Greens call for a high speed rail link (2 Viewers)

[jennyfromdabloc]

its not that fucking complicated moving massive trains at high speed uses a lot of energy. TGV atlantique uses 13.2kWh per kilometer, and only carries about twice as many passengers as a 767 or 1.5 times that of an Airbus A330 (the planes that fly Sydney to melbourne)

rail = nice and green and cool because they have it EUROPE

planes = dirty, bad, old technology.

just like;

nuclear = evil, and will lead to mutated FUTURE GENERATIONS

no actual analysis of the impacts is required. High speed rail would be cool okay. They have it in the most densely populated places on earth. If we don't bring it to one of the least densely populated places on earth we'll FALL BEHIND.

 

[loquasagacious]

Additional stations will make it green and profitable. There is no need to consider the effect that additional stations would have on speed.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

rail = nice and green and cool because they have it EUROPE

planes = dirty, bad, old technology.

just like;

nuclear = evil, and will lead to mutated FUTURE GENERATIONS

no actual analysis of the impacts is required. High speed rail would be cool okay. They have it in the most densely populated places on earth. If we don't bring it to one of the least densely populated places on earth we'll FALL BEHIND.

do you not understand? less stops means greater efficiency. the population density means nothing.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

CO2 emissions: Train versus plane

 

[loquasagacious]

do you not understand? less stops means greater efficiency. the population density means nothing.

Population density means nothing????

Are you serious????

The less dense the population the longer the distance between population centres. This has a whole host of ramifications including:
- more expensive to construct
- greater speed advantage to planes
- less people to travel on it
- more potential for a fault to take the system down
- bigger transmission losses (e.g. it needs more electricity)
- etc etc

 

[Richard Gilmore]

I suppose it means something, just not the massive deal that you people are making it out to be.

- more expensive to construct

I disagree. Less stations, etc. It'd be a straight line between them with a few stops here and there (Sydney, Campbelltown, Goulburn, Canberra, Albury, Tullamarine, Melbourne). It'd be like a train from Paris to Berlin - lots of traffic between the two, but the only difference is that there'd be less stops between. Meaning lesser construction costs, less maintainance costs and greater fuel efficiency.

The Sydney-Melbourne route is a very busy one.

- greater speed advantage to planes

The link I provided shows that the time delay isn't that massive, and in some cases, favours trains.

Plus the emissions difference is absolutely gigantic. (90% cut)

And anyway, as I said, fewer stops would mean a faster time. That's not a complicated science.

- less people to travel on it

It's a busy route so I don't think that'll be a problem. In fact, wiki sez "The Melbourne-Sydney route is the world’s fourth busiest air route in both passenger numbers and the number of flights (variable figure of 800 flights per week)." And anyway who cares? This point can easily be made for any transport option, including air travel. The solution would be to downsize either the size of the carriages or the frequency. We don't run 747's between Sydney-Melbourne, after all.

- more potential for a fault to take the system down

How exactly? Faults usually arrive thanks to complexity right? This route wouldn't really be all that complex and fewer stops means lesser complexity. And if you're trying to make the point that trains have lesser reliability or safety than planes, well...yeah...

- bigger transmission losses (e.g. it needs more electricity)

I think that's a function of distance, rather than density. But yes, that would be a problem. But it doesn't exactly favour the plane, which is an incredibly wasteful and energy inefficient form of transport that pumps its joy right into the upper atmosphere where it does the most damage!

 

[aussie-boy]

How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
High-Speed Rail and CO2 - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

1. Those conclusively show that in operation, trains use a hell of a lot less energy than planes

2. The Freakonomics study shows that after 60yrs, all environmental benefits will have paid for themselves... thats a reasonable time frame when you consider the potential life of this infrastructure (many of our current rail lines date from the mid-1800s

Citation required.

We do chose how we travel and speed is a big factor. If I'm doing a day-trip to Sydney or Melbourne for meetings do I really want my trip to take several hours longer? No. That inconveniences me, eats into my quality of life and costs my employer through overtime and reduced productivity.

For business travel I usually walk into an airport about 15minutes before boarding. Gives me enough time to get screened and walk to the terminal.

Ground transport at both ends = 50mins
Boarding+check-in process (with status) = 45mins
Flight = 80mins
Total = 2:55

Ground transport at both ends = 20mins
Walking onto train = 15mins
Journey = 3:00
Total = 3:35

So there's less than 1 hour in it.

