Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Alternative energy
An interesting article by Michael Meacher in Monday’s Daily Telegraph looked at global energy consumption, and suggested that the world has already used up half of its identified oil reserves. And whereas the first half lasted 145 years, such is the rate of consumption that we will get through the rest in just 40.
So where will that leave the railway industry? After more than 100 years of reliance on steam, the majority of rail operators today use diesel traction. Trials with alternative technologies are negligible. A prototype biogas-fuelled railcar unveiled in Sweden last year attracted interest, and US investors are looking at growing crops for biodiesel. Next month East Japan Railway plans to put into operation a three-car multiple-unit powered by fuel cells.
There has been a lot of talk about fuel cells, particularly if the rail industry can piggyback on developments in the automotive market. Fuel cells offer potential benefits in terms of reduced emissions at the point of use. But as with biodiesel there are questions about the energy needed to generate the fuel in the first place. Writing in the August 2005 issue of Railway Gazette International, traction expert Professor Roger Kemp explained that the use of fuel cells was less efficient, in terms of power losses, than conventional electrification.
Fuel is really only a means of storing and transferring energy to the point where it is needed. Given that the recent steep oil price increases are not likely to be the last, perhaps more railways need to revisit the idea of electrification. Today electric operation is mainly restricted to Europe and parts of Asia. And only in Russia and China are there big programmes of railway electrification: Chinese Railways is currently wiring around 5 000 km a year. Electric traction also offers the prospect of sustainable generation: trains in Japan and Sweden and trams in Calgary are driven by wind power, and Swiss railways have has long relied on hydroelectricity thanks to the mountainous terrain.
Since early electrification schemes were abandoned in the 1950s and 1970s, North America's freight railways have been the bastion of efficient high-power diesel operation. Pressure from the railways has seen loco builders squeezing more and more fuel efficiency out of their engine designs, with spin-off benefits for operators in other parts of the world. Common wisdom says the high fixed costs of electrification do not sit well with the long straggling transcontinental main lines.
Recent electrification proposals in the USA have been driven mainly by concerns over air pollution in urban regions such as the Los Angeles basin or the Texas chemical belt. But in operating terms short regional electrified networks are inefficient, forcing extra loco changes and requiring the wiring up of a dense network of low-density feeder routes.
In terms of global energy consumption, perhaps we should look at the other end of the spectrum – at those long straggling main lines. Over the past two decades, the Class I railroads have concentrated more and more traffic onto a few high-capacity corridors. Add in the FRA requirement for trains to be inspected every 1 600 km, and a possible strategy emerges.
Electrifying the trunk lines from the West Coast to the Midwest in ‘chunks’ of 800 or 1 600 km, corresponding to crew change or inspection division points, would minimise the impact of loco changes on utilisation. The long distances and the need to minimise the supply infrastructure suggest 50 kV – as on South Africa’s Orex iron ore line – or at least 2 x 25 kV autotransformer feeding. Overhead electrification would have to provide clearance for double-stack intermodal under the wires, but this is being pioneered in Russia and should not be insurmountable.
So where will that leave the railway industry? After more than 100 years of reliance on steam, the majority of rail operators today use diesel traction. Trials with alternative technologies are negligible. A prototype biogas-fuelled railcar unveiled in Sweden last year attracted interest, and US investors are looking at growing crops for biodiesel. Next month East Japan Railway plans to put into operation a three-car multiple-unit powered by fuel cells.
There has been a lot of talk about fuel cells, particularly if the rail industry can piggyback on developments in the automotive market. Fuel cells offer potential benefits in terms of reduced emissions at the point of use. But as with biodiesel there are questions about the energy needed to generate the fuel in the first place. Writing in the August 2005 issue of Railway Gazette International, traction expert Professor Roger Kemp explained that the use of fuel cells was less efficient, in terms of power losses, than conventional electrification.
Fuel is really only a means of storing and transferring energy to the point where it is needed. Given that the recent steep oil price increases are not likely to be the last, perhaps more railways need to revisit the idea of electrification. Today electric operation is mainly restricted to Europe and parts of Asia. And only in Russia and China are there big programmes of railway electrification: Chinese Railways is currently wiring around 5 000 km a year. Electric traction also offers the prospect of sustainable generation: trains in Japan and Sweden and trams in Calgary are driven by wind power, and Swiss railways have has long relied on hydroelectricity thanks to the mountainous terrain.
Since early electrification schemes were abandoned in the 1950s and 1970s, North America's freight railways have been the bastion of efficient high-power diesel operation. Pressure from the railways has seen loco builders squeezing more and more fuel efficiency out of their engine designs, with spin-off benefits for operators in other parts of the world. Common wisdom says the high fixed costs of electrification do not sit well with the long straggling transcontinental main lines.
