Papi Chulo
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 8, 2018
- 6,260
- 7,395
Sihifadhi takataka kwenye simu yangu
Cost comparison SGR Kenya vs SGR Tanzania
Cost comparison SGR Kenya vs SGR Tanzania
- Thread starter Geza Ulole
- Start date
komora096
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 26, 2018
- 20,548
- 5,647
[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]ulimueka nani sawa[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]suti mm ndio inipeleke wapi.tuna nguo za kuvaa bana...kunua suti ya ksh elfu 10 ni ujinga km huihitaji sana
komora096
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 26, 2018
- 20,548
- 5,647
Ugua pole pole hku maisha yangu yana songa...[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
- Thread starter
- #3,644
Axle load SGR Tanzania 35 tons vs 25 tons SGR Kenya! Meaning a wagon on SGR Tanzania will carry 140 tons in comparison to 100 tons for SGR Kenya. Wap wale waliokuwa wakidai class one chinese SGR inabeba mzigo mwingi zaidi?
Ngokongosha
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 3,400
- 7,608
Geza reli yetu iko vizuri ntakupa mifano
Tz sgr axle load 35t ya Kenya 25t
Tz trailing load ni 10,000t wakati kenya ni 4,000t.
Tz continuous welded wakati kenya jointed
Tz sgr electrified ya kenya diesel aka garimoshi
Tz passenger speed 160km/hr ya Kenya 120km/hr
Tz freight speed 120km/hr ya Kenya 80km/hr
Kinachowasumbua wenzetu ni ile wakisikia China class 1.
Please explain to us how
1) A railroad that allows a 35 ton axle load train trailing a load of 10000 tons has a max carrying capacity of only 17 million tons
2)a 160kph passenger train with max of a million passenger per year.
BlietzKrieg
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 9, 2017
- 2,882
- 2,263
Prove...si maneno ya wanasiasa.
Ata kimuonekano haifiki 15t
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
- Thread starter
- #3,648
Kuna mbwigambwiga mmoja kadai hamna wagon car inayoweza kubeba 140 tons, nimemuonyesha inayobeba 225 tons! In short wanaumia jinsi Mchina aliwafanya!
Kafrican
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2015
- 7,251
- 7,037
Hataelewa hio, heavier load means less frequency, lighter load means higher frequency, a reason why they only ordered 16 locomotives while we received 56 locomotives.
Kuna kitu inaitwa operational research, hua Kuna hesabu flani ya wanabiashara wawili wa duka mmoja huagizia bidhaa chache baada ya siku chache na mwengine anaagizia bidhaa nyingi baada ya siku nyingi.. e.g duka1 anaagizia bandari 15 za unga baada ya siku kumi na tano, na duka2 anaagizia bandari20 baada ya siku 25.... Na duka zote mbili ziko na demand tofauti zinazochaguliwa randomly alafu unaulizwa ni duka gani liko efficient na litapata faida ... Hizo hesabu za aina hio hua huwezi kujua jibu Hadi upige hesabu, mara nyingi hua jibu lake litakushangaza manake hua sio lile unadhani .. na ukigeuza kitu kidogo e.g badala ya siku 25 ueke siku 26 unapata jibu napo linageuka kabisa..
Kumbuka in reality meli bandarini hazifiki zote kwa mpigo, utakuta meli mmoja inaingia asubuhi , alafu mchana kunaingia meli tatu lakini moja inaenda berth 1, nyengine inaenda berth 16.. na si mizigo yote inaenda mahali pamoja... Ukiwa na treni kubwa inamaanisha mara kwa mara utajipata inabidi ungojee meli nyengine ije ndo ijaze treni, ilihali ukiwa na treni ndogo mizigo ikiingia na meli moja treni ya kwanza ishajaa na inaondoka... Alafu tukifika hapo Bado hatujaongelea loop lines kwa hizo single track line zetu, i.e ni treni ngapi maximum zinaweza kupishana njiani ...
Ndio maana unakuta wao wanaishia na carrying capacity ya kubeba 17m na sisi 22 million kwa sasa.
Ukiangalia nchi kama Japan ilikua na 25 axle track kwa miaka mingi, alafu wakaanzisha project kupunguza axle load Hadi 17tonne per axle ... Kwanini?
