hydrail railway transition in canada: technological

This document contains information proprietary to Change Energy Services Inc. Any disclosure, use, or duplication

of this document or any information contained within is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing.

Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada:

Technological, Operational, Economical,

and Societal (TOES)

Barriers and Opportunities

Submitted to:

Transport Canada

Place de Ville

Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Contract No. T8080-200257

Attention:

The Innovation Centre

March 31, 2021

Prepared by:

Change Energy Services Inc.

2140 Winston Park Drive

Suite 203

Oakville, ON L6H 5V5

File D20.031ene

Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. of 147

Copyright © 2021 Change Energy Services Inc. All rights reserved. The use of any part of this document, whether it is reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or means (including electronic, mechanical, photographic, photocopying or recording), without the prior written permission of Change Energy Services is an infringement of copyright law. Change Energy Services is solely liable and responsible for the contents of this document. Inclusion of any names of external organizations is for acknowledgement purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of contents.

Transport Canada Disclaimer

This report reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily

the official views or policies of the Innovation Centre of

Transport Canada or the co-sponsoring organizations.

Transport Canada does not endorse products or manufacturers.

Trade or manufacturers’ names appear in the report only

because they are essential to its objectives.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5

2.0 REVIEW OF GLOBAL HYDRAIL ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED ..... 10

2.1 Survey of Hydrail Projects, Worldwide ........................................................................................... 15

3.0 ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETE HYDRAIL SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF

TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL CHALLENGES ................................ 30

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ................................................. 40

4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 40

4.2 Operational impacts of hydrail transition scenario – discussion .................................................... 59

4.3 Regulatory aspects of the hydrail transition scenario – discussion ............................................... 67

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE

REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................... 76

5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 76

5.2 Capital requirements assessment .................................................................................................. 79

5.3 Operating expenses assessment ................................................................................................... 81

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS .............. 84

7.0 DEVELOPING A HYDRAIL TRANSITION ROADMAP ..................................... 88

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 91

APPENDIX 1: RAILWAY NETWORK ACROSS CANADA ................................................................................ 95

APPENDIX 2: EXTRAPOLATION FROM PAST TRENDS ................................................................................ 100

APPENDIX 3: FLEET TURNOVER SCHEDULE ............................................................................................ 102

APPENDIX 4: FUEL CONSUMPTION ......................................................................................................... 108

APPENDIX 5: ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 114

APPENDIX 6: CUMULATIVE GHG EMISSIONS .......................................................................................... 120

APPENDIX 7: ANNUAL CAC EMISSIONS.................................................................................................. 126

APPENDIX 8: CUMULATIVE CAC EMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 137



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an assessment of the technological, operational, economical and

societal (TOES) barriers and opportunities of transitioning Canada’s railway sector from

the current diesel-dominant energy system to a future state that is principally powered by

hydrogen. The purpose of this study is to inform industry stakeholders of the scale of such

an undertaking, and to provide an analytical basis on which to evaluate its feasibility.

To frame the assessment, a hypothetical transition model was constructed, consisting of

a period of initial prototyping and testing of hydrail systems from present day to 2030,

followed by a period of aggressive deployment to 2050, characterized as follows:

▪ 4,193 hydrogen fuel cell-electric locomotives in service, composed of:

o 3,219 remanufactured (diesel-to-hydrogen conversions), and

o 974 freshly manufactured (new to fleet)

▪ 445,560 tonnes of low-carbon hydrogen produced and used, annually;

▪ 78 megatonnes of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions avoided, 2030-2050; and

▪ 169 hydrogen refuelling facilities operating throughout the railway network.

The cost of this hydrail transition,

relative to a business-as-usual

projection to 2050, is estimated at

$32 billion in locomotive and

tender equipment, as well as

infrastructure to support refuelling.

Incremental to diesel, annual

hydrogen fuel expenditures are

estimated to range from no change

to more than double. Other

operating expenses are not expected to change significantly.

The technical feasibility of hydrail has already been demonstrated through roughly a

dozen passenger trains currently in operation, globally. To develop the application for

use in North American railways, pre-commercial development of hydrail system

architectures is needed, especially in terms of locomotives and fuel tenders. A joint

Canada-U.S. initiative involving government and industry would help advance

commercialization, as most freight and passenger operations are continentally

integrated. Opportunities to develop prototype vehicles and conduct trials should be

prioritized and supported, to generate crucial knowledge and experience.



1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the methodology and findings of a study to assess the implications

of a conceptual transition from diesel to hydrogen as the primary fuel to power Canada’s

railway services, inclusive of freight and passenger modes. The implications considered

include technical, operational, economic and societal (TOES) changes. The purpose of

the report is not to predict the future of railway operations in Canada, nor to advocate

for hydrail systems in general. Rather, the purpose is to explore the scale of such a

transition and the impacts, and thus better understand the processes by which a

decarbonization of railway operations in Canada could conceivably be achieved through

the deployment of hydrail systems. This implies the use of hydrogen sourced through

low-carbon intensity supply chains.

Railway sector activities and energy use currently accounts for approximately 4% of

Canada’s transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or roughly 6.8 Mt. This

share has been fairly steady, fluctuating only between 4% and 5% during 2005 through

2016. Growth in emissions that otherwise would have occurred have been mitigated in

part through logistical and technological changes implemented by industry to reduce the

carbon-intensity of rail transport. Indeed, GHG emissions intensity within the sector

decreased by more than 40% between 1990 and 2017. Nonetheless, the absolute

volume of emissions continues to grow as Canadian business and consumers rely

increasingly on rail to transport goods to market. Nearly 70% of intercity ground freight

(valued at $328 billion annually) is carried by railways, as is more that 88 million

passenger trips in Canada. Since 1990, total gross tonne-km and revenue tonne-km

have doubled. Yet, the locomotives that haul freight and passengers throughout

Canada, which make possible these benefits, are nearly all dependent on diesel as fuel.

Hydrail systems are a promising alternative. Using hydrogen instead of diesel, and fuel

cells instead of combustion engine-generators, electrical power can be delivered to the

traction motors and auxiliary systems of a locomotive or self-propelled railcar. Full

operational requirements can be met with no emissions, aside from water vapour. A

small number of hydrail systems have already been introduced into passenger service

in Europe and Asia, and demonstrated in a freight switcher locomotive in the U.S.

However, the pathway to full-scale market adoption is only just begun. The content of

this report begins with a review of available literature on the status of hydrail system

deployments, globally, to help inform the analytical work that follows.



The approach taken in this study involves establishing a business-as-usual diesel

reference case, in which the demand for diesel to satisfy freight and passenger

movement in Canada is projected to 2030 and to 2050. It is hypothesized that a

complete transition to hydrail would occur by the end of this period. To confirm, this is

not a prediction – it is simply a thought experiment to generate insight into the dynamics

of such a transition, and to inform policy development and decision-making.

A hydrogen-equivalence case is then developed, in which the amount of hydrogen and

hydrail locomotive sets needed to reproduce the overall tractive effort of the diesel

reference case is estimated. This methodology is repeated for each of the four

categories of railway operations in Canada, as reported in Railway Association of

Canada and Transport Canada publications:

• Long Distance Trans-Canada Freight Service and Regional Service

• Freight Service, restricted to locomotive switchers in railway/marshalling yards

• Inter-City Passenger Rail Service

• Commuter Passenger Rail

From this, conceptualizations of the input of the required volumes of hydrogen to the

railway networks across Canada are generated, using infrastructure mapping to

geographically characterize the systems of hydrogen supply. Based on these estimates,

the prospective capital expenditures and operating expenses inherent in the system-

wide transition to 2050 are assessed at a very high level. Associated operational

changes will be explored and discussed, as well as reductions in emissions and

potential, indirect benefits to Canadian society and industry competitiveness.

credit: VIA Rail Vacations; https://canadiantrainvacations.com/discover/via-rail



The integrated North American freight railway industry

The integration and interoperability of

railway system across the Canada-U.S.

border deserves special consideration

when imagining a hydrail transition.

More than 30,000 locomotives operate

within this system, many of which are

leased to the railway companies, and

any of which could be routinely

operating on either side of the border. It

is improbable that a complete

technology transition could occur in

Canada without a corresponding

change in the U.S. This constraint will

be addressed in this report in context of

operational impacts, but for the sake of

simplicity, the study disregards complex

interactions with the U.S. share of the network when estimating energy and rolling stock

for the hydrail system in Canada.

Historical precedence for rapid energy and technology transitions

A surprisingly short span of time – only about 15 years – separates the introduction of

the first diesel locomotive in Canada and the retirement of the last coal-fired steam

locomotive from service. The transition began in the U.S. in 1940, when General

Motors’ Electro-Motive Division started delivering the first commercially produced line-

haul freight locomotives. Due to World War II, diesel locomotive manufacturing was

halted as production capacity was redeployed to military priorities (e.g., armoured

vehicle and tank production). Upon resuming locomotive production in 1943-1944, GM-

EMD established itself as the lead in diesel-electric locomotive design. By 1950, GM-

EMD was the number-one locomotive manufacturer in the U.S. In 1949, it opened a

subsidiary plant in London, Ontario to produce diesel locomotives for the Canadian

market. Both CN and CP acquired their first line-haul diesel locomotives (i.e., not yard

switchers) from GM-EMD, largely from London-built. The process of railway

dieselization in Canada and the U.S. had largely concluded by 1960, having begun only

20 years earlier in the U.S.

credit: Wikicommons.

Self-published work by Kmusser)



This transition in fuel and technology

precipitated major changes in the

movement of trains. Locomotives no

longer needed coal and water to

operate, so many of the supply

depots, yards and service centres

specializing in steam were

eventually closed or relocated,

profoundly impacting some

communities along the railways.

Labour within the railways also

changed. For example, shoveling

coal on steam locomotives was a

task no longer needed, while diesel

locomotive operations required the

rapid development of new skills,

training, practices, codes and

standards.

Notwithstanding the level of

disruption it caused within the

industry, the transition from coal to

diesel was driven by a number of

compelling benefits, including:

• Lower operating costs – diesel-electric locomotives were mechanically simpler to

maintain, repair and operate. Consider that coal-fired steam locomotives

consumed not only coal, but also water.

• Lower manufacturing and procurement costs – diesel-electric locomotives were

usually mass-produced, using common parts (from many different builders); by

comparison, steam locomotives involved many hand-made parts and involved

complicated boiler systems.

• Divesting of fuel infrastructure – railways needed to maintain an extensive supply

infrastructure for coal; the shift to diesel allowed them to divest of that burden.

• Lower labour costs – fewer personnel are needed to operate and maintain a fleet

of diesel locomotives compared to coal-fired steam units.

• Inherent benefits of liquid fuel – diesel was more dense, easier to store and

refuel, and is comparatively cleaner and less expensive to manage than coal.

Examples of railway

infrastructure rendered

obsolete by dieselization.

Above: CP coaling tower in

McAdam, New Brunswick,

refilling a fuel tender for a

steam locomotive in 1959.

Side: CN water tower in

Barry’s Bay, Ontario.

sources:

RR Picture Archives .net

http://www.rrpicturearchives.n

et/showPicture.aspx?id=2553

913#

Canadian Science &

Technology Museums

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/3

22640760781508558/

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2553913



https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/322640760781508558/

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/322640760781508558/



Put simply, diesel enabled safer, cleaner more productive railway operations. A

transition from diesel to hydrail systems would be expected to bring about a similar

scale of disruption. Accordingly, it would need to be driven by a similarly compelling

value proposition. This study begins to explore that proposition from both an industry

and a broader societal perspective.



2.0 REVIEW OF GLOBAL HYDRAIL ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED

To assess the state of activity in prospective markets for hydrail technologies, globally,

the study team conducted a scan of available literature, including corporate

communications (up to November 2020). A summary of the research is presented in the

section that follows, and the key findings are shown below.

Profile of hydrail initiatives

Hydrail systems are still in a very early stage of commercialization. As of November

2020, there are an estimated twelve hydrail vehicles in operation on rails around the

world. If the announced delivery schedules are fulfilled, then another three dozen units

will enter service by 2022. Most of these trains are for passenger use, designed to carry

approximately 50-150 people, seated and standing.

Alstom’s Coradia iLint dominates the current book of orders, but competitors’ designs

are beginning to gain traction. The fuel cell stacks for announced products tend to be

sized for 200-400 kW of output power, coupled with battery systems to support

regenerative braking and to provide added boosts of power – up to another 400 kW or

more – for acceleration. The hydrogen stored onboard is gaseous, usually pressurized

to 350 bar.

So far, compliance with

safety codes and

standards does not

appear to have been a

barrier to operational

deployments. Indeed, the

Coradia iLint progressed

from concept to service

trials in only three years.

The demonstrable

success of the

technology in light

passenger applications

implies a technology

readiness level (TRL) of 7-8. However, no current demonstrations of hydrail systems

are currently underway in North America, which is dominated by freight service and

NASA Technology Readiness Levels. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NASA-

Technology-Readiness-Levels-Source-27_fig1_330508248

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NASA-Technology-Readiness-Levels-Source-27_fig1_330508248

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NASA-Technology-Readiness-Levels-Source-27_fig1_330508248



composed of heavier trains. Therefore, the study team estimates that TRL 5-6 is more

appropriate to a Canadian context, with exceptions for some lighter, urban rail transit

applications in which the higher TRL of European and Asian hydrail systems may apply.

