Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

does a train use more engery than a plane as it goes faster ?


  • Please log in to reply
417 replies to this topic

#301 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 31 May 2013 - 18:13

Should have read this thread before posting the stuff about GM shipping Vegas... Didn't realise it had already been posted!

Was on MAS MH141 last night from Kuala Lumpur to Sydney, an Airbus A330-300. The info screens reported ~270km/h tailwinds and ~1135km/h ground speed across a good portion of Australia. Altitude was ~11500m IIRC. I do this leg fairly regularly and there's almost always a ~80-100km/h tailwind once feet-dry over Australia, but I'd never seen it that fast before. The only time I've seen an airliner reach a higher speed was in a MAS 747-400 over the same route. IIRC it reached 1199km/h reported groundspeed.

Now for the on-topic bit - this wouldn't actually improve fuel consumption, no? As they would still require the same thrust setting to maintain altitude?

Advertisement

#302 bobcat

bobcat
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 31 May 2013 - 23:35

Should have read this thread before posting the stuff about GM shipping Vegas... Didn't realise it had already been posted!

Was on MAS MH141 last night from Kuala Lumpur to Sydney, an Airbus A330-300. The info screens reported ~270km/h tailwinds and ~1135km/h ground speed across a good portion of Australia. Altitude was ~11500m IIRC. I do this leg fairly regularly and there's almost always a ~80-100km/h tailwind once feet-dry over Australia, but I'd never seen it that fast before. The only time I've seen an airliner reach a higher speed was in a MAS 747-400 over the same route. IIRC it reached 1199km/h reported groundspeed.

Now for the on-topic bit - this wouldn't actually improve fuel consumption, no? As they would still require the same thrust setting to maintain altitude?


For a given altitude and airspeed and weight the fuel consumption will stay the same, but substitute "airspeed for "groundspeed", yes, it's basically got the wind behind it and will be doing more ground-miles per gallon. I imagine the MAS might have slowed things down a bit so as not to arrive and find their allotted arrival gate still occupied- thus saving even more fuel...

#303 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 June 2013 - 03:09

The info screens reported ~270km/h tailwinds and ~1135km/h ground speed

Fuel saving = 270/1135 = 0.237 (23.7%)

#304 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:33

If I understand it correctly planes can't slow down to much at high altitude as the thin air raises the stall speed dramatically. When you are cruising along at 550 knots the stall speed is uncomfortably close. So sometimes the plane makes strange in flight direction changes, Ive been told thats to increase seperation etc without throttling back too much.

Funnily the oldest big jet , the 747, is also one of the fastest due to high sweepback angle ( I think).

Its not huge but on Hong Kong or Singapore - London they are about 30 minutes quicker than a A330 etc. Once a BA pilot delightedly showed me how he was closing in on the slower planes in his 747 -400 over Russia! Oh happy days when politeness and enthusiasm got you a cockpit visit !

#305 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 June 2013 - 16:06

I flew in the 787 last week. Pretty amazing plane. The windows, pressurization, ride quality and noise are all huge jumps ahead of anything in the air right now (as far as I know).

#306 bobcat

bobcat
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 June 2013 - 16:19

Funnily the oldest big jet , the 747, is also one of the fastest due to high sweepback angle ( I think).


Yes, the 747 was designed for a high speed cruise on request of Pan Am in the late 60's before the 1973 oil crisis. Everything since has been efficiency first, with lower sweep. E.g 32.2° degree sweep for the 787 vs. 37.5° for the 747.

#307 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:17

Much earlier in this thread someone mentioned the utility of simply slowing down a bit to save fuel. It seems Maersk have had just this idea for shipping gigantic quantities of intermodal containers:

https://en.wikipedia..._Triple_E_class

Rotterdam-Singapore route would take a Triple-E about 20.5 days, vs. about 15.5 for the previous iteration, the Maersk E-class.

First Triple-E is scheduled to be launched on June 28, all going well. Video here that illustrates nicely just how bleeping huge they are!