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
- Thread starter
- #3,650
U ordered 56 locomotives n less than a half r operational todate! Nyie ni wajinga wa mwisho kama sio mafala manga! Halafu yote diesel yet mnaamini the line will be electrified in the near future! 😆
Ngokongosha
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 3,400
- 7,608
Si mlisema train yetu si ya mizigo mizito, sasa mnaanza kuhamisha magoli, Congo na Rwanda kuna madini ambayo ni mazito wanategemea kuanza kuyachimba na kupitishia bandari za dar na mombasa, kukiwa na tani 20,000 za mizigo kutoka Rwanda wakaamua wagawanye half zipite dar, half mombasa, tanzania will need only one train, kenya you have to use three trains. Three trains means more delays and cost.
Another thing tanzania will not wait to have 10,000t of cargo to start a journey, train inaweza kuwa na 1000t na ikaondoka, 10,000t is the maximum capacity a single train can haul.
Ngokongosha
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 3,400
- 7,608
Do you know the meaning of axle load?
Tz_one
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 6, 2017
- 2,962
- 7,856
Cha mwisho tunatumia umeme which is very cheap than diesel so washishangae reli ikawa haina hasara
Kafrican
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2015
- 7,251
- 7,037
Hizo ni story za vijiweni ulizo jitungia, hakuna dili yoyote ya kugawanya madini ya Congo yatapitia wapi. na kama mnajenga SGR yenu kwa minajili ya Congo basi mtangoja Sana, for SGR to reach the mineral rich DRC regions, DRC will have to undergo a period of peace for atleast 5 years to allow construction....
When DRC finally has peace, ni ni kitawazulia kujenga viwanda vya kufanya value addition ndani ya nchi yao ili kuongeza Pato la nchi?manake kwa miaka mingi wamekua waki export raw minerals na uchumi wao bado mdogo . Madini hua ni mazito kabla hayajafanywa value addition, lakini ukiwa na viwanda unaweza ku refine na kuondoa impurities kutoka lory nzima tani 7 za mchanga na mawe ya thahabu Hadi ubaki na kilo 50 za dhahabu tu na uzisafirishe na ndege!!
Kwahivyo ni lazima muhakikishe reli mnayojenga 70% ya mizigo juu ya hio reli itakua ni kwa minajili ya biashara ndani ya nchi yenu, mkitegemea DRC au nchi yoyote jirani mtakuja kula huu siku moja manake sio kila siku DRC watakua Wana export raw minerals.
Kafrican
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2015
- 7,251
- 7,037
USA ndo inaongozwa dunia kwa kua na % kubwa ya mizigo inayopiyia juu ya reli.... USA karibia 58% ya mizigo yote inapitia juu ya reli wakati Europe ni 29% pekee. Europe wanatumia umeme, US wanatumia Diesel!
Hii ndo sababu David ndii alikua anasema SGR ni white elephant manake kama Europe wameshindwa kupakia mizigo mingi juu ya reli sembuse sisi ?
So sahau mambo ya faida au hasara kwa kampuni ya reli, Anza kufikiria mambo kama uboreshaji wa uchukuzi wa watu na mizigo na impact yake kwa uchumi ..
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
- Thread starter
- #3,656
Ni mpumbavu tuu anaweza kufananisha matumizi ya reli ya US na Europe halafu akatoa msimamo bila kuangalia factors kama ukubwa wa nchi na connectivity kwa kutumia miundombinu mingine! Kiufupi,naomba utuambie kama US hawataki kutumia umeme au kwa kivipi matumizi ya diesel ni ya bei nafuhu zaidi ya umeme?
Pitia huu uchambuzi hapa chini! Kiukweli nyie watu mna ujinga mwingi wa kujaribu kupotosha upumbavu wa serikali yenu kuwaingiza kwenye gharama. Ubishi wenu hausaidii esp. mnapojaribu kujitutumia mbele ya mradi wenye neema wa SGR Tanzania.
Mwanzo mlikuwa mnadai ati Tanzania haina umeme wa kutosha, baada ya kuona miradi ya umeme ikizinduliwa kila kukicha sasa mmebadili ubishi mnaanza kusema ati Diesel trains r better than electric trains kisa the US inatumia diesel trains as if when it comes to rail transport the US should be an example to take! Mpeleke ujinga wenu Kibera!
Electrification of U.S. Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal?