Recent electrification proposals in the USA have been driven mainly by concerns over air pollution in urban regions such as the Los Angeles basin or the Texas chemical belt. But in operating terms short regional electrified networks are inefficient, forcing extra loco changes and requiring the wiring up of a dense network of low-density feeder routes.
In terms of global energy consumption, perhaps we should look at the other end of the spectrum – at those long straggling main lines. Over the past two decades, the Class I railroads have concentrated more and more traffic onto a few high-capacity corridors. Add in the FRA requirement for trains to be inspected every 1 600 km, and a possible strategy emerges.
Electrifying the trunk lines from the West Coast to the Midwest in ‘chunks’ of 800 or 1 600 km, corresponding to crew change or inspection division points, would minimise the impact of loco changes on utilisation. The long distances and the need to minimise the supply infrastructure suggest 50 kV – as on South Africa’s Orex iron ore line – or at least 2 x 25 kV autotransformer feeding. Overhead electrification would have to provide clearance for double-stack intermodal under the wires, but this is being pioneered in Russia and should not be insurmountable.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Turbulent times ahead
Attending the World Congress on Railway Research in Montreal earlier this month, Canada's junior transport minister Brian Jean referred to a 'new Golden Age' for rail. It set me wondering what exactly does the industry face in the years ahead?
The increasing globalisation of the world economy offers huge potential for rail transport over the next few years. But harnessing this successfully will require some radical thinking from operators, investors, and politicians alike. If the rail sector is to succeed, it needs to identify its core strengths and build on them. What are the market sectors where the industry can capitalise on the inherent advantages of rail technology?
That the industry is in for a turbulent time was indicated again on Thursday, when the European Commission formally adopted a mid-term review of its 2001 White Paper on Transport Policy to 2010. This endorsed the strategy of opening up Europe's railways to greater competition and deregulation over the next few years. The Commission's hope is that new entrants and new thinking will make rail more competitive with other modes and boost Europe's global competitiveness.
So what role can research play in this? In North America the private freight railroads' focus is primarily on getting better value for money, or 'doing more with less' as former WCRR Chairman Roy Allen of TTCI put it. Engineers are pushing at the boundaries of railway technology in terms of heavier axleloads, longer rail life, better fuel efficiency and so on. In Europe, we are still at the stage of seeking common technical standards for cross-border operation, which would open up the prospect of longer and more profitable hauls.
Also needing to be addressed in the next few years will be the increasingly important area of environmental sustainability, where the industry has perhaps been resting on its laurels for too long. Work is needed on issues such as noise, exhaust emissions, energy consumption and alternative fuels, and even such apparently esoteric topics as drainage and watercourse pollution. If rail can get its act together, it offers the prospect of reduced environmental impact and a reduced reliance on cars, lorries or aircraft.
All of these topics - and more - will still be regularly explored in the news and feature pages of Railway Gazette International, but over the coming months I hope this forum will allow people to discuss some of the issues in a more relaxed manner.
The increasing globalisation of the world economy offers huge potential for rail transport over the next few years. But harnessing this successfully will require some radical thinking from operators, investors, and politicians alike. If the rail sector is to succeed, it needs to identify its core strengths and build on them. What are the market sectors where the industry can capitalise on the inherent advantages of rail technology?
That the industry is in for a turbulent time was indicated again on Thursday, when the European Commission formally adopted a mid-term review of its 2001 White Paper on Transport Policy to 2010. This endorsed the strategy of opening up Europe's railways to greater competition and deregulation over the next few years. The Commission's hope is that new entrants and new thinking will make rail more competitive with other modes and boost Europe's global competitiveness.
So what role can research play in this? In North America the private freight railroads' focus is primarily on getting better value for money, or 'doing more with less' as former WCRR Chairman Roy Allen of TTCI put it. Engineers are pushing at the boundaries of railway technology in terms of heavier axleloads, longer rail life, better fuel efficiency and so on. In Europe, we are still at the stage of seeking common technical standards for cross-border operation, which would open up the prospect of longer and more profitable hauls.
Also needing to be addressed in the next few years will be the increasingly important area of environmental sustainability, where the industry has perhaps been resting on its laurels for too long. Work is needed on issues such as noise, exhaust emissions, energy consumption and alternative fuels, and even such apparently esoteric topics as drainage and watercourse pollution. If rail can get its act together, it offers the prospect of reduced environmental impact and a reduced reliance on cars, lorries or aircraft.
All of these topics - and more - will still be regularly explored in the news and feature pages of Railway Gazette International, but over the coming months I hope this forum will allow people to discuss some of the issues in a more relaxed manner.