In freight railway applications, the only real-world experience has been generated

through switcher locomotive demonstration projects. The duty cycle of freight service

differs significantly from passenger service, yet the two switcher demonstrations

identified (one in California, one in Austria) do not appear to have revealed any

technical barriers to further development or the potential for commercial use.

The number of studies about the prospect of hydrail vastly outnumbers the actual

hydrail systems currently in use. This is further evidence that while there is substantive

interest and support for the concept, hydrail remains in a pre-commercial phase of

development. Strategic investments in hydrail development and deployment by industry

and government are still relatively few, focused on demonstration and validation of the

concept, as opposed to aggressive competition for sales, which would be an indicator of

a maturing market.

Key drivers of hydrail initiatives

In virtually every deployment or planned deployment of a hydrail system, to-date, direct

government funding and government-sponsored procurement has been key to

overcoming market inertia. This is not surprising, as most passenger rail service is

operated by government corporations or publicly supported in some way. The

motivation for government to advance hydrail solutions seems to emerge from either of

two principal interests (and sometimes both):

(i) climate change and decarbonization, or

(ii) global industrial competitiveness.

In Germany, in the U.K. and in the U.S., for example, the self-imposed, legislative

imperative to reduce emissions contributing to air pollution and to climate change, as

part of a broader agenda of decarbonizing regional economies, is an unqualified driver

of demand for hydrail systems. Were hydrail not an option in these jurisdictions, some

other form of railway electrification would be pursued to displace diesel and reduce

reliance on combustion of fossil fuels.



In China and Austria, as contrasting examples, there appears to be a significant

motivation to develop export opportunities in hydrogen technologies, in general, as well

as hydrail solutions, in particular. Domestic investments in hydrail systems thus support

an industrial competitiveness agenda. Action on climate change and air quality are also

major drivers, of course, but these are integrated with an economic growth strategy.

In nearly all cases, the decision to build and deploy hydrail in a jurisdiction was

precipitated by a procurement announcement. Whether it began as a competitive

solicitation or a call for expressions-of-interest by a transportation authority, or some

other directive, the opportunity to sell product was used by the public sector to motivate

the private sector to commit resources to innovating a passenger hydrail solution.

Yet, here again, freight hydrail seems to eschew the trend. The switcher locomotive

projects identified in the research seemed to have been led by private sector consortia,

as opposed to government. Certainly, government funding was instrumental to project

implementation, and the hydrail concept may have originally emerged from government

laboratories, but public procurement or mandates don’t appear as key drivers. More

likely, the private sector is motivated to proactively develop low-carbon solutions, such

as hydrail, in anticipation of emissions regulation and in response to carbon risk.

Key roles – government, industry, investors

Around the world, passenger railway service is often a government enterprise. Public

transit and intercity railway authorities are either creatures of government or are directly

regulated by public agencies. Governments have used their leverage as the customer

(on behalf of citizens) to stimulate hydrail development and fund it through procurement.

Were governments to refrain from wielding the power of procurement, it is hard to see

how rolling stock manufacturers would have justified the investment in hydrail

innovation.

In the freight railway sector, however, government’s role is usually as an inspector and

enforcer of safety rules and regulations. In this role, government could conceivably be a

barrier to hydrail development, if their regulatory framework is highly prescriptive and

not accommodating of technology change. However, this has not been the case in any

hydrail deployments to-date. Freight hydrail systems have thus emerged as private

sector-led initiatives, where government supports risk-taking through contributions of

funding, knowledge and facilitating collaboration.



The role of investors is difficult to construe from the literature review. Many of the

largest rolling stock manufactures and railway works companies, as well as the private

sector freight railway companies, are privately owned with shares publicly traded.

Accountability to shareholders – not the public – is a distinct feature of these

organizations. The development and adoption of hydrail systems may therefore be

viewed through the lens of business growth, profit and risk. Increasingly, large

investment firms evaluate carbon risk before deciding large placements of capital.

Carbon risk is tied to government action on climate change. Firms that are overly

dependent on fossil fuels, or have limited alternatives to decarbonize their operations,

may be considered higher-risk investment prospects, which could compromise the

stability of the company and its perceived value over the long-term.

Therefore, in a speculative sense, investors may be a significant driver of hydrail system

development in the freight sector even if, presently, a transition from diesel is difficult to

practically envision.

Lessons for Canada

Generally (though not always), railways in Europe and Asia are centred around

passenger transport, while in North America they are centred around the movement of

freight. Passenger trains, whether in intercity regional or commuter service, tend to run

on systems designed for freight. This means that hydrail in North America is likely to

have operational implications for both passenger and freight service. However, there

are some circumstances in which railways are dedicated to passenger service, at least

for most of the time. Such separations of freight and passenger service, whether it is

physical or temporal, may provide the conditions for early testing of existing models of

hydrail passenger trains. For example, the Trillium Line in Ottawa, the Union Pearson

Express and numerous tourist lines across Canada, could become hosts to pilots.

The power of procurement has been wielded to transformative effect in Europe – most

demonstrably in Germany, although the U.K. is poised for significant deployments of

hydrail systems, too. Canada’s federal and provincial governments could similarly lever

their funding of regional and light rail transit to promote the development and adoption

of first-of-a-kind hydrail solutions. A prime example is the GO commuter railway

network. Although catenary electrification may occur on some lines in the future, there

are others in the network that are obliged to remain powered by diesel, unless some

alternative is developed. Moreover, if electrification does proceed, it will take years of

construction work to complete. This constitutes a significant opportunity to commission



a hydrail pilot project through a competitive procurement process. Were a successful

hydrail system developed for GO, it would immediately be transferrable to numerous

other commuter rail authorities in the U.S., such as in Texas, Florida and California, that

have adopted the locomotive and bi-level coach train solution innovated by GO.

Importantly, the concentration and volumes of hydrogen production and use associated

with major hydrail system build-outs, especially for commuter, return-to-base

operations, makes possible a range of other hydrogen and fuel cell applications in the

immediate area. These could include fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in light- and

heavy-duty applications, materials handling equipment, or hydrogen for industrial

processing.

Canada’s current climate change framework, which ascribes equal importance to

decarbonizing the economy and to “clean growth,” can draw on the drivers of hydrail

systems development and deployment in other countries, which include reducing GHG

emissions and enhancing industry competitiveness. This opportunity seems especially

apparent in the use of fuel cells built by Ballard Power Systems and by Hydrogenics (a

Cummins company) in nearly all of the hydrogen-powered trains and locomotive in use

around the world today.



2.1 Survey of Hydrail Projects, Worldwide

U.S. – BNSF 1205 shunter locomotive

In 2007-2008, a consortium of private sector and U.S. defense agencies was formed to

test the concept of a hydrogen fuel cell-powered switcher locomotive. Two key

objectives motivated this government-

industry collaboration:

1. to reduce air and noise pollution in

urban rail applications, including

yard-switching associated with

seaports (to be demonstrated in the

Los Angele Basin, noted for severe

occurrences of photochemical

smog);

2. to serve as a mobile backup power

source (“power-to-grid”) for military

bases and civilian disaster relief

efforts (to be demonstrated at Hill

Air Force Base, Utah)

The project was mainly funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the consortium

members included:

• Ballard Power Systems – fuel cell power modules

• BNSF Railway Company – fabrication, vehicle integration, testing, host of

switchyard demonstration

• Defense Gen. & Rail Equipment Center – advising on military applications;

power-to-grid demonstration

• Dynetek Industries – hydrogen storage

• RailPower Hybrid Technologies – manufacturer of the Green Goat locomotive

platform

• Transportation Technologies Center – railway safety regulations

• University of Nevada – Reno refueling system design

• U.S. Army – project oversight

• Vehicle Projects LLC – engineering design, project management

• Washington Safety Management Solutions – safety analysis



Further contributions of funding support were reported from the following organizations:

1. US Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program

2. US Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies

3. Government of Canada, Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change

4. Natural Resources Canada, Emerging Technologies Program

5. US Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency

6. Government of Japan, Railway Technical Research Institute

7. BNSF Railway Company

8. Fuelcell Propulsion Institute

A model GG20B battery-dominant hybrid switcher locomotive previously built by

RailPower was acquired by BNSF for the project and labelled unit 1205. This switcher

was originally adapted from an EMD GP9 (which speaks to the longevity of freight

rolling stock in North America). Vehicle Projects LLC executed the conversion of the

locomotive, substituting its original diesel-battery hybrid propulsion system with

hydrogen fuel cell-based prime mover for experimental testing. The existing battery

system of the Green Goat was used, while the powerplant and onboard hydrogen

storage was based on a Mercedes-Benz Citaro FuelCELL-Hydrid bus.

The vehicle was commissioned at the AAR-TTCI (American Association of Railroads

Transportation Technology Centre test center near Pueblo, Colorado. It was then

moved to the BNSF railyard in Commerce, California (near San Bernardino, within the

Los Angeles Basin region – the largest “air quality non-attainment area” in the U.S.).

There the locomotive was demonstrated for approximately three months, beginning in

2009, until a minor mechanical failure, unrelated to the fuel cells, forced a shutdown.

Based on informal reports, the failed component may have been a simple, common

blower fan that, when operational, served to ventilate the area around the fuel cell

stacks. In such a circumstance, the fuel cell sensors would have detected a rise in

ambient temperature conditions after the fan ceased running, and would properly

execute a shutdown to protect the stacks from overheating. Perhaps a lack of routine

inspection of common locomotive systems (i.e., not those pertaining to the new

hydrogen equipment) resulted in the failure condition. Usually, a blower fan malfunction

would not significantly impact the normal operation of a diesel-powered switcher

locomotive, which are rugged and resilient machines.

According to informal reports, when the demonstration switcher was suspended from

service following the shutdown of the fuel cell power modules, the program from which

funding had been sourced for the project had closed. As a result, repairs were not



implemented and the locomotive was removed from service and later dismantled. The

fuel cells were returned to Ballard Power Systems and the remains of the components

reside with BNSF at the Topeka, Kansas shops.

The project produced a U.S. Patent for its design and control system architecture.1

Technically, the project was considered successful. Towards the end of its initial three-

month trial period, before the unanticipated shutdown of the fuel cell power modules,

the locomotive had performed well enough that deployment into road switching service

was being considered.

Germany – Regional passenger railway service

In late-2014, four German states – Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-

Württemberg and Hesse – announced their interest in purchasing 40 hydrogen fuel cell-

powered trains for operation in regional passenger service. A call for expressions-of-

interest was issued. Respondents were told that their prospective solution must conform

to the existing diesel-powered, articulated railcar design already in use, but with the

diesel powerpacks replaced by some combination of hydrogen storage, fuel cells and

battery systems. As well, the vehicles must match or exceed the performance of electric

multiple units that could otherwise be procured. Lastly, the new trains were to be ready

for service on regional lines by 2020.

The Federal Ministry for Transport

and Digital Infrastructure supported

the initiative of the states with a

financial commitment €8 million,

through Germany’s National

Innovation Programme (NIP) for

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology.

Alstom – a multinational company

headquartered in France and one of

the world's largest manufacturers of

trains, tramways and trackwork –

committed to meet the terms, and was

selected by the states to build and test

1 Miller et al. US 8,117,969 B1. Feb. 21, 2012.

Alstom Transport President Henri Poupart-Lafarge signed letters of

intent with four German regional authorities to develop 'zero

emission trains' in September 2014.

Credit: House of Logistics & Mobility (HOLM) GmbH website



prototype units, as part of a larger commitment to purchase 40 hydrogen-powered

trains. Alstom proposed to adapt its popular Coradia Lint 54 diesel-powered trains, to be

designed and manufactured at the company’s competence centre for regional trains in

Salzgitter, Germany. In early 2015, Alstom announced an agreement with Canada-

based Hydrogenics to co-develop the hydrogen fuel cell power plant for the new trains.

By 2018, two pre-series units, called the Coradia iLint model, had been completed and

had begun a battery of trials and testing. The vehicles received a certification against

standards defined by DNV-GL, one of the world’s most prominent classification

societies, as well as approval by the German Railway Office in July. In September 2018,

the trains entered commercial passenger service, fulfilling the terms with the four state

governments in Germany and validating readiness for market. Currently, the trains

refuel at a mobile facility beside the tracks at Bremervörde station. They have a top

speed of 140 km/h and capacity for 150 passengers.

Letters of intent were signed for the delivery of 60 Coradia iLints to the four German

states (more than the original announcement of 40). Delivery and operation of these

trains is expected to commence in 2021. Some of the terms include maintenance and

hydrogen supply for 25-30 years. Additional orders of 41 and 27 units, respectively, for

operation in the Bavaria and Taunus regions were placed in 2019, for delivery starting in

2022.

Approximately half of the regional passenger railways in Germany are electrified, with

electric trains drawing energy directly from powerlines overhead, suspended by a

system of catenaries. A tether rising from the train roof provides for a rolling contact with

overhead lines. This system is commonplace in Europe and in some other parts of the

world for passenger service. However, the remaining portion of Germany’s railway

network is not electrified, with trains relying on diesel-powered propulsion. The nation is

committed to decarbonizing its transportation system, but retrofitting the diesel corridors

with a catenary system is exceptionally expensive and disruptive to ongoing service,

compared to a prospective hydrogen alternative. By trialing a hydrogen fuel cell-electric

solution, the potential to achieve zero-emission, zero-carbon railway operation, without

the overhead infrastructure, was validated.



