Download - Economics of Steam Traction for the Transportation of Coal by Rail Chris Newman Beijing, China

Economics of Steam Traction for the

Transportation of Coal by Rail

Economics of Steam Traction for the

Transportation of Coal by Rail

Chris NewmanChris NewmanBeijing, ChinaBeijing, ChinaChris NewmanChris NewmanBeijing, ChinaBeijing, China

Name: Chris NewmanName: Chris Newman

• Professional Engineer specializing in Professional Engineer specializing in materials handling and transportationmaterials handling and transportation

• 21 years in Australian grain handling industry and21 years in Australian grain handling industry and15 years in China, including10 years as technical 15 years in China, including10 years as technical consultant on $1 billion World Bank grain storage and rail consultant on $1 billion World Bank grain storage and rail transportation project;transportation project;

• A leading member of “5AT Project” that aims to build a A leading member of “5AT Project” that aims to build a hew high hew high speed locomotive as a “modern steam” demonstrator;speed locomotive as a “modern steam” demonstrator;

• Since 2004 Since 2004 has undertaken several studies on the economics of has undertaken several studies on the economics of steam traction for coal haulage and has written and presented steam traction for coal haulage and has written and presented papers on the subject.papers on the subject.

Name: Chris NewmanName: Chris Newman

• Professional Engineer specializing in Professional Engineer specializing in materials handling and transportationmaterials handling and transportation

• 21 years in Australian grain handling industry and21 years in Australian grain handling industry and15 years in China, including10 years as technical 15 years in China, including10 years as technical consultant on $1 billion World Bank grain storage and rail consultant on $1 billion World Bank grain storage and rail transportation project;transportation project;

• A leading member of “5AT Project” that aims to build a A leading member of “5AT Project” that aims to build a hew high hew high speed locomotive as a “modern steam” demonstrator;speed locomotive as a “modern steam” demonstrator;

• Since 2004 Since 2004 has undertaken several studies on the economics of has undertaken several studies on the economics of steam traction for coal haulage and has written and presented steam traction for coal haulage and has written and presented papers on the subject.papers on the subject.

Economics of Modern Steam Traction in Transportation of Coal by Rail


Synopsis

• Steam traction was never fully developed before its eclipse by diesel power in the mid 20th century;

• The development of steam traction was continued through the second half of the 20th century by the late L.D. Porta and several of his disciples, with a doubling of the thermal efficiency of “classic” steam traction.

• The economics of steam traction for coal haulage from mines to port or to point of use, appear much better than diesel or electric traction in developing countries.

• The economics of “modern steam” traction appear especially promising over the longer term.

• Future development of steam traction could see efficiency levels approaching those of diesel traction.

Synopsis

• Steam traction was never fully developed before its eclipse by diesel power in the mid 20th century;

• The development of steam traction was continued through the second half of the 20th century by the late L.D. Porta and several of his disciples, with a doubling of the thermal efficiency of “classic” steam traction.

• The economics of steam traction for coal haulage from mines to port or to point of use, appear much better than diesel or electric traction in developing countries.

• The economics of “modern steam” traction appear especially promising over the longer term.

• Future development of steam traction could see efficiency levels approaching those of diesel traction.


Presentation Summary• Preliminaries – 4 pages

• Introduction to Steam Traction – 3 pages

• “Modern Steam” Advancements – 9 pages

• Loco Performance Comparisons– 10 pages

• Railway Operation – 15 pages

• Rolling Stock Requirements – 15 pages

• Cost Comparisons – 23 pages

• Environmental Considerations – 12 pages

• Local Community Benefits – 1 page

• Conclusions – 5 pages

• TOTAL – 97 pages

Presentation Summary• Preliminaries – 4 pages

• Introduction to Steam Traction – 3 pages

• “Modern Steam” Advancements – 9 pages

• Loco Performance Comparisons– 10 pages

• Railway Operation – 15 pages

• Rolling Stock Requirements – 15 pages

• Cost Comparisons – 23 pages

• Environmental Considerations – 12 pages

• Local Community Benefits – 1 page

• Conclusions – 5 pages

• TOTAL – 97 pages


Part 1Part 1Introduction to Introduction to Steam TractionSteam Traction

• Technology dates from 1803 during the time of the Industrial

Revolution in Britain;;

• Technology developed empirically over 150 years with inadequate understanding of scientific principles;

• 1950s-designed steam locomotives were slower, less efficient, less reliable and more polluting than they need have been;

• Steam’s ability to operate without adequate maintenance meant that it did operate with inadequate maintenance;

• Steam’s old fashioned image plus “good enough” engineering standards made the diesel option appear modern and attractive

Part 1Part 1Introduction to Introduction to Steam TractionSteam Traction

• Technology dates from 1803 during the time of the Industrial

Revolution in Britain;;

• Technology developed empirically over 150 years with inadequate understanding of scientific principles;

• 1950s-designed steam locomotives were slower, less efficient, less reliable and more polluting than they need have been;

• Steam’s ability to operate without adequate maintenance meant that it did operate with inadequate maintenance;

• Steam’s old fashioned image plus “good enough” engineering standards made the diesel option appear modern and attractive


Introduction to Steam Traction

Inside a Locomotive

Introduction to Steam Traction

Inside a Locomotive

• Fuel burned in firebox creates high pressure steam in boiler. Fuel burned in firebox creates high pressure steam in boiler. • Superheated steam drives pistons (on both sides of loco) backwards Superheated steam drives pistons (on both sides of loco) backwards andand forwards. forwards. • Connecting rods transmit piston forces to cranks that cause the driving wheels to rotateConnecting rods transmit piston forces to cranks that cause the driving wheels to rotate

• Fuel burned in firebox creates high pressure steam in boiler. Fuel burned in firebox creates high pressure steam in boiler. • Superheated steam drives pistons (on both sides of loco) backwards Superheated steam drives pistons (on both sides of loco) backwards andand forwards. forwards. • Connecting rods transmit piston forces to cranks that cause the driving wheels to rotateConnecting rods transmit piston forces to cranks that cause the driving wheels to rotate


Introduction to Introduction to Steam TractionSteam Traction

Steam’s ImageSteam’s ImageIntroduction to Introduction to Steam TractionSteam Traction

Steam’s ImageSteam’s Image

• Whilst steam’s image declined Whilst steam’s image declined in post-war years, it in post-war years, it successfully powered the successfully powered the world’s railways for 125 years:world’s railways for 125 years:

• Steam locos hauled Steam locos hauled prodigious loads in the USA. prodigious loads in the USA.

• When replaced with diesels, When replaced with diesels, two or three locos had to be two or three locos had to be substituted for one steamer.substituted for one steamer.

• Whilst steam’s image declined Whilst steam’s image declined in post-war years, it in post-war years, it successfully powered the successfully powered the world’s railways for 125 years:world’s railways for 125 years:

• Steam locos hauled Steam locos hauled prodigious loads in the USA. prodigious loads in the USA.

• When replaced with diesels, When replaced with diesels, two or three locos had to be two or three locos had to be substituted for one steamer.substituted for one steamer.


Part 2 - “Modern Steam” Advancements• Thermodynamic theories first put to use by French engineer

André Chapelon in the 1930s.• Chapelon’s designs achieved Power / weight ratios of

>23 kW/tonne and outperformed contemporary electric traction.• All developments were done on locomotive rebuilds.

Part 2 - “Modern Steam” Advancements• Thermodynamic theories first put to use by French engineer

André Chapelon in the 1930s.• Chapelon’s designs achieved Power / weight ratios of

>23 kW/tonne and outperformed contemporary electric traction.• All developments were done on locomotive rebuilds.


• Took over steam development when Took over steam development when Chapelon retired;Chapelon retired;

• At age 24, rebuilt a locomotive that equalled At age 24, rebuilt a locomotive that equalled Chapelon’s best power/weight ratio;Chapelon’s best power/weight ratio;

• Director of Argentine’s National Technology Director of Argentine’s National Technology Institute from 1960 to 1982;Institute from 1960 to 1982;

• Pioneered several important advancements Pioneered several important advancements in steam traction.in steam traction.

• Took over steam development when Took over steam development when Chapelon retired;Chapelon retired;

• At age 24, rebuilt a locomotive that equalled At age 24, rebuilt a locomotive that equalled Chapelon’s best power/weight ratio;Chapelon’s best power/weight ratio;

• Director of Argentine’s National Technology Director of Argentine’s National Technology Institute from 1960 to 1982;Institute from 1960 to 1982;

• Pioneered several important advancements Pioneered several important advancements in steam traction.in steam traction.

“Modern Steam” Advancements

L.D. Porta – Argentinean Engineer (1922-2003)


L.D. Porta – Argentinean Engineer (1922-2003)

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/ldp.htm


• • Improved coal combustion (reducing fuel

consumption and emissions);• Improved exhaust system;• Increased steam temperature;• Improved lubrication;• Improved water treatment;• Reduced steam leakage;• Improved insulation;• Improved adhesion;• Reduced maintenance costs.

• • Improved coal combustion (reducing fuel

consumption and emissions);• Improved exhaust system;• Increased steam temperature;• Improved lubrication;• Improved water treatment;• Reduced steam leakage;• Improved insulation;• Improved adhesion;• Reduced maintenance costs.


Porta’s Advancements include:


Porta’s Advancements include:


• 255km coal railway from 255km coal railway from mine to port;mine to port;

• Narrow gauge (750mm)Narrow gauge (750mm)• Poor track quality – Poor track quality –

light rail, no ballast;light rail, no ballast;• Max grade 0.3%;Max grade 0.3%;• Tight curvature;Tight curvature;• Low grade coal forLow grade coal for

locomotives.locomotives.• 18 tonne wagons with high 18 tonne wagons with high

rolling resistance.rolling resistance.

• 255km coal railway from 255km coal railway from mine to port;mine to port;

• Narrow gauge (750mm)Narrow gauge (750mm)• Poor track quality – Poor track quality –

light rail, no ballast;light rail, no ballast;• Max grade 0.3%;Max grade 0.3%;• Tight curvature;Tight curvature;• Low grade coal forLow grade coal for

locomotives.locomotives.• 18 tonne wagons with high 18 tonne wagons with high

rolling resistance.rolling resistance.


Porta’s Achievements: Rio Turbio Railway“Modern Steam” Advancements

Porta’s Achievements: Rio Turbio Railway


• 48 tonne locos built by 48 tonne locos built by Mitsubishi in 1956 and 1963Mitsubishi in 1956 and 1963

• Power Output increased from Power Output increased from 520 kW to 900 kW by Porta 520 kW to 900 kW by Porta modifications;modifications;

• Ash clinkering problems overcome;Ash clinkering problems overcome;• 1700 tonne trains routinely hauled 1700 tonne trains routinely hauled

(tested to 3000 tonnes);(tested to 3000 tonnes);• Very high mileages between Very high mileages between

overhauls.overhauls.

