ARA: Improving Rail Freights Environmental Performance

[ozbob]

http://www.ara.net.au/site/newsarchive.php?id=7

Improving Rail Freights Environmental Performance

The Australasian Railway Association (ARA), on behalf of the rail industry, has officially released the Environmental Solutions for Freight Rail initiative, calling on Government and industry cooperation to improve rail's emissions and fuel efficiency performance.

The Challenge

While rail is the most fuel efficient form of land transport, segments of the rail industry, especially those serving regional areas, lag behind in terms of environmental performance. Some of these locomotives are operating with diesel engines that are more than 40 years old.

Compared to current technology, these engines emit: more than six times the level of Carbon Monoxide; approximately four times the levels of Particulate Matter; twice the levels of Nitrogen Oxides; and 20-30 percent more CO2 per tonne kilometre.

There is little commercial incentive to replace these locomotives due to poor route profitability and the exceptionally high cost of modification or replacement of such locomotives. Many of these locomotives run on community service obligations.

The Solution

The rail industry has undertaken a review to guarantee the improvement of rail's environmental performance. The industry has developed a plan of action to partner with Government to: address the ageing fleet of locomotives and put the Australian rail industry in line with international performance on emissions; and propose a long-term environmental solution for rail to enable it to contribute to achieving Australia's emissions reduction targets.

In the short term the industry proposes a ten-year program of repowering and/or replacing up to 183 of Australia's worst performing locomotives.

In the longer term, the industry proposes a joint research and development program into the use of natural gas in Australia's locomotives. This program would focus on developing solutions to utilise natural gas as a primary alternative fuel for high powered and well-utilised locomotives.

More --> http://www.ara.net.au/site/newsarchive.php?id=7

[Stillwater]

Some facts to ponder:
rail freight requires a third of the fuel and gives rise to half the green gas emissions associated with the movement of a similar amount of freight by road.
a single freight train from Melbourne to Sydney can replace 150 semi-trailers (and almost all the drivers), use 45,000 litres less fuel and cause half the emissions by the road transport required for the same task.

[#Metro]

It is great to think about these type of benefits, but the things that get action are:

1. Is it cheaper
2. Is it faster
3. Does it go to places where there is demand

That is what is going to attract investment. There has to be money and savings behind it. A carbon trading scheme to properly
price emissions would also help IMHO. This is why I think HSR freight will be essential in any proper evaluation of HSR.
The speed alone would leave road freight for dead. If the HSR is electric, then there will be no need for research into natural gas locomotives.

[Stillwater]

To the equation must be added the fact that rail requires double handing (to and from trucks) at each end, whereas semi-trailers and B-doubles operate door-to-door.  On current alignments, rail certainly is not faster.  The condition of the track and its alignment is an inhibiting factor, especially on the North Coast Line.

[#Metro]

If you want more money and more customers, rotten apples must be taken off the shelves and thrown in the bin!
Yes, the national rail network needs some fixing, no arguments about the North Coast line!

[somebody]

SYD-MEL, rail freight uses something like 80% the fuel of road freight and doesn't offer evening departure and morning delivery, or significant cost savings over road.  There needs to be expenditure of at least $1bn (probably more now) to build the Cenntenial, Hoare and Wentworth deviations as well as the SSFL for rail to stand any chance.  Not to mention that the concrete sleeper program without improved ballast has been largely disastrous according to posters on other sites such as railbastard.  Inland rail options largely turn their back on SYD-MEL & SYD-BNE freight which isn't something I've ever been in favour of.

Definitely in favour of Natural Gas, but it does beg the question: why don't they use it in the US?