The advantage of hydrail

is that it shifts the cost and

risk associated with major

infrastructure construction

to that of technology

deployment. As well,

railway service can be

progressively

decarbonized with each

hydrogen-powered train

that enters operation.

Whereas catenary

electrification may require many years of new infrastructure construction to be

completed before electric trains can begin operation.

Germany appears to be embracing hydrogen as the path toward zero-emission railway

operation for the share of the network not already electrified.



China – Local light rail vehicle (tramway) service

The federal state-owned China Railway

Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC) has been

actively developing, deploying and testing

hydrogen-powered light rail vehicles (LRVs) in

several locations throughout the country.

Commonly called trams in parts of Europe and

North America, these fuel cell-propelled

vehicles usually serve in a local transit

capacity. These LRVs are reported to operate

at up to 70 km/h and carry 285-300

passengers.

CRRC launched a trial of seven hydrogen fuel

cell powered tram models in 2016 in the

coastal city of Qingdao, China, on an 8 km line

with 12 stops. The trains were reported as

operating at 70 km/h and carrying 285 – 380

passengers.

In 2017, the CRRC Tangshan Railway Vehicle

Company commenced passenger service in

one newly developed hydrogen fuel cell-

powered, low-floor tram on the Chinese

Railway Headstream Tour tram line in

Tangshan City, Hebei Province, serving 4

stations on a 14 km line. The refuelling station

is rated as having a 100-kg capacity.

CRRC is also deploying eight hydrogen fuel cell-powered trams to operate on the

Gaoming line on the west bank of the Xijiang river in Foshan, China. The entire line,

when completed, will have 20 stops along 17 km. The trams being tested are three-

section, low floor vehicles. The first of the trams entered official service in December

2019.

China has developed and implemented several plans aimed at improving urban air

quality, reducing GHG emissions and advancing technological competitiveness in

various modes of transportation. Considering the alignment of corporate strategy with



state policy, as well as the prioritization of enabling infrastructure in China, such as

railways and public transit, it is reasonable to perceive the investment in hydrail systems

as means of developing capacity in hydrogen technologies. Train operation offers a

living laboratory for fuel cell operation, which can help China develop its potential as a

manufacturer and exporter of fuel cell systems – not only for the global railway market,

but for the many other applications of hydrogen technology, as well.

Ballard fuel cell power module products are used in all the deployments described

herein.

United Kingdom – Conversion of Electric Multiple Units to hydrogen

In 2009, Network Rail – the U.K.

government corporation that

operates most of the rail network in

England, Scotland and Wales –

outlined its business case for

electrification of several of its

regional passenger lines as part of

a larger program of works to

increase service levels, considered

by the government a “strategic

priority” for transportation. £3

billion was allocated by the

Department for Transportation for

the proposed electrification

schemes, which were to be

delivered in the 2014-2019 period.

Slated for electrification were

several railway lines: from Cardiff

to Swansea, the Midland Main Line

north of Kettering, and Oxenholme

to Windermere.

However, in 2017 these three electrification projects were cancelled in a controversial

announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling. The National



Audit Office was then tasked with investigating the reasons for the cancellation.2 Their

report was publicly released in 2018; put simply, their assessment was that

electrification became unaffordable. The Audit report mentioned that electrification using

overhead power line equipment “requires enabling infrastructure works including

rebuilding of bridges and tunnels, clear lineside vegetation and ground piling to hold

supporting masts that carry overhead lines.” All of these corridor and wayside works

involve uncertainties that are difficult predict until construction gets underway. Cost

increases and scheduling delays were apparent before construction work even began.

As early as 2015, costs exceed available funding by £2.5 billion. The Audit Office also

reported that by cancelling the three electrification projects, £1.4 billion of spending to

complete the plan would be averted over the 2019-2024 period.

Shortly thereafter, Network Rail

announced that a program of converting

old electric passenger trains to hydrogen

fuel cell powertrains would commence in

the U.K. The vehicles to be converted

are Class 321 four-car Electric Multiple

Units (EMUs) built approximately 30

years ago and are currently operated by

Eversholt Rail Group for Network Rail.

Alstom has been selected to execute the conversion. Approximately 100 trains are

contemplated in the conversion program, with the first entering operation as early as

2021, according to preliminary reports. Additionally, it was announced in 2020 that the

program would be funded with a further £1 million to include the development of a

entirely new class of dedicated hydrogen train – referred to as the 600 series. A top

speed of 140 km/h and a range of 1,000 km between refueling events is expected of the

new designs.

As in Germany, it appears that Network Rail and the U.K. Government look to hydrail to

fulfill at least some of the objectives for which the electrification of regional lines was

originally intended.

HydroFLEX proof-of-concept project

In parallel to the developments described above, the University of Birmingham’s

Centre for Railway Research and Education, working with rolling stock solutions

2 https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-into-the-department-for-transports-decision-to-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-into-the-department-for-transports-decision-to-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/



provider Porterbrook, converted a Class 319 EMU passenger train to hydrogen

fuel cell-power in 2019. In 2020, the “HydroFLEX” was granted approval to

operate in mainline railway tests on the Cotswold line in England and the Alloa

line in Scotland. The HydroFLEX is also operable via power supplied from a 750

VDC third rail or a 25 kV overhead line, transitioning between onboard hydrogen

power and external power supply. Originally built as a dual voltage AC/DC train,

the HydroFLEX converted vehicle is now considered a “tri-mode” variant. The

intent of this academic initiative is to contribute to the decarbonization of railway

transport. Funding sources include the Department for Transport.

For more information, consult the University of Birmingham Centre of Excellence

in Rail Decarbonisation at: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/spotlights/rail-

decarbonisation.aspx

Ballard Power Systems fuel cell power modules are used in the HydroFLEX.

U.S. – San Bernardino County Transportation Authority FLIRT H2

In November 2019, Stadler received a contract to supply one hydrogen-powered train,

based on its Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) FLIRT model (Fast Light Intercity Regional

Train), to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). The contract

includes an option for the SBCTA to order four more in the future, pending evaluation in-

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/spotlights/rail-decarbonisation.aspx

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/spotlights/rail-decarbonisation.aspx



service. Passenger service is

scheduled to commence in 2024 as

part of the Redlands Passenger Rail

Project: a 14 km connector line

between Redlands and San

Bernardino’s Metrolink station.

The configuration is expected to

comprise two cars with a power back

in between, containing the fuel cells

and hydrogen tanks. The trains will

have a top speed of 130 km/h and capacity for 108 passengers.

California is by far the State with the most prolific deployment of hydrogen fuel cell-

powered vehicles in the world. For example, the population of private FCEV passenger

cars is approaching 9,000 units, which are served by approximately 40 hydrogen

refueling stations at retail forecourts. For many decades, the State Legislature, the

California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission have worked

together to advance numerous low- and zero-emission transportation systems in

various stages of demonstration and commercial deployment. The State has some of

the most severe conditions for air pollution in the country, and some of the most

aggressive emissions reduction programs and regulatory frameworks. The FLIRT H2

procurement is an example of this commitment to levering new technology platforms to

make progress to air quality and decarbonization goals, and it represents the first move

to introduce hydrail passenger service in North America.

Austria – Zillertalbahn HyTrain

Zillertalbahn, a railway operating in a rural

part of Austria, awarded a contract to

Stadler in 2018 for the supply of five

hydrogen fuel cell-powered passenger

trains. Each trainset is roughly 75 m long

with four-cars with an expected capacity of

452 passengers. The line of operation is 32

km, serving an important tourism function

in the region, and is expected to be the

world’s first narrow-gauge hydrogen-powered train. Delivery is expected in 2022.



In 2020, The Ministry of Climate Protection allocated €3.1 million in support of this

deployment, branded the “HyTrain” lighthouse project. These funds are drawn from the

country’s Climate and Energy Fund. This fund also launched the “Flagship Region

Energy” initiative in 2017, of which HyTrain is considered an integral part, to develop

and apply internationally competitive and innovation energy technologies in Austria with

the aim of increasing technology exports.

Austria – ÖBB hydrogen shunter

In 2016, Austrian Federal Railways

presented an ÖBB Class 1063 shunter

locomotive retrofitted to operate via

onboard fuel cells or power from a

catenary overhead. Trials were conducted

through 2017, to inform longer-term

decisions on retrofitting the railway’s fleet

of 47 class 1063 locomotives.

Austria – Linsinger, hydrogen milling

locomotive

Linsinger is an industrial company based in

Austria that specializes in cutting and

milling equipment. In 2020, they

announced a new hydrogen fuel cell-

powered rail milling machine, named the

“MG11 H2.” Such machines are used to resurface damaged rails as part of routine

railway maintenance.



Vivarail

English rolling stock manufacturer, Vivarail, announced a hydrail passenger train

development initiative in

partnership with Arcola Energy, an

engineering services firm

specializing in hydrogen supply

and fuel cell systems. The

announced concept will be based

on Vivarail’s Class 230 model and

consist of four cars: two battery-

driving motor cars and two

intermediate cars housing the fuel cells and hydrogen tanks. Development work was

scheduled to begin in 2020.

Italy – Hydrail regional trains

In 2020, Ferrovie Nord Milano (FNM,

the main transport and mobility

group in the Italian region of

Lombardy) ordered six hydrogen-

powered trains from Alstom, to be

based on the Coradia Stream model,

but with fuel cells as the core

powerplant. The order value is €160

million and the first train is to be

delivered with 36 months, and will draw on the experience and learnings of the iLint

deployment.

Notably, Alstom currently manufactures the Coradia Stream model in Savigliano, Italy.



Aruba – tourist streetcars

Four hydrogen fuel cell-powered streetcars

operate on a tramway loop in the capital city of

Aruba, Oranjestad: 2 single decker and 2

open-top double decker “heritage style” cars.

The tram operator is Arubus and the

streetcars were built by TIG/m LLC. The

powertrain includes Li-Ion batteries for

acceleration power and for recuperating

braking energy. The streetcars consume 4 kg

of hydrogen per day.

Russian Federation – Tram testing

In St. Petersburg, a single-section LM-68M2

tram was retrofitted with hydrogen fuel cells

for propulsion and tested in 2019 by operator

Gorelektrotrans and the Central Research

Institute of Electrical & Marine Technology.

The fuel cell stacks, the hydrogen tanks and

eight seats for operators comprise the

interior. The tram’s top speed was set at 10

km/h. Following the test, the tram was to be

restored to conventional operation and

placed back in regular service.

Siemens Mireo Plus H

Siemens and Ballard Power Systems are collaborating on a new variant to the

established series of Mireo EMU passenger train models. It is expected to use HD 8

“next gen” fuel cells with Type IV hydrogen storage cylinders onboard. Two

configurations have been described: 2-car trainset with 120 seats and 800 km range,

and a 3-car trainset with 165 seats and 800 – 1,000 km range (between refills).



Hyundai Rotem & Hyundai Motor

In 2019 Hyundai Motor and its locomotive division, Hyundai Rotem, announced the co-

development of hydrogen fuel cell-powered passenger train, with an expected range of

200 km and a top speed of 70 km/h. There are reports of prototype testing to

commence in 2020.

East Japan Railway Company

The East Japan Railway Co. has announced a plan to test new hydrogen-powered

passenger trains, beginning in 2021. Expected as a two-car EMU setup for test runs,

the stated goal is to commercialize the design by 2024. The system is to have a top

speed of 100 km/h and are range of 140 km for each tank of hydrogen onboard.

In late-2020, the East Japan Railway Company entered into a collaborative agreement

with Hitachi, Ltd. and Toyota Motor Corporation to develop and test railway vehicles

equipped with hybrid systems that use hydrogen powered fuel cells and storage

batteries as their source of electricity.

Canada – Metrolinx Hydrail Feasibility Study

Metrolinx, a transportation agency of the Government of Ontario, undertook a

comprehensive study of the technological and economic feasibility of hydrail systems to

support the expansion of GO regional commuter rail services in the Greater Toronto &

Hamilton Area from 1,500 to 6,000 daily trips by 2025. The findings were published in

350-page report produced by Jacobs Engineering Group and Ernst & Young Orenda

Corporate Finance.3 The study concluded that a complete conversion of the existing GO

railway network from diesel to hydrail, using electrolytic hydrogen from Ontario grid-

supplied power, provide a similar benefits-to-costs ratio to that reported a 2014

business case assessment for electrification of the same network using overhead

catenaries (approximate BCR of 3). It was recommended by the report authors,

however, that the earlier electrification study should be revised and updated to facilitate

a more accurate comparison of the two alternatives.

3 Metrolinx. Regional Express Rail Program Hydrail Feasibility Study Report. 2018.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/announcements/hydrail-resources/CPG-PGM-RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_R1.pdf

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/announcements/hydrail-resources/CPG-PGM-RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_R1.pdf



While this recommendation was not implemented, Metrolinx declared in 2018 that

bidding consortia would be welcome to propose either catenary electrification or hydrail

solutions for the GO Expansion program. Currently, the status of the GO Expansion

program, which was to include some form of electrification, appears to have been

restructured to include a series of smaller, contracted works on railways and stations. A

decision on electrification seems to have been deferred.