• 48 tonne locos built by 48 tonne locos built by Mitsubishi in 1956 and 1963Mitsubishi in 1956 and 1963

• Power Output increased from Power Output increased from 520 kW to 900 kW by Porta 520 kW to 900 kW by Porta modifications;modifications;

• Ash clinkering problems overcome;Ash clinkering problems overcome;• 1700 tonne trains routinely hauled 1700 tonne trains routinely hauled

(tested to 3000 tonnes);(tested to 3000 tonnes);• Very high mileages between Very high mileages between

overhauls.overhauls.


Porta’s Achievements: Rio Turbio Railway“Modern Steam” Advancements

Porta’s Achievements: Rio Turbio Railway


Porta’s theories have been adopted in:Porta’s theories have been adopted in:•……. South Africa by David Wardale;. South Africa by David Wardale;•……. Argentina by Shaun McMahon;. Argentina by Shaun McMahon;•……. Australia and Russia by Phil Girdlestone;. Australia and Russia by Phil Girdlestone;•……. Argentina, Paraguay and Cuba by Porta himself.. Argentina, Paraguay and Cuba by Porta himself.

Porta’s theories have been adopted in:Porta’s theories have been adopted in:•……. South Africa by David Wardale;. South Africa by David Wardale;•……. Argentina by Shaun McMahon;. Argentina by Shaun McMahon;•……. Australia and Russia by Phil Girdlestone;. Australia and Russia by Phil Girdlestone;•……. Argentina, Paraguay and Cuba by Porta himself.. Argentina, Paraguay and Cuba by Porta himself.


Porta’s Legacy“Modern Steam” Advancements

Porta’s Legacy

Wardale’s “Red Devil” --- Wardale’s “Red Devil” --- rebuild ofrebuild ofSAR 1950s Krupp-designed Class 25. SAR 1950s Krupp-designed Class 25. Achieved 60% increase in power, 40% Achieved 60% increase in power, 40% reduction in specific coal consumption.reduction in specific coal consumption.

Wardale’s “Red Devil” --- Wardale’s “Red Devil” --- rebuild ofrebuild ofSAR 1950s Krupp-designed Class 25. SAR 1950s Krupp-designed Class 25. Achieved 60% increase in power, 40% Achieved 60% increase in power, 40% reduction in specific coal consumption.reduction in specific coal consumption.


Porta’s Legacy (continued)

The 5AT – “Second Generation Steam”

Porta’s Legacy (continued)

The 5AT – “Second Generation Steam”

• Conceived by David Wardale;Conceived by David Wardale;• First First newnew steam loco design to adopt Porta’s developments; steam loco design to adopt Porta’s developments;• Designed for high speed operation - 200kph max, 180 kph continuous;Designed for high speed operation - 200kph max, 180 kph continuous;• Target – tour and cruise trains in UK and Europe;Target – tour and cruise trains in UK and Europe;• Fundamental Design Calculations completed;Fundamental Design Calculations completed;• Currently in final planning stage;Currently in final planning stage;• 2008 launch planned to seek investment funding;2008 launch planned to seek investment funding;• Design is readily adapted for freight haulage (using smaller wheels).Design is readily adapted for freight haulage (using smaller wheels).

• Conceived by David Wardale;Conceived by David Wardale;• First First newnew steam loco design to adopt Porta’s developments; steam loco design to adopt Porta’s developments;• Designed for high speed operation - 200kph max, 180 kph continuous;Designed for high speed operation - 200kph max, 180 kph continuous;• Target – tour and cruise trains in UK and Europe;Target – tour and cruise trains in UK and Europe;• Fundamental Design Calculations completed;Fundamental Design Calculations completed;• Currently in final planning stage;Currently in final planning stage;• 2008 launch planned to seek investment funding;2008 launch planned to seek investment funding;• Design is readily adapted for freight haulage (using smaller wheels).Design is readily adapted for freight haulage (using smaller wheels).



The 8AT “Modern Steam” Advancements

The 8AT

• Uses same boiler, cylinders, cab, tender and motion as 5AT;Uses same boiler, cylinders, cab, tender and motion as 5AT;• 1.325 m dia. driving wheels give 192 kN drawbar tractive force;1.325 m dia. driving wheels give 192 kN drawbar tractive force;• Max power - 2100 kW at drawbar at 120 km/h; 1800 kW at 80 km/h;Max power - 2100 kW at drawbar at 120 km/h; 1800 kW at 80 km/h;• Starting tractive force – 192 kN at the drawbar;Starting tractive force – 192 kN at the drawbar;• 21 tonne axle load (including ballast) to control slipping;21 tonne axle load (including ballast) to control slipping;• Able to haul 3200 tonne coal trains at >80 km/h on level track.Able to haul 3200 tonne coal trains at >80 km/h on level track.

• Uses same boiler, cylinders, cab, tender and motion as 5AT;Uses same boiler, cylinders, cab, tender and motion as 5AT;• 1.325 m dia. driving wheels give 192 kN drawbar tractive force;1.325 m dia. driving wheels give 192 kN drawbar tractive force;• Max power - 2100 kW at drawbar at 120 km/h; 1800 kW at 80 km/h;Max power - 2100 kW at drawbar at 120 km/h; 1800 kW at 80 km/h;• Starting tractive force – 192 kN at the drawbar;Starting tractive force – 192 kN at the drawbar;• 21 tonne axle load (including ballast) to control slipping;21 tonne axle load (including ballast) to control slipping;• Able to haul 3200 tonne coal trains at >80 km/h on level track.Able to haul 3200 tonne coal trains at >80 km/h on level track.

Steam Traction Haulage CapacitySteam Traction Haulage CapacitySteam Traction Haulage CapacitySteam Traction Haulage Capacity

American 2-8-0 locomotive (c.1912) of similar size and “tractive effort” to the 8AT, but with no superheat, low boiler pressure and journal bearing, hauling 6,500 tonnes (net?)American 2-8-0 locomotive (c.1912) of similar size and “tractive effort” to the 8AT, but

with no superheat, low boiler pressure and journal bearing, hauling 6,500 tonnes (net?)


Part 3 – Haulage CapabilitiesPart 3 – Haulage CapabilitiesAlternative Traction TypesAlternative Traction Types

used in Cost Comparisons used in Cost Comparisons

Part 3 – Haulage CapabilitiesPart 3 – Haulage CapabilitiesAlternative Traction TypesAlternative Traction Types

used in Cost Comparisons used in Cost Comparisons

Coal Transportation in IndonesiaThe Steam Option

_______________________________________________

Chinese SS-3 4320 kW Electric Loco Chinese DF4-D 2940 kW Diesel Loco

Chinese QJ 2600 kW Steam Loco 8AT 2100 kW Modern Steam Loco

Chinese SS-3 4320 kW Electric Loco Chinese DF4-D 2940 kW Diesel Loco

Chinese QJ 2600 kW Steam Loco 8AT 2100 kW Modern Steam Loco


Principal Data for Alternative Traction TypesPrincipal Data for Alternative Traction TypesPrincipal Data for Alternative Traction TypesPrincipal Data for Alternative Traction Types

Loco TypeLoco TypeQJ

Steam8AT

SteamDieselDF4-D

ElectricSS-3

Wheel ArrangementWheel Arrangement 2-10-22-10-2 2-8-02-8-0 Co-CoCo-Co Co-CoCo-Co

Max Power Output kW (wheel rim)Max Power Output kW (wheel rim) 26002600 21002100 29402940 43204320

Max Speed (km/h)Max Speed (km/h) 8080 100100 100100 100100

Loco Weight excluding tender (tonnes) Loco Weight excluding tender (tonnes) 134134 9696 138138 138138

Axle Loading (tonnes)Axle Loading (tonnes) 20.520.5 2121 2323 2323

Adhesive Weight (tonnes)Adhesive Weight (tonnes) 100.5100.5 8484 138138 138138

Starting Wheel Rim Tractive Effort (kN)Starting Wheel Rim Tractive Effort (kN) 287287 206206 480480 490490

Continuous Wheel Rim TE at 20km/hContinuous Wheel Rim TE at 20km/h 244244 130130 385385 385385

Required Starting Friction CoefficientRequired Starting Friction Coefficient 0.290.29 0.250.25 0.360.36 0.360.36


Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (3)Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (3)SS-3 and DF4-D Performance Graphs SS-3 and DF4-D Performance Graphs

Tractive Force vs. Speed Tractive Force vs. Speed

Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (3)Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (3)SS-3 and DF4-D Performance Graphs SS-3 and DF4-D Performance Graphs

Tractive Force vs. Speed Tractive Force vs. Speed


Performance Data for Performance Data for Alternative Traction Alternative Traction

Types (1)Types (1)

Performance Data for Performance Data for Alternative Traction Alternative Traction

Types (1)Types (1)

QJ Performance GraphsQJ Performance Graphs Tractive Force vs. Speed Tractive Force vs. Speed

over a range of cut-offs and over a range of cut-offs and steaming ratessteaming rates

QJ Performance GraphsQJ Performance Graphs Tractive Force vs. Speed Tractive Force vs. Speed

over a range of cut-offs and over a range of cut-offs and steaming ratessteaming rates


Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (2)Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (2)Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (2)Performance Data for Alternative Traction Types (2)

8AT Performance Graphs8AT Performance Graphs Maximum Tractive Force and Power vs. SpeedMaximum Tractive Force and Power vs. Speed

8AT Performance Graphs8AT Performance Graphs Maximum Tractive Force and Power vs. SpeedMaximum Tractive Force and Power vs. Speed


QJ1 8AT2 DF4-D SS-33

Speed TE Power TE Power TE Power TE Power

0 271 0 192 0 474 0 481 0

10 267 741 180 500 474 1318 417 1158

20 244 1353 163 906 401 2228 387 2149

30 216 1804 139 1161 277 2308 371 3094

40 176 1954 117 1301 209 2319 360 4002

50 146 2021 100 1389 165 2297 291 4047

60 121 2021 91 1515 136 2266 243 4051

70 102 1980 84 1626 114 2223 207 4017

80 85 1886 77 1711 99 2192 178 3964

Note 1: For QJ locomotives, the TE and Power values are estimated from the Speed-TE curves supplied by China National Railways at steaming rate of 75 kg/hr/m2.

