Dear Jennifer,
This morning 23rd March, an item on ‘AM’ the ABC Radio current affairs programme quoted an ARTC (Australian Rail Track Corporation) report as saying that the use of timber sleepers results in 500x the carbon emissions compared to using concrete sleepers.** That report claimed the Australian Greenhouse Office as its source.
I have commented to AM through their web site which unfortunately goes to them and them alone. For your interest the following is a reasonable reproduction of that email.
“Dear Sir,
Your item this morning 23rd March quoted the Australian Greenhouse Office as the source of a statement that the use of timber sleepers produces 500 times the carbon emissions of concrete sleepers. That statement must surely put the credibility of the Greenhouse Office at risk.
Some basic facts:
Fact 1. We should all know that timber contains carbon and concrete does not.
Fact 2. To store 1000kg of carbon in railway sleepers 67kg of carbon will be emmitted in the process. The production of concrete to do the same job emits 430kg of carbon and stores none.
Fact 3. To convert a timber sleeper track to a concrete sleeper track means that all the timber sleepers become an emission. Add that to the emissions of producing the concrete replacements and we have a combined emission of 61.2 tonnes of carbon per km and none in storage.
Fact 4. A natural forest of regrowth and old growth is carbon neutral. That is it is emitting carbon at the same rate it is absorbing it from the atmosphere.
Fact 5. A healthy, sustainably managed, production forest is constantly absorbing more carbon than it emits. At the same time carbon is being stored for the life of its products in service.
Fact 6. By excluding the tribal aboriginal from the river front, open woodlands of River Red Gum have turned into closed forests of tall slim trees. If these forests become National Parks they will still need thinning treatment if they are to support the range of biodiversity that we expect to find.
Fact 7. Forests in National Parks can receive thinning treatment, as is the case in the Box- Ironbark, but the trees must be felled to waste as the product from a National Park cannot be sold.
Yours faithfully
Vic Eddy
—————–
** On October 01, 2006, I blogged ‘Switch to Concrete Railway Sleepers, Negates Wind Farm Savings’ with comment that:
“There is much community concern about global warming and an expectation we will all do our bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why did the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) decide to transfer its annual requirement for 400,000 railway sleepers from timber to concrete?
According to Mark Poynter* this will result in an extra 190,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year that could otherwise have been negated by carbon sequestered in forest regrowth and saved by avoiding concrete manufacture.
Read the full post here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001660.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“The report comes as Victoria finalises contracts to buy 300,000 River Red Gum railway sleepers from wetland forests along the Murray River in New South Wales”
ABC transcript.
How many more red gum sleepers do you want from the bush?
Well said Vic, I would love to see how ARTIC did their calculations as they go againsty everything that we know about concrete and wood product emissions.
What really annoys me is that there appears to have been no alternative viewpoint put forward on the ABC. This is not surprising as the ABC is not known for its science based reporting.
Redgum sleepers are useless. They cost a fortune in the long run, because they rot relatively quickly. Concrete doesn’t rot, doesn’t need so much maintenance, and trains can run faster because the tracks stay stable longer.
The GHG savings in more efficient, faster, cheaper public transport with less maintenance is huge.
The only reason they use redgum is to keep the voters happy in the country and it’s cheaper on the bottom line for this year. All the places that are hard to maintain, like critical curves and stations are getting concrete sleepers.
SJT,
Sorry mate but you are so very wrong on this one. Red gum sleepers have along life, possibly equivalent to concrete. When a redgum sleeper fails and requires replacing only that sleeper that has failed needs to be replaced. No special machinery is required nor does the adjoining track need to be replaced. The sleeper has its spikes removed, ballast excavated and is pulled out from the track and the relacement sleeper is then inserted.
On the other hand when concrete sleepers fail it is not just a single sleeper failure but usually a row of 20 or more sleepers fail. Replacing them requires all ballast along the section to be removed, the sleepers disconnected from the track, and the track removed by a special track maintenance machine and then the entire row of sleepers are replaced, the track is relaid and reconnected tot he sleepers and the balast relaid. This is not a trivial exercise.
