A carbon footprint analysis of railway sleepers in the United Kingdom. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rempelos, Georgios; Preston, John; Blainey, Simon
• Is Part Of: Transportation research. Volume 81(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Life cycle assessment -- Life cycle costing -- Carbon footprint -- Greenhouse gas emissions -- Rail track -- Railway sleepers; Transportation -- Research -- Periodicals; Transportation -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; 354.76
• DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102285
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1361-9209

Abstract

Highlights: Cradle-to-grave analysis of the four most common railway sleeper types in the UK. Concrete sleepers generate least CO2 e at high traffic tonnage routes. The end-of-life pathway of timber is a critical determinant of its footprint. Savings of £65–100 k/stkm and 23–73 t.CO2 e/stkm from installing under sleeper pads. Further savings up to 122 t.CO2 e/stkm from using carbon-neutral under sleeper pads. Abstract: This paper provides an assessment of the lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the four most common sleeper (railroad tie or cross-tie in North America) types present in the UK rail network. It estimates the embodied material, process and transport emissions linked with the lifecycle activities of construction, relay/renewal and end-of-life of these variants at low and high traffic tonnage. The analysis suggests that at low traffic loads, the softwood sleepers perform the best over the whole simulated-period. At high traffic loads, the concrete sleepers outperform all other variants in terms of lifecycle CO2 e emissions, followed by hardwood, softwood and steel. Regardless of the scenario examined, the steel sleepers perform the worst due to the carbon intensive nature of their manufacturing process. This performance gap is amplified at high traffic loads, as their service life is excessively compromised. The analysis reveals that the end-of-life pathway of timber is a critical determinant of its footprint. Results suggest that the impact of disposing of these sleepers results in their footprint being magnified. Nevertheless, if a minimum of 50% follows the combustion pathway with subsequent heat recuperation, then a GHG reduction potential of between 11% and 18% of their footprint is feasible. From a whole-lifecycle cost lens, for higher tonnage routes, the choice of concrete sleepers results in considerable financial savings. If the infrastructure manager was to install sleepers with stiff under sleeper pads (USPs), it may achieve additional economic and GHG savings, with potential for increasing the latter using recycled carbon-neutral USPs.