Fatboy, how did the 787 compare to an A333 for noise? The A333 seems to be a big improvement vs. 744 and 772. Very happy indeed that MAS have retired their 744s on the KUL-SYD route! I have NC headphones, of course, but I don't like wearing them for 8 hours solid, starts to feel a little strange after a while

Edited by indigoid, 06 June 2013 - 10:22.


#308 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,526 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:51

Nothing beats a high-speed train from a populous city to another
Go figure.


Except for short journeys where the car is quicker (time the journey from the actual journey start to finish, not train station to train station).

And

Except for longer journeys where the plane is quicker (no contest).

And yes, C02 of journey's should be calculated per person, per km travelled. This makes the train a loser v the car or the plane.

Personally I have absolutely no understanding as to why anyone thinks trains are a good idea in any way shape or form.



#309 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:13

And yes, C02 of journey's should be calculated per person, per km travelled. This makes the train a loser v the car or the plane.


Actually, per person per km travelled trains shit all over cars and planes.

It is at least an order of magnitude better than planes.


Personally I have absolutely no understanding as to why anyone thinks trains are a good idea in any way shape or form.


So, France is out of step then? Since inter-city planes have all but disappeared there.

Japan?

Train shave their place - both in commuting and inter-city transport.



#310 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,526 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:36

Actually, per person per km travelled trains shit all over cars and planes.

It is at least an order of magnitude better than planes.




So, France is out of step then? Since inter-city planes have all but disappeared there.

Japan?

Train shave their place - both in commuting and inter-city transport.


I think your wrong on the trains v cars comparison. Per passenger.

In Uk If you want to go from a London to Leeds, it will take 3 hrs door to door by car. By train, I need to walk to the station, take a train to the main station, take a train to Leeds then take a bus or taxi to destination. Lets not assume that the trains are all conveniently departing just as I jump on, the whole thing takes over 3.5 hrs, is more expensive, involves hassle and is nowhere near as flexible as my car that can leave when it wants. Yet I always here people saying the train only takes 2hrs 15mins to which I say that is not the REAL journey time is it!

I can only assume that in France, unless they've devised some sort of personalised train system, the issue will be broadly the same. Why should popularity be a benchmark for logic!

I think trains are a complete waste of time, but I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. In fact quite the opposite, the more people who use trains the better - quieter roads!!!

#311 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 501 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:29

Rinehart

Post #308 you wrote, "And yes, C02 of journey's should be calculated per person, per km travelled. This makes the train a loser v the car or the plane".

Please go back and look at post #16.

Regards

#312 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:32

I did Tokyo-Nagoya-Tokyo last Saturday by train, with a couple of hours in the middle spent browsing the Toyota Automobile Museum. A roundtrip of 8 hours in a car, according to Google Maps. A hair under 6 hours by train (four trains each way, one of them a Shinkansen), and yes, that includes all the walking/waiting times.

It was all rather expensive, though. The trains cost me almost as much per kilometre traveled as my old GT4 Celica did!

#313 PJGD

PJGD
  • Member

  • 72 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 28 June 2013 - 23:59

Some relevant data here with respect to the CO2/person/distance travelled:

http://www.greencarc...d-20130627.html

PJGD

#314 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 June 2013 - 07:52

I think your wrong on the trains v cars comparison. Per passenger.

In Uk If you want to go from a London to Leeds, it will take 3 hrs door to door by car. By train, I need to walk to the station, take a train to the main station, take a train to Leeds then take a bus or taxi to destination. Lets not assume that the trains are all conveniently departing just as I jump on, the whole thing takes over 3.5 hrs, is more expensive, involves hassle and is nowhere near as flexible as my car that can leave when it wants. Yet I always here people saying the train only takes 2hrs 15mins to which I say that is not the REAL journey time is it!

I can only assume that in France, unless they've devised some sort of personalised train system, the issue will be broadly the same. Why should popularity be a benchmark for logic!

I think trains are a complete waste of time, but I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. In fact quite the opposite, the more people who use trains the better - quieter roads!!!