May 30, 2018
A group of progressive-minded activists and industry experts have proposed that the federal and state governments, together with the railroad industry, invest in a long-term project to electrify U.S. railroads. In a book published in October 2016, Solutionary Rail, a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads to a clean energy future, they detail a plan that would update freight and passenger railways with overhead wires to carry high-voltage electricity generated in towns along the lines, and replace diesel locomotives with electric engines. These wires would also provide a new, nationwide electricity transmission system that would help deliver the electricity generated by distributed renewable energy sources. The book points to several advantages of an electrified railway over the existing U.S. system, but industry and government analysts are skeptical as to whether the plan could be implemented.
All analysts agree on one thing: long-haul transportation is more efficient by train than by truck. The physics of steel rolling on steel is much more efficient from an energy transfer perspective than that of rubber on concrete, generating only about one-fifth of the friction. Trains are also more efficient aerodynamically than trucks. All in all, railways move freight 1.9 to 5.5 times more efficiently than trucks, and with far fewer overall labor costs and far less air pollution than trucks. Truckers could also benefit from a shift to using rail for long-haul freight as they could work more reasonable hours by focusing on the last miles of the journey. A cleaner, more robust railroad system could replace substantial amounts of truck traffic, while making inter-city passenger service more reliable and competitive with highways and aviation.
Electric Trains vs. Diesel Trains
Though trains are more efficient than trucks, not all trains are equally efficient. Diesel-powered trains transfer about 30-35 percent of the energy generated by combustion to the wheels, while supplying electricity directly from an overhead powerline transfers about 95 percent of the energy to the wheels. Powering trains with electricity rather than diesel has several other benefits, according to the authors of Solutionary Rail:
- While prices of diesel fuel are currently low, many analysts predict that the long-term trend is for those prices to increase. Conversely, prices of electricity are falling with the fast-growing use of renewable energy sources. Even at current prices, with the energy conversion rates mentioned above, it is estimated that it is 50 percent less expensive to power a train by electricity than by diesel.
- The cost of electric locomotive engines is about 20 percent less than diesel locomotive engines on the global market, and maintenance costs are 25-35 percent less than for diesel engines.
- Eliminating diesel-powered locomotives would reduce air pollution including soot, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, all of which affect public health as well as the environment. This is especially important as many railroads pass through urban areas. It would also reduce noise levels in cities, as well as traffic deaths due to trucks (rail freight causes only about one-eighth as many fatalities as truck freight per ton-mile).
- Switching from diesel to electricity would also help address the challenge of replacing petroleum-based liquid transportation fuels with cleaner alternatives as we seek to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.
Why Didn't U.S. Railroads Go Electric?
If electric locomotives have so many advantages compared to diesel-powered locomotives, why aren't they more widespread in the United States? During much of the 20th century, U.S. railroads were the world leaders in innovation and in the use of cutting-edge technology. They now lag behind many other advanced nations, which have been investing for many years in electric-powered railroads. In the early to mid-20th century, steam engines were replaced by more efficient electric locomotives and diesel-electric (usually referred to as just diesel) locomotives. During that transition, U.S. railroad companies chose to switch to diesel over electric locomotives because of diesel’s much lower up-front costs, even though electric systems cost significantly less to operate and to maintain than diesel systems. Railroad operators in many other industrialized countries chose to switch to electric locomotives, partly because the railroads were owned by the governments of those countries, which could better afford the necessary transmission infrastructure. U.S. railroads have always been a regulated private sector industry, making it much harder for U.S. railroad companies to finance electrification upgrades than to build diesel-fueled systems. As a result, electrified rail is currently used on less than 1 percent of U.S. railroad tracks while electricity supplies more than one-third of the energy that powers trains globally.
A few passenger rail lines have been converted to electric power in the United States (Amtrak’s Northeast corridor and Harrisburg, PA, line), but the rest of passenger rail and all of freight rail is diesel-powered. The California commuter rail line (CalTrain) is currently being upgraded to very high speed rail (VHSR) service and will use electric power. The system is scheduled to be operational by 2022 and has an initial estimated cost of $5 billion. Other electric VHSR systems (which would be electric-powered) are also being considered around the country, but do not yet have funding.
Is Rail Electrification a Feasible Undertaking in the United States?
Making the transition from the current U.S. railway infrastructure to a nationally electrified rail system is not a trivial issue, and the Solutionary Rail proposal doesn’t provide a cost estimate for such an undertaking. It does, however, point out that many other nations (Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan…) have made significant moves to electrify their railway systems, and many other countries are now engaged in efforts to do so. However, it is easier for those countries to secure financing for major infrastructure investments like this than it is for their U.S. counterparts because their railway services are government-owned and operated, whereas U.S. railroads are privately owned (except for Amtrak, which is partially government-funded).
