New California Locomotive Emissions Rules

This is going to hurt:

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2023-04-2 ... for-trains

Fair Use:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California approved Thursday a first-in-the-nation, ambitious rule limiting rail pollution to aggressively cut greenhouse gas emissions in the state's latest move to establish itself as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

The rule will ban locomotive engines more than 23 years old by 2030 and increase the use of zero-emissions technology to transport freight from ports and throughout railyards. It would also ban locomotives in the state from idling longer than 30 minutes if they are equipped with an automatic shutoff.

"It is time to kickstart the next step of transformation, with trains," said Davina Hurt, a California Air Resources Board member.

The standards would also reduce chemicals that contribute to smog. They could improve air quality near railyards and ports.

I doubt if any of the six Class I's (4 US 2 CD) have placed in service a brand new locomotive during the past five years, and all have "stored" engines sitting about that I guess they have plans to rebuild "as needed" and return them to revenue service.

This will indeed be "sport" having to change out engines to "California compliant" at the State line.

But likely the industry is already planning a "counteroffensive" to this legislation much as they did regarding Positive Train Control, which was enacted under RSIA08 and has only been fully implemented.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/27/11726395 ... -pollution

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California approved Thursday a first-in-the-nation, ambitious rule limiting rail pollution to aggressively cut greenhouse gas emissions in the state's latest move to establish itself as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

The rule will ban locomotive engines more than 23 years old by 2030 and increase the use of zero-emissions technology to transport freight from ports and throughout railyards. It would also ban locomotives in the state from idling longer than 30 minutes if they are equipped with an automatic shutoff.
...

Mod Note: Shadow topics also in California Commuter & Weatern Railfan forums.

Here’s a solution:
Omaha, JUNE 30, 2023: Effective Dec 31, 2028, the Union Pacific Railroad will cease serving the State of California. Our ends of track will be Sparksand Las Vegas, Nevada. We will rip track in California and allow our property to revert to original landholders.

Dallas Fort Worth Texas, July 1 2023: Effective Dec 31, 2028, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway will cease serving the State of California. Our ends of track will be Medford, Oregon and Kingman, Arizona. We will rip track in California and allow our property to revert to original landholders.

UP and BNSF not serving California is just putting a gun to their own mouths and pulling the trigger/giving up all their long haul business since that traffic will shift to places well served by CPKC, CN, CSX, and NS (significant port traffic reloads from international 40' containers to domestic 53' containers in the LA area).

And if they tried to rip up tracks, I think that at least the Amtrak routes would be maintained (I think Amtrak can still seize rights of ways over which it operates trains and sell them to any railroad willing to maintain them to Amtrak standards).

The simple reality is that significant change that does not have an immediate and obvious positive return to shareholders only happens after regulatory requirements to do so are put in effect (see tragedy of the commons and history of industrial pollution). No automobile manufacturer stopped selling (though some threatened to) in California despite California having the most stringent pollution controls on new cars. This is one of those regulatory changes that would drive this kind of change.

If standard remains probably will require much electrification ??

I expect that the first result will be higher costs for shippers in California followed by a winnowing of lines still operated by the Western Class I railroads. I would expect that the Coast Line would lose freight service north of San Luis Obispo, and possibly San Diego. Note I don't think that the shortlining would happen instantly, but the higher costs, would drive away some shippers reducing the viability of some lines. I could also see this affecting local trains and hence carload traffic the most. And I could see both railroads building Intermodal terminals just across the Arizona state line. Again this wouldn't happen immediately but it would happen as the final deadline nears.

Having said all of that I expect CARB will have to meet BNSF and UP somewhere in the middle.

Of all the recent issues that have occurred with the freight railroads, such as poor benefits/sick time/days off for employees to the awful maintenance of the rails that lead to some serious recent train derailments, the California government has been focusing on this??? Really??? It baffles me how much California shoots itself in the foot with stupid policies.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 7:41 pm UP and BNSF not serving California is just putting a gun to their own mouths and pulling the trigger/giving up all their long haul business since that traffic will shift to places well served by CPKC, CN, CSX, and NS (significant port traffic reloads from international 40' containers to domestic 53' containers in the LA area).