Notably, according to the feasibility study authors, the amount of hydrogen expected to

be consumed daily by a fully hydrail-enabled GO system serving 6,000 trips in the future

is between 40 and 50 tonnes.



3.0 ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETE HYDRAIL SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF

TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL CHALLENGES

Elements of the complete hydrail system

Taking a holistic ecosystem perspective, the physical elements comprising a complete

hydrail system include:

▪ hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production;

▪ storage and distribution;

▪ dispensing facilities; and

▪ locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime movers,

in which the following subcomponents are integrated:

o fuel cells power modules sized to the average, mid-range demand for

tractive and auxiliary power;

o battery packs (or possibly ultracapacitors, or both) sized to respond to

peak and transient demands for power (e.g., during acceleration) as well

as to recuperate braking energy;

o control systems to manage the distribution of power and state-of-charge

among subcomponents, and integration with enunciation and operator

interface;

o onboard hydrogen storage tanks and/or separate hydrogen tenders; and

o onboard thermal management system to maintain operable temperature

ranges for the locomotive system subcomponents

As a helpful reference, some of the elements listed above are visually represented in

the Metrolinx Regional Express Rail Program Hydrail Feasibility Study Report of 2018

(page 9) as the “Hydrail System Structure,”4 shown on the following page.

4 Ibid.



Technical requirements for commercial readiness of hydrail systems

A qualitative assessment of each of the hydrail system elements identified above is

presented below, focusing on the technical challenges that must be addressed to

catalyze sustained commercial adoption into railway applications in Canada.

• Hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production

Hydrogen production using steam methane reforming (SMR) and electrolysis of

water are both mature processes. Both involve proven technologies and have

been ongoing at an industrial scale for nearly a century. In Canada, the volume

of hydrogen produced and used is estimated at three million tonnes, according to

Natural Resources Canada,5 the largest share of which is in the petrochemical

upgrading and refining sector.

Innovations in technology and process continue, the main thrust of which is to

generate hydrogen that is effectively low, zero, or negative in carbon-intensity.

Although there are many new processes in development, ranging from waste-

based hydrogen production to artificial photosynthesis (i.e., photocatalytic

processes), the dominant methods are currently:

▪ electrolysis powered by low-carbon or renewable energy sources, and

▪ SMR coupled with carbon capture-and-sequestration or utilization.

5 Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. 2020.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen-Strategy-Canada-na-en-v3.pdf

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen-Strategy-Canada-na-en-v3.pdf



Hydrogen from “green” power generating sources, such as hydroelectric, nuclear,

wind and solar, is likewise considered green hydrogen. This hydrogen scores top

marks in sustainability and low climate impact. The challenge is that green

hydrogen is necessarily more expensive than the electricity used in its

production. To minimize the cost of the input electricity, it is best to tap the power

at the source or on the primary, high-voltage transmission lines, wherever

practical, as this helps to avoid paying the local uplift charges on the lower-

voltage distribution grid.

In contrast to electrolysis, the SMR process releases carbon dioxide to the

atmosphere as the hydrogen is stripped away from the carbon in the methane

molecule, CH4. However, if the CO2 is captured and stored, or if its is upcycled

into an inert, commercial product like carbon black, then the hydrogen produced

can be considered a net-zero carbon fuel. Such hydrogen is branded as “blue”

hydrogen. The advantage of this production process is that blue hydrogen can

potentially be less costly to produce than green hydrogen. The more of the CO2

that is permanently sequestered in the process of blue hydrogen production, the

closer its lifecycle carbon-intensity approaches zero.

The analyses presented in this report assume green hydrogen as the fuel in most

hydrail systems. This makes the scenarios studied more straightforward and the

cost estimates more conservative, but the study team acknowledges that the

future very likely involves a diverse range of hydrogen production feedstocks,

each with distinct environmental and economic attributes.

• Storage and distribution

Under normal pressure and temperature, hydrogen rapidly evaporates and

disperses. Once produced it must, therefore, be stored or shipped immediately.

At the production facility, hydrogen may be stored as compressed gas in

pressure vessels, or it may be chilled to a liquid state and kept in insulated,

double-walled tanks, called dewars. The hydrogen can then be transferred to a

tanker for transport over-the-road by truck or by railway as cargo, often in tube

trailers (in some cases, the storage and transport container could be one and the

same unit). The other possibility is that the hydrogen transferred to a pipeline for

transport to a local distribution node.



The technologies of hydrogen storage and

transport are quite mature. Hydrogen

delivered by tube trailer is common,

regulated practice. Hydrogen pipelines

currently operate in industrial clusters

near Edmonton and Sarnia, and several

thousand kilometers run throughout the

U.S.

Further research is focusing on the

prospect of solid-state hydrogen storage,

in which hydrogen is absorbed into

various materials (e.g., hydride materials) that promise the density of

compressed gas but under normal pressure. This draws on advanced materials

science and chemistry and is generally in the pre-commercial phase of

development. The prospect of storing large volumes of hydrogen without high

compression or refrigeration is compelling, as it would avoid some of the most

significant costs currently associated with storage and distribution.

• Dispensing facilities

Codes and standards exist for the design and operation of equipment and

installations used in the dispensing of hydrogen, both as a compressed gas or as

a cryogenic liquid. Thus, the technology can be considered mature. However, in

Canada, there are some gaps in measurement standards that are limiting the

sale of hydrogen at retail forecourts by mass (e.g., $12/kg at the local gas

station). However, this transaction issue is expected to be resolved soon. This is

not expected to interfere with bulk fuel purchases by railway operators, which do

not necessarily require metered dispensing.

Technically, refuelling of locomotives and fuel tenders with hydrogen at dedicated

facilities within railyards or along railways, as well as by transfer from a tanker at

roadside (e.g., using direct-to-locomotive, DTL, services), are all possible using

current technology. However, the practice is not common and standard

procedures are undeveloped.

Source: Fiba Canning.

http://primary.fibacanning.com/

http://primary.fibacanning.com/



• Locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime movers

o Fuel cell power modules

Fuel cell power modules are commercially available from several

established, international manufacturers, some of which are

headquartered in Canada. Fuel cells have logged years’ worth of duty-

hours in transit bus applications, for which they have proven reliable and

durable. For railway applications, however, there may yet be significant

room for performance optimization. But this won’t be known until they are

deployed into robust and regular railway service, from which the required

learnings will be generated.

Fuel cell power modules are composed of “stacks” of proton exchange

layers – the more layers the greater the voltage generated, generally

speaking – plus a “balance-of-plant,” which regulates the flow of air and

hydrogen gas, among other services. As with any energy conversion

device, the modules generate waste heat when operating, which must be

transferred away from the stack to keep temperatures within the proper

range. However, the temperature of the waste heat in such a fuel cell can

be quite low compared to, say, a diesel engine. As a result (and perhaps

counter-intuitively) a larger radiator may be needed to achieve the

required rate of heat transfer, since the difference in stack and ambient

temperatures can be so low. It is these kinds of factors that may result in

innovative redesigns of the stack and balance-of-plant to enable optimally

efficient thermal management solutions for locomotive applications.

Fuel cells are not expected to take up much room in a locomotive. They

occupy a modest volume, compared to the space that may be needed for

the battery packs, thermal management systems and hydrogen storage.

Nonetheless, power modules are expected to become incrementally more

compact and “power-dense” over time. By pairing fuel cells with batteries,

the respective size and cost of each can be minimized. Fuel cells can be

sized to produce the power needed by the locomotive systems on

average, while the battery pack can discharge rapidly to meet transient

demands for peak power. With this hybrid approach, the hydrogen and

fuel cells do what they are best at: delivering energy at low cost.

Concurrently, the batteries do what they are best at: producing power at

low cost.



To sum up, fuel cell power modules are high in technical readiness but

perhaps at mid-level commercial readiness for locomotive applications,

with the expectation of design improvements and system integration

optimizations to come. This is analogous to the consistent improvements

occurring in diesel engine performance since its introduction to the

railways 60 years ago. By contrast, light-duty FCEVs manufacturers are

currently deploying their second or third generation of fuel cell power plant

designs in consumer products (e.g., Toyota Mirai, Hyundai NEXO).

o Battery packs

Similar to fuel cell power modules, battery packs are a proven technology

that continues to undergo rapid improvements, as commercial adoption

expands into new markets and applications. Li-ion battery chemistry is

significantly favoured for vehicle applications, due to its high energy-

density and rapid charge-discharge characteristics, and this is true of early

hydrail deployments, as detailed in the previous section of this report.

The battery pack(s) serves two important functions: first, meeting the

transient demand for power, primarily in the traction motors; second (and

related), storing energy from dynamic braking (i.e., regenerative braking).

In switching duty where speeds are low, there is little opportunity to

capture and store braking energy, and mechanical brakes are used. In

higher-speed uses, such as linehaul and commuter duty, dynamic braking

is a critical function. Ideally, battery packs are capable of storing a large

portion of the breaking energy. Thus, switcher locomotives may be well-

served with relatively smaller battery packs, while linehaul locomotives

require more substantive energy storage solutions.

Some combination of battery packs and ultracapacitors may also develop

in the future. Ultracapacitors can store a terrific charge in a relatively small

volume. For frequent start-and-stop duty-cycles, such as in commuter rail,

ultracapacitors may work synergistically with batteries to manage

regenerative braking better, which could significantly improve overall

locomotive energy use efficiency. The combination of hydrogen fuel cells,

batteries and ultracapacitor technology, as shown in the image below,

spans the spectrum form high energy density to high power density,

possibly facilitating an optimal mix of locomotive drivetrain performance

attributes.



Although battery systems have proven to be robust and reliable in many

vehicle applications, commercial readiness in railway applications is yet to

be demonstrated. Vibration, shock and impulse, as well as weather

extremes, characterize locomotive working environments. How best to

keep battery packs within their proper operating conditions in real-world

locomotive service will be learned through operational trials.

o Controller

Programmable logic controller (PLC) units execute an algorithm that

responds to the locomotive operator’s input and to the needs of the

component subsystems to direct power where its needed, such as traction

motors and auxiliaries. Replacing the diesel with hydrogen components

requires a new algorithm and controller that can manage the distribution of

power from the fuel cells and battery packs through a connector bus to the

various loads within the locomotive. It must also manage the state-of-

charge of the battery pack and the thermal system, and feedback status to

the locomotive operator panel.

Suitable controller hardware is available off-the-shelf, but the algorithms

need to be defined, based on early-stage simulation, and then refined as

practical experience with locomotive operation builds over time.

Developing controller systems that better optimize the use of energy and

the durability of the locomotive subsystems is important innovation that

can happen quickly, the product of which is valuable IP.

o Onboard hydrogen storage tanks and liquefied hydrogen tenders

The equipment to store hydrogen as a compressed gas and as a

cryogenic liquid currently exists, but its practical use in North American

railway systems is very limited and likely requires significant adaptation.

Gaseous hydrogen stored in tanks onboard a locomotive (e.g., at 350 or

Energy density Power density

hydrogen battery ultracapacitor



700 bar) seems a practical way to start and has been used in switcher and

regional rail applications, where the locomotives can return to base each

night for refuelling. Commercially available tanks and valve systems can

be adapted to locomotives immediately for testing a trials, but refinements

in design to better serve railways would be expected over time.

In longer-range operations applications, a more energy-dense form of

hydrogen storage may be necessary. One option is to store liquefied

hydrogen in vacuum-insulated dewars, either onboard the locomotive or

on tender cars adjacent to the locomotive. The latter is the more obvious

solution for linehaul locomotives in freight service, as the full tenders could

be swapped with empties or multiple tenders could be hauled in the train.

Railway standards exist for the

transport of cryogenic liquids as

cargo, and these may provide a

starting point for development of a

liquefied hydrogen (LH2) tender

concept, as would CN’s testing of

cryogenic liquid natural gas as a

fuel. However, as with compressed

gas storage, the solutions would

evolve with experience gained in

real-world operation and involve

significant, new engineering.

Hydrogen released from a tank, due to a leak or rupture, will evaporate

into the air rapidly. Precautions must be taken to ensure that a detonable

mix of hydrogen and oxygen does not form in a contained area. Venting

hydrogen directly to atmosphere is usually the desired means of rendering

a hydrogen leak “safe”; that is, mitigating the risk of detonation. The safe

storage of hydrogen will be an overriding factor in the ongoing the

development of containment solutions.

Note that compressed hydrogen gas can be stored indefinitely, while LH2

cannot. LH2 begins to boil at −253 °C. As heat enters through tank

insulation the hydrogen will slowly phase-change to gas, and this “boil-off”

must be vented. Cryogenics storage is, therefore, temporary. The more

quickly the hydrogen can be used, the less will be lost to evaporation. The

Source: Globe & Mail. CN tries out liquefied

natural gas to power locomotives. 2013



boil-off can be captured and stored as gas but, again, this should be used

as part of a fuel consumption activity as opposed to a fuel storage activity.