The U.S. government could require that all railways be electrified by a certain date, if there were ever such political motivation. The large investment necessary is an obvious obstacle, and the interest in reducing the nation's carbon footprint by switching to electric rail is not strong in Congress. Such an effort would be more difficult in this country than in Europe or Asia, which have more dense urban populations. While several other technologically-advanced nations (e.g., Japan, Germany, France, Mexico and Australia) have marked a steady decrease in their consumption of petroleum (from which diesel is derived) over the past several years, the U.S. consumption of petroleum has been increasing, due in large part to demand from the transportation sector.i There is no national dialog about reducing the use of combustion engines, even though the transportation sector produces 27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases.ii
Public-Private Partnerships, Industry and Labor Groups Could Make the Difference
Some point to public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a way to fund an electrified rail network by using a combination of federal, state, private sector, and possibly regional, funding. PPPs have had success in several railroad projects in recent years, such as the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor that connected the Ohio-West Virginia-Virginia lines (which began operation in 2010), and the Alameda Corridor that links Long Beach to Los Angeles, CA (which began operation in 2002). The electrification of freight rail could start with a demonstration project along the Northern Corridor, which runs from Seattle to Chicago connecting several cities and towns along the way. Several financing schemes have been proposed to engage public and private entities in the investment process.
Several different industry and labor groups could be enlisted in a campaign to electrify. Railway electrification would provide new jobs for rail workers (and many other industrial trades) and so would appeal to labor unions, which could help gain public support for electrifying and modernizing railroads. Several railroad unions also support the transition to a more sustainable economy and would likely back railway electrification. For example, Railroad Workers United, representing rail workers from a set of unions involved in North American rail transport, has adopted a resolution to transition the railroad industry away from fossil fuel shipments to more sustainable business prospects. Railway electrification might also appeal to the agriculture sector as an efficient way of transporting food. Under the current system, agricultural goods represent a much smaller component of freight rail than fossil fuel shipments, and thus take a secondary position in rail traffic. With the increased capacity that electrified railways could provide, rail shipments could become much more timely and frequent than they are today. Electric utilities could also play a role in supporting the electrification of railways. Utilities are one of freight rail’s largest customers, primarily for the delivery of coal to power plants and hauling away coal ash. As utilities become less dependent on coal, the revenues of freight rail will decrease,iii unless the railroads develop a new business model, such as one that includes electricity transmission. Finally, Native American tribes could benefit from the project if their right-of-ways are properly negotiated and compensated and if they are given the opportunity to use the new transmission corridors to distribute electricity they generate.
The fact that no governmental action (federal, state or local) has taken place since Solutionary Rail was published in 2016 does not bode well. Shortly after its publication, one critic attacked the proposal to electrify railroads based on a set of economic arguments. However, the critic failed to take into account the environmental benefits of switching to electric-powered rail. To avoid the worst effects of climate change, prioritizing the reduction of fossil fuel use is necessary, and that includes transitioning away from diesel fuel. Such a transition will be expensive and time consuming, but that doesn't make it any less essential.
Author: Richard Nunno
i. Petroleum consumption in the United States has increased by 3.06 percent from 2013 to 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652
ii. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, September 26, 2017,https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
iii. Railroads and Coal, Association of American Railroads, June 2017, https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AAR-Railroads-Coal.pdf.
Sources:
- "Solutionary Rail: a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads and open corridors to a clean energy future," Backbone Campaign, October 2016
- "Electrifying Freight Trains in the U.S. is a Really Bad Idea," Energy Skeptic
- "Electric Trains Everywhere: a solution to crumbling roads and climate crisis," Yes Magazine
- "Solutionary Rail Proposes a Single Infrastructure Upgrade that Solves Two Chronic Problems," Cleantechnica
Kafrican
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2015
- 7,251
- 7,037
Punguza pressure mzee, soma hoja uelewe kabla ukurupukwe .... Hakuna mahali nimesema Diesel is cheaper than electric.... Hapo nilichokua naongelea ni functionality! Hii ndo kitu watu hua wanasahau... Europe kitambo kila nchi ilikua na bandari yake lakini siku hizi wali consolidate na bandari kama Antwerp na Amsterdam hua zinapokea karibia 50% ya mizigo ya EU kwahivyo wamekua tu kama continental US ....Ni mpumbavu tuu anaweza kufananisha matumizi ya reli ya US na Europe halafu akatoa msimamo bila kuangalia factors kama ukubwa wa nchi na connectivity kwa kutumia miundombinu mingine! Kiufupi,naomba utuambie kama US hawataki kutumia umeme au kwa kivipi matumizi ya diesel ni ya bei nafuhu zaidi ya umeme?
