 |
Re: Lima Gets its First Commuter Train? It's good, but...
Author: BOB2
Date: 11-16-2024 - 14:49
Commenter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gentlemen, you need to put things in context. Lima
> has a long history of trying to build a metro.
> There were to be five lines but all they got was
> one and a half. It is a long and sad tale of inept
> governments.
>
> But this will be their first commuter rail line.
> Going from diesel to electric is definitely an
> improvement. Going from the existing sea of
> vehicles to diesel rail is also an improvement.
>
> If you want to loan them the money to electrify
> I'm sure you will make many friends.
I can even make an economic argument that the cost of Lima building new locomotives could potentially be much more carbon intensive than getting the remaining full "carbon" already sunk into building these existing units.
I saw this case made for and by someone who was still repairing and driving their original 1966 VW Beetle until they passed away a few years back. All of those replacement cars that most of us have been through have created huge amounts of carbon to produce. And her calculations showed this had far exceeded the contributions from the VW's internal consumption engine over that time (she was not a 30,000 mile a year girl, though).
Although we've cleaned up a lot of manufacturing processes for efficiency and energy cost savings, there is probably still a carbon argument to be made for getting full life cycle carbon "costs" we've already invested in, out of these locomotives.
And I'm happy to see that Peru is getting some decent improved usage out of the rail infrastructure they have from these.
I'm just thinking of what would happen to carbon emissions if we had kept those cars and current compliant non-electrified service in the US. Where we are currently facing an acute equipment shortage and are unable to start up new services, to get CO2 reductions from reduced auto trips? Or, what if those cars could be used to double service levels, especially on weekends and off peak to make it a more comprehensive regional rail travel option?
The hypocrisy lies in giving back the emissions credit for removing this "source" from the "planet's" CO2 inventory, as though California is on a "different planet" than Peru?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gentlemen, you need to put things in context. Lima
> has a long history of trying to build a metro.
> There were to be five lines but all they got was
> one and a half. It is a long and sad tale of inept
> governments.
>
> But this will be their first commuter rail line.
> Going from diesel to electric is definitely an
> improvement. Going from the existing sea of
> vehicles to diesel rail is also an improvement.
>
> If you want to loan them the money to electrify
> I'm sure you will make many friends.
I can even make an economic argument that the cost of Lima building new locomotives could potentially be much more carbon intensive than getting the remaining full "carbon" already sunk into building these existing units.
I saw this case made for and by someone who was still repairing and driving their original 1966 VW Beetle until they passed away a few years back. All of those replacement cars that most of us have been through have created huge amounts of carbon to produce. And her calculations showed this had far exceeded the contributions from the VW's internal consumption engine over that time (she was not a 30,000 mile a year girl, though).
Although we've cleaned up a lot of manufacturing processes for efficiency and energy cost savings, there is probably still a carbon argument to be made for getting full life cycle carbon "costs" we've already invested in, out of these locomotives.
And I'm happy to see that Peru is getting some decent improved usage out of the rail infrastructure they have from these.
I'm just thinking of what would happen to carbon emissions if we had kept those cars and current compliant non-electrified service in the US. Where we are currently facing an acute equipment shortage and are unable to start up new services, to get CO2 reductions from reduced auto trips? Or, what if those cars could be used to double service levels, especially on weekends and off peak to make it a more comprehensive regional rail travel option?
The hypocrisy lies in giving back the emissions credit for removing this "source" from the "planet's" CO2 inventory, as though California is on a "different planet" than Peru?