Agreed, but UP and BNSF currently have guns to their mouths with the California government pulling the trigger

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 7:41 pm The simple reality is that significant change that does not have an immediate and obvious positive return to shareholders only happens after regulatory requirements to do so are put in effect (see tragedy of the commons and history of industrial pollution). No automobile manufacturer stopped selling (though some threatened to) in California despite California having the most stringent pollution controls on new cars. This is one of those regulatory changes that would drive this kind of change.

First and foremost, the railroads, whether they use diesel or electricity, are the cleanest/greenest way to ship freight and transport passengers. Sure, diesel engines may be dirty and release smoke from time to time, but they can't be releasing any more pollutants than trucks, while carrying 100-1000x (if not more) cargo.

California's car pollution regulations are strict, but this restriction on the railroads is even stricter. California will be banning the sale of ICE cars come the 2030's, but that doesn't mean ICE cars as a whole will be banned.

This dumb rule makes it so that railroads can't even have 20-year-old+ locomotives in the state, a stricter rule than what is for cars and trucks, where railroads are by far greener than them. This is absurd! It's downright idiotic in my opinion...

west point wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 9:32 pm If standard remains probably will require much electrification ??

That wouldn't be too bad, but that would cost an absurd amount of money to do just for the state of California, where, once they get out of California, nothing is electrified.

JayBee wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:31 pm I expect that the first result will be higher costs for shippers in California followed by a winnowing of lines still operated by the Western Class I railroads. I would expect that the Coast Line would lose freight service north of San Luis Obispo, and possibly San Diego. Note I don't think that the shortlining would happen instantly, but the higher costs, would drive away some shippers reducing the viability of some lines. I could also see this affecting local trains and hence carload traffic the most. And I could see both railroads building Intermodal terminals just across the Arizona state line. Again this wouldn't happen immediately but it would happen as the final deadline nears.

Having said all of that I expect CARB will have to meet BNSF and UP somewhere in the middle.

There will be no shortlines if this happens. Shortlines cannot afford to drop multi-million dollar contracts on either outright buying newer/greener locomotives, and I'd imagine leasing them won't be cheap either. The bread and butter of most shortlines are engines that are definitely older than 23 years old!

The regulation can be found here. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/fi ... 22/fro.pdf

This is a subtler regulation than headlines suggest:

• Mainline freight rules take effect in 2035, while industrial, switchers, and passenger locomotive rules are in 2030.
• Tier 4 is compliant, but must be rebuilt not less than every 23 years.
• Zero Emissions (ZE) locomotives are exempt from age rules.
• A locomotive's build date is based on the engine (re)build date, so this is basically a requirement that engines be rebuilt to Tier 4.
• Carve outs exist for many purposes (historical, small operators, etc).
• 3 years before any part takes effect, the state will (re)assess if they need to delay that part (i.e., if ZE engine technology is not reliable or is cost prohibitive in 2027, passenger operators would not be required to use ZE engines in 2030).
• Railroads not operating ZE engines will set aside monies to purchase ZE engines, and once operating 100% ZE will receive all monies in the fund that were not used for those purchases.
• Idle engine cutouts need to be used (I think this is the only thing that should be an obvious immediate benefit to railroad operators as it reduces fuel costs).

Outside of that, California has several programs funded from general funds that can, among other things, provide grants to purchase compliant locomotives or build ZE infrastructure (they could also be used to equip California highways with electric trucks).

Ahh the cAtAsTrOpHiC cLiMaTe ChAnGe cult within the government is at it again.

As noted above trains already are more environmentally friendly and more fuel efficient even without the emissions standards. Even automobiles today are cleaner than in decades past. Yet instead of celebrating that they instead feel the need to go into triple panic mode.

It really is remarkable how 5 decades after how many *reasonable* regulations have been put in place in the name of legitimately protecting the environment things are NOW teetering on the brink of environmental catastrophe… (and don’t talk about all of China’s coal plants, that’s just a crazy conspiracy theory )

Of course if they want that top tier ESG score that badly they’ll do anything to get it from their overlords at Vanguard, BlackRock, the WEF, you name it.