Solid-state hydrogen storage technologies are also under development

but are considered at a pre-commercial stage. Such technologies may

eventually provide significantly greater freedoms in the geometry of

onboard storage designs, compared to gas or liquid tanks, making better

use of space and subsystem configuration. Traditionally, the density and

weight of solid-state storage is seen as a detriment in on-road vehicle

applications, but this may be an attractive quality in locomotives, where

the extra mass can improve traction at the wheel-rail interface.

o Thermal management and temperature control

Fuel cell power modules are usually air-cooled but many heat-transfer

approaches can be used, relying on commercially available systems and

components (e.g., blower fans, radiators, heat exchangers, temperature

sensors). Like a combustion engine, there are optimal temperature ranges

in which the energy conversion efficiency of fuel cells is optimized. In

addition to the fuel cells, heat from other locomotive subsystems must be

managed. Through simulations, testing and trials, synergies may emerge

that drive the development of more elegant thermal management

solutions. For example, perhaps heat from the fuel cells can be used to

condition the battery pack temperature in cold weather.

To summarize, all of the requisite elements of a hydrail system are commercially

available and can be integrated into a functional system. So, initial tests and trials of the

equipment in railway environment can proceed, from a technical perspective. However,

many of the system elements can be expected to undergo successive cycles of

incremental development over time, such that the technologies become better-adapted

to the practical operations of railways.

In this sense, technological readiness is high while commercial readiness is probably

low- to mid-range. Beginning with a working prototype, several design iterations are

likely needed before full commercial readiness is achieved, and the core value

proposition of zero-emission, low-carbon railway vehicles begins to drive market

adoption. The particulars of different railway usage cases are estimated as follows:



Commuter passenger – Composed of locomotives and (potentially) self-propelled

coaches, these vehicles tend to run on defined, daily routes. Due to the limited

range and pre-determined refuelling opportunities, compressed hydrogen gas or

LH2 stored onboard is the likely fuel mode. Hydrogen can be delivered over-the-

road to refuelling stations, or produced on-site via electrolysis or SMR. High

acceleration rates and regenerative braking will require robust battery and/or

ultracapacitor subsystems. Commercial readiness thus requires a priority on

adapting the optimal battery chemistry, battery pack and ultracapacitor system

design, as well as robust PLC.

Inter-city passenger – Passenger coaches hauled by locomotives are the

standard configuration, but the operating range between refuelling events is

longer than with commuter service. Thus, fuel tenders are anticipated for the

initial generations of this hydrail system, most likely carrying LH2. However, the

power demand for acceleration may be less than in commuter trains, and this

would alter the design parameters of the regenerative braking components. The

priority for technology development should, therefore, be on cryogenic fuel tender

design for safety, function (refuelling, connecting, disconnecting) and

interoperability with various locomotives and coaches.

Switcher locomotives – Due to their low-speed operation, regenerative braking is

a low priority. Switchers endure a punishing duty-cycle with ongoing shock and

vibration throughout the day – excellent for proving the durability of hydrogen-

electric locomotive components. Importantly, they do not travel far from home

base and usually return daily. This makes the refuelling solution and supply chain

challenges relatively simple, addressable with on-site gaseous dispensing using

common equipment. Switchers are, therefore, the railway application that is

perhaps closest to commercial viability. However, trials, testing and further

development are needed to validate these expectations.

Long-distance freight – In terms of value to the economy, energy use and GHG

emissions, the success of hydrail in this application is the most critical. All hydrail

system elements, including locomotive subsystem components will be put to the

most strenuous test, with the possible exception of impact forces endured by

switchers. It would be reasonable to orient all hydrail innovation efforts to the

series of challenges inherent in linehaul freight service because they help

advance critical milestones in the other usage case. Similarly, the other railway

services can be supported to some extent by the hydrogen infrastructure built to

serve freight service.



4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

In the previous section, the key elements of a hydrail system were explored, focusing on

the technological challenges to commercialization. In this section, the prospect of a

comprehensive adoption of hydrail systems, resulting in a complete transition from

diesel to hydrogen as the predominant fuel input to Canada’s railways, is visualized.

This is to establish a scale by which to assess the potential impacts of an industry-wide

hydrail transition at an operational level, as opposed to the level of a discrete project or

sector of activity. This will also provide a baseline against which to assess costs and

benefits to Canadian society, at a high level, addressed in the following sections of this

report.

4.1 Methodology

Extrapolation from Past Trends

To develop a scenario of future railway energy use and locomotive composition in

Canada for 2030, 2040 and 2050, the historical data reported in the RAC Locomotive

Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Report, 2017, were considered. Ratios of key data series

that were considered meaningful to the type of railway activity (i.e., mainline freight,

intercity/tourist, commuter) were calculated for 1990, 2009 and 2017 to establish

historical trends. For example, the trends for mainline freight included locomotive fleet

population-to-gross tonne kilometer, and diesel consumption-to-revenue tonne

kilometer; for commuter, diesel consumption-to-locomotive fleet population was used.

These trends, which indicate the pace of change and growth in railway activity over

time, were then extrapolated into the future to create a baseline scenario of locomotive

population and diesel use in 2030, 2040 and 2050.

The results of these extrapolations were then judged critically by the study team.

Parameters were incorporated into the extrapolations to moderate any trendlines that

skewed unrealistically. Factors to account for modest improvements in operational

efficiency and locomotive fuel efficiency were also added. The result is a set of

scenarios that project a plausible level of railway activity, locomotive population, and

diesel use, in the opinion of the study team, for each of the following groupings.



Mainline Freight (Class I and Regional and Short Line), Road/Yard Switching and Work

Trains

Historical data trends for gross tonne kilometre (GTK), revenue tonne kilometre (RTK),

diesel consumption and locomotive population data for 1990, 2009, and 2017 were

examined. It was noted that as GTK increased, improvements to overall system

operational efficiency resulted in fewer locomotives required per unit of GTK generated

by the railways. This was assumed to reflect the impacts of operational and logistical

changes, including the transformative scheduling protocols instituted by Hunter Harrison

for the Class 1 railways in the 1990s and 2000s. With no basis to assume a repeat of

that level of change to the GTK-to-locomotive ratio, that ratio was made to decline

gradually in the future. Combined with the projected increase in GTK, the projections

arrive at reasonable estimates (to the eyes of the study team) of the future locomotive

population in freight revenue service. Similarly, diesel use was projected as a function of

locomotives in service.

From these data – number of locomotives and their respective diesel consumption – a

hydrogen equivalency was determined. The assumption was each diesel locomotive is

displaced, over time, by one hydrogen-fueled unit of roughly equivalent functionality,

and the demand for tractive energy is provided by hydrogen and fuel cells instead of an

onboard diesel genset. This involved a corrective factor to account for the better

powertrain efficiency of the hydrogen-electric over the diesel-electric platform.

An excerpt from the study team’s spreadsheets is presented below, representing the

evolution of the projections based on existing, historical data. Note that the data tables

are more fully and legibly presented in appendices 2 through 8 of this report.

1990 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Gross Tonne-Kilometres (GTK) 433 580 815 88.22% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1,054 1,285 1,567

Revenue Tonne-Kilometres (RTK) 233 310 430 84.55% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 556 678 827

Diesel Litres (x 106) 1,960.85 1,763.18 2,036.64 3.87% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 2,076.25 2,107.24 2,138.70

No. of Locomotives 2,742 2,925 6.67% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 3,081 3,206 3,337

Locomotive per GTK 4.73 3.59 -24.08% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 2.85 2.58 2.45

Locomotive per RTK 8.85 6.80 -23.10% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 5.41 4.89 4.65

Diesel Litres per GTK 4.529 3.040 2.499 -17.80% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 1.922 1.570 1.283

Diesel Litres per RTK 8.416 5.688 4.736 -16.73% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 3.642 2.976 2.432

No. of Locomotives (based on GTK, RTK) 3,008 3,316 3,844

Total Diesel Litres (based on GTK, RTK) 2,026,074,852 2,017,985,125 2,009,927,698

Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 5,605,874,086 5,689,553,548 5,774,482,102

Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 11,211,748,172 11,379,107,096 11,548,964,205

Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 333,682,981 338,663,902 343,719,173

Parameter

ProjectionExisting Data

Growth

% Overall

% per Year



Intercity/Tourist

Based on data in the 2017 LEM report for 2006, 2009 and 2017, a ratio for diesel

consumption-to-locomotive population was calculated. However, the trend in diesel

consumption is sharply negative in the 2006 to 2017 period, presumably due to changes

in service operations and locomotive efficiency. Yet, locomotive population increased

from 2009 to 2017. So, the rates of change were moderated and held constant for the

2030 to 2050 period, resulting in an estimated 106 locomotives in 2050 (based on a 1-

for-1 conversion) consuming 4,161 tonnes of hydrogen, annually.

Commuter

The 2017 LEM report shows a consistent growth trend in commuter rail service.

Locomotive population increases, as well, but diesel use increases at an even higher

rate. This could be the result of a movement within the industry toward higher-powered

locomotives, which consume more fuel but also move more passengers. Thus, a simple

2% annual growth rate was applied to locomotive population and to diesel use, resulting

in 242 locomotives in 2050 consuming 34,927 tonnes of hydrogen, annually.

2006 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Diesel Litres (x 106) 64.30 63.50 51.00 -20.68% -2.08% -2.08% -2.08% 38.78 31.42 25.45

No. of Locomotives 77 82 6.49% 0.79% 0.79% 0.79% 91 98 106

Diesel Litres per Locomotive 824,675 621,951 -24.58% -2.53% -2.53% -2.53% 445,607 344,798 266,794

Total Diesel Litres 63,500,000 51,000,000 40,473,057 33,879,113 28,359,466

Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 104,711,605 84,820,960 68,708,671

Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 209,423,210 169,641,920 137,417,342


% Overall

% per YearExisting Data

Parameter

Projection

Projection to 2050 Based on Historical Trend from 2006 to 2017

Growth

2006 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Diesel Litres (x 106) 34.20 42.70 64.50 88.60% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 83.44 101.71 123.98


Diesel Litres per Locomotive 335,294 511,905 52.67% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 662,203 807,222 983,999





Existing Data

Growth

% Overall

% per Year Projection

2% Annual Growth Projection (from 2018 onwards)

Parameter



Fleet Turnover Schedule

The study team also modeled a hypothetical rate of hydrail transition, composed of

conversions of existing locomotives (i.e., remanufactured) as well as introductions of

freshly manufactured, hydrogen-fuelled locomotives to meet the incremental growth in

the overall fleet. In the future scenario, conversions begin in 2030, at a pace of

approximately 165 units annually. Freshly manufactured units also enter service

beginning in 2030, ranging between 30 and 65 units, annually. At these rates, the entire

locomotive fleet in Canada can be turned over, from diesel to hydrogen operation, by

2050, as shown in the tables and charts that follow.

The following assumptions were made to simplify the schedule:

▪ Hydrogen fuel cell-electric locomotives begin entering normal service in 2031

(ten years from now).

▪ Locomotives in-service in 2030 enter an aggressive program of remanufacture to

convert from diesel to hydrogen.

▪ Incremental growth in the fleet population is met by freshly manufactured

locomotives, originally designed as hydrogen-powered.

▪ No freshly manufactured switcher locomotives are forecasted; the assumption is

that the current fleet is sufficient to serve growth in service until 2050 and will

undergo conversion (see Note below).

▪ Some data series show no additions or conversion for several years, and then

suddenly jump by an increment. This reflects an assumption that prototype work

on several locomotive units has being ongoing, including a period of trials and

testing. The units then enter the fleet all at once. This is an artifact of the study

team’s choice to defer transition within the fleet for as long as possible, and to

keep the pace of transition reasonably low thereafter. This attempt at balance

produces some discontinuities in the turnover schedule, but the effects are

negligible to the overall scale of the impacts inherent in transition hypothesized.

Note: To develop the turnover schedule for mainline freight activity, the future

projections of the locomotive population was further broken down by service

classification. The result is that in 2050 there are 2,872 locomotives in Class 1 linehaul

service, 397 in regional and short line work, and 576 in road and yard switching and

work, for a total of 3,845 (a difference of +1 from the initial projection to eliminate any

fraction of a whole locomotive). Respectively, these fleets are estimated to consume

375,313 tonnes, 22,438 tonnes, and 8,721 tonnes of hydrogen, annually. The service

distinctions are relevant to the fleet turnover scenarios that follow.



