California has a horribly bloated HSR project underway. I don't believe it can ever reach LA or SF, as it has been designed by politicians with zero care about cost.
In CA, the push for zero-emissions transit has been a mistake from the start. What's far more needed is a reduction in single-occupant auto travel, as that's where the huge bulk of GHG emissions come from. However, the state's political establishment refuses to get involved with how people travel, because of potential backlash. So they focus on irrelevant gestures like H2 locomotives. While getting people on transit is FAR more important, the state's planners don't want to encourage transit use by pushing transit-oriented development. (A very heavy-handed legislative approach to this failed badly.) We simply haven't had decent policy discussions in this state.
BTW, your reference to "new-fangled" seems to suggest a 1990s perspective. Battery electric is now a viable alternative to continuous catenary, needing only short stretches of catenary at stations and on steep grades.
Thanks for this. I should have referenced this point in my original post, though I did mention it in response to another comment. I don't agree that zero emissions transit has been a mistake. However, I do think there needs to be a better accounting of the costs and benefits of transitioning at the pace we're going. The most important objective should be getting more people on buses and trains, fast, as you say.
1. Do you know if capital costs are the only reason freight railroads oppose electrification? I'd assume clearances are also a concern. Do you know if electrification would impose any limits on train length (ie power available for a single train)?
2. A fun historical anomaly is the Milwaukee Road. They electrified hundreds of miles in the remote American West in 1915 and that electrified track was only dismantled in the 1970s. What a different world we'd live in if the freight railroads had electrified themselves. Here's more on the history if you're interested https://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/AProudEraPasses.pdf
Thanks! Capital cost is only one reason freight railroads oppose electrification. There's more detail on this in my Tech Review story. The other issues are logistical — lost revenue during the electrification buildout, and difficulty switching between electrified and diesel trains that could cause shippers to opt for trucks. Electrification can actually deliver more power to trains than diesel can, so that's not the issue.
And thanks for the info about the old Milwaukee Road. I'm not familiar with that history, but I do know there used to be much more electrified track across the country than there is today.
Agreed that OCS is the most efficient, but you must at least call out the capital cost difference between OCS and H2. To electrify California's passenger rail lines, it would be about $17.5B assuming $14M/mi. That is the about the same cost for HSR from Merced to San Francisco. With limited funding available, which should the state choose? IMO, the best path is a mix of OCS and H2, with H2 keeping the trains running until OCS is built out.
It's a good point. Limited funds force tough decisions on what could have the biggest impact, at what timescale. The fear that a lot of activists have is that once you start investing in hydrogen trains, you start to retool the whole industry in a way that could be hard to break out of. If OCS is the ultimate goal, why make huge investments into another technology in the meantime?
This gets to another point that I didn't get to bring up in my piece, which is the efficacy of strict emissions regulations on railroads. Even diesel trains are far greener than driving or flying. Would it hurt so much to keep diesel trains around a little longer in order to build up the funding and political support for truly transformative electrified trains?
As you pointed out, at least for California, the H2 infrastructure is for industry, cars, trucks and trains. It is also capable of being Green H2 sooner than other states. Also, I agree, a OCS & Diesel Tier 4 interim solution for passenger trains works as well, with Diesel keeping the trains running until OCS is completed.
Thanks for this excellent article, Ben! Having recently visited Japan, I've wondered why we haven't developed a Bullet Train to Los Angeles......
California has a horribly bloated HSR project underway. I don't believe it can ever reach LA or SF, as it has been designed by politicians with zero care about cost.
In CA, the push for zero-emissions transit has been a mistake from the start. What's far more needed is a reduction in single-occupant auto travel, as that's where the huge bulk of GHG emissions come from. However, the state's political establishment refuses to get involved with how people travel, because of potential backlash. So they focus on irrelevant gestures like H2 locomotives. While getting people on transit is FAR more important, the state's planners don't want to encourage transit use by pushing transit-oriented development. (A very heavy-handed legislative approach to this failed badly.) We simply haven't had decent policy discussions in this state.
BTW, your reference to "new-fangled" seems to suggest a 1990s perspective. Battery electric is now a viable alternative to continuous catenary, needing only short stretches of catenary at stations and on steep grades.
Thanks for this. I should have referenced this point in my original post, though I did mention it in response to another comment. I don't agree that zero emissions transit has been a mistake. However, I do think there needs to be a better accounting of the costs and benefits of transitioning at the pace we're going. The most important objective should be getting more people on buses and trains, fast, as you say.
Great article Ben. Two things:
1. Do you know if capital costs are the only reason freight railroads oppose electrification? I'd assume clearances are also a concern. Do you know if electrification would impose any limits on train length (ie power available for a single train)?
2. A fun historical anomaly is the Milwaukee Road. They electrified hundreds of miles in the remote American West in 1915 and that electrified track was only dismantled in the 1970s. What a different world we'd live in if the freight railroads had electrified themselves. Here's more on the history if you're interested https://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/AProudEraPasses.pdf
Thanks! Capital cost is only one reason freight railroads oppose electrification. There's more detail on this in my Tech Review story. The other issues are logistical — lost revenue during the electrification buildout, and difficulty switching between electrified and diesel trains that could cause shippers to opt for trucks. Electrification can actually deliver more power to trains than diesel can, so that's not the issue.
And thanks for the info about the old Milwaukee Road. I'm not familiar with that history, but I do know there used to be much more electrified track across the country than there is today.
Agreed that OCS is the most efficient, but you must at least call out the capital cost difference between OCS and H2. To electrify California's passenger rail lines, it would be about $17.5B assuming $14M/mi. That is the about the same cost for HSR from Merced to San Francisco. With limited funding available, which should the state choose? IMO, the best path is a mix of OCS and H2, with H2 keeping the trains running until OCS is built out.
It's a good point. Limited funds force tough decisions on what could have the biggest impact, at what timescale. The fear that a lot of activists have is that once you start investing in hydrogen trains, you start to retool the whole industry in a way that could be hard to break out of. If OCS is the ultimate goal, why make huge investments into another technology in the meantime?
This gets to another point that I didn't get to bring up in my piece, which is the efficacy of strict emissions regulations on railroads. Even diesel trains are far greener than driving or flying. Would it hurt so much to keep diesel trains around a little longer in order to build up the funding and political support for truly transformative electrified trains?
As you pointed out, at least for California, the H2 infrastructure is for industry, cars, trucks and trains. It is also capable of being Green H2 sooner than other states. Also, I agree, a OCS & Diesel Tier 4 interim solution for passenger trains works as well, with Diesel keeping the trains running until OCS is completed.