Note 2: In order to base the 8AT’s performance on the same assumption as the Chinese locos, its calculated maximum drawbar tractive effort values have been reduced in the same proportion as those of the QJ resulting from the adoption of a 75 kg/h/m2 steaming rate instead of its maximum of 95 kg/hr/m2. Thus the 8AT’s estimated TE and power values have been reduced progressively from zero at low speeds up to 20% at 80 km/h.

Note 3: SS-3 figures in italics have been reduced (by estimate) to keep its wheel-rim power below its rated power.

Summary of Speed vs. Drawbar TE Characteristics for Traction OptionsDrawbar Tractive Effort values in kN, Power values in kW


Comparison of Formulae for Determining Specific Rolling Resistance of Freight Stock


Chinese Formulae for Specific Rolling Resistance of Wagons

Loaded Wagons: RR = 0.92 + 0.0048V + 0.000125V2 N/tonne;)) where V is speed in km/h.

Empty Wagons : RR = 2.23 + 0.0053V + 0.000675V2 N/tonne;)

Gradients: RG = 10 x G N/tonne where G is the gradient in %;

Curvature: RC = (600/r) x LC/LT when LC < LT or RC = (600/r) when LC>LT,

where r = the curve radius in metres, LC = the curve length and LT = the train length.

Based on these formulae and the speed/traction force values already derived, it is easy to calculate the steepest gradient that a locomotive will be able to climb at constant speed with any given load using the formula:

Where TEDB is the drawbar tractive effort of the locomotive.

)(10

)(

LT

TRDB

WW

WRTEG


Max Gradient at Constant Speed over range of Train Loadsfor QJ class locomotive operating at 75 kg/m2/hr steaming rate.

Speed Km/h

dbTE on

level track

Specific Train

Resist'ce

Gross Train Weight

tonne tonne tonne tonne Tonne tonne tonne tonne tonne tonne tonne

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4100 5000 6000 7000

kN N/tonne Climbable Gradient at Given Load and Speed - %

5 275 9.3 2.26 1.57 1.19 0.95 0.79 0.67 0.58 0.56 0.45 0.36 0.30

10 267 9.6 2.19 1.51 1.15 0.92 0.76 0.64 0.55 0.55 0.43 0.34 0.28

15 255 10.0 2.08 1.44 1.09 0.87 0.72 0.61 0.52 0.51 0.40 0.32 0.26

20 244 10.5 1.98 1.37 1.03 0.82 0.68 0.57 0.49 0.48 0.38 0.30 0.24

25 228 11.0 1.84 1.27 0.95 0.76 0.62 0.52 0.45 0.43 0.34 0.27 0.21

30 212 11.5 1.70 1.17 0.88 0.69 0.57 0.47 0.40 0.39 0.30 0.23 0.19

35 194 12.2 1.54 1.05 0.78 0.62 0.50 0.42 0.35 0.34 0.26 0.20 0.15

40 177 12.9 1.39 0.94 0.70 0.54 0.44 0.36 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.16 0.12

45 160 13.6 1.25 0.84 0.62 0.48 0.38 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.18 0.13 0.09

50 146 14.4 1.11 0.74 0.54 0.41 0.33 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.06

55 134 15.3 1.00 0.66 0.48 0.36 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.04

60 122 16.3 0.90 0.59 0.42 0.31 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.01

65 113 17.3 0.81 0.52 0.36 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.01 -0.01

70 103 18.3 0.72 0.45 0.31 0.22 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.02 -0.01 -0.04

75 93 19.5 0.63 0.38 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 -0.06

80 85 20.6 0.55 0.33 0.20 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.00 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08


Train Haulage Estimates for Steam, Diesel an Electric Traction

Old Steam Mod St Diesel Electric

Loco Type QJ 8AT DF4-D SS-3

Loco Weight (including tender) 200 170 138 138

Power Rating kW (wheel rim) 2200* 1700* 2940 4320

Max Design Speed (km/h) 85 100 100 100

Max Continuous Speed with 3,000 t train 85 85 100 100




Max Continuous Speed with 6,000 t train 65 (55) 70 100

Max Continuous Speed with 7,000 t train 60 - 65 100

Max Continuous Speed with 8,000 t train (55) - 60 90

Max Continuous Speed with 9,000 t train - - 55 78

Max train weight for 80km/h on level track1 4,100 3,200+ 4,700 8,700

Stalling (5 km/h) Grade for Max Train Size 0.56% 0.48% 0.91% 0.41%

Sustainable Speed on 0.5% grade (km/h) 17 - 27 -

Train (inc loco weight) / Loco Weight Ratio 21.5 19.8 36.5 66.2

Train Weight / Loco Power Ratio (inc loco) 1.96 1.98 2.07 2.12

Max train wt for 20km/h on 1.0% grade (t) 2000 1300 3600 3400

Estimated Max start-able gross train wt (t) 7800 5500 >10000 >10000

* Note: The QJ delivers 2600 kW at full boiler output; the 8AT should produce 2100 kW at the drawbar at full power


Speed-Power Comparison between Traction Types

Speed vs. Power Curves

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Speed (km/h)

Po

wer

(kW

)

SS-3

DF4-D

8AT

QJ


Acceleration/Speed/Time Comparison between Traction Types

Speed vs. Acceleration Curves at Design Load

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0 20 40 60 80

Speed (km/h)

Accele

rati

on

(m

/s/s

)

SS-3 (6230t)

DF4-D (4650t)

8AT (3162t)

QJ (3720t)

Time vs. Speed Curves at Design Loads

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time (secs)

Sp

eed

(km

/h)

SS3 (6230t)

DF4-D(4650t)

8AT (3162t)

QJ (3720t)

Time vs. Distance

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time (mins)

Dis

tan

ce (

km)

SS-3 (6230t)

DF4-D (4650t)

8AT (3162t)

QJ (3720t)


Part 4

Railway Operation

Basic Premises

• Single purpose, single route railway only for transporting coal from a mine site to an export terminal;

• No connecting routes; no non-coal traffic;• Simple 24 hour per day “merry-go-round” train rotation;• Single line operation with passing loops;• Trains loaded and unloaded as soon as they arrive at the loading

and unloading stations;• Locomotives remain attached to their trains including during

routine servicing.

Part 4

Railway Operation

Basic Premises

• Single purpose, single route railway only for transporting coal from a mine site to an export terminal;

• No connecting routes; no non-coal traffic;• Simple 24 hour per day “merry-go-round” train rotation;• Single line operation with passing loops;• Trains loaded and unloaded as soon as they arrive at the loading

and unloading stations;• Locomotives remain attached to their trains including during

routine servicing.


Railway Operation

Basic Premises for Idealized Synchronized System

• Passing loops are equidistant from one another;• Trains all travel at the same speed (50km/h average);• Full trains will arrive at passing loop at the same time as an empty

train coming the other way;• Trains depart from the loading and unloading stations immediately

after the arrival of the arrival train coming from opposite direction;• Time interval between trains remains constant = twice the time

taken to travel between passing loops.

Railway Operation

Basic Premises for Idealized Synchronized System

• Passing loops are equidistant from one another;• Trains all travel at the same speed (50km/h average);• Full trains will arrive at passing loop at the same time as an empty

train coming the other way;• Trains depart from the loading and unloading stations immediately

after the arrival of the arrival train coming from opposite direction;• Time interval between trains remains constant = twice the time

taken to travel between passing loops.


Railway Operation

Typical Train Movement DiagramAverage Travel Speed 50 km/h

Railway Operation

Typical Train Movement DiagramAverage Travel Speed 50 km/h


Railway Operation

Loading System Schematic Diagram

Railway Operation

Loading System Schematic Diagram


Railway Operation

Unloading System Schematic Diagram

Railway Operation

Unloading System Schematic Diagram


Railway Operation

Passing Loop Schematic Diagram

Railway Operation

Passing Loop Schematic Diagram


Railway OperationBasic Premises for Idealized

Synchronized System

Time interval between trains remains constant = twice the time it

takes to travel between passing loops, or ti = 2 x dL÷ V (where ti = time interval, dL distance between loops and V is the average train speed)

Minimum load in each train = target hourly throughput (t/h) x time

interval between trains, or Wt = Th x ti (where Wt is train weight and Th is the

target hourly throughput).

Thus the minimum train capacity Wt = Th x 2 x dL ÷ V. In other

words, it is determined by the train speed and the distance between passing loops.


Synchronized System

Time interval between trains remains constant = twice the time it

takes to travel between passing loops, or ti = 2 x dL÷ V (where ti = time interval, dL distance between loops and V is the average train speed)

Minimum load in each train = target hourly throughput (t/h) x time

interval between trains, or Wt = Th x ti (where Wt is train weight and Th is the

target hourly throughput).

Thus the minimum train capacity Wt = Th x 2 x dL ÷ V. In other

words, it is determined by the train speed and the distance between passing loops.



Synchronized System

Basic principle is:• more passing loops allow the operation of smaller trains;

thus• Smaller locomotives (hauling smaller trains) require more passing

loops to deliver the same quantity of coal.

thus• large trains hauled by electric traction will require fewer passing

loops than shorter trains hauled by 8ATs.


Synchronized System

Basic principle is:• more passing loops allow the operation of smaller trains;

thus• Smaller locomotives (hauling smaller trains) require more passing

loops to deliver the same quantity of coal.

thus• large trains hauled by electric traction will require fewer passing

loops than shorter trains hauled by 8ATs.


Railway OperationEstimating Ideal Train Capacities

We have minimum train capacity Wt = Th x 2 x dL ÷ V.

If target annual throughput = 20 million tonnes per year, this equates to 62,500 tonnes per day over a 320 day year.

Assume the railway operation is only 75% efficient, then target daily throughput = 83,333 tonnes per day or Th = 3472 t/h x 24 hours.

Thus if the railway length is 100 km, V = 50 km/h and there are 4 passing loops, the distance between loops, dL = 20 km from which can be calculated the minimum train capacity Wt = 3472 x 2 x 20 / 50 = 2778 tonnes.

If we assume the use of Chinese C70 wagons with a gross weight of 93 tonnes and tare weight of 23 tonnes, we can deduct that the train needs 40 wagons with a gross weight of 3720 tonnes and net weight of 2800 tonnes.

We can thus use the maximum train loads for each locomotive type to determine the number of passing loops required for each type (see next slide).

Railway OperationEstimating Ideal Train Capacities

We have minimum train capacity Wt = Th x 2 x dL ÷ V.

If target annual throughput = 20 million tonnes per year, this equates to 62,500 tonnes per day over a 320 day year.