Locomotive growth profile – 2031 through 2050

Freshly manufactured hydrogen locomotives (incremental growth from 2030)

Remanufactured locomotive, converted to hydrogen (applied to existing fleet in 2030)

Total hydrogen locomotives (increasing over time)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 2,163 2,189 2,215 2,242 2,269 2,296 2,323 2,351 2,379 2,407

Regional & Short Line 299 302 306 310 313 317 321 325 329 332

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98

166 170 173 176 180 184 187 191 195 199

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 2,451 2,495 2,540 2,585 2,631 2,678 2,725 2,773 2,822 2,872


576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

99 100 101 101 102 103 104 105 105 106

203 207 211 215 219 224 228 233 237 242

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 43 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 50


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 26 25 25 59 59 58 75 75 75 174


7 7 6 16 15 15 20 20 20 47

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 1 5 4 5 5 6 6 12

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 175 175 167 167 167 141 142 141 100 100


46 47 45 43 45 38 38 38 27 27

4 4 4 8 8 8 11 11 21 10

13 13 12 12 12 11 11 9 7 8

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 62 113 164 249 335 420 523 626 729 931


17 24 30 46 62 77 97 117 137 184

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

16 21 26 34 41 49 58 67 77 92Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,150 1,369 1,581 1,794 2,007 2,195 2,384 2,574 2,723 2,872


230 277 321 365 409 447 484 522 549 576

15 19 24 32 41 49 61 74 96 106

109 126 142 158 174 189 204 218 229 242

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Total diesel locomotives (declining to zero by 2050)

Prior to 2031: It is assumed that significant prototyping and demonstration work is

underway in the years leading up to 2030, producing approximately 10 initial hydrogen

locomotives that are ready to enter service in each of the identified service

classifications. In the charts above, this initial 10-unit deployment appears in the total

hydrogen locomotive row in 2031, except for the Intercity & Tourist service, in which it

appears later in 2040 (since the smaller fleet requires less time to turnover). In the

visualization that follow, these initial units are included in the Hydrogen OEMs data plot.

Furthermore, these units are considered freshly manufactured for the purposes of

estimating costs (later addressed in section 5 this report).

Turnover schedule by locomotive service, visualized

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 2,101 2,076 2,051 1,993 1,934 1,876 1,801 1,726 1,650 1,476


559 552 546 530 514 499 479 459 439 392

92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 88

151 148 147 142 139 134 130 124 118 106Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,301 1,126 959 792 624 483 341 200 100 0


346 299 255 211 167 129 92 54 27 0

84 81 77 69 61 54 42 31 10 0

93 81 69 57 46 35 25 15 8 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Note that the practicality of the scenario depicted in the foregoing matter is not debated

or defended by the study team. This work should be viewed as a thought-experiment,

intended to help assess the scale of the transition hypothesized in terms of technology,

infrastructure and operational change. The rate of manufacturing was chosen to

produce a complete transition of the locomotive fleet by 2050, while attempting to keep

the rate of production to within levels that are not wholly unprecedented within industry.

The more pressing question is how fast can hydrail commercialization occur and

industry-wide adoption take place? That issue is addressed later in this section.

Fuel Consumption – transition from diesel to hydrogen

The changes in fuel consumption associated with locomotive fleet turnover in the hydrail

transition scenario were based on past trends in sector-wide diesel consumption in

relation to locomotive population. These trends show changes in the ratios of

locomotives-to-diesel use over time, reflecting efficiency improvements in railway

logistics and operations, as well as locomotive powertrains. The study team’s future

projections of these trends incorporated continued improvement in operational and

powertrain efficiency at modest levels.



However, unlike in the initial projection of diesel use, which was based on fleetwide

consumption data, the study team’s approach to developing the transition scenario uses

a per-locomotive average fuel consumption rate for each locomotive class (based on

locomotive data from the RAC LEM report, 2017). This consumption rate was then

applied to the number of diesel locomotives in each class to develop annual fuel

consumption estimates from 2030 to 2050 for two cases:

• business-as-usual, in which all locomotives continue to operate on diesel; and

• hydrail transition, in which all incremental growth in the locomotive population

from 2030 onward are freshly manufactured as dedicated hydrogen-powered

locomotives, and diesel-powered locomotives existing by the end of 2030 are

subject to a rate of remanufacture until the entire fleet is converted to hydrogen

by 2050.

Note that the sum of individual locomotives and their respective annual fuel

consumptions produces an estimate that is higher than the initial, fleetwide projection,

the effect of which is to make the transition scenario somewhat more conservative.

The volume of hydrogen that displaces diesel must deliver the same tractive effort.

Hydrogen is converted into tractive effort more efficiently than diesel, so the total energy

content needed in the business-as-usual case (i.e., all-diesel) is more than that needed

in the hydrail transition scenario. The following factors are used to account for the

differences in energy content and effective energy use between diesel and hydrogen in

locomotives with electric traction motors.

Hydrail transition scenario energy parameters

Energy content Diesel 10 kWh/litre

Hydrogen 33.6 kWh/kg

Conversion efficiency

Diesel engine 30%

Alternator 90%

Fuel cell 50%



Annual diesel use per locomotive (in litres) – business-as-usual

Note: Diesel use per locomotive increases over time in commuter rail, unlike in other classes of railway

activity. This reflects an increase in locomotive power rating over time, as the fleet migrates to higher-

traction, faster-accelerating units.

Total annual diesel use (in litres, entire fleet) – business-as-usual

Total diesel use increases by 34% during this period, as total locomotive population

increases by 27%.

Total annual diesel use (in litres, entire fleet) – declining to zero under hydrail transition

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 898,465 898,107 897,748 897,390 897,031 896,673 896,315 895,957 895,600 895,242

Regional & Short Line 389,082 388,926 388,771 388,616 388,461 388,306 388,151 387,996 387,841 387,686

104,104 104,062 104,021 103,979 103,938 103,896 103,855 103,813 103,772 103,730

434,323 423,326 412,606 402,158 391,975 382,049 372,375 362,946 353,755 344,798

675,447 688,956 702,736 716,790 731,126 745,749 760,664 775,877 791,394 807,222

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 894,885 894,527 894,170 893,813 893,456 893,099 892,743 892,386 892,030 891,674


103,689 103,647 103,606 103,565 103,523 103,482 103,441 103,399 103,358 103,317

336,067 327,557 319,262 311,178 303,298 295,618 288,133 280,837 273,725 266,794

823,367 839,834 856,631 873,763 891,239 909,063 927,245 945,790 964,705 983,999

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 1,943,083,417 1,965,796,739 1,988,721,715 2,011,860,334 2,035,214,606 2,058,786,556 2,082,578,232 2,106,591,699 2,130,829,041 2,155,292,363

Regional & Short Line 116,189,268 117,547,441 118,918,271 120,301,875 121,698,375 123,107,891 124,530,546 125,966,464 127,415,768 128,878,585

59,963,801 59,939,858 59,915,925 59,892,002 59,868,088 59,844,184 59,820,290 59,796,404 59,772,529 59,748,663

39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 33,879,113

112,296,061 116,832,822 121,552,868 126,463,604 131,572,734 136,888,272 142,418,558 148,172,268 154,158,428 160,386,428

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 2,193,281,255 2,231,818,092 2,270,910,819 2,310,567,494 2,350,796,291 2,391,605,506 2,433,003,551 2,474,998,964 2,517,600,403 2,560,816,655


59,724,806 59,700,959 59,677,122 59,653,294 59,629,476 59,605,667 59,581,867 59,558,077 59,534,297 59,510,526

33,281,940 32,695,293 32,118,986 31,552,838 30,996,670 30,450,304 29,913,570 29,386,296 28,868,316 28,359,466

166,866,040 173,607,428 180,621,168 187,918,263 195,510,161 203,408,771 211,626,486 220,176,196 229,071,314 238,325,795

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 1,887,574,516 1,864,632,938 1,841,709,379 1,788,187,851 1,734,708,770 1,682,326,991 1,614,169,875 1,546,066,920 1,478,018,091 1,321,554,833


58,189,284 57,432,865 56,799,189 55,067,110 53,458,456 51,851,078 49,757,160 47,664,906 45,574,314 40,683,805

39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 30,431,137

101,761,940 102,187,861 103,410,866 102,130,415 101,611,291 100,159,562 98,609,119 96,050,417 93,349,924 85,789,060


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,164,163,508 1,006,897,659 857,120,761 707,463,309 557,925,230 431,621,328 304,367,943 178,265,945 88,994,231 0

Regional & Short Line 67,286,322 58,172,854 49,520,801 40,875,647 32,237,390 24,966,839 17,702,089 10,443,136 5,455,287 0

35,918,954 31,036,190 26,400,644 21,890,407 17,262,204 13,366,791 9,474,485 5,585,286 2,791,528 0

28,374,743 26,402,980 24,512,881 21,510,979 18,645,388 15,911,128 12,200,965 8,668,496 2,700,760 0

76,926,779 67,675,691 59,024,282 49,999,745 40,590,618 31,846,856 22,737,107 14,354,854 7,881,650 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type



Total annual hydrogen use (in kilograms) – hydrail transition

Annual hydrogen use per locomotive (in kilograms) – hydrail transition

Total diesel displaced by hydrogen use (in litres) – hydrail transition

The tables above frame the scale of energy system transition required under the

hypothetical hydrail scenario. Namely, that a system capable of supplying roughly 3

billion litres of diesel in 2050 is replaced by a new hydrogen supply chain, capable of

producing, distributing and dispensing roughly 450,000 tonnes of hydrogen to more than

4,000 locomotives across Canada.

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 8,633,297 15,683,410 22,718,252 34,454,342 46,142,275 57,621,362 71,468,273 85,253,318 98,977,401 126,012,726


275,990 388,659 481,639 743,223 984,191 1,223,435 1,535,401 1,845,147 2,152,694 2,881,500

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521,134

1,638,371 2,270,406 2,803,537 3,748,266 4,600,540 5,621,741 6,684,306 7,927,501 9,219,618 11,274,793

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 155,056,803 183,983,376 211,692,167 239,295,737 266,796,289 290,766,883 314,817,931 338,640,190 356,992,414 375,312,732


3,586,819 4,305,456 4,982,614 5,636,875 6,304,654 6,859,613 7,410,711 7,957,980 8,340,890 8,721,147

739,366 945,107 1,138,891 1,498,951 1,837,988 2,156,911 2,619,634 3,054,721 3,846,494 4,161,235

13,551,116 15,910,975 18,207,165 20,587,129 23,053,503 25,451,493 27,936,093 30,347,183 32,513,725 34,926,967

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 139,738 139,233 138,732 138,233 137,738 137,246 136,757 136,271 135,788 135,309


16,191 16,133 16,075 16,017 15,959 15,902 15,846 15,790 15,734 15,678

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52,113

105,052 106,809 108,596 110,414 112,263 114,145 116,060 118,007 119,989 122,005

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 134,832 134,358 133,887 133,420 132,955 132,493 132,034 131,577 131,124 130,673


15,623 15,568 15,513 15,459 15,405 15,352 15,299 15,246 15,193 15,141

50,635 49,199 47,804 46,450 45,134 43,855 42,614 41,408 40,236 39,098

124,056 126,143 128,267 130,427 132,625 134,861 137,136 139,451 141,807 144,203

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 55,508,902 101,163,801 147,012,336 223,672,483 300,505,836 376,459,566 468,408,357 560,524,779 652,810,950 833,737,530


1,774,517 2,506,994 3,116,737 4,824,892 6,409,632 7,993,106 10,063,130 12,131,499 14,198,215 19,064,858

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,447,976

10,534,121 14,644,961 18,142,002 24,333,190 29,961,443 36,728,710 43,809,440 52,121,851 60,808,503 74,597,368

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,029,117,747 1,224,920,433 1,413,790,058 1,603,104,185 1,792,871,061 1,959,984,177 2,128,635,609 2,296,733,019 2,428,606,172 2,561,022,877


23,805,853 28,664,770 33,276,478 37,762,887 42,367,272 46,238,876 50,107,382 53,972,792 56,742,769 59,510,526

4,907,197 6,292,313 7,606,106 10,041,859 12,351,282 14,539,177 17,712,605 20,717,799 26,167,555 28,395,035

89,939,261 105,931,737 121,596,886 137,918,518 154,919,543 171,561,916 188,889,379 205,821,342 221,189,664 238,331,271

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Fuel consumption by locomotive service, visualized



The foregoing descriptions of the methodologies and the resulting figures provide a

high-level characterization of the hypothetical hydrail transition scenario used in this

study, in terms of locomotive population and hydrogen use by classification of railway

activity in Canada. These gross values, in the following subsection, are translated into

more tangible expressions of the transition scenario, including how the locomotive

refuelling system might evolve.

Scenario assumptions – locomotives and refuelling infrastructure

To estimate the operational impacts and implications for infrastructure, as well as capital

expenses and operating cost impacts, of the envisioned hydrail transition scenario,

assumptions about locomotive design and hydrogen fuel supply are needed. The object

of these assumptions is not to predict future designs or engineered solutions; rather, it is

to roll-up high-level estimates of total costs associated with the transition. Order-of-

magnitude accuracy is considered sufficient in this exercise and, within these bounds,

any number of diverse solutions could develop. For example, liquefied hydrogen carried

in fuel tenders may currently appear necessary to meet the range and flexibility

requirements of mainline locomotive operations, but in due course, practical experience

may prove that compressed gaseous hydrogen is more appropriate. Or perhaps solid-

state hydrogen storage solutions will emerge. Much will depend on how future

technology will adapt to evolving railway needs. Regardless of the alternatives

assumed, the overall cost of the transition scenario is unlikely to vary much.

In the pages that follow, a discrete solution is presented for each of the four sectors of

railway activity. These solutions describe the hydrogen locomotive and refuelling

parameters that will be assumed for the analysis of infrastructure requirements. Each

solution represents an ‘average’ of possible designs for the application, recognizing that

in practice many different locomotive designs and refuelling solutions could be deployed

into use simultaneously. These concepts will be used as common factors in the

scenario arithmetic to sum up the volumes of fuel throughput, CapEx, OpEx, emissions,

and so on.