And trains will have WIFI, and lack takeoff/landing procedures and regulations - i.e. 2 full extra hours of meeting preparation available.

Its clear that with the right financial incentive companies will elect to move their employees onto trains.

And who is to say that HSR would not have airport-like levels of security? A bomb on HSR would seem devastatingly effective....

None of the European networks have security (except Eurostar which goes through a massive tunnel). A bomb wouldn't even have a big impact... the trains are extremely long and thin.

---

EDIT: just saw you're from Canberra.
An HSR Syd-Canberra would EASILY beat a plane... journey time would be less than 1hr

 

[Richard Gilmore]

A bomb would have an enormous impact - I wouldn't deny that. A bombed plane goes down. A bombed train derails and takes part of the infrastructure with it. I suppose though that you've got to consider that this rail line would be entirely domestic, whereas flights from Sydney airport go all over the world - the security situations has got to take that into account and certainly, less security would be required for rail.

As for the time difference, you've also got to consider that a train can (and it almost certainly would) go right into the heart of the city - something that a plane can not do. In Sydney this makes a massive time difference. In Melbourne I'm not sure - but from what I recall, isn't Tullamarine located a considerable distance from the Melbourne CBD?

 

[Richard Gilmore]

this isn't light and offbeat news - its a current affair and its an important one.

what a joke.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Via Canberra and Albury would be over 1000 km, based on the current highway. a high speed train can't just go straight between there because of that whole great dividing range thing, and it needs corners with radius no less than 7 km.

Over 1000 km = more CO2 than a plane, as we have coal power.

CO2 emissions:� Train versus plane

?London, UK -0.1167
51.5000
Paris, FR 2.3333
48.8667
Miles: 211.61
Kilometers: 340.55
Bearing: SE?

Also aussie-boy your maths is wrong, 3 hour train ride assumes an average speed of over 300 km/h which means no stops, and if it didn't stop at canberra it'd be even more unviable. 250 km/h average is a reasonable estimate, making it closer to 4 hours.

Not to mention from airport to central station in sydney is only 10 minutes by train, so it is at most that much more than the train would be, not 30 minutes more.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

obviously a well planned railway would cross the GDR at a point that would offer maximum efficiency (distance, gradient, speed etc). the hume highway with a detour through canberra could be an option.

Over 1000 km = more CO2 than a plane, as we have coal power.

1. a point where the greens proposal fails. but there are other power options in australia. nuclear power for instance [don't get excited though, because it's not gonna last for long]. i think any sensible proposal for sustainability in australia would not rely on coal too much longer into the future.

2. the link i provided (which got its information from eurostar) shows a 90% reduction in CO2 for train/plane.

a flight from sydney-melbourne is 713km, a flight from paris-london is about 680km return. the link i quoted has CO2 emissions for that return flight between london-paris listed as 244kg CO2/passenger. the distance is about the same, a one way flight between sydney-melbourne should therefore be a little more than 244kg CO2/passenger.

the same website lists the return emissions between london-paris on the eurostar as 22kg CO2/passenger. again, the distance is about the same, so the CO2 of the eurostar would be (very) roughly equal to the emissions on a HSR between sydney-melbourne*

the eurostar route has very few stops. I'm on wikipedia and I'm counting five between London-Paris. My proposal had four. Therefore, if the Sydney-Melbourne proposal was similar to that of the Eurostar, a comparison could be made.

*like you said, coal is the problem. the eurostar gets its electricity mainly from france where 75% of electricity is nuclear.

thus, if australia switched the nuclear (and why haven't we?), the HSR would be totally awesome, right?

 

[Optimus Prime]

if we had nuclear yes I think it'd be a much better idea, I'm still not sure it would attract enough people to b economically feasable but in terms of CO2, then yes it would. I said this already I'm pretty sure. CO2/passenger depends on the plane, a rough estimate for a 767 (just I found the fuel consumption easily and it is the right size) puts it at closer to 75 kg per passenger.

Edit: Yeah to calculate the distance I did hume via canberra and albury but it'd almost definitely be more because trains can't take the same kind of grades as cars and the corners have to be MUCH larger for high speed.