Assume the railway operation is only 75% efficient, then target daily throughput = 83,333 tonnes per day or Th = 3472 t/h x 24 hours.

Thus if the railway length is 100 km, V = 50 km/h and there are 4 passing loops, the distance between loops, dL = 20 km from which can be calculated the minimum train capacity Wt = 3472 x 2 x 20 / 50 = 2778 tonnes.

If we assume the use of Chinese C70 wagons with a gross weight of 93 tonnes and tare weight of 23 tonnes, we can deduct that the train needs 40 wagons with a gross weight of 3720 tonnes and net weight of 2800 tonnes.

We can thus use the maximum train loads for each locomotive type to determine the number of passing loops required for each type (see next slide).


Railway OperationEstimating Optimum Train Sizes to deliver 83,333 tonnes per day

in Chinese C70 wagons (93 tonnes gross, 23 tonnes tare)

Railway OperationEstimating Optimum Train Sizes to deliver 83,333 tonnes per day

in Chinese C70 wagons (93 tonnes gross, 23 tonnes tare)

Item units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Max Haulage Capacity from Slide 26 Tonne 4,100 3,200* 4,700 8,700

Equiv net capacity with 70t net 23t tare wagons

tonne 3,086 2,409 3,538 6,548

Minimum required trains per day No. 27 34.6 23.6 12.7

Max distance between trains at 50km/h Km 44.4 34.7 50.9 94.3

Max distance between passing loops Km 22.2 17.3 25.5 47.1

Theoretical number of passing loops in 100 km No. 3.50 4.77 2.93 1.12

Actual minimum number of passing loops No. 4 5 3 2

Minimum number of trains in transit No. 5 6 4 3

Distance between passing loops Km 20.0 16.7 25.0 33.3

Train Arrival Frequency mins 48 40 60 80

Required net tonnes per train Tonne 2,778 2,315 3,472 4,630

Minimum number of 70 t wagons No. 40 34 50 67

Actual train load (net) tonne 2,800 2,380 3,500 4,690

Actual train weight (gross) Tonne 3,720 3,162 4,650 6,231

Percentage of loco capacity required % 91% 99%* 99% 72%

Note: Calculated 8AT haulage capacity is 3700 t. Hence a 3162 t load may be no more than 85% of its capacity.


Railway OperationTrain Movement Diagram

SS-3 Electric Traction with two passing loops


SS-3 Electric Traction with two passing loops



DF4-D Diesel Traction with three passing loops


DF4-D Diesel Traction with three passing loops



QJ Steam Traction with four passing loops


QJ Steam Traction with four passing loops



8AT Steam Traction with five passing loops


8AT Steam Traction with five passing loops


Railway Operation

Train Control (Signalling)

Railway Operation

Train Control (Signalling)

• Make use of the constant train frequency to create a regular system of train operation that requires rescheduling only in emergencies;

• Use standard safety systems such as track circuiting interlocked with passing loop crossings fitted with run-away sidings (or catch-points) to prevent trains meeting in opposite directions.

• Fit each locomotive with GPS system to allow a Central Train Control (CTC) to monitor each train position and send radio instructions to each train operator to adjust speed for coordinating passing operations and for maintaining schedules.

• GPS positioning system to be linked to the track-circuit interlocking system.

• On-board “cab signalling” with no line-side signals.

• Make use of the constant train frequency to create a regular system of train operation that requires rescheduling only in emergencies;

• Use standard safety systems such as track circuiting interlocked with passing loop crossings fitted with run-away sidings (or catch-points) to prevent trains meeting in opposite directions.

• Fit each locomotive with GPS system to allow a Central Train Control (CTC) to monitor each train position and send radio instructions to each train operator to adjust speed for coordinating passing operations and for maintaining schedules.

• GPS positioning system to be linked to the track-circuit interlocking system.

• On-board “cab signalling” with no line-side signals.


PART 5

Estimating Rolling Stock Requirements

Process:

• The train movement diagrams (above) demonstrate that the minimum number of trains (and locomotives) in transit = the number of passing loops plus 1.

• Further trains and locos need to be added to take account of:

o loading and unloading operations;

o Locomotive servicing;

o Locomotive and wagon maintenance;

o Breakdowns and emergencies.

PART 5


Process:

• The train movement diagrams (above) demonstrate that the minimum number of trains (and locomotives) in transit = the number of passing loops plus 1.

• Further trains and locos need to be added to take account of:

o loading and unloading operations;

o Locomotive servicing;

o Locomotive and wagon maintenance;

o Breakdowns and emergencies.



Estimating Target Loading and Unloading Rates

Requires a time-study taking into account:

• Transit time from main line to loading/unloading point;

• Time for administrative and safety checks;

• Time for refuelling, watering and servicing locomotives;

• Other non-productive time requirements.

Deducting the sum total of these times from the train arrival/departure frequency allows target loading/unloading rates to be calculated:


Estimating Target Loading and Unloading Rates

Requires a time-study taking into account:

• Transit time from main line to loading/unloading point;

• Time for administrative and safety checks;

• Time for refuelling, watering and servicing locomotives;

• Other non-productive time requirements.

Deducting the sum total of these times from the train arrival/departure frequency allows target loading/unloading rates to be calculated:



Estimating Target Train Loading Rates


Estimating Target Train Loading Rates

Activity units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Net Train Capacity tonne 2,800 2,380 3,500 4,690

Train Arrival Frequency mins 48 40 60 80

Arrival checks and documentation mins 3 3 3 3

Travel round 1.6 km balloon loop @ 20km/h mins 5 5 5 5

Position train under loading chute mins 1 1 1 1

Time to move train clear of loading chute mins 1 1 1 1

Refill tender water tank mins 8 6 - -

Dispatch checks and documentation mins inc inc 3 3

Time available for train filling mins 30 24 47 67

Required Coal Loading Rate t/h 5,600 6,000 4,450 4,200



Loco Coaling and Watering Facility

• Locos will require coaling and watering at least once each 200km round trip.

• Loco coal should be the best quality available from mine to guarantee best performance.

• Main coaling facility should be located at (but separate from) Coal Loading Station.


Loco Coaling and Watering Facility

• Locos will require coaling and watering at least once each 200km round trip.

• Loco coal should be the best quality available from mine to guarantee best performance.

• Main coaling facility should be located at (but separate from) Coal Loading Station.



“Scaled” schematic diagram of Train Loading Station


“Scaled” schematic diagram of Train Loading Station



Unloading StationMore complex than loading system because of the need to take account of the unloading method (rotary or bottom dump) and also locomotive servicing requirements.

• Steam traction will require ash removal, lubrication, sand refilling etc. at least once per 200 km round trip, and may need refuelling, rewatering and ash removal at each end of the line.

• Diesels will need refuelling and servicing every 2 or 3 round trips.

Time available for unloading wagons may thus be very short, requiring high unloading rates that may be unachievable with a rotary unloader (limited to ~7,000 t/h max).

Thus it may be necessary to have two (or more) trains at the unloading station at any time – see next slide.


Unloading StationMore complex than loading system because of the need to take account of the unloading method (rotary or bottom dump) and also locomotive servicing requirements.

• Steam traction will require ash removal, lubrication, sand refilling etc. at least once per 200 km round trip, and may need refuelling, rewatering and ash removal at each end of the line.

• Diesels will need refuelling and servicing every 2 or 3 round trips.

Time available for unloading wagons may thus be very short, requiring high unloading rates that may be unachievable with a rotary unloader (limited to ~7,000 t/h max).

Thus it may be necessary to have two (or more) trains at the unloading station at any time – see next slide.



Unloading Sequence

Max loco servicing time available – 38 mins


Unloading Sequence

Max loco servicing time available – 38 mins



Loco ServicingFor unload sequence shown in previous slide, loco is serviced while still connected to its train. This will require specially designed servicing facility incorporating the following components:


Loco ServicingFor unload sequence shown in previous slide, loco is serviced while still connected to its train. This will require specially designed servicing facility incorporating the following components:



• If servicing time > 38 minutes, then it is better for locos to be serviced in workshop;

• This requires detaching locos from trains, and recoupling them after servicing;

• Reconnected trains need to be brake-tested before departure, which can take 30 to 60 minutes.

• Following sequence illustrates how this might be done.


• If servicing time > 38 minutes, then it is better for locos to be serviced in workshop;

• This requires detaching locos from trains, and recoupling them after servicing;

• Reconnected trains need to be brake-tested before departure, which can take 30 to 60 minutes.

• Following sequence illustrates how this might be done.



Unloading Sequence with locos serviced in workshop


Unloading Sequence with locos serviced in workshop



From similar sequence diagrams drawn for each traction type, the following deductions can be made:


From similar sequence diagrams drawn for each traction type, the following deductions can be made:

Minimum Number of Locos and Trains Required to Operate Railway

Item Units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Required number of passing loops in 100 km unit 4 5 3 2

Minimum number of trains in transit unit 5 6 4 3

Required train capacity (net) tonne 2,800 2,380 3,500 4,690

Required train capacity (gross) tonne 3,720 3,162 4,650 6,231

Minimum number of locos/trains at loading station unit 1 1 1 1

Minimum train loading rate t/h 5,600 6,000 4,450 4,200

Loco detached for servicing at unload station unit no no no No

Required rotary unloader capacity t/h 1x5000 1x5000 1x5000 1x7000

Number of trains at unloading station unit 2 2 2 1

Number of locos at unloading station unit 2 2 2 1

Available time for loco servicing mins 43 35 50 25



Additional locomotive requirements to cover maintenance can be estimated from maintenance frequency, maintenance downtime, and annual mileage of locomotives.

Annual mileage is calculated as follows:


Additional locomotive requirements to cover maintenance can be estimated from maintenance frequency, maintenance downtime, and annual mileage of locomotives.