Pitia huu uchambuzi hapa chini! Kiukweli nyie watu mna ujinga mwingi wa kujaribu kupotosha upumbavu wa serikali yenu kuwaingiza kwenye gharama. Ubishi wenu hausaidii esp. mnapojaribu kujitutumia mbele ya mradi wenye neema wa SGR Tanzania.
Mwanzo mlikuwa mnadai ati Tanzania haina umeme wa kutosha, baada ya kuona miradi ya umeme ikizinduliwa kila kukicha sasa mmebadili ubishi mnaanza kusema ati Diesel trains r better than electric trains kisa the US inatumia diesel trains as if when it comes to rail transport the US should be an example to take! Mpeleke ujinga wenu Kibera!
Electrification of U.S. Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal?
May 30, 2018
A group of progressive-minded activists and industry experts have proposed that the federal and state governments, together with the railroad industry, invest in a long-term project to electrify U.S. railroads. In a book published in October 2016, Solutionary Rail, a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads to a clean energy future, they detail a plan that would update freight and passenger railways with overhead wires to carry high-voltage electricity generated in towns along the lines, and replace diesel locomotives with electric engines. These wires would also provide a new, nationwide electricity transmission system that would help deliver the electricity generated by distributed renewable energy sources. The book points to several advantages of an electrified railway over the existing U.S. system, but industry and government analysts are skeptical as to whether the plan could be implemented.
All analysts agree on one thing: long-haul transportation is more efficient by train than by truck. The physics of steel rolling on steel is much more efficient from an energy transfer perspective than that of rubber on concrete, generating only about one-fifth of the friction. Trains are also more efficient aerodynamically than trucks. All in all, railways move freight 1.9 to 5.5 times more efficiently than trucks, and with far fewer overall labor costs and far less air pollution than trucks. Truckers could also benefit from a shift to using rail for long-haul freight as they could work more reasonable hours by focusing on the last miles of the journey. A cleaner, more robust railroad system could replace substantial amounts of truck traffic, while making inter-city passenger service more reliable and competitive with highways and aviation.
Electric Trains vs. Diesel Trains
Though trains are more efficient than trucks, not all trains are equally efficient. Diesel-powered trains transfer about 30-35 percent of the energy generated by combustion to the wheels, while supplying electricity directly from an overhead powerline transfers about 95 percent of the energy to the wheels. Powering trains with electricity rather than diesel has several other benefits, according to the authors of Solutionary Rail:
Not only does Solutionary Rail call for railroads to be electrified, it also calls for the use of renewable energy sources to power the new electric railroad system. If transmission lines are built with enough capacity, renewable energy sources could be connected throughout the country, forming a nationwide electric power grid that also supplies all of our railway energy needs. In this manner, railway electrification would provide a new market for renewable energy but also give it access to many other markets. Such a widespread transmission network would also help address the intermittency of renewable energy: the variable production of energy by wind turbines and photovoltaic solar panels would be mitigated by the extensive range of sources (the entire country isn't cloudy or windless at the same time).
- While prices of diesel fuel are currently low, many analysts predict that the long-term trend is for those prices to increase. Conversely, prices of electricity are falling with the fast-growing use of renewable energy sources. Even at current prices, with the energy conversion rates mentioned above, it is estimated that it is 50 percent less expensive to power a train by electricity than by diesel.
- The cost of electric locomotive engines is about 20 percent less than diesel locomotive engines on the global market, and maintenance costs are 25-35 percent less than for diesel engines.
- Eliminating diesel-powered locomotives would reduce air pollution including soot, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, all of which affect public health as well as the environment. This is especially important as many railroads pass through urban areas. It would also reduce noise levels in cities, as well as traffic deaths due to trucks (rail freight causes only about one-eighth as many fatalities as truck freight per ton-mile).
- Switching from diesel to electricity would also help address the challenge of replacing petroleum-based liquid transportation fuels with cleaner alternatives as we seek to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.
Why Didn't U.S. Railroads Go Electric?