The reason that concrete has gained some favour is that the rail infrastructure in this country, and especially in NSW has been so run down that timber sleepers that should have been replaced long ago are still in service. The cost comparisons that the ARTIC are working from are based on complete replacedment of timber with concrete on a worst case scenario. Given the recommended maintenance regime redgum or other timber sleepers (ironbark for instance) have a far greater working life than concrete.
I am astounded that you cite GHG savings in more efficient, faster, cheaper public transport with less maintenance. The size of the maintenance crews and the embodied GHG in the specialised machinery required for concrete sleeper maintenance is far greater than that required for timber sleepers. Howmuch GHG does a crew of railway fettlers emit in comparison to a crew plus their specialised machinery.
Also timber sleepers are carbon reservoirs as opposed to concrete sleepers. Yes they decay over time but their life does not end after the railway, most end up being recycled in various applications including as landscape timbers.
We’ve utilised railway sleepers in our gardens for many years. I for one am always surprised at just how solid the wood is when cut through, and hw difficult to cut.
Red gum (Eucalytus camaldulensis) fromt he riverina is classified as a durability class 1 timber for inground use. So SJT’s comment regarding rot is unfounded and quite possibly without any practical experience of this particular timber.
SJT: I’m guessing Peter can tell us where this lot is comming from and a quite bit more about each forrest into the bargain.
The transcript is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1879438.htm
The Australian Greenhouse Office isn’t the source of the report. It, apparently, is only based on AGO figures and methodology:
ALISON CALDWELL: The Energy Strategies report is based on figures and methodology used by the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Whether the report correctly used AGO figures and methodology to make their case is another thing. It does sound like name-dropping to bolster the anti-logging cause to me. Would be interesting to see the actual calculations I guess.
Nexus: When I heard it on AM I thought ho hum, lets read between the lines again
http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/wtr/releases/2006/September/162WT_2006.htm
“60 EXTRA JOBS AND $13.7 MILLION ANNUAL INJECTION INTO WAGGA WAGGA ECONOMY FROM NEW SLEEPER FACTORY
The Australian Government Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, today welcomed news that a new concrete sleeper factory employing 60 people is to be built at Wagga Wagga.
The $11.5 million factory will supply one million concrete sleepers and rail track fasteners as part of the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s $1.7 billion eastern seaboard rail track upgrade. The upgrade is a key element of AusLink, the National Transport Plan.
To be located at the Bonnen Industrial Park, the purpose-built plant is expected to produce the first of the concrete sleepers from July 2007. It will operate six days a week, 24 hours a day, and is expected to pump an extra $13.7 million annually into the local economy.
The ARTC today confirmed it will place a 1.25 million sleeper order with a company called Austrack. The initial supply will come from the company’s existing Geelong factory, ahead of its new Wagga Wagga facility coming on line. The Wagga Wagga City Council has already received a development application for the new plant in Dampier Street, Mr Truss revealed.
He said establishment of the factory was a direct consequence of the Australian Government’s decision to allocate an extra $270 million in the May Federal Budget to complete the task of replacing all remaining wooden sleepers on the existing interstate line between Melbourne and the New South Wales-Queensland border with concrete sleepers.
It comes on top of an earlier contract the ARTC let to Rocla Pty Ltd for 1.35 million concrete sleepers for the track south of Sydney and north to the border.
“Concrete sleepers can carry heavier loads and incur less maintenance costs. They provide a more consistent, stable and reliable track and have a longer life, with less degradation than timber,” Mr Truss said.
“We have begun to revitalise rail to accept a greater share of Australia’s burgeoning freight task – a direct result of Australia’s improved economic performance. Wagga is back in business as a major Australian rail town,” Mr Truss declared.”
Now if you can’t trust a member of the National Party, who can you trust?