Rinehart- Your points about the relative merits of train travel vs. auto travel are well made. If you ignore every factor besides fuel consumption, then train travel looks great. But if you also consider the cost impact/lost productivity of the additional travel time of rail vs. commercial aircraft, then rail travel does not look so good. Here in the US, I can travel LA-NY for about $400 by rail, and for about $600 by commercial aircraft. But the trip by rail will take around 10-12 times as long as the commercial flight. Assuming I earn $50/hour from my day job, the added 55-65 hours required by rail travel LA-NY would essentially cost me the equivalent of $2500+ in wages.


#315 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 June 2013 - 10:01

Rinehart- Your points about the relative merits of train travel vs. auto travel are well made. If you ignore every factor besides fuel consumption, then train travel looks great. But if you also consider the cost impact/lost productivity of the additional travel time of rail vs. commercial aircraft, then rail travel does not look so good. Here in the US, I can travel LA-NY for about $400 by rail, and for about $600 by commercial aircraft. But the trip by rail will take around 10-12 times as long as the commercial flight. Assuming I earn $50/hour from my day job, the added 55-65 hours required by rail travel LA-NY would essentially cost me the equivalent of $2500+ in wages.


The travel time comparison depends on the distance between centres. LA-NY is a long distance trip and a train will never compete for time, even high speed trains.

For short and medium distances high speed trains are competitive with airline travel, while also providing more comfortable travel.

Also, the LA-NY trains are slow. My personal experience on the California Zephyr is that they often have to give way to freight trains, even though it is supposed to happen the other way.



#316 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 June 2013 - 10:04

Also, long haul flights are, IIRC, the most efficient types of plane travel. That is because they tend to have the larger, wide body aircraft so they can fit more passengers and spend a higher percentage of their time at cruise, rather than climbing or descending/landing.

#317 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 June 2013 - 10:22

Just did a quick search on Paris-Lyon.

Distance ~ 245 miles.
On the train - just over $100 for 2nd class ticket, just under $200 for first class ticket. Travel time - just under 2 hours for direct trip, though one train took over 5 hours (not sure why).
On the plane - varied between ~ $300 and ~ $500. Direct flights (6 choices) scheduled 1h 10 minutes actual flying time. Indirect flights (2 choices) could be as much as 10h (via Nice).

The TGV also goes between the airports. $138-$196 for Charles de Gaulle to Lyon-Saint Exuper. Time 1h 57 minutes.

#318 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 485 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 29 June 2013 - 17:21

Just did a quick search on Paris-Lyon.

Distance ~ 245 miles.
On the train - just over $100 for 2nd class ticket, just under $200 for first class ticket. Travel time - just under 2 hours for direct trip, though one train took over 5 hours (not sure why).
On the plane - varied between ~ $300 and ~ $500. Direct flights (6 choices) scheduled 1h 10 minutes actual flying time. Indirect flights (2 choices) could be as much as 10h (via Nice).

The TGV also goes between the airports. $138-$196 for Charles de Gaulle to Lyon-Saint Exuper. Time 1h 57 minutes.

When flying don't forget that the airlines want you to be at the airport up to 2 hours before the flight, which may not be on time anyway. It takes 20 to 30 minutes to unload passengers from the larger planes, plus you then have to wait for 20 minutes to pick up your luggage from a carousel. Flying is a frustrating exercise in wasting time doing nothing!

#319 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 18:08

I think it could be compared to a sea-plane before and after taking off from the water.

Advertisement

#320 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:08

Just did a quick search on Paris-Lyon.

Distance ~ 245 miles.
On the train - just over $100 for 2nd class ticket, just under $200 for first class ticket. Travel time - just under 2 hours for direct trip, though one train took over 5 hours (not sure why).
On the plane - varied between ~ $300 and ~ $500. Direct flights (6 choices) scheduled 1h 10 minutes actual flying time. Indirect flights (2 choices) could be as much as 10h (via Nice).