If electric locomotives have so many advantages compared to diesel-powered locomotives, why aren't they more widespread in the United States? During much of the 20th century, U.S. railroads were the world leaders in innovation and in the use of cutting-edge technology. They now lag behind many other advanced nations, which have been investing for many years in electric-powered railroads. In the early to mid-20th century, steam engines were replaced by more efficient electric locomotives and diesel-electric (usually referred to as just diesel) locomotives. During that transition, U.S. railroad companies chose to switch to diesel over electric locomotives because of diesel’s much lower up-front costs, even though electric systems cost significantly less to operate and to maintain than diesel systems. Railroad operators in many other industrialized countries chose to switch to electric locomotives, partly because the railroads were owned by the governments of those countries, which could better afford the necessary transmission infrastructure. U.S. railroads have always been a regulated private sector industry, making it much harder for U.S. railroad companies to finance electrification upgrades than to build diesel-fueled systems. As a result, electrified rail is currently used on less than 1 percent of U.S. railroad tracks while electricity supplies more than one-third of the energy that powers trains globally.
A few passenger rail lines have been converted to electric power in the United States (Amtrak’s Northeast corridor and Harrisburg, PA, line), but the rest of passenger rail and all of freight rail is diesel-powered. The California commuter rail line (CalTrain) is currently being upgraded to very high speed rail (VHSR) service and will use electric power. The system is scheduled to be operational by 2022 and has an initial estimated cost of $5 billion. Other electric VHSR systems (which would be electric-powered) are also being considered around the country, but do not yet have funding.
Is Rail Electrification a Feasible Undertaking in the United States?
Making the transition from the current U.S. railway infrastructure to a nationally electrified rail system is not a trivial issue, and the Solutionary Rail proposal doesn’t provide a cost estimate for such an undertaking. It does, however, point out that many other nations (Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan…) have made significant moves to electrify their railway systems, and many other countries are now engaged in efforts to do so. However, it is easier for those countries to secure financing for major infrastructure investments like this than it is for their U.S. counterparts because their railway services are government-owned and operated, whereas U.S. railroads are privately owned (except for Amtrak, which is partially government-funded).
The U.S. government could require that all railways be electrified by a certain date, if there were ever such political motivation. The large investment necessary is an obvious obstacle, and the interest in reducing the nation's carbon footprint by switching to electric rail is not strong in Congress. Such an effort would be more difficult in this country than in Europe or Asia, which have more dense urban populations. While several other technologically-advanced nations (e.g., Japan, Germany, France, Mexico and Australia) have marked a steady decrease in their consumption of petroleum (from which diesel is derived) over the past several years, the U.S. consumption of petroleum has been increasing, due in large part to demand from the transportation sector.i There is no national dialog about reducing the use of combustion engines, even though the transportation sector produces 27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases.ii
Public-Private Partnerships, Industry and Labor Groups Could Make the Difference
Some point to public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a way to fund an electrified rail network by using a combination of federal, state, private sector, and possibly regional, funding. PPPs have had success in several railroad projects in recent years, such as the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor that connected the Ohio-West Virginia-Virginia lines (which began operation in 2010), and the Alameda Corridor that links Long Beach to Los Angeles, CA (which began operation in 2002). The electrification of freight rail could start with a demonstration project along the Northern Corridor, which runs from Seattle to Chicago connecting several cities and towns along the way. Several financing schemes have been proposed to engage public and private entities in the investment process.
Several different industry and labor groups could be enlisted in a campaign to electrify. Railway electrification would provide new jobs for rail workers (and many other industrial trades) and so would appeal to labor unions, which could help gain public support for electrifying and modernizing railroads. Several railroad unions also support the transition to a more sustainable economy and would likely back railway electrification. For example, Railroad Workers United, representing rail workers from a set of unions involved in North American rail transport, has adopted a resolution to transition the railroad industry away from fossil fuel shipments to more sustainable business prospects. Railway electrification might also appeal to the agriculture sector as an efficient way of transporting food. Under the current system, agricultural goods represent a much smaller component of freight rail than fossil fuel shipments, and thus take a secondary position in rail traffic. With the increased capacity that electrified railways could provide, rail shipments could become much more timely and frequent than they are today. Electric utilities could also play a role in supporting the electrification of railways. Utilities are one of freight rail’s largest customers, primarily for the delivery of coal to power plants and hauling away coal ash. As utilities become less dependent on coal, the revenues of freight rail will decrease,iii unless the railroads develop a new business model, such as one that includes electricity transmission. Finally, Native American tribes could benefit from the project if their right-of-ways are properly negotiated and compensated and if they are given the opportunity to use the new transmission corridors to distribute electricity they generate.