Annual mileage is calculated as follows:

Units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Number of wagons per train Unit 40 1 1 1

Loco standing time at loading station Mins 48 40 60 80


Loco standing time at unloading station Mins 96 80 60 80

Travel time on line (both ways) Mins 120 120 120 120

Total turnaround time for each loco hours 6.4 6.0 6.5 7.1

Number of round trips per day per loco unit 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.4

Distance travelled by each loco per day km 750 800 738 675

Annual mileage for each locomotive km 240,000 256,000 236,000 216,000



Servicing requirements are as follows (from Chinese manufacturers):


Servicing requirements are as follows (from Chinese manufacturers):

Annual mileage for each locomotive km 240,000 256,000 236,000 216,000

Major overhaul period km 250,000 500,000 700,000 1,200,000

Time to complete major overhaul days* 15 15 15 15

Intermediate overhaul period km 83,333 125,000 233,333 400,000

Time to complete major overhaul days* 6 6 6 6

Scheduled maintenance period km 22,500 24,000 30,000 40,000

Time to complete scheduled maintenance days* 2 2 2 2

Number of major overhauls per year unit 0.96 0.51 0.34 0.18

Time under major overhauls per year days* 14.4 7.9 4.4 2.7

Intermediate overhauls per year unit 1.92 1.54 0.68 0.36

Time under intermediate overhauls days* 11.5 9.2 3.5 2.2

Scheduled maintenances per year unit 10.67 10.67 6.86 4.86

Time under scheduled maintenance days* 21.3 21.3 11.9 9.7

Total time under maintenance per year days* 47.3 38.2 19.8 14.6

Percentage of time under maintenance % 15% 12% 6% 5%

Percentage of loco fleet under maintenance % 15% 12% 6% 5%

Number of locos to cover maintenance theory 1.18 1.08 0.43 0.23

Number of locos to cover maintenance actual 2 2 1 1

* The estimated times for overhauls and scheduled maintenance are based on 24 hour per day operation, and have been increased above Chinese time estimates. These times will increase if working days are shorter.



Summary of Loco Requirements


Summary of Loco Requirements

Minimum number of trains in transit unit 5 6 4 3

Minimum number of locos/trains at loading station

unit 1 1 1 1


Number of locos to cover maintenance actual 2 2 1 1

Stand-by locos to cover breakdown etc§ est’d 3 3 2 1

Total Loco Fleet Required unit 13 14 10 7

§ The number of standby locomotives is based on subjective judgement, taking into account the difference between the actual number of locos provided to cover maintenance and the theoretical number that are required.



Summary of Wagon Requirements

Note:- Longer trains require more wagons. This is because individual wagons spend more time idle waiting for their (longer) trains to unload.

At $75,000 per wagon, the cost difference between the cost of the wagon fleets for diesel and 8AT steam traction is around $4.5 million - a “hidden” saving for steam.

Other hidden savings from smaller (steam hauled) trains include lower drawgear loads and lower rail and flange wear on curves.


Summary of Wagon Requirements

Note:- Longer trains require more wagons. This is because individual wagons spend more time idle waiting for their (longer) trains to unload.

At $75,000 per wagon, the cost difference between the cost of the wagon fleets for diesel and 8AT steam traction is around $4.5 million - a “hidden” saving for steam.

Other hidden savings from smaller (steam hauled) trains include lower drawgear loads and lower rail and flange wear on curves.

Number of trains in transit unit 5 6 4 3

Number of trains at loading station unit 1 1 1 1

Number of trains at unloading station unit 2 2 2 1

Number of trains to cover maintenance est’d 1 1 1 1

Total number of trains required unit 9 10 8 6

Number of wagons per train unit 40 34 50 67

Total Wagon Fleet Required unit 360 340 400 402


PART 6

Locomotive Cost Comparisons

1. Estimate capital cost (including locomotive infrastructure requirements), and amortization period;

2. Estimate annual maintenance costs;

3. Estimate labour costs associated with loco operation & servicing;

4. Estimate water costs for steam locos, including treatment;

5. Estimate fuel consumption and compare with recorded data;

6. Estimate fuel costs.

PART 6


1. Estimate capital cost (including locomotive infrastructure requirements), and amortization period;

2. Estimate annual maintenance costs;

3. Estimate labour costs associated with loco operation & servicing;

4. Estimate water costs for steam locos, including treatment;

5. Estimate fuel consumption and compare with recorded data;

6. Estimate fuel costs.



Estimating Capital Costs

• Steam loco fuelling and servicing facilities – estimated price $4 million;

• Diesel loco fuelling and servicing facilities – estimated price $2 million;

• Electric loco servicing facilities – estimated price $1 million;

• Electrical infrastructure - $530,000 per km (from Chinese data)

• QJ cost including reconditioning and shipping ~ $0.4 million (quoted)

• DF4-D and SS-3 cost including shipping ~ $1.25 million (quoted)

• 8AT steam loco (built in China or similar) ~ $2.5 million (estimated)

Note: Estimate unit cost of 8AT locomotives includes a margin to cover the cost of design, building and testing of a prototype loco.



• Steam loco fuelling and servicing facilities – estimated price $4 million;

• Diesel loco fuelling and servicing facilities – estimated price $2 million;

• Electric loco servicing facilities – estimated price $1 million;

• Electrical infrastructure - $530,000 per km (from Chinese data)

• QJ cost including reconditioning and shipping ~ $0.4 million (quoted)

• DF4-D and SS-3 cost including shipping ~ $1.25 million (quoted)

• 8AT steam loco (built in China or similar) ~ $2.5 million (estimated)

Note: Estimate unit cost of 8AT locomotives includes a margin to cover the cost of design, building and testing of a prototype loco.






Capital Cost and Depreciation Estimates units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Electrical infrastructure cost $m 61.3

Servicing infrastructure cost $m 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.0

Number of locomotives required unit 13 14 10 7

Cost per locomotive $m 0.40 2.5 1.25 1.25

Cost of locomotive fleet $m 5.20 35.0 12.0 8.40

Depreciation period for infrastructure years 25 25 25 25

Depreciation period for locos Years 10 25 25 25

Amortized cost of infrastructure $m/year 0.160 0.160 0.080 2.493

Amortized cost of locomotives $m/year 0.520 1.400 0.480 0.360

Total Amortization Cost of Traction $m/year 0.680 1.560 0.560 2.829



Estimating Loco Maintenance Costs



Maintenance Schedules for Chinese Locomotives

Item QJ Steam DF4 Diesel SS3 Electric

Major Overhaul Period250,000 km or 3

yrs700,000 km or 6

yrs1,200,000 km or 10

yrs

Major Overhaul Cost $45,000 (2006) $200,000 (1997) $250,000 (1997)

Intermediate Overhaul Period 83,000 km or 1 yr250,000 km or 2

yrs400,000 km or 3 yrs

Intermediate Overhaul Cost $25,000 (2006) $50,000 (1997) $65,000 (1997)

Regular Maintenance Period 22,500 km (assumed) 30,000 km or 3 mths 40,000 km or 6 mths

Regular Maintenance Cost $5000 (assumed) $10,000 (1997) $12,000 (1997)




8AT maintenance frequencies are based on the mileages achieved by the Porta-modified RFIRT locomotives operating in Argentina (see next slide).

Costs are based on quoted maintenance costs for Chinese steam locos.



8AT maintenance frequencies are based on the mileages achieved by the Porta-modified RFIRT locomotives operating in Argentina (see next slide).

Costs are based on quoted maintenance costs for Chinese steam locos.

Proposed Maintenance Schedules for 8AT LocosMajor Overhaul Period 500,000 km or 3 yrs

Major Overhaul Cost $50,000

Intermediate Overhaul Period 125,000 km or 1 yr

Intermediate Overhaul Cost $25,000

Regular Maintenance Period 24,000 km

Regular Maintenance Cost $5,000


Reliability Record from Rio Turbio Railway’s Locos that incorporated some (minor) Porta improvementsReliability Record from Rio Turbio Railway’s Locos that incorporated some (minor) Porta improvements

• 480,000 km before main (white metal) 480,000 km before main (white metal) bearings needed replacing = 180 million bearings needed replacing = 180 million revolutions of the 850mm dia driving wheels;revolutions of the 850mm dia driving wheels;

• 70,000 km between tyre profiling = 26 million 70,000 km between tyre profiling = 26 million revolutions;revolutions;

• No superheater replacements in 500,000 km No superheater replacements in 500,000 km despite high steam temperatures (>400despite high steam temperatures (>400ooC);C);

• No boiler tube replacement in 400,000 km No boiler tube replacement in 400,000 km (apart from tubes damaged during installation);(apart from tubes damaged during installation);

• No boiler repairs in 400,000 km of service;No boiler repairs in 400,000 km of service;

• Piston rod packings lasted 400,000 km (150 million Piston rod packings lasted 400,000 km (150 million revolutions);revolutions);

• Max steam leakage 1.7% of max evaporation after Max steam leakage 1.7% of max evaporation after 70,000 km.70,000 km.

• 480,000 km before main (white metal) 480,000 km before main (white metal) bearings needed replacing = 180 million bearings needed replacing = 180 million revolutions of the 850mm dia driving wheels;revolutions of the 850mm dia driving wheels;

• 70,000 km between tyre profiling = 26 million 70,000 km between tyre profiling = 26 million revolutions;revolutions;

• No superheater replacements in 500,000 km No superheater replacements in 500,000 km despite high steam temperatures (>400despite high steam temperatures (>400ooC);C);

• No boiler tube replacement in 400,000 km No boiler tube replacement in 400,000 km (apart from tubes damaged during installation);(apart from tubes damaged during installation);

• No boiler repairs in 400,000 km of service;No boiler repairs in 400,000 km of service;

• Piston rod packings lasted 400,000 km (150 million Piston rod packings lasted 400,000 km (150 million revolutions);revolutions);

• Max steam leakage 1.7% of max evaporation after Max steam leakage 1.7% of max evaporation after 70,000 km.70,000 km.






units QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Major overhaul frequency km 250,000 500,000 700,000 1.2m

Major overhaul cost $ 45,000 50,000 230,000 287,500

Intermediate overhaul frequency km 83,000 125,000 233,000 400,000

Intermediate overhaul cost $ 25,000 25,000 57,500 74,750

Regular maintenance frequency km 22,500 24,000 30,000 40,000

Regular maintenance cost $ 5,000 5,000 11,500 13,800

Average loco km per year km 111,000 123,000 115,200 123,400

Major maintenance cost / loco / year $ 19,900 12,300 37,800 29,600

Interm’t maintenance cost / loco / year $ 16,600 16,500 14,200 11,500

Regular maintenance cost / loco/ year $ 24,600 25,700 44,100 42,600

Total maintenance cost / loco / year $ 61,100 54,500 96,200 83,700

Number of locos in fleet unit 13 14 10 7

Total cost of maintenance per year $m 0.795 0.763 0.962 0.586



Estimating Labour Costs(associated with locomotive operation and servicing)

• Each operating steam loco will require 2 operators or “enginemen”;

• Each operating diesel and electric loco will require 1 operator;

• “Old steam” traction will require 8 people for locomotive servicing duties;

• “Modern steam” traction will require 4 people for locomotive servicing duties;

• Diesel traction will require only 2 servicemen at the servicing depot;

• Electric traction will require 6 servicemen, including 2 at the servicing depot and one linesman in each section of track between passing loops;

• No allowance is made for maintenance personnel whose costs are included maintenance cost estimates.