The TGV also goes between the airports. $138-$196 for Charles de Gaulle to Lyon-Saint Exuper. Time 1h 57 minutes.


Just did a quick check on LA-SF. Distance ~380 miles.

On Amtrak - $71 one-way. Travel time - just over 10 hours.
On the plane - $228 one-way. Travel time - 1 hour 20 minutes.

Round trip, that's a cost difference of $314 for a time difference of 17.3 hours (or $18.2/hour). For me, the higher cost of the commercial flight is money well spent.

#321 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:29

Just did a quick check on LA-SF. Distance ~380 miles.

On Amtrak - $71 one-way. Travel time - just over 10 hours.
On the plane - $228 one-way. Travel time - 1 hour 20 minutes.

Round trip, that's a cost difference of $314 for a time difference of 17.3 hours (or $18.2/hour). For me, the higher cost of the commercial flight is money well spent.

Weren't we talking about high speed rail?

#322 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 July 2013 - 08:44

Just did a quick check on LA-SF. Distance ~380 miles.

On Amtrak - $71 one-way. Travel time - just over 10 hours.
On the plane - $228 one-way. Travel time - 1 hour 20 minutes.

Round trip, that's a cost difference of $314 for a time difference of 17.3 hours (or $18.2/hour). For me, the higher cost of the commercial flight is money well spent.


Weren't we talking about high speed rail?


Exactly.

LA-SF on high speed rail should take between 2 and 2.5 hours.

#323 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 11:35

Now that would match exactly the filght time with overheads.

I'd gladly pay $500 for the round trip for the extra leg space, to be free of TSA and not to be subject to weather delays/cancelations.

Edited by saudoso, 01 July 2013 - 11:35.


#324 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 13:07

Now that would match exactly the filght time with overheads.


Their usually-central terminating stations tend to be closer to more of the people, too. Rarely the case with airports.

Anyone care to comment on why the TGV is so airline-like? Why discourage spontaneous travel?

Japan's HST network had little ticket vending machines everywhere I went, trivial to use. No human interaction required, even for illiterate gaijin like me. ;-)

#325 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 14:47

Their usually-central terminating stations tend to be closer to more of the people, too. Rarely the case with airports.

Anyone care to comment on why the TGV is so airline-like? Why discourage spontaneous travel?

Japan's HST network had little ticket vending machines everywhere I went, trivial to use. No human interaction required, even for illiterate gaijin like me. ;-)


Sure, Termini in Rome is a 15' subway ride from anywhere within the walls.


It works like that in Itally too - the automatic ticketing- used it many times.

Edited by saudoso, 01 July 2013 - 14:49.


#326 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 July 2013 - 16:32

Anyone care to comment on why the TGV is so airline-like? Why discourage spontaneous travel?

Some years ago I was commissioned by Saatchi² to do an illustration for British Rail showing how much nicer it was to travel by train than 'plane. Big windows, nice countryside nipping past, big seats, legroom, proper tables with cutlery and china (it was a first class dining car interior). I use neither plane nor train very often, but train is nicer.


#327 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 19:25

Sure, Termini in Rome is a 15' subway ride from anywhere within the walls.

But Termini is not an high speed rail station. It's the main rail station of the city and it's right in the middle of town, in fact you can walk from anywhere in the centre if you know which way to go.
However increased it has been since last I lived there - not much in fact, still two lines only operational - the underground network is nowhere near to be a proper network like London's, Paris, NY or Moscow. Just two lines crossing at Termini.

#328 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 20:13

I've used Termini to catch the Frecciarossa to Napoli many times, getting the subway from Spagna station which is close to the hotel we favor just outside the wall by Porta del Brasile/Via Vento.

#329 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 20:40

Hardly an high speed train, like the others claimed as such in Italy. At best, it claims 1hr 10min for 200km. You do the math. No train in Italy is in the same category of the TGV. The only high speed section is the direttissima between Florence and Rome, 250 km/h, not at TGV level either and it does not mean it goes at that speed from city to city.
It's the same for the CTRL - now High Speed 1 - top speed 225 km/h and for how long, from Ebbsfleet and Folkestone? It takes 8km just to stop.
Given the orography and human geography - mountains, number of rivers perpendicular to the main directions and overpopulation - Italy's similitude should be Japan. Not really in the same category...

