucks average about 100km/h, whereas trains run Brisbane-Sydney and Sydney-Melbourne at substantially less speed (trains running between Brisbane and Sydney have an average speed of about 50km/h for the trip, for example).
The only HSR freight operation in the world is in France, which has a couple of TGV sets dedicated to the postal service.
I don’t think HSR would be necessary for rail freight. An upgrade to existing track to increase average speeds to slightly more than trucks are legally capable of doing would be sufficient. At present, the trucks average about 100km/h, whereas trains run Brisbane-Sydney and Sydney-Melbourne at substantially less speed (trains running between Brisbane and Sydney have an average speed of about 50km/h for the trip, for example).
Trouble is the massive subsidies to road transport.
Basically damage to a road goes up as the cube of the axle weight. Translated nearly all damage to roads, especially the expensive deep kind, comes from trucks.
Now what they pay in tax is a decimal point of the cost of building and maintaining it. Therefore they are subsidised by everyone else (ie you and me).
Yep good old taxpayer us gets slugged in the neck again to protect a politically well connected group.
Now remove those hidden subsidies and road transport freight costs go up by several orders of magnitude*, which means that there is not a single Sydney/Melbourne trip that would be economical compared to rail.
I remember a cost analysis in the UK (a fight over some tunnel’s tarrifs) and an average truck damaged the road 3 million times more than a motorcycle.
*An order of magnitude of 1 means multiply by 10, 2 = 100, 3=1000 and so on.
Trouble is the massive subsidies to road transport.
Basically damage to a road goes up as the cube of the axle weight. Translated nearly all damage to roads, especially the expensive deep kind, comes from trucks.
Now what they pay in tax is a decimal point of the cost of building and maintaining it. Therefore they are subsidised by everyone else (ie you and me).
Yep good old taxpayer us gets slugged in the neck again to protect a politically well connected group.
Now remove those hidden subsidies and road transport freight costs go up by several orders of magnitude*, which means that there is not a single Sydney/Melbourne trip that would be economical compared to rail.
I remember a cost analysis in the UK (a fight over some tunnel’s tarrifs) and an average truck damaged the road 3 million times more than a motorcycle.
*An order of magnitude of 1 means multiply by 10, 2 = 100, 3=1000 and so on.
The more that I think about it a high speed rail freight service for overnight freight augmenting passenger line useage makes great sense, particularly for the Australian city spacings.
The other thing that makes great sense is the hybride locomotive that I came upon by chance (@46 link 2). Over the Blue mountains is a constant procession of coal carrying trains each with 4 diesel electric locomotives. This used to be performed by the Old red electric locomotives (Granvile Disaster type) which we all assumed efficiciently put the downhill energy back into the overhead power lines. Not so. Whereas they could do this, there had to be another train going up hill in the same rail section to use the energy or it was wasted in heating up resistor banks in trackside buildings. The regenerative breaking probably works efficiently in the city rail system where there are a higher density of rail movements to balance out power useage.
Why don’t things change? At the end of the day energy/fuel is just a cost and it is still cheap.
The more that I think about it a high speed rail freight service for overnight freight augmenting passenger line useage makes great sense, particularly for the Australian city spacings.
The other thing that makes great sense is the hybride locomotive that I came upon by chance (@46 link 2). Over the Blue mountains is a constant procession of coal carrying trains each with 4 diesel electric locomotives. This used to be performed by the Old red electric locomotives (Granvile Disaster type) which we all assumed efficiciently put the downhill energy back into the overhead power lines. Not so. Whereas they could do this, there had to be another train going up hill in the same rail section to use the energy or it was wasted in heating up resistor banks in trackside buildings. The regenerative breaking probably works efficiently in the city rail system where there are a higher density of rail movements to balance out power useage.
Why don’t things change? At the end of the day energy/fuel is just a cost and it is still cheap.
More succinctly….energy is cheaper than change.
More succinctly….energy is cheaper than change.
BilB @ 51.
All diesel-electric locomotives are “hybrid” locomotives. In short, their diesel motor is nothing more than an on-board power station that provided electricity to the electric motors that power the wheels.
The US locomotive you referred to only stores the energy generated by dynamic brakes into a bank of batteries instead of letting it dissipate into the atmosphere.
That’s no good for this driver, as I tend to use the air brakes that go through the train instead of the dynamic brakes (which only are on the locomotives) when driving (it’s quieter that way, and dynamic brakes can cause more stress on the couplers).