Like I said, fact of the matter is moving a heavy object at highspeed requires a lot of energy, and drag along the length of the train isn't negligible. If that were the case we wouldn't have pumping losses in things like pipes, even though there is zero frontal area. Without nuclear it isn't green. Planes are actually very efficient for what they do.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

75kg CO2/passenger is fair enough, but like you said, you've got to consider the other planes. what's the most frequently operated plane on that route? i would have thought it would be the 737 and the equivalent from airbus.

fact of the matter is moving a heavy object at highspeed requires a lot of energy

especially when its up in the air (pumping its waste high into the atmosphere).

 

[Optimus Prime]

Nope, 767 and A320, remember though that 737s carry more people so per passenger wouldn't be that much worse. And as I explained previously, high altitude = considerably less energy.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

And as I explained previously, high altitude = considerably less energy.

but still more than a train. i mean, even the link that those libertarian nutjob's posted confirm this.

Domestic air flights in the United States average 0.022 gallons of fuel for each passenger mile, and using a gallon of jet fuel is associated with 21.095 pounds of carbon dioxide. I’ll again increase that by 20 percent to reflect refining, and that comes to a total of 133.7 pounds of carbon dioxide on a 240-mile plane trip. This number is close to a Center for Clean Air Study figure based on flying a regional jet.

A classic study pegged high-speed rail in Europe as using from 6.1 to 11.1 kilowatt hours for every 100 passenger miles. The Center for Clear Air Policy also gives electricity use figures for a number of high-speed rail lines that run from 5.6 kilowatt hours for every 100 passenger miles for German intercity trains to 15.6 kilowatt hours for every 100 passenger miles for a Japanese bullet train.

Taking a middle figure of 8.6 kilowatt hours for every 100 passenger miles, and using the North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimate of 1.555 pounds of carbon dioxide for each kilowatt in Texas means 13.37 pounds of carbon dioxide for every 100 passenger miles, or 32.1 pounds of carbon dioxide for a 240-mile trip.

assuming that their method is reliable, on a direct comparison trains are more fuel efficienct than planes so there's no need to keep bringing up the point about altitude or whatever.

 

[aussie-boy]

Via Canberra and Albury would be over 1000 km, based on the current highway. a high speed train can't just go straight between there because of that whole great dividing range thing, and it needs corners with radius no less than 7 km.

Over 1000 km = more CO2 than a plane, as we have coal power.

You would obviously have to tunnel under the great dividing range
And HSR can handle some pretty impressive grades due to the sheer momentum of the trains

That puts the distance at 830km

The articles posted earlier suggest your estimates are wrong... even if you're right, the margin is very slim, and you seem to have forgotten that the biggest benefits are opening up more international landing slots and encouraging regional development.

Also aussie-boy your maths is wrong, 3 hour train ride assumes an average speed of over 300 km/h which means no stops, and if it didn't stop at canberra it'd be even more unviable. 250 km/h average is a reasonable estimate, making it closer to 4 hours.

Current generation of HSR has line speed = 350-370km/h
So average speed of 275km/h is absolutely feasible

Also, there would obviously be a combination of express and slow trains; probably something like this (from the Speedrail project)

VFT timetable

Not to mention from airport to central station in sydney is only 10 minutes by train, so it is at most that much more than the train would be, not 30 minutes more.

Thats 30mins in total - say 15mins at each end. Say 10mins in Syd, 20 in Melb.

 

[Slidey]

As usual the mods cluelessly move a topic to light and offbeat news so they can say they did their 5 minutes of moderating for the day.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That train figure is for a regular train. I was basing my calculations on TGV atlantique which states 13.2 kw.h per train kilometer. Why would you compare with America that doesn't have HSR? Low speed trains are obviously more effecient I'm not disputing that.

Yeah I meant at the Sydney end only melbourne's PT isn't well integrated in my experience (though it has been a while since I was last there. Tunnelling under the great dividing range would cost a fortune, I don't think that's entirely feasable. Also I still don't agree that it would only be 830 km. It'd be the same as the highway distance at best I'd estimate. I'm over it anyway.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

As usual the mods cluelessly move a topic to light and offbeat news so they can say they did their 5 minutes of moderating for the day.

One point we actually agree on.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think we are done with this thread tbh. Does everyone agree with these points:

-HSR is a great form of high speed travel when powered by low carbon producing electricity
-In the current environment (no pun intended), it is not really viable economically or environmentally.
-With increasing population in Sydney and Melbourne and a move away from coal it would be great in the future.