#330 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 20:48

It beats a flight anyway and the drive is too long for the one day hops we do over there.

So it's a nice solution no matter how fast it is by the standards of your choice.

If I had the same thing here between São Paulo/Rio I'd never use an airplane for that route again.

Edited by saudoso, 01 July 2013 - 20:48.


#331 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 20:53

Who would ever fly from Rome to Naples or viceversa? And Rio to San Paolo is 350 km.

Surely you meant Piazzale Brasile / Via Veneto.

#332 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 21:11

Yep, Piazzale Brasile it is.

About who would fly I don't know. It is a 240Km drive each way, so if you are to spend the day and have something acomplished you either take the Frecciarossa or a plane.

And a 240Km train trip in 1h10 is fast. Might not be world record setting but is fast.

Here both CGH and SDU are pretty central, so noa dvantage there. But the filght is 50' and another hour at least goes thru the drain in the airport. Add the annoyances of pre boarding inspection and even a 2h30 train trip would beat the airplane for me.

#333 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 July 2013 - 21:36

And Rio to San Paolo is 350 km.


Rio to Sao Paolo is the 4th busiest air route, by passenger numbers, according to wiki


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_b...r_of_passengers

#334 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 21:56

If you want put forward the argument for high speed rail, you need adequate distance done in a reasonably quick time to compete with the airplane, as I am sure it has already been said in this thread [can't claim I have read it all].
Rome-Naples is not one, however 1hr 10min is quite good, also because nobody flies between the two cities.
Rio-Sao Paulo, 350km of railway done in say 1hr 10min, we are starting to talk business.
One needs to talk about Paris-Amsterdam, Paris-Lyon-Marseille, LA-SF, Melbourne-Sidney-Brisbane, say, with average speeds of well above 250km/h, if not at least 300. Not a London-Bristol, it's quicker to take the M4.

#335 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 July 2013 - 22:31

São Paulo - Rio in 2h00 beats the airplane any day.

And Wuzak, yepp, a frigginf nightmare, with two airports that are a joke and even more these days when companies just book too many filghts and start cancelling on you when they are about to take off empty.

#336 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:14

The Australian dollar has fallen about 10% in the past few months. Since, I presume, most or all of our Avgas is imported, that must mean the margins for air travel will get even tighter?

Jetstar (QANTAS) and Virgin are already down to around break even in their businesses (the former returning a loss, the latter a small profit), so rising fuel costs may cause fares to rise.

High speed rail would be less effected by currency fluctuations, and this as the dollar falls and the price of fuel rises the train must become a more competitive option?

Edited by Wuzak, 03 July 2013 - 09:16.


#337 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,714 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 03 July 2013 - 13:04

Trains could obviously be run off a solar powered grid in Australia. It seems rather odd to me in fact that this isn't already well underway. If there is anywhere that shouldn't be importing energy, surely Australia is it.

#338 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,392 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 July 2013 - 23:18

Trains could obviously be run off a solar powered grid in Australia. It seems rather odd to me in fact that this isn't already well underway. If there is anywhere that shouldn't be importing energy, surely Australia is it.


It's a fascinating area. Domestic ready to go solar installations cost around $1.50 per peak watt, or in other words for 1 kWh per day you need an installation that costs around 200 bucks. That kWh costs me 27c at the moment. so in a year it'd cost me $100 at the meter. 2 year payback, whoopee!

But we need some batteries since I'm probably not at home when the sun is shining.

1 kWh of storage batteries is probably another $200

4 year payback, still not crazy.

But the $1.50 per peak watt isn't a real cost, as it factors in various means tested government grants

I'm guessing that the effective subsidy is 30%, so the real payback is now getting towards 6 years.

there isn't much economy of scale with solar, a 1000 kW installation uses 1000 times as many expensive bits as a 1 kW system

The industrial cost of electricity is as little as 7c per kWh.