Mainline Freight – Class 1, and Regional and Short Line

Long Distance Trans-Canada Freight Service and Regional Service

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations:

▪ AAR wheel arrangement C-C, 2 trucks x 3 powered axles each

▪ [750-hp traction motor] x [6 axles] = 4,500 hp, approximately 3,350 kW

▪ Fuel tender for cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2)

o Based on available fuel consumption data, the range between refuelling

events for the reference locomotive, operating consistently at notch-8 (an

extreme case), was conservatively estimated at approximately 1,200 km.

To achieve comparable range, LH2 is required at roughly 4,500 kg per the

calculation given below:

▪ Calculating engine operating duration:

Fuel tank volume = 35,650 lb

Fuel consumption at Notch 8 = 1,503 lb/hour

Adjustment factor = 90%

(35,650 lb ÷ 1,503 lb/hour) x 90% = 21.35 hours available

▪ Calculating consumption rate:

At-the-rail efficiency = 47%

Energy content = 33.3 kWh/kg

3,350 kW ÷ (33.3 kWh/kg x 47%) = 214 kg/hour

▪ Calculating LH2 requirement:

21.35 hours x 214 kg/hour = 4,568 kg

o Conceptually, it is assumed that this mass is stored and transported in a

cryogenic storage dewar within the dimensions of a 50-foot standard

boxcar, similar to the configuration shown in the image below, carrying up

to approximately 7,700 kg at 25 psi with a boil-off rate 0.3-0.6% per day.

Demonstrations involving the transport of liquefied natural gas offer some

inspiration but designing an LH2 tender is an entirely new undertaking.

Model GE ES44AC – similar to

reference locomotive characteristics

Locomotive supplied with LNG from

tender car – similar to reference

locomotive concept



Hydrogen dispensing solution:

▪ A combination of refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer, and Direct-to-

Locomotive (DTL) refuelling, in which LH2 tankers are hauled to locomotives over

the road by truck or by rail, is considered for this scenario.

▪ The map below imagines a distribution of LH2 facilities throughout the network of

Class 1, regional and short lines in Canada. Each is conservatively assumed to

service a straight-line range from destination of approximately 800 km, which

appears to provide extensive coverage of the network.

▪ The red markers represent the prospective localities of LH2 facilities near major

cities and assume 3 stations per locality. The green markers represent inter-

urban facility sites that uphold refuelling services in the stretches between major

centres. 2 stations are assumed for each. Red (14 x 3) + green (12 x 2) = 66 LH2

facilities serving the network.



Note: For the above analysis, a detailed mapping of Canada’s railway network was

created (see appendix 1). This tool informs the selection of sites based on evidence of

enabling infrastructure, such as railway sidings and spurs, where tankers might be

queued, and convergence with roadways, where DTL services could occur. However, a

detailed siting analysis is beyond the scope of this study, requiring predictions about

technology and logistics that may be impractical to make at this early stage of hydrail

system development.

Road Switching, Yard Switching and Work Train

Freight Service, restricted to locomotive switchers in railway/marshalling yards

The current population of switcher locomotives across Canada (i.e., 576 units) was kept

constant throughout the scenario evolution to 2050, reflecting a judgement that a fleet of

this size is capable of serving the growth in GTK and RTK, assuming ongoing

refurbishment and replacement. Energy use characteristics for a switcher locomotive

have been estimated, based on an industry-standard duty-cycle, and adjusted to

reconcile with per-locomotive averages in the fleet:

▪ Diesel use –103,317 L annually

▪ Hydrogen use –15,141 kg annually

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for freight switcher

activity:

▪ AAR wheel arrangement B-B, 2 trucks x 2 powered axles each

▪ [500-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] = 2,000 hp, approximately 1,500 kW

▪ Onboard hydrogen storage, 100 kg at 350 bar, refuelling no more frequently than

once daily

Model EMD GP38-2 – similar to





▪ Refuelling with pressurized hydrogen gas at 350 bar at hydrogen stations or

within railyards equipped with refuelling systems, or at other dispensing stations

nearby.

▪ Based on the map of Canada’s freight railways, an estimated 110 switchyards of

significant size and activity exist. However, there are nearly 600 switchers. If a

compressed hydrogen dispensing station can serve a fleet of 10 switchers, then

60 such stations would be required, at least. By choosing the mid-point of these

options, 85 compressed hydrogen dispensing stations is assumed to be

satisfactory to service the switcher fleet in this scenario.

Intercity / Tourist Locomotives

Inter-City Passenger Rail Service

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for intercity

passenger activity:


▪ [1,000-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] = 4,000 hp, approximately 3,000 kW

▪ As with mainline freight locomotives, a fuel tender with LH2 is considered for the

scenario calculations, but an onboard LH2 storage solution may also be possible.


▪ Combination of refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer, and Direct-to-

Locomotive (DTL) refuelling, in which LH2 tankers are hauled to locomotives over

the road by truck or by rail according to a pre-arranged schedules.

▪ It is assumed that intercity locomotives could rely on access to mainline and

commuter refuelling facilities under appropriate commercial terms, or can be

served by DTL services. Under this reasoning, no dedicated refuelling facilities

are assumed in the transition scenario.

Siemens Charger model – similar to




Commuter Rail Locomotives

Commuter Passenger Rail

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for regional commuter

activity:


▪ [1,150-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] + (800-hp head-end) = 5,400 hp,

approximately 4,000 kW

▪ Onboard storage of LH2 is considered a feasible and flexible solution, and this

will be assumed in the scenario calculations.

o Note that commuter locomotives of this reference type may well be

designed with 700-bar compressed hydrogen gas storage onboard instead

of LH2. Accordingly, this would require compressed gas dispensing 700-

bar. In the judgement of the study team, the cost differences between the

high-pressure and cryogenic hydrogen options at-scale may be negligible,

and liquefied hydrogen was chosen for the sake of logistical simplicity.


▪ Refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer on a regular schedule within the

commuter railway network.

▪ Based on a review of the commuter railways – GO in Ontario, AMT in Quebec,

WCE in BC – a total 18 LH2 facilities is considered an appropriate estimate to

serve the future fuel demands of these operations, per the scenario projections.

This assumes refuelling at the outer termination points of the lines comprising the

networks, plus provision for some supplemental stations near network hubs.

MP54AC model – similar to reference

locomotive characteristics



o The study team recognizes that there are plans to convert GO service to a

catenary-electrified system composed of locomotives and self-propelled

coaches drawing power directly from overhead lines. It is further

acknowledged that should hydrail systems be deployed along some of the

GO lines, 700-bar gaseous hydrogen may be chosen over LH2 as the

onboard fuel. This makes the transition scenario all the more conservative

in its hypothetical projections.

4.2 Operational impacts of hydrail transition scenario – discussion

Imagining hydrail systems from a day-to-day operations perspective, it is possible to see

how a transition from diesel to hydrogen could be less disruptive than the transition from

coal to diesel had been. Steam locomotives needed tremendous volumes of coal and

water to operate, and traction was mechanically-powered. In contrast, both diesel and

hydrogen locomotives operate on a single fuel and are electrically-driven. Aside from

changes to the knowledge infrastructure, such as training, certification and regulation,

the operational logistics are fairly analogous. Both diesel and hydrogen locomotives

deliver tractive effort to haul trains and are refuelled as needed. If more tractive power is

needed, then more locomotives can be added to the train. Ideally, each diesel

locomotive can be replaced by one hydrogen locomotive, as similar power output

ratings can be achieved.

There is one fundamental aspect of hydrail systems, however, that will require

significant, physical change. That is, the volumetric energy density of hydrogen is a

fraction of diesel. LH2 has less than a quarter the energy content per unit volume as

diesel. Therefore, larger fuel storage volumes will be required. On the other hand, a

hydrogen powertrain composed of fuel cells and batteries is expected to be roughly

twice as efficient in producing tractive power than a diesel genset. That means a

locomotive powered by LH2 might only travel half as far as an equivalent diesel

locomotive, assuming the same volume of fuel has been provided in each case. The

gap is even wider with compressed hydrogen gas.



The logical conclusion is that hydrail systems will necessarily involve more frequent

refuelling events or be equipped with greater volumes of fuel. That is why LH2 tenders

were assumed in the reference case locomotives described in the previous section of

this report. By this means, hydrogen-powered locomotives may be provided with a

range comparable to diesel-powered locomotives, or at least with a range sufficient to

travel comfortably between refuelling facilities.

Hydrogen supply chain

A robust system of diesel supply to Canada’s freight railways is the established

reference case against which an emerging hydrogen supply chain would be evaluated.

Most of Canada’s refining capacity is concentrated in northern Alberta, southern

Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.6 By contrast, the energy infrastructure needed to

produce “green” hydrogen is more widely distributed across the country. A study

produced by Change Energy for Natural Resources Canada in 20197 included the

following findings:

▪ Six provinces have enough green power production capacity to spare for clean

hydrogen production via industrial-scale electrolysis without compromising other

critical uses of electricity: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New

Brunswick and Newfoundland & Labrador.

▪ Combined, the annual hydrogen production potential in these jurisdictions is

nearly four (4) megatonnes. This is a sufficient volume of energy to satisfy

6 Canada’s Refining Sector. Canadian Fuels Association. https://www.canadianfuels.ca/our-industry/fuel-production/ 7 Production Potential for Clean Hydrogen Within Canada. Produced for the Transportation and Alternative Fuels Division of Natural

Resources Canada. 2019, Change Energy Services Inc.

This chart from the

U.S. Energy

Information Agency

compares fuels by

their energy content

specific to volume

and mass. Gasoline

is the reference fuel.

Compressed and

liquefied hydrogen

are highlighted.

https://www.eia.gov/t

odayinenergy/detail.

php?id=9991

https://www.canadianfuels.ca/our-industry/fuel-production/

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991





approximately half of current transportation energy demand in Canada,

represented by gasoline and diesel consumption.

▪ The estimated hydrogen production potential could be fulfilled by 2,555

electrolysis plants rated at 10 MW each, 257 at 100 MW or 89 at 300 MW.

Respectively, the costs of delivering this volume of hydrogen to points of export

are $12.26, $10.81 and $10.76 per kilogram assuming electricity priced at 14

cents/kWh, or $6.55, $5.09 and $5.05 per kilogram is electricity if supplied at 3

cents/kWh. For comparison, note that the cost of diesel at $1.00/litre is roughly

equal to hydrogen at $7.57 per kilogram.

Moreover, a geospatial analysis of the requisite energy and transportation infrastructure

to produce and mobilize hydrogen identified a “strong convergence” of power, water,

pipeline, road and rail, which made siting of electrolysis plants a fairly simple prospect

with a great flexibility of options. The following image taken from the report illustrates

the functional alignment of high-voltage transmission lines and electrical substations,

highways, natural gas pipelines and railways, in Ontario. Maps of the other provinces

studied show similar coincidence of enabling infrastructure.

Alberta and Saskatchewan were not reviewed, as the study focused on regions with

low-carbon generating assets only. Yet the Prairie Provinces are poised to become

large producers of “blue” hydrogen, which only adds to the range of hydrogen supply

options, increasing the volumes significantly from the estimated 4 megatonnes of green

hydrogen production potential. Therefore, in the most pessimistic case, the total

demand for low-carbon hydrogen from Canada’s railway operations in 2050 would

represent less than a tenth of the country’s production potential.



Given that the feedstocks for low-carbon hydrogen production are primarily water,

electricity and natural gas, and given that the estimated supply potential vastly exceeds

the total demand of the railways forecasted in the hydrail transition herein, no physical

barriers to access are identified. Furthermore, no substantive amounts of new energy or

transportation infrastructure would need to be built to facilitate production. Short runs of

power lines and new grid interconnections, or short spurs off existing rights-of-way,

ought to suffice.

Ready access to all the required feedstocks may exist at some railway facilities. In

these cases, the operator may choose to produce hydrogen on-site (as described

earlier, in Section 3). In other cases, delivery of hydrogen may be the more practical

option. In both cases, storage of hydrogen on-site may be required. If dispensing of

compressed hydrogen is needed, as may be the case for switcher locomotives, then a

system of pressure tanks and compressors may be part of the equipment installed.

Transfer of compressed gas can take time – a “fast fill” may take as long as 30 minutes



if the onboard storage capacity is large. Slower fill facilities cost less and may work well

within a schedule where switchers are out-of-service for several hours each day, during

which they can refuel on a predictable schedule.

Transfer of LH2 has the advantage of

speed. As a liquid, hydrogen is decanted

into dewars for storage; conceptually, a

similar system might be adapted for

locomotive or tender refueling, thereby

enabling a faster transfer of hydrogen. As

with compressed hydrogen, LH2 can be

produced at a facility on-site using

compressor-refrigeration equipment.

Alternatively, it can produced elsewhere –

say, at a large, centralized facility – and

then delivered by truck (or by rail). An LH2

facility could be sized to refuel locomotives

only, or it could serve as a node in a larger network of hydrogen distribution and

dispensing services. The image below, sourced from a U.S. Department of Energy

report, Liquid Hydrogen Production and Delivery from a Dedicated Wind Power Plant,8

illustrates the movement of hydrogen by rail from production sites to terminals. This

identifies the role of a railway as a hydrogen distribution channel in and of itself.