The fact that no governmental action (federal, state or local) has taken place since Solutionary Rail was published in 2016 does not bode well. Shortly after its publication, one critic attacked the proposal to electrify railroads based on a set of economic arguments. However, the critic failed to take into account the environmental benefits of switching to electric-powered rail. To avoid the worst effects of climate change, prioritizing the reduction of fossil fuel use is necessary, and that includes transitioning away from diesel fuel. Such a transition will be expensive and time consuming, but that doesn't make it any less essential.
Author: Richard Nunno
i. Petroleum consumption in the United States has increased by 3.06 percent from 2013 to 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652
ii. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, September 26, 2017,https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
iii. Railroads and Coal, Association of American Railroads, June 2017, https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AAR-Railroads-Coal.pdf.
Sources:
- "Solutionary Rail: a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads and open corridors to a clean energy future," Backbone Campaign, October 2016
- "Electrifying Freight Trains in the U.S. is a Really Bad Idea," Energy Skeptic
- "Electric Trains Everywhere: a solution to crumbling roads and climate crisis," Yes Magazine
- "Solutionary Rail Proposes a Single Infrastructure Upgrade that Solves Two Chronic Problems," Cleantechnica
Kumbuka Electric locomotive ndo ilikua technolojia ya kwanza kabla Diesel-Electric, Wakati Europe Ina adopt electric, US walibaki na Diesel combustion alafu Diesel-Electric ilipokuja ndo waka shift... Hata kama kampuni za kibinafsi ndo zina manage reli kumbuka kampuni za kibinafsi hua zinaangalia bottom-line... Ukweli ni kwamba hata kama electric ni cheaper, kulingana na US haijalishi manake kama ingekua no cheaper kweli hizo kampuni za US zingeona faida ya KU shift to electric hata kama ni kwa mikopo ya serekali .... Lakini kulingana na wao, Reli yao ni fuctional na inaweza kubeba mizigo from point A to point B bila kukwama wala bila kuhitaji system yoyote complicated .... Tofauti na Europe ambapo hata kama wako na electric rail utumizi wa reli kusafirisha mizigo umepungua kutoka 29% Hadi 12% miaka ya juzi juzi.... China nao wako na longest electric tracks lakini ikija kwa freight bado wanatumie Diesel locos, Kwahivyo usifikirie ati kwavile mko na electric basi Hanna changamoto.
alafu mbali na hivyo, kumbuka TANESCO watakua wanauzia TRC umeme kwa megawatt. e.g 250MW... TRC ikikosa mizigo ya kusafirisha kwa siku, Bado TANESCO ita dai full payment ya hizo megawatts kwasababu TANESCO wame dedicate huo umeme kwa matumizi ya SGR na hawawezi kutumia huo umeme kwa Jambo lengine... So for electric rail to be cheaper lazima treni zijazwe mizigo na huo umeme wote utumike . Yani kwa kifupi TRC haitakua inauziwa umeme kulingana na matumizi kama vile stima ya kawaida, mtakua mnauziwa kulingana na maximum potential ya umeme unaohitajika kwa mwezi au mwaka kama treni zote ziko full. Ni kama vile Kenya ikiingia kwa mkataba na Tz au Ethiopia ituuzie umeme wa 400MW .... Hata kama Kenya itatumia only 300MW kwasababu hatuna viwanda vingi vya kutumia hio umeme wote, Tz au Ethiopia bado itadai malipo ya 400MW, kwahivyo ili Kenya kuhakikisha value for money, itabidi tuongeze viwanda Hadi tutumie hio 400MW yote! msnake tutadaiwa pesa ya 400MW hata kama tulitumia 60% ya hio 400MW .
Ummayed
JF-Expert Member
- May 21, 2019
- 6,155
- 2,580
kuhusu China bro 2016 walikua wanaunda bullet train za mizigo.
Nahisi zitakuwa zimekamilika na zinatumika sasa.
Maana toka 2016 mpk 2019 itakuwa wanatumia sasa.
Bantugbro
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 4,473
- 4,252
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
- Thread starter
- #3,660
Wacha upumbavu again ati diesel electric? Those mitungi ya chang'aa u call them diesel electric?
"https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/art...hort-end-of-the-stick-in-sgr-locomotives-deal