So in order for an industrial user to switch to off griid solar, he's looking at a 24 year payback. No chance, or perhaps 16 if he stays on grid and can still negotiate 7c/kWh, which is unlikely.

Quite why we got to the point where a 6 year payback is regarded as too long term for the average householder, I'm not sure. Also that ignores the environmental benefits/costs of solar vs coal, theoretically the carbon tax sort of accounts for that.

#339 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 July 2013 - 00:51

It's a fascinating area. Domestic ready to go solar installations cost around $1.50 per peak watt, or in other words for 1 kWh per day you need an installation that costs around 200 bucks. That kWh costs me 27c at the moment. so in a year it'd cost me $100 at the meter. 2 year payback, whoopee!

But we need some batteries since I'm probably not at home when the sun is shining.

1 kWh of storage batteries is probably another $200

4 year payback, still not crazy.

But the $1.50 per peak watt isn't a real cost, as it factors in various means tested government grants

I'm guessing that the effective subsidy is 30%, so the real payback is now getting towards 6 years.

there isn't much economy of scale with solar, a 1000 kW installation uses 1000 times as many expensive bits as a 1 kW system

The industrial cost of electricity is as little as 7c per kWh.

So in order for an industrial user to switch to off griid solar, he's looking at a 24 year payback. No chance, or perhaps 16 if he stays on grid and can still negotiate 7c/kWh, which is unlikely.

Quite why we got to the point where a 6 year payback is regarded as too long term for the average householder, I'm not sure. Also that ignores the environmental benefits/costs of solar vs coal, theoretically the carbon tax sort of accounts for that.



This is all based on solar cells?


Advertisement

#340 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:53

Quite why we got to the point where a 6 year payback is regarded as too long term for the average householder, I'm not sure.


Easy. Payoff sooner => big new TV sooner

#341 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:59

The Australian dollar has fallen about 10% in the past few months. Since, I presume, most or all of our Avgas is imported, that must mean the margins for air travel will get even tighter?

Jetstar (QANTAS) and Virgin are already down to around break even in their businesses (the former returning a loss, the latter a small profit), so rising fuel costs may cause fares to rise.

High speed rail would be less effected by currency fluctuations, and this as the dollar falls and the price of fuel rises the train must become a more competitive option?


OTOH there is a lot of imported hardware in a HSR project, so the capital cost would increase with a weakening $AU.

#342 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:19

The Australian dollar has fallen about 10% in the past few months. Since, I presume, most or all of our Avgas is imported, that must mean the margins for air travel will get even tighter?

Jetstar (QANTAS) and Virgin are already down to around break even in their businesses (the former returning a loss, the latter a small profit), so rising fuel costs may cause fares to rise.

High speed rail would be less effected by currency fluctuations, and this as the dollar falls and the price of fuel rises the train must become a more competitive option?

Jets don't use Avgas they burn kerosene .Don't know what proportion we import,but if they keep closing Oil Refineries it will happen !

If we find fuel expensive,wait till we try importing HSR INFRASTRUCTURE !! soon we won't even make cars here let alone high speed trains.or is it ok for a government to subsidise high speed trains,but not the car industry?

#343 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:56

Jets don't use Avgas they burn kerosene .Don't know what proportion we import,but if they keep closing Oil Refineries it will happen !

The choice is really only "do we import crude oil?" or "do we import refined crude oil products like kerosene?"

If we find fuel expensive,wait till we try importing HSR INFRASTRUCTURE !! soon we won't even make cars here let alone high speed trains.or is it ok for a government to subsidise high speed trains,but not the car industry?

As with submarines, Australia has the capacity to work with mature partners from OS to minimise the imported component and foster new industries locally. Government subsidy should be targeted at projects that offer longer-term "futureproofing", environmental protection, productivity enhancement etc especially where short-term payback is insufficient to attract commecial funding. HSR and NBN are just two examples that fit the criteria.