• Operating and servicing personnel will cost $5,000 per annum.



• Each operating steam loco will require 2 operators or “enginemen”;

• Each operating diesel and electric loco will require 1 operator;

• “Old steam” traction will require 8 people for locomotive servicing duties;

• “Modern steam” traction will require 4 people for locomotive servicing duties;

• Diesel traction will require only 2 servicemen at the servicing depot;

• Electric traction will require 6 servicemen, including 2 at the servicing depot and one linesman in each section of track between passing loops;

• No allowance is made for maintenance personnel whose costs are included maintenance cost estimates.

• Operating and servicing personnel will cost $5,000 per annum.




Note: $5000 p.a. wage rate is generous for developing countries



Note: $5000 p.a. wage rate is generous for developing countries

units QJ JS SY 8AT DF4 SS3

Labour shifts per day 3 3 3 3 3 3

Crew members per loco 2 2 2 2 1 1

Number of locos in operation 8 9 16 9 7 5

Total loco crew 48 54 96 54 21 15

Servicing crew per shift 8 8 8 4 2 6

Total servicing crew 24 24 24 12 6 18

Total labour requirement 72 78 120 66 27 33

Unit labour cost per annum $ 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Labour cost per annum $m 0.360 0.390 0.600 0.330 0.135 0.165



Estimating Water Costs(steam locos only)

• Assumed water cost - $0.30 per tonne;• Assumed water treatment cost - $1.00 per tonne (based on UK

costs)• QJ performance curves used to estimate water consumption

based on the steaming rate required to maintain the horsepower outputs derived fr coal consumption estimates.

• 8AT consumption figures are conservatively estimated to be 80% those of an equivalent size Chinese loco (JS type) hauling the same load.


Estimating Water Costs(steam locos only)

• Assumed water cost - $0.30 per tonne;• Assumed water treatment cost - $1.00 per tonne (based on UK

costs)• QJ performance curves used to estimate water consumption

based on the steaming rate required to maintain the horsepower outputs derived fr coal consumption estimates.

• 8AT consumption figures are conservatively estimated to be 80% those of an equivalent size Chinese loco (JS type) hauling the same load.



Estimating Water ConsumptionFor Loaded Journey


Estimating Water ConsumptionFor Loaded Journey

Item Units QJ JS 8AT

Gross train weight tonne 3,720 3,162 3,162

Wheel rim TE at 50 km/h (see note) kN 119 101 -

Wheel rim power at 50 km/h kW 1,653 1,403 -

Steam consumption per hour per m2 kg 59 66 -

Heating surface area (excluding superheater) m2 255.3 213 -

Steam production kg/hr 15,063 14,058 -

Journey time over 100 km railway h 2.0 2.0 2.0

Steam consumption tonne 30 28 22

Note: The wheel rim TE values include a 100% load factor applied to train rolling resistance values on straight level track to account for grades and curvatures.



Estimating Water ConsumptionFor Empty Journey


Estimating Water ConsumptionFor Empty Journey


Empty train weight tonne 920 782 782

Wheel rim TE at 50 km/h (see note) kN 85 73 -

Wheel rim power at 50 km/h kW 1,181 1,014 -

Steam consumption per hour per m2 kg 43 46 -

Heating surface area (excluding superheater) M2 255.3 213 -

Steam production kg/hr 10,978 9,798 -

Journey time over 100 km railway h 2.0 2.0 -


Note: The wheel rim TE values include a 100% load factor applied to train rolling resistance values on straight level track to account for grades and curvatures.



Estimating Annual Water CostsLocomotive Cost Comparisons

Estimating Annual Water Costs


Steam consumption Loaded Journey tonne 30 28 22


Total water consumption per round trip tonne 52 48 38

Number of round trips per year unit 7,143 8.403 8,403

Total Water Consumed tonne 371,863 400,941 320,753

Water cost including treatment $/t 1.30 1.30 1.30

Total Water Cost including treatment $m 0.483 0.521 0.417



Estimating cost per kWh of energy output for each traction type

Assumptions:• Coal used is the NAR value for Lumut BA70 coal with NAR calorific value

of 6500 kg/kcal.

• Calorific value for diesel is an industry average of 10,200 kg/kcal;

• Representative drawbar thermal efficiencies used for each traction type;

• “Fuel consumption” of electric loco = kWh consumed ÷ kWh supplied;

• Electrical losses from the point of supply to the loco drawbar = 20%;

• Unit cost for electric power $0.08 per kWh and $700 per tonne for gas oil;

• Ex-mine coal price = $20 per tonne.

Note: Export coal price is not used because it includes costs of loading, transportation, storage, blending, loading onto ship, plus profit, which do not apply to coal used for locomotive fuel.



Assumptions:• Coal used is the NAR value for Lumut BA70 coal with NAR calorific value

of 6500 kg/kcal.

• Calorific value for diesel is an industry average of 10,200 kg/kcal;

• Representative drawbar thermal efficiencies used for each traction type;

• “Fuel consumption” of electric loco = kWh consumed ÷ kWh supplied;

• Electrical losses from the point of supply to the loco drawbar = 20%;

• Unit cost for electric power $0.08 per kWh and $700 per tonne for gas oil;

• Ex-mine coal price = $20 per tonne.

Note: Export coal price is not used because it includes costs of loading, transportation, storage, blending, loading onto ship, plus profit, which do not apply to coal used for locomotive fuel.







Energy Conversion Factor kcal/kW-h 860 860 860 -

Max Drawbar Thermal Efficiency % 8% 15% 30% -

Assumed Drawbar Thermal Efficiency % 6% 10% 25% 80%

Fuel Calorific Value Kcal/kg 6,500 6,500 10,200 -

Fuel Consumption Kg/kWh 2.205 1.323 0.337 1.250

Fuel Cost per tonne $/t $20 $20 $700 $0.08

Cost of Fuel per kW-h of loco’s output US cents 4.41 2.65 23.61 10.00



Estimating Fuel Consumption for each traction type

Assumptions:

• Train rolling resistance calculated using Chinese formulae - viz:

RRF = 0.92 + 0.0048V + 0.000125V2 N/tonne for full wagons and

RRE = 2.23 + 0.0053V + 0.000675V2 N/tonne for empty wagons .

• At average train speed = 50 km/h, RRF = 15 kN/t and RRE = 42.6 kN/t;

• Arbitrary 100% “Load Factor” added to allow for trains stopping, starting, climbing hills, braking when descending, and negotiating curves.


Estimating Fuel Consumption for each traction type

Assumptions:

• Train rolling resistance calculated using Chinese formulae - viz:

RRF = 0.92 + 0.0048V + 0.000125V2 N/tonne for full wagons and

RRE = 2.23 + 0.0053V + 0.000675V2 N/tonne for empty wagons .

• At average train speed = 50 km/h, RRF = 15 kN/t and RRE = 42.6 kN/t;

• Arbitrary 100% “Load Factor” added to allow for trains stopping, starting, climbing hills, braking when descending, and negotiating curves.



Estimating Fuel Consumption for Loaded Journeys

Note: Fuel consumption figures per 106 t-km are consistent withChinese statistical data – see next slide.


Estimating Fuel Consumption for Loaded Journeys

Note: Fuel consumption figures per 106 t-km are consistent withChinese statistical data – see next slide.


Gross train weight Tonne 3,720 3,162 4,650 6,231

Specific rolling resistance full train N/t 15 15 15 15

Rolling resistance (level track) kN 55.8 47.5 69.8 93.5

Load factor for curves and grades % 100 100 100 100

Rolling resistance (curved track) kN 111.7 94.9 139.6 187.1

Power consumed overcoming resistance kN-km/h 5,584 4,746 6,980 9,353

Power consumed overcoming resistance kW 1,511 1,319 1,939 2,599

Specific fuel consumption Kg/kWh or kW/kWh 2.205 1.323 0.337 1.250

Fuel consumption rate for loaded journey kg/h or kWh/h 3,421 1,745 654 3,248

Fuel consumption for loaded journey kg/km or kWh/km 68.4 39.4 13.1 65.0

Fuel consumed on loaded journey t or kWh 6.84 3.94 1.31 5,500

Fuel consumption per million tonne-km tonne/106 t-km 18.39 11.04 2.81 10,426

Comparative figures - Steam vs. Diesel Comparative figures - Steam vs. Diesel from China National Railwaysfrom China National Railways

Comparative figures - Steam vs. Diesel Comparative figures - Steam vs. Diesel from China National Railwaysfrom China National Railways

YearYearAvailable Available locos per locos per

dayday

Train GrossTrain GrossmT-km mT-km

(10(1066 t-km) t-km)

Loco Loco Failures per Failures per

101066 t-km t-km

Av. Fuel Av. Fuel Consumption Consumption

per 10per 1066 t-km t-km (tonne)(tonne)

Unit Price of Unit Price of FuelFuel

($US/tonne)*($US/tonne)*

Fuel Cost of Fuel Cost of TractionTraction

$US/10$US/1066 t-km t-km

SteamSteam DieselDiesel SteamSteam DieselDiesel SteamSteam DieselDiesel SteamSteam DieselDiesel SteamSteam DieselDiesel SteamSteam DieselDiesel

19871987 5,3175,317 3,2823,282 770,009770,009 750,090750,090 3.03.0 11.011.0 11.0911.09 2.592.59 2424 367367 267267 951951

19951995 3,0613,061 6,2246,224 268,998268,998 1,435,3651,435,365 3.43.4 16.816.8 13.7413.74 2.432.43 2424 367367 331331 893893

19991999 1,0131,013 7,8257,825 32,47532,475 1,682,0461,682,046 00 13.113.1 20.6620.66 2.622.62 2424 367367 497497 962962

20032003 -- 8,5858,585 -- 1,384,9961,384,996 -- 7.07.0 -- 2.542.54 2424 367367 -- 993993


Notes: These figures are taken from official statistics of the Operating Department of China’s National Railway, as published by State authorities in March 2004.

* “Unit Price of Fuel” figures do not include contemporary fuel costs; 2003 costs are used for comparative purposes (converted at RMB 8.3 per USD).

Notes: These figures are taken from official statistics of the Operating Department of China’s National Railway, as published by State authorities in March 2004.

* “Unit Price of Fuel” figures do not include contemporary fuel costs; 2003 costs are used for comparative purposes (converted at RMB 8.3 per USD).