It’s not about “protecting the planet” or whatever it is they claim it is. It’s either about -at worst- control or -at best- wanting to make themselves look good/woke/whatever the latest fad is.

UP, BNSF, Amtrak, etc. better fight against this. The Tier 4 standards are bad enough in terms of affecting locomotive performance. Why else do we see so many GP38/40, etc. series units in service if they can be grandfathered in?

There are some extreme differences between "protecting a planet" and "not shitting in your own backyard", and this is very much a "don't shit in the backyard" situation. You may not recall the 80s in Los Angele, but plenty of people who live there do, and Los Angeles was filthy and choking, so these people have set up organizations to make sure the local air is clean. That and other recent conditions (forest fires) do have extreme long-term health effects. All cost savings benefits from this are posited in terms of reducing local health care costs.

Once Amtrak has completed its transition from P42DCs to ALC-42s in West Coast services, which I understand will be in 2023/2024, with the exception of California-owned locomotives and maybe some switchers, Amtrak will be fully compliant with these rules.

Once Caltrain electrification is complete,

I think that by 2035, its not unreasonable to expect that most, if not all, automobile and road truck sales in California will be EVs, at which point, railroads will be the worst polluting transportation that California can influence (the state really has no say in international shipping or air transport).

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 am There are some extreme differences between "protecting a planet" and "not shitting in your own backyard", and this is very much a "don't shit in the backyard" situation. You may not recall the 80s in Los Angele, but plenty of people who live there do, and Los Angeles was filthy and choking, so these people have set up organizations to make sure the local air is clean. That and other recent conditions (forest fires) do have extreme long-term health effects. All cost savings benefits from this are posited in terms of reducing local health care costs.

And that was due to LA being a very car-reliant city where the only (safe) way of getting around was your automobile, which probably didn't have a catalytic converter or any sort of emissions standards on it.

Not to mention, being surrounded by mountains which keep the smog in (an issue Mexico City has too) doesn't help either. I strongly doubt that diesel locomotives pulling 100-1000x the load that automobiles pull is a major source of air pollution in California.

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 am Once Caltrain electrification is complete,

Which really should be the goal here, to get the state of California to (reasonably) push for proper electrification, instead of pushing "green" locomotives that are well-reputed to be a PITA to work with, per railroad crews. The only thing crews and RR higher ups can agree on these days is continuing to use old(er) locomotives, due to how efficient and low(er) maintenance they are, compared to the newer compliant locomotives

Or they could take the FEC route and convert them all to natural gas.

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 am I think that by 2035, its not unreasonable to expect that most, if not all, automobile and road truck sales in California will be EVs, at which point, railroads will be the worst polluting transportation that California can influence (the state really has no say in international shipping or air transport).

Diesel or not, I would be willing to bet that once there are no automobile emissions in the state of California, diesels will not dramatically cause pollution

I'm not an expert on this but if a regulation such as this impacts interstate commerce negatively can the feds step in and stop it?

Once automobiles and trucks are ZE vehicles, railroad diesels will be the primary source of transporation pollution at low altitudes.

California is levying the same requirements against trucks as it is trains

According to Wikipedia, GE/WABTEC has delivered more than 1000 Tier 4 locomotives, and Amtrak, Brightline, and various commuter agencies do not seem to be having problems with the Tier 4 Siemens Chargers (now that initial teething problems have been addressed). This suggests that the argument that Tier 4 locomotives aren't usable isn't correct.

I think federal rules preventing states from regulating a locomotive's pollution controls more stringently than the federal government apply only to locomotives under 133% of their "useful life" (where useful life is a minimum of 10 years or some number of MW-hrs of operation), this does kind of suggest that 23 years of age is outside the "useful life" of a locomotive (note that remanufacturing a locomotive resets that, so California is basically saying that when a mainline locomotive is (re)manufactured, it needs to be Tier 4 or other ZE technologies.

The Supreme Court has long held that the "[Interstate Commerce] Clause protects interstate market, not particular interstate firms, from prohibitive or burdensome regulations."