#344 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:22

If we find fuel expensive,wait till we try importing HSR INFRASTRUCTURE !! soon we won't even make cars here let alone high speed trains.or is it ok for a government to subsidise high speed trains,but not the car industry?


You know we import the planes too, right? And yes, I think it makes plenty more sense to subsidise rail than cars.

#345 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 July 2013 - 05:47

Weren't we talking about high speed rail?


I thought the topic was a discussion of the relative merits of passenger rail versus commercial aircraft. I simply made a comparison of the passenger rail and commercial aircraft systems that currently exist in California. The highest-speed LA-SF rail route that currently exists in California takes 10 hours one way. The same trip by commercial aircraft only takes about 80 minutes. I am just pointing out a simple fact, so why do some of you seem offended by it?

The comparison of air vs. rail travel between LA and SF is actually quite relevant to this discussion. The LA-SF commercial air route is one of the most heavily traveled in the world, with over 6 million passengers per year.


#346 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 July 2013 - 06:59

I thought the topic was a discussion of the relative merits of passenger rail versus commercial aircraft. I simply made a comparison of the passenger rail and commercial aircraft systems that currently exist in California. The highest-speed LA-SF rail route that currently exists in California takes 10 hours one way. The same trip by commercial aircraft only takes about 80 minutes. I am just pointing out a simple fact, so why do some of you seem offended by it?

The comparison of air vs. rail travel between LA and SF is actually quite relevant to this discussion. The LA-SF commercial air route is one of the most heavily traveled in the world, with over 6 million passengers per year.


I think you have shown that HSR would be competitive with air for the LA-SF route. Both for time and cost.

The distance between the two is not too far and there are plenty of potential customers.

Also, HSR can operate non-stop between the two centres or can service communities in between.

I guess that's why they have planned to build a fast train link. What remains to be seen is if it actually gets built.

Edited by Wuzak, 04 July 2013 - 07:00.


#347 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 10:51

You know we import the planes too, right? And yes, I think it makes plenty more sense to subsidise rail than cars.

Sure we import the planes,but we don't have to build infrastructure for them to move around on..air is free!
Sydney seems troubled by only having to provide an airport wtf. We'll really get our knickers in a twist if we try to create HSR INFRASTRUCTURE !

Edited by johnny yuma, 04 July 2013 - 10:52.


#348 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:16

Sure we import the planes,but we don't have to build infrastructure for them to move around on..air is free!
Sydney seems troubled by only having to provide an airport wtf. We'll really get our knickers in a twist if we try to create HSR INFRASTRUCTURE !


Why?

The issues with a second Sydney airport are:
Access - which will require public transport and road infrastructure
Location - there have been several proposed sites over the past 30-40 years
Flight paths - not over my house!

If it were a simple problem they'd have resolved it by now.

Much of the HSR's infrastructure is in the countryside - where it will disturb very few people.
The city areas it will run through suburbia, but will have lower noise and affect fewer people. Hopefully they set it out to use as much of the exiting corridors in the cities as possible. Part of the proposed route into Sydney is underground - even less disturbance to the locals.

In actual land area used, the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR may actually be less than required for a second airport.

#349 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 23:46

thats one mighty big airport then !

#350 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 July 2013 - 00:13

The issues with a second Sydney airport are:
Access - which will require public transport and road infrastructure
Location - there have been several proposed sites over the past 30-40 years
Flight paths - not over my house!

If it were a simple problem they'd have resolved it by now.


Sydney airport #2 has been and still is a political football.

But the blockers aren't as severe as you claim - in particular the already-under-construction South West Rail Link being built right now goes very close to the Badgerys Creek site. A small extension would take it right to the airport. I'm sure this is no accident. And the location - this is a non-issue except for the usual small group of whinging NIMBYs. Badgerys Creek was carefully assessed and chosen as an ideal site more than 25 years ago!

Marginal-seat politics. So incredibly harmful :-(