MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022309789

Analysis of GHG Emissions for city passenger trains: is electricity an obvious option for Montreal commuter trains?

2012· article· en· W3022309789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sabrina Chan, Luis Miranda-Moreno, Zachary Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainElectrificationElectricityGreenhouse gasDiesel fuelRenewable energyEnvironmental scienceCapital costTransport engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and electric-powered trains have emerged to reduce the GHG emissions of traditional commuter rail systems powered by diesel. Even larger reductions can be obtained with energy production from renewable resources. This paper uses the commuter rail system in Montreal, Quebec, as a case study for implementing alternative technologies, namely, complete electrification of the network (only one of the existing five lines is electrified) and hydrogen fuel cell-powered trains. It is important to note that the main source of electricity generation in Quebec is hydropower which is offered at a relatively low cost. Several criteria were considered to determine the most suitable alternative including GHG emissions from operation and fuel production, operation and capital costs, and technological and commercial viability. Electrification of the commuter rail system would decrease annual emissions by 98% which is more than 27,000 tons. The GHG reductions for hydrogen trains are lower than electric trains but still substantial. Results also indicate that increasing ridership to full occupancy of the current commuter rail network would not lower emissions per passenger-kilometer to the emissions level of electric-powered trains. The operation costs favor the electrification scenario; however, the high costs of electrical infrastructure make hydrogen trains more competitive since additional infrastructure are unnecessary. The cost of electrification is estimated as $1,240.1 million which is within the $1,2-1,5 billion recently proposed by the Quebec government, compared with $414.8 million for hydrogen trains. Hydrogen trains remain a new and unproven technology; uncertainties associated with it should be settled before full implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207