Its up to the ARTC to run their business as profitably as they can; they say that by upgrading tracks with concrete etc they can cut travel times down and increases loads eg they estimate Syd/Melb to take 10 hours. Its not much good having an environmentally friendly train service that is uncompetetive.
The old timber sleepers could last up to 40 years whereas the new ones have a much shorter life. Mainline concrete sleepers are bigger and heavier than concrete sleepers used to replace timber.
Comments about timber lasting as long as concrete are ludicrous; the best estimate for red gum I have seen is 25 years, with a recent report to the SA parliament saying less than 10. compare this to a concrete one at 60-70, it’s a no brainer.
You will need 3 or 4 sleepers of red gum during the life of 1 concrete. Perhaps we should go back to horses pulling wooden carts for transport too, wouldn’t that create a few timber jobs?
Firstly, rather than guessing the content, read the report before you have an opinion of it. Secondly, today’s timber sleepers lasting as long as concrete – absolute rubbish. Do your homework – ask a dozen gangers or rail engineers. Finally, make sure you understand the big picture – concrete sleepers are now world practice. If rail is not competitive in Australia, the alternative to the millions of tonnes transported by rail each year is road. Why doesn’t someone do the calculations on that one?
Think people!
Someone has clearly lied to the SA government in claiming red gum sleepers only last 10 years. Sleepers are laid on a bed of gravel that dries rapidly and therefore minimises any opprotunity for rotting. Even when they are discarded they are on-sold to do at least another 20 years as landscaping. But this resale is rarely included in the cost comparisons with cement sleepers.
And while it might be comforting for the ignorant to believe cement sleepers last longer it is far from fact. What causes them to be replaced is not rot but the vibration of the bolts from the cement due to engine pounding.
The key test of the greenhouse contribution of wooden sleepers is;
Will the forest regrow sufficiently to replace the wood in the sleeper before the sleeper actually emits its carbon? The answer is an unambiguous, YES!
And the reason the rest of the world uses cement sleepers is not because it is “best practice” but, simply, they don’t have vast forests of durability class 1 timbers. We do!
And on the issue of world use of cement rail sleepers, I can report that not too long ago I was given a standing order from a supplier to the UK rail industry for as many sleepers as we could supply them. The only problem was that sleepers are big heavy, comparatively low cost items that do not justify the cost of freight.
If they could get them they would certainly use them but we don’t sell them any wooden sleepers for the same reason we don’t sell them any cement sleepers. The freight is too expensive and locally made cement sleepers are the next best option.
Yes, as I said 3 messages ago, ludicrous…
NPA report on red gum
http://www.npansw.org.au/web/journal/200308/features-riverina.htm
Vic pics
http://www.members.optushome.com.au/sspj/sleepers.htm
Landscape
http://www.thelandscapeshop.com/LandscapeTimber/redgum_landscape_timber.htm
History
http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/WfHC/Eucalyptus-camaldulensis/index.html
you can decide for yourself what is most appropriate
Gavin
Gavin
I reckon the look a lot better left standing, growing old and providing habitat than sitting under a railway line
Gavin,
I can’t believe that you find an NPA report credible. It is utter rubbish as is the Glen Aira environmental group page. The ANBG page is a good read, probably the most significant item is the distribution of E.Camaldulensis. It is the most widely dispersed eucalypt in the country. A truly adaptabe tree. Probably also why it is the most widely planted eucalypt in the world today. It has been established on most continents and its utilisation is covers the range from small wood lot to industrial plantation.
Paul Nicolls,
they still grow old and provide habitat, even in production forests, The spatial and temporal extent of harvesting within red gum forests is minor. Have another look at the links Gavin provided, especially the ANBG link regarding the distribution of E.cmaldulensis and reconsider the area harvested in any given year with a fresh perspective. Oh and don’t be misled by the propaganda coming from the NPA. They’d have you believe that the forests are disapearing, utter rot and nonsense.