Estimating Fuel Consumption for Empty Journeys


Estimating Fuel Consumption for Empty Journeys


Tare weight of empty train T 920 782 1,150 1,541

Specific rolling resistance empty train N/t 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6

Load factor for curves and grades % 100 100 100 100

Rolling resistance (curved track) kN 78.4 66.7 98.1 131.4

Power consumed overcoming resistance kW 1,090 926 1,362 1,825

Fuel consumption for empty journey kg/km or kWh/km 48.1 24.5 9.2 45.6

Fuel consumed on empty journey t or kWh 4.81 2.45 0.92 4,560

Fuel consumption per million tonne-km tonne/106 t-km 52.24 31.34 7.99 29,614



Estimating Fuel Costs per Annum


Estimating Fuel Costs per Annum


Annual Tonnage Throughput m.t 20 20 20 20

Distance hauled km 100 100 100 100

Total net million tonne-km per year m.t-m/y 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Gross wagon weight t 93 93 93 93

Net wagon weight t 70 70 70 70

Ratio gross to net tonnes - 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

Total million tonne-km per year (full) m.t-km/y 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657

Fuel consumption per million tonne-km t or kWh 18.39 11.04 2.81 10,426

Total fuel consumed hauling full trains t or kWh 48,871 29,322 7,474 27.7m

Total million tonne-km per year (empty) m.t-km/y 657 657 657 657

Fuel consumption per million tonne-km t or kWh 52.24 31.34 7.99 29,614

Total fuel consumed hauling empty trains t or kWh 34,330 20,598 5,250 19.5m

Total fuel consumed - full and empty trains t or kWh 83,201 49,921 12,725 47.2m

Cost of Fuel per tonne or kWh $ 20 20 700 0.08

Cost of Fuel per year of operation $m 1.664 0.998 8.907 3.773



Comparison of Overall Costs per Annum

Notes: 1:Notes: 1: Electrical costs exclude maintenance of electrical infrastructure;Electrical costs exclude maintenance of electrical infrastructure; 2: Extra capital cost of 2: Extra capital cost of 8AT vs. diesel will be recovered within 38AT vs. diesel will be recovered within 3½ years.½ years. 3: 8AT costs are likely to be lower than those assumed in this study3: 8AT costs are likely to be lower than those assumed in this study


Comparison of Overall Costs per Annum

Notes: 1:Notes: 1: Electrical costs exclude maintenance of electrical infrastructure;Electrical costs exclude maintenance of electrical infrastructure; 2: Extra capital cost of 2: Extra capital cost of 8AT vs. diesel will be recovered within 38AT vs. diesel will be recovered within 3½ years.½ years. 3: 8AT costs are likely to be lower than those assumed in this study3: 8AT costs are likely to be lower than those assumed in this study


Amortized Cost of Locos and servicing infrastructure:

$m 0.680 1.560 0.560 2.829


Labour cost per year $m 0.360 0.330 0.135 0.165

Total water cost including treatment $m 0.483 0.417 nil nil

Total fuel cost per year $m 1.664 0.998 8.907 3.773

Total Operating Cost per Year $m 3.983 4.069 10.564 7.353

Cost per tonne of freight hauled $/t 0.20 0.20 0.53 0.37

Cost per million-net-tonne-km $/mt-km 1,991 2,034 5,282 3,676

Cost ratio compared to QJ option % 100% 102% 265% 185%

Cost difference compared to QJ $m - 0.085 6.581 3.370



Sensitivity of Cost Assumptions on Cost ComparisonsAnnual costs in $ million, taken from spreadsheet analysis

Notes: 1: Even with $25 per tonne “carbon tax”, the 8AT would remain cheaper than Notes: 1: Even with $25 per tonne “carbon tax”, the 8AT would remain cheaper than other options (see later slide).other options (see later slide).

2: Diesel costs very sensitive to fuel prices, because they are largest component. 2: Diesel costs very sensitive to fuel prices, because they are largest component. Diesel traction costs are likely to escalate much more rapidly than steam’s.Diesel traction costs are likely to escalate much more rapidly than steam’s.


Sensitivity of Cost Assumptions on Cost ComparisonsAnnual costs in $ million, taken from spreadsheet analysis

Notes: 1: Even with $25 per tonne “carbon tax”, the 8AT would remain cheaper than Notes: 1: Even with $25 per tonne “carbon tax”, the 8AT would remain cheaper than other options (see later slide).other options (see later slide).

2: Diesel costs very sensitive to fuel prices, because they are largest component. 2: Diesel costs very sensitive to fuel prices, because they are largest component. Diesel traction costs are likely to escalate much more rapidly than steam’s.Diesel traction costs are likely to escalate much more rapidly than steam’s.

QJ 8AT DF4 SS3

Calculated Operating Cost per Year from Table 21 3.983 4.069 10.564 7.353

Doubling of labour costs to $10,000 p.a. 4.343 4.398 10.699 7.518

Doubling of water cost to $2.60 per tonne 4.466 4.486 10.564 7.353

Doubling steam locomotive maintenance costs 4.777 4.831 10.564 7.353

Doubling steam loco and infrastructure capital cost 4.662 5.682 10.564 7.353

Doubling steam locomotive fuel cost (to $40 per t) 5.646 5.067 10.564 7.353

50% increase in price of diesel (to $1050 per t) 3.983 4.069 15.018 7.353

1. CO2 emissions

2. Smoke emissions

3. Other considerations

4. Positive considerations

1. CO2 emissions

2. Smoke emissions

3. Other considerations

4. Positive considerations

Part 7Environmental Considerations

Part 7Environmental Considerations


Environmental Considerations

Carbon Emissions


Carbon Emissions


• Coal-burning steam locos will inevitably generate more CO2 than diesels, because of coal’s higher carbon content and steam’s lower thermal efficiency;

• Coal-burning “modern steam” traction cannot compete with diesel in terms of carbon emissions;

• A recent study by Brian McCammon has produced estimates of “carbon dioxide equivalent” footprints for different traction types – see next slide:

• Coal-burning steam locos will inevitably generate more CO2 than diesels, because of coal’s higher carbon content and steam’s lower thermal efficiency;

• Coal-burning “modern steam” traction cannot compete with diesel in terms of carbon emissions;

• A recent study by Brian McCammon has produced estimates of “carbon dioxide equivalent” footprints for different traction types – see next slide:

Environmental ConsiderationsEnvironmental ConsiderationsEconomics of Modern Steam Traction in Transportation of Coal by Rail

Comparison of CO2-e Emission between Traction Typeswhen hauling a 2800 tonne train at 45 km/h over 100 km, taken from report by Brian McCammon

Item Units Old Steam Mod Steam Electric Diesel

Fuel Sub-bituminous Coal Fuel Oil

Drawbar efficiency (assumed) % 6 10 23 25

Average drawbar power (estimated) kW 932 932 932 932

Drawbar energy output kW-h 2071 2071 2071 2071

Energy input kW-h 34,518 20,711 9,005 8,282

Energy input GJ 124.3 74.6 29.8 32.4

Fuel net calorific value MJ/kg 20.9 20.9 20.9 42.7

Mass of fuel burned Tonne 5.6 3.4 1.5 0.6

Direct Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 92.8 92.8 92.8 82.6

Fugitive Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 1.9 1.9 1.9 11.8

Total Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.4

Total Emissions tonnes of CO2-e 11.8 7.1 3.1 2.8

Total Emissions per tonne of fuel burned t-CO2-e/t fuel 2.11 2.11 4.33 2.11

Total Emissions per tonne-km of haulage gm - CO2-e 42.0 25.2 11.0 10.1

Total Emissions per unit of energy output kg(CO2)/db-kWh 5.70 3.42 1.37 1.19

Notes: 1: “CO2-e” = “CO2 equivalent”. Includes equivalent weight of CO2 of other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane that

are released in the mining, processing, transportation and burning of the fuels;2: Efficiency of electric traction includes power station and transmission losses as well as the railway’s local losses in the power distribution system and locomotive.

Environmental ConsiderationsEnvironmental Considerations


Effects of a $25 CO2 Emissions Charge on Traction Costs


Fuel Consumption Kg/kWh 2.205 1.323 0.337 1.250

Assumed cost of fuel $/t or $/kWh 20 20 700 0.08

CO2-e per tonne of fuel t-CO2-e/t 2.11 2.11 4.33 2.11

CO2-e per tonne tax rate $/t CO2-e 25 25 25 25

Carbon tax charge $/t of fuel 53 53 108 53

Effective fuel cost (including tax) $ per t or $ per kWh 73 73 808 0.10

Cost of energy input (including tax) cents per kWh 16.04 16.04 27.26 13.01


Note: 1: the 8AT is still clearly cheaper than all other traction options.2: By the time a $25 per tonne carbon tax is applied to developing countries, the cost of oil is likely to have risen substantially.


Note: 1: the 8AT is still clearly cheaper than all other traction options.2: By the time a $25 per tonne carbon tax is applied to developing countries, the cost of oil is likely to have risen substantially.


Effects of a $25 CO2 Emissions Charge on Traction Costs


Total fuel used per round trip (from Table 20) t or kWh 83,201 49,921 12,725 47.2m

Cost of Fuel per tonne or kWh (from Tbl 24a) $ 73 73 808 0.10

Cost of Fuel per year of operation $m 6.053 3.632 10.284 4.908

From previous cost table:

Total Amortization Cost of Locos and infrastructure: $m 0.680 1.560 0.560 2.829


Labour cost per year $m 0.360 0.330 0.135 0.165

Total water cost including treatment $m 0.483 0.417 nil nil

Total Operating Cost per Year $m 8.371 6.701 11.941 8.488

Cost per tonne of freight hauled $/t 0.42 0.34 0.60 0.42

Cost per million-net-tonne-km $/mt-km 4,186 3,351 5,971 4,244

Cost ratio compared to QJ option % - 80 143 101

Cost difference compared to QJ $m - -1.669 3.570 0.116

Environmental ConsiderationsEnvironmental ConsiderationsEconomics of Modern Steam Traction in Transportation of Coal by Rail

Comparison of CO2-e Emission between Traction Typeswhen hauling a 2800 tonne train at 45 km/h over 100 km, taken from report by Brian McCammon

Item Units Old Steam Mod Steam Electric Diesel

Fuel Sub-bituminous Coal Gas Oil

Drawbar efficiency (assumed) % 6 10 23 25

Average drawbar power (estimated) kW 932 932 932 932

Drawbar energy output kW-h 2071 2071 2071 2071

Energy input kW-h 34,518 20,711 9,005 8,282

Energy input GJ 124.3 74.6 29.8 32.4

Fuel net calorific value MJ/kg 20.9 20.9 20.9 42.7

Mass of fuel burned Tonne 5.6 3.4 1.5 0.6

Direct Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 92.8 92.8 92.8 82.6

Fugitive Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 1.9 1.9 1.9 11.8

Total Emissions Factor kg CO2-e/GJ 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.4

Total Emissions tonnes of CO2-e 11.8 7.1 3.1 2.8

Total Emissions per tonne of fuel burned t-CO2-e/t fuel 2.11 2.11 4.33 2.11

Total Emissions per tonne-km of haulage gm - CO2-e 42.0 25.2 11.0 10.1

Total Emissions per unit of energy output kg(CO2)/db-kWh 5.70 3.42 1.37 1.19

Notes: 1: “CO2-e” = “CO2 equivalent”. Includes equivalent weight of CO2 of other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane that

are released in the mining, processing, transportation and burning of the fuels;2: Efficiency of electric traction includes power station and transmission losses as well as the railway’s local losses in the power distribution system and locomotive.