BilB @ 51.
All diesel-electric locomotives are “hybrid” locomotives. In short, their diesel motor is nothing more than an on-board power station that provided electricity to the electric motors that power the wheels.
The US locomotive you referred to only stores the energy generated by dynamic brakes into a bank of batteries instead of letting it dissipate into the atmosphere.
That’s no good for this driver, as I tend to use the air brakes that go through the train instead of the dynamic brakes (which only are on the locomotives) when driving (it’s quieter that way, and dynamic brakes can cause more stress on the couplers).
Well I can only go on the claims of the article. Obviously the amount of storable energy is limited. If energy recovery is available then that is a cost saving moderated by my new slogan
Energy is Cheaper than Change
and the the cost of grade 5 ear protection for the drivers.
On a long run with moderate grades a hybride capacity, apart from the fuel savings declared, may well save a measurable amount of wheel brake pad life, not to mention wheel rim life. Coupling loads are another matter indeed, but I sincerely doubt that there is any difference in the coupling loadings created by the locomotive tension loads (normal drive) to that of compressive loads (dynamic breaking). Neither of these can exceed the other as they are limited to the “grip” that the locomotive wheels have with the track. For that reason I would be inclined to say, “coupling loading, red herring”.
Well I can only go on the claims of the article. Obviously the amount of storable energy is limited. If energy recovery is available then that is a cost saving moderated by my new slogan
Energy is Cheaper than Change
and the the cost of grade 5 ear protection for the drivers.
On a long run with moderate grades a hybride capacity, apart from the fuel savings declared, may well save a measurable amount of wheel brake pad life, not to mention wheel rim life. Coupling loads are another matter indeed, but I sincerely doubt that there is any difference in the coupling loadings created by the locomotive tension loads (normal drive) to that of compressive loads (dynamic breaking). Neither of these can exceed the other as they are limited to the “grip” that the locomotive wheels have with the track. For that reason I would be inclined to say, “coupling loading, red herring”.
Australia does still have some rail manufacturing industry. As I understand it, the diesel electric railcars purchased by the WA Public Transport Authority for its Prospector and Avonlink country passenger services in 2004 were manufactured in NSW by UGL Rail. The company also manufactures freight rolling stock.
Australia does still have some rail manufacturing industry. As I understand it, the diesel electric railcars purchased by the WA Public Transport Authority for its Prospector and Avonlink country passenger services in 2004 were manufactured in NSW by UGL Rail. The company also manufactures freight rolling stock.
BilB @ 54:
It’s not the loads so much as the incredible jolt you get through the train if you make a slight mistake when applying or releasing the dynamic brake, or if you make a slight mistake when you’re combining both dynamic and train brakes.
As for the noise: dynamic isn’t all that noisy if you’re in the locomotive cab. If you’re outside the loco and within earshot of the railway line, however, dynamic brakes can be quite loud.
Tim @ 55:
There’s also about five loco and rollingstock manufacturers in Queensland.
BilB @ 54:
It’s not the loads so much as the incredible jolt you get through the train if you make a slight mistake when applying or releasing the dynamic brake, or if you make a slight mistake when you’re combining both dynamic and train brakes.
As for the noise: dynamic isn’t all that noisy if you’re in the locomotive cab. If you’re outside the loco and within earshot of the railway line, however, dynamic brakes can be quite loud.
Tim @ 55:
There’s also about five loco and rollingstock manufacturers in Queensland.
On Gary John’s article in today’s Oz
On Gary John’s article in today’s Oz
Thanks Dave, it’s inspired me to work on another post.
Thanks Dave, it’s inspired me to work on another post.
I think that we should all be offended by Gary Johns’
“theory of the green mind is that they are people who are pessimistic about the human ability to deal with the physical world”
with oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. Skepticism should not be confused with ability. But with the Adelaide to Alice line now recapitalised to a new owner isolating losses, I think that it is past time for “location, location, location” to wash away Howard’s “nation building” fantasy. The VFT was almost certainly a safer commercial bet. So who has the better hold on reality.
I think that we should all be offended by Gary Johns’
“theory of the green mind is that they are people who are pessimistic about the human ability to deal with the physical world”
with oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. Skepticism should not be confused with ability. But with the Adelaide to Alice line now recapitalised to a new owner isolating losses, I think that it is past time for “location, location, location” to wash away Howard’s “nation building” fantasy. The VFT was almost certainly a safer commercial bet. So who has the better hold on reality.