Don’t waste your time on Nicholls, Peter, the bozo obviously thinks nothing grows to replace a tree that is cut. So trying to explain to him that leaving an existing managed forest without regular partial harvest actually reduces forest health, reduces habitat quality and reduces biodiversity values would be about as futile as explaining the rights of a child to a rock spider.
There is no point explaining to him why wildlife actually prefer managed forests over National Park because some boofheads can only tell the difference when the park is burned to a cinder and the managed forest remains protected by those who actually know how to.
Where do they get these people?
Peter: I respect your concern re the NPA and I have concerns too but for different reasons, like how we maintain coastal parks in the presence of sever bracken infestations etc. However this report correctly asks the critical question; why the Riverina red gums for Vic rail?
Perhaps you can answer that on behalf your timber “mates” in Victoria. I think I know because of my past interests in agricultural and forestry practice about there including wandering round the Goulburn Valley and places as far west as Mildura where we had to grow a lot of grapes and oranges after the great war.
Now let’s get into the technical stuff for Ian’s sake.
It seems the NPA or someone else did some homework on young wood versus old wood re durability in the ground (15 – 40 yrs??). I know from landscape experience in Vic and here how long the stuff lasts from as new as in my other link, 2nd hand from railway salvage from both major cities and so on.
What I failed to find on the www yesterday was Australian Standards for wooden sleepers of any type, to settle these arguments on long term costs Red Gum versus Concrete based on current timber sources. This detail needs to be investigated properly since concrete is now well researched. See S.A.
In case some bright spark wonders how far we can go with our concrete technology, my backstop with the day job is in their depot office 4 days a week.
Ian mott, how typical of the timber lobby to result to personal insults failing a valid argument. Poor show and un-Australian matey
Gavin, Why the riverina red gums? Because that is where the expertise exists. Sleeper cutters have worked the forests of the riverina for many generations to provide slepers for Australian railways. These forests have therefore a long history of forest management. Biologically diverse, solar powered and renewable, is it any wonder that timber is the preferred product for sleepers from both environmental and social sustainability perpectives.
‘wildlife actually prefer managed forests over National Park’
got any science to back up this claim?
Since when has having a low tolerance of fools been un-australian?
Jonti, you won’t find recent research due to the almost complete ideological capture of the funding process by the forces of ignorance and darkness. But the basic elements of species survival tell the true story.
The entire leaf, bud, flower, sap and bark food chains are dependent on three main factors. That is, quality, quantity and continuity of food stocks. And these are dependent on sunlight, water and soil nutrients.
Unlike National Parks, a forest managed for timber production maintains the stand at a stocking density that is below the maximum capacity of the site. And this means that each tree has a larger share of the available moisture, sunlight and nutrients than would be the case in the Park.
This means there is a greater proportion of new leaves as each tree strives to occupy as much space as it can. And these new leaves are more nutritious than a similar tree on similar soil and aspect in an unthinned Park.
And for eucalypt forest this means that the trees have a longer period each year when leaf moisture content is above 65% and leaf protein content is above 1.5%. Once levels fall below these threshholds the tree goes into “asset protection mode” and releases polyphenyls that render the leaves indigestible to all dependent species.
The same story applies to flowers and seeds. The maximum flower, seed and sap production is delivered by vigorously growing early mature trees as they strive to occupy recently created gaps in the canopy.
Studies by Wormington et al have confirmed that highest animal stocking rates were not found on stands with high numbers of “old growth” stems. These trees may provide nest hollows but do not provide sufficient food to sustain a population large enough to use all the hollows provided by old trees, especially when populations are reduced anyway by drought.
The mix of vigorous food trees with a smattering of nest trees that is found in most forests managed for timber production provides a far more contributive habitat with much less dry season mortality and a greater resistance to wildfires.
What a croc!
It has been scientifically proven that logging in souteastern australia dries our forest, creating greater fire risks. Not to mention recent fires in Victoria that escaped from logging coupes following forest ‘management’. Get real.