Smoke Emissions


Smoke Emissions


• Steam locos in good condition do not normally emit large quantities of “nuisance” smoke when operating;

• Modern steam locos with GPCS fireboxes should emit less smoke because of more complete combustion;

• Smoke nuisance is normally limited to large locomotive storage sheds when located near residential areas. Not likely to be a problem for a railway with only 12 locos operating 24 hours a day (i.e. not put into storage at night).

• Steam locos in good condition do not normally emit large quantities of “nuisance” smoke when operating;

• Modern steam locos with GPCS fireboxes should emit less smoke because of more complete combustion;

• Smoke nuisance is normally limited to large locomotive storage sheds when located near residential areas. Not likely to be a problem for a railway with only 12 locos operating 24 hours a day (i.e. not put into storage at night).


Smoke Emissions


Smoke Emissions


• Chinese locos are renown for smoke-free operation.

• Diesels are not smoke-free

• Chinese locos are renown for smoke-free operation.

• Diesels are not smoke-free


Other Considerations


Other Considerations


• Ash disposal;

• Treatment of high pH water disposal after boiler washes;

• Disposal of waste lubricant disposal before overhauls;

• Controlling coal dust during refuelling operations;

• Controlling coal smoke inside workshop buildings.

• Ash disposal;

• Treatment of high pH water disposal after boiler washes;

• Disposal of waste lubricant disposal before overhauls;

• Controlling coal dust during refuelling operations;

• Controlling coal smoke inside workshop buildings.


Positive Considerations


Positive Considerations


• Steam engines can generate carbon-neutral power through combustion of any form of bio-fuel (solid or liquid). Steam engines (stationary or mobile) have commonly burned carbon-neutral fuels including wood and agricultural waste products like bagasse and rice husks;

• McCammon’s research shows that a coal-fired 8AT will produce only 2½ times more CO2 than diesel or electric traction. Further development will see its carbon footprint reduced much further;

• Improvements can only be achieved through investment in research and development. Re-establishment of steam traction for coal haulage may provide an incentive for further development of the technology.

• Steam engines can generate carbon-neutral power through combustion of any form of bio-fuel (solid or liquid). Steam engines (stationary or mobile) have commonly burned carbon-neutral fuels including wood and agricultural waste products like bagasse and rice husks;

• McCammon’s research shows that a coal-fired 8AT will produce only 2½ times more CO2 than diesel or electric traction. Further development will see its carbon footprint reduced much further;

• Improvements can only be achieved through investment in research and development. Re-establishment of steam traction for coal haulage may provide an incentive for further development of the technology.

Potential Development Path for Modern Steam Traction



Further development opportunities include:Further development opportunities include:• Pulverized coal for improved combustion and automated firing;Pulverized coal for improved combustion and automated firing;• Steam Condensing;Steam Condensing;• Steam Turbine Generator with Electric Drive;Steam Turbine Generator with Electric Drive;• Regenerative Braking.Regenerative Braking.

Benefits will include:Benefits will include:• Lower manning levels (competitive with diesel traction)Lower manning levels (competitive with diesel traction)• Thermal Efficiencies >20% Thermal Efficiencies >20% (competitive with diesel traction)(competitive with diesel traction)• Lower carbon emissions Lower carbon emissions (competitive with diesel traction).(competitive with diesel traction).

Further development opportunities include:Further development opportunities include:• Pulverized coal for improved combustion and automated firing;Pulverized coal for improved combustion and automated firing;• Steam Condensing;Steam Condensing;• Steam Turbine Generator with Electric Drive;Steam Turbine Generator with Electric Drive;• Regenerative Braking.Regenerative Braking.

Benefits will include:Benefits will include:• Lower manning levels (competitive with diesel traction)Lower manning levels (competitive with diesel traction)• Thermal Efficiencies >20% Thermal Efficiencies >20% (competitive with diesel traction)(competitive with diesel traction)• Lower carbon emissions Lower carbon emissions (competitive with diesel traction).(competitive with diesel traction).


““Garratt” formation with central boiler, twin engine units and end-cabsGarratt” formation with central boiler, twin engine units and end-cabs““Garratt” formation with central boiler, twin engine units and end-cabsGarratt” formation with central boiler, twin engine units and end-cabs



1. Tourism Opportunities: Steam locos attract tourists;

2. Employment Opportunities: Steam employs more people both for operating and servicing;

3. Business Opportunities: Steam parts can be made by local manufacturers. So too can locomotives, offering a export possibilities to other coal producing countries .

1. Tourism Opportunities: Steam locos attract tourists;

2. Employment Opportunities: Steam employs more people both for operating and servicing;

3. Business Opportunities: Steam parts can be made by local manufacturers. So too can locomotives, offering a export possibilities to other coal producing countries .

Part 8Benefits of adopting Steam Traction

to Local Communities

Part 8Benefits of adopting Steam Traction

to Local Communities


Part 9Conclusions

Part 9Conclusions


1. Steam traction is a technically viable option for freight haulage, especially where gradients are not steep;

2. Steam traction is (by a substantial margin) the most cost-competitive option for haulage of coal where coal and labour costs are low;

3. Steam’s cost advantage is insensitive to large changes in cost assumptions;

4. Diesel’s costs are highly sensitive to increases in fuel costs which are likely to occur in the future;

5. Modern steam offers the lowest operating costs, and its cost advantage will increase as fuel and labour costs rise.

6. Steam’s cost advantage is enhanced by the smaller wagon fleet that is needed, and by haulage of shorter trains;

7. Further study is needed in some areas to more clearly define the design requirements for a steam-driven railway system (see next slide).

1. Steam traction is a technically viable option for freight haulage, especially where gradients are not steep;

2. Steam traction is (by a substantial margin) the most cost-competitive option for haulage of coal where coal and labour costs are low;

3. Steam’s cost advantage is insensitive to large changes in cost assumptions;

4. Diesel’s costs are highly sensitive to increases in fuel costs which are likely to occur in the future;

5. Modern steam offers the lowest operating costs, and its cost advantage will increase as fuel and labour costs rise.

6. Steam’s cost advantage is enhanced by the smaller wagon fleet that is needed, and by haulage of shorter trains;

7. Further study is needed in some areas to more clearly define the design requirements for a steam-driven railway system (see next slide).

ConclusionsConclusions


Recommendations for Further Study1. Railway’s Efficiency: If the assumed efficiency (75%) is too high, it will affect

train sizes, loops siding spacing, and rolling stock requirements (but not enough to affects steam’s cost supremacy);

2. Fuel and Water Consumption need more detailed analysis based on the actual grades and curvature of the railway. If locos have to be refuelled at both ends of the line, then the project design needs to allow for transportation of loco fuel to the unloading station.

3. Flow Properties of Export Coal must be undertaken if any consideration is given to use of bottom-dump wagons. The type of wagon and unloading system affects the turn-around time of trains and therefore the locomotive (and wagon) fleet requirements.

4. Locomotive Servicing needs more detailed analysis to determine servicing times that can be reliably achieved. Servicing time affects the turn-around time of trains and therefore the loco fleet numbers.

Recommendations for Further Study1. Railway’s Efficiency: If the assumed efficiency (75%) is too high, it will affect

train sizes, loops siding spacing, and rolling stock requirements (but not enough to affects steam’s cost supremacy);

2. Fuel and Water Consumption need more detailed analysis based on the actual grades and curvature of the railway. If locos have to be refuelled at both ends of the line, then the project design needs to allow for transportation of loco fuel to the unloading station.

3. Flow Properties of Export Coal must be undertaken if any consideration is given to use of bottom-dump wagons. The type of wagon and unloading system affects the turn-around time of trains and therefore the locomotive (and wagon) fleet requirements.

4. Locomotive Servicing needs more detailed analysis to determine servicing times that can be reliably achieved. Servicing time affects the turn-around time of trains and therefore the loco fleet numbers.

Supplementary Recommendations

1. Ruling Gradient of Railway: It is strongly recommended that where economically practical, the ruling gradient of any steam operated railway should not exceed 0.5% (1 in 200). Because of their limited adhesion, steam locomotives do not climb well.

2. Coal Quality: The calculations in this study imply that locomotive fuel consumption is directly related to the CV of the fuel. Whilst this is true in theory, in practice fuel consumption increases exponentially as coal quality declines. It is of utmost importance that the best available coal (high CV; low ash; high volatiles; low moisture; lump coal with few fines) be reserved for locomotive fuel.

Supplementary Recommendations

1. Ruling Gradient of Railway: It is strongly recommended that where economically practical, the ruling gradient of any steam operated railway should not exceed 0.5% (1 in 200). Because of their limited adhesion, steam locomotives do not climb well.

2. Coal Quality: The calculations in this study imply that locomotive fuel consumption is directly related to the CV of the fuel. Whilst this is true in theory, in practice fuel consumption increases exponentially as coal quality declines. It is of utmost importance that the best available coal (high CV; low ash; high volatiles; low moisture; lump coal with few fines) be reserved for locomotive fuel.

ConclusionsConclusions


Switzerland

UK South Africa

Switzerland

UK South Africa

Conclusions

New Steam Locos can be built in 21st Century


End

Sincere thanks to:

• Malcolm Cluett (Australia)• Brian McCammon (New Zealand)• Alan Fozard and John Hind (UK)• Hugh Odom (USA)

Feb 2008

End

Sincere thanks to:

• Malcolm Cluett (Australia)• Brian McCammon (New Zealand)• Alan Fozard and John Hind (UK)• Hugh Odom (USA)

Feb 2008

Download - Economics of Steam Traction for the Transportation of Coal by Rail Chris Newman Beijing, China

Top Related