Where railways are operating their own hydrogen production, storage and dispensing

equipment, training for personnel will be required to attain certifications for operations

and maintenance. Local regulatory and safety authorities, including safety agencies, fire

chiefs and other first responders, should also be engaged to understand how to handle

emergencies. A regulatory framework for hydrogen equipment and installations already

8 Argonne National Laboratory. Liquid Hydrogen Production and Delivery from a Dedicated Wind Power Plant. 2012.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/downloads/liquid-hydrogen-production-and-delivery-dedicated-wind-power-plant

Source: California Fuel Cell Partnership.

https://h2stationmaps.com/hydrogen-stations

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/downloads/liquid-hydrogen-production-and-delivery-dedicated-wind-power-plant

https://h2stationmaps.com/hydrogen-stations



exists in Canada and the U.S., discussed later in this section, and the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) provides the relevant training programs.

As procedurally analogous to diesel systems as on-site hydrogen storage and refuelling

of locomotives may appear, it nonetheless represents a distinct, parallel energy system

to manage within the railyard. During a period of hydrail transition, it is likely that

personnel will need to maintain two systems – diesel and hydrogen. This creates three,

distinct operational regimes: all diesel → both diesel and hydrail → all hydrail.

Moreover, while the handling of hydrogen in compressed gas and cryogenic liquid form

may be routine in other industries, it is entirely novel to North American railway

operations. The challenges of adapting hydrogen systems should not be considered

easy or trivial.

Locomotive operations and maintenance

Training in the operation of locomotives is not expected to change substantially, except

in the areas of the operator input and the dynamic response of the hydrail powertrain.

Just as hybrid-electric automobiles “feel” different from conventional cars during

acceleration and braking, locomotive operators should expect some differences – during

a hydrail transition, there will be a period of overlap, in which operators must be

prepared to manage both diesel and hydrogen powertrains, interchangeably and

alongside each other, requiring development of safety procedures and training.

The sound of a hydrogen locomotive may require some operational adaptation. The

high-amplitude, low-frequency of the diesel engine and generator sets will be

substituted by the low-amplitude, higher-frequency sounds of the blowers and gas

plumbing systems. The locomotive will not be silent, but the operating sounds will be at

a much lower decibel rating and dissipate over a shorter distance. Personnel may need

to rely on additional audible signals (i.e., horn, bell) for added safety.

Locomotive start up procedures are expected to be similar. As with a diesel engine, the

fuel cells will run at idle when there is no external demand for power. Fuel cells must

generate minimal power to maintain proper internal conditions (e.g., temperature,

humidity) for the immediate ramp up of current. Batteries, too, must be kept under

certain conditions for operational efficiency. So, both diesel and fuel cell-powered

locomotives will run at a stand-by power level when operationally available.



Some of these procedures may vary seasonally, requiring special cold-weather

management. Some commercial fuel cell power modules, for example, are capable of

cold storage at -40 degrees Celsius, and start up from a cold-soak below -30 degrees

Celsius, so cold-weather operation is not expected to be a barrier. However, if the

converted locomotive has been shut down for an extended period of time, there may be

some special procedures to follow for storage and start-up. In very warm ambient

conditions, the performance of the radiator cooling system is crucial. If thermal

management is not optimal, the fuel cell power modules may shut down to protect

themselves from damage.

A program of regular locomotive inspection is advised to prevent critical system failures.

Although fuel cells and battery packs tend to be relatively rugged pieces of equipment,

the failure of some supporting part of the overall system – say, a blower fan or a fluid

hose – may precipitate a larger problem. In some cases, visual inspection and testing

can identify these problems; in others, self-diagnostic capabilities may be built into

certain subsystems (especially for fuel cell power modules and battery packs).

Scheduled servicing is also part of the hydrogen locomotive regime. Fuel cell stacks,

which are part of the power module assembly, need periodic overhauling like diesel

engines. As explained in Section 3, fuel cell stack assemblies are composed of layers of

plates that direct the inlet flow of air and hydrogen gas, and the outlet flow of water.

Sandwiched between each plate is a polymer membrane-electrode assembly. Over

time, the membranes degrade and this eventually reduces the output power capacity of

the stack. To restore optimal performance, the stack should be opened and the

membranes replaced. The schedule for this servicing will vary by power module

manufacturer and locomotive use, but once every several thousands of hours would be

expected (i.e., perhaps once every two to four years).

Note that the fuel cell power modules, when the time comes for an overhaul, could be

swapped with new replacement units. Unlike overhauling a diesel engine, in which the

entire locomotive is taken out-of-service for the work, older fuel cell power modules

could be changed out and new ones installed in a matter of a few hours, without

removing the locomotive from service for a significant period of time. It could be that

hydrogen locomotives will require less servicing than diesel locomotives, resulting in

more vehicle up-time and overall productivity, although this is a speculation based on

isolated experience reports from bus transit pilot programs. Fluid changes and refills

should also be reduced in the converted locomotive, as there are no moving engine

parts to be lubricated.



Battery cells also degrade over time. The cells comprising a battery pack (or the entire

pack itself) will eventually be retired from service and replaced with a new pack. The

timing of this replacement is uncertain as it will depend on the cycling of cell charge and

discharge, as well as the conditions in which they operate. If the battery chemistry and

design is well-matched to the duty cycle, the battery pack would be expected to last a

decade or longer. There is no specific end-point for battery life – just a gradual decline

in energy storage capacity. A battery pack should have residual value and continue to

be used in other, less demanding services upon be being retired from the locomotive.

Locomotive maintenance structures

If a hydrogen-powered locomotive is to be brought into an enclosed building for

servicing or repair, the accidental venting of hydrogen could pose a safety risk.

Hydrogen is not toxic, but it can easily ignite if trapped within a confined space and

mixed with air (specifically, oxygen). Hydrogen rises and disperses quickly in

atmosphere – a quality that can make it inherently safe, provided the pathway to the

atmosphere is not obstructed. If hydrogen accumulates in the roof of a structure, mixes

with oxygen and is then exposed to a source of ignition (e.g., a spark or flame), it can

explode. If there is a risk of hydrogen escaping from the locomotive into the building,

then the structure must be examined and modified as necessary to comply with building

codes for this purpose. Codes detailing these requirements have been developed by a

range of standards-writing authorities, including the CSA and the NFPA.

Many buildings meet the requirements of these codes already. Examples include

warehouses in which fuel cell-powered forklifts are operated and refuelled with

hydrogen, and maintenance bays for natural gas-powered transit buses and trucks.

Indeed, the use of liquefied natural gas-powered locomotives has led to standards and

procedures for safe servicing and storing these vehicles indoors. In addition to

modifications made to an existing railyard structure to align it with code, procedures to

prepare a hydrogen-fueled locomotive for moving indoors may be developed (e.g.,

purging of piping and vessels to evacuate hydrogen to safe levels). Consulting with the

local fire chief and other authorities having jurisdiction (e.g., municipal government,

building inspectors) will be required.



4.3 Regulatory aspects of the hydrail transition scenario – discussion

In the preceding matter on operational impacts to railways of the hydrail transition

scenario conceptualized, references have been made to regulatory frameworks,

including standards and certifications. These are not static sets of rules; rather, they are

living, evolving procedures and applications of best practice that adapt to developments

in science and technology. It is considered helpful and instructive to incorporate into this

report an overview of the framework as it applies to railway operations, so that the

impacts of a hydrail transition can be explored.

The federal railway safety legislative and regulatory framework

Transport Canada is responsible for developing, administering and overseeing policy,

legislative and regulatory requirements for the safety of the rail transportation system in

Canada. The Railway Safety Act (RSA)9 formalizes the relationship between

government and railway companies on matters of safety to personnel, the public,

property and the environment. This relationship is collaborative – not “command and

control” – and is intended to “facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme

that will ensure the continuing enhancement of railway safety and security.” [see

Section 3 of Act]

The RSA provides authorities to make regulations, rules and engineering standards that

each have equal force of law, and under which compliance is mandatory.

Regulations are statutory instruments approved by an appointed Governor in

Council and apply to all federally regulated railway companies.

Rules are developed by railway companies and approved by the Minister of

Transport. A rule can be submitted for approval by an association representing

several railway companies, or a company can independently submit its own,

company-specific rules. Compared to regulations, rules have the advantage of being

efficient and flexible, as they can be approved in less time.

Engineering Standards are developed by railway companies and approved by the

Minister of Transport.10 The same criteria relating to rules applies to standards.

9 Railway Safety Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.)). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.2/ 10 Note that Transport Canada has not approved equipment standards in the past, which is a category that could include hydrogen

equipment and equipment retrofitted with hydrogen technology.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.2/



Parties subject to the RSA are: Railway Companies; Local Railway Companies; Railway

company employees, Road Authorities (which can include provincial and municipal

authorities); and Adjacent Land Owners and the general public.

A Railway Company operates or maintains a railway within the legislative authority of

Parliament, meaning that it meets one of the following criteria:

▪ operates across provincial/territorial or international boundaries;

▪ is owned, controlled, operated or leased by a federal railway;

▪ has been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada; or

▪ is an integral part of an existing federal undertaking.

The term “railway” includes tracks, branches, extensions, sidings, railway bridges,

tunnels, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock, equipment, stores or other things

connected with the railway. It also includes communications or signaling systems and

related facilities and equipment used for railway purposes.

To operate, a Railway Company requires:

▪ a Certificate of Fitness, issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency,

authorized under Sections 90-94 of the Canada Transportation Act (based on

satisfactory third-party liability insurance coverage for a proposed construction or

operation of a railway),

▪ a Railway Operating Certificate,

▪ approved Rules, and

▪ a Safety Management System.

A Local Railway Company is either a provincially-regulated short line, a light rail transit

or a tourist train that operates equipment on federally regulated tracks. It requires only a

Railway Operating Certificate, approved Rules, and a Safety Management System, but

not a Certificate of Fitness.

Railway Safety Act

Regulations RulesEngineering standards

Guidelines

mandatory compliance

voluntary compliance



Railway Operating Certificates are issued by Transport Canada to federal regulated

railway companies provided the Minister is satisfied with the company’s safety

management system. The Railway Safety Management System Regulations,

promulgated under the Act, outline the characteristics of a satisfactory system, such as

accountabilities, reporting and the need for appropriate risk assessment methodologies.

This regulation formalizes a process of assessment and continuous improvement, but it

does not specify minimum technical standards to be achieved.

However, some technical standards are referenced in certain regulations established

under the RSA for commonplace equipment (e.g., diesel storage tanks). As previously

described, references to technical specifications and practices can exist as Rules that

have been proposed by railway companies and accepted by the Minister. Such rules

may reference industry standards published, for example, by the Association of

American Railroads (AAR). This is intended to facilitate safe operations but not impede

the introduction of new technology, such as hydrogen equipment.

A submission from a hydrogen system proponent railway company to the Rail Safety

Group at Transport Canada would involve an explanation of the alternate motive power

and fuel system, where and how it will be operated and kept safe, the integrity of fuel

reservoirs and connections, and how the monitoring and inspection will occur. The

foundational element of the submission is the risk assessment. Based on its review of

the risk assessment (i.e., consistent with the safety management systems regulations)

the Rail Safety Group could accept the use of the proposed hydrogen system on a

temporary basis (such as for testing and demonstration) or consider it clear for regular

operation. Transport Canada would base its assessment of a new technology through

an exemption request by the proponent. The exemption request would be supported by

a demonstration of equivalence of safety, such that the new technology is shown to be

as safe or safer than the currently regulated, conventional technology or process.

Confidence in the risk assessment is enhanced where applicable codes, standards and

guidelines already exist and can be referenced or adapted. For example, the Canadian

Hydrogen Installation Code (CHIC), establishes the requirements for any newly

proposed hydrogen refuelling facility that would be associated with a hydrogen-powered

locomotive project. Furthermore, the CHIC includes a lengthy list of “Normative

References”; i.e., mandatory specifications that must be fulfilled in the design,

construction and operation of the facility. By demonstrating an alignment with such

standards and equivalencies with prevailing rules, the process of review can be

facilitated.



The rail safety legislative and regulatory regime is expected to include the elements

listed below. From the perspective of integrating new hydrogen systems, including

hydrogen-powered locomotives and refuelling systems, into federal regulated railway

operations, the identified legislation, regulations and rules are considered directly

relevant.

Legislation

▪ Railway Safety Act (1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.))

Regulations (Pursuant to the Act)

▪ Railway Operating Certificate Regulations (SOR/2014-258)

▪ Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015 (SOR/2015-26)

▪ Notice of Railway Works Regulations (SOR/91-103)

▪ Grade Crossings Regulations (SOR/2014-275)

▪ Locomotive Emissions Regulations (SOR/2017-121)

▪ Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (SOR/2014-

233)

Other Regulations

▪ Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations (1987-3 Rail)

(SOR/87-150)

Rules

▪ Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules

▪ Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) with Rules for the Protection of Track

Units and Track Work

Other Related Acts and Regulations (Pursuant to the Act)

▪ Canada Transportation Act

▪ Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act

▪ Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act

▪ Canada Labour Code

o On Board Trains Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

(SOR/87-184)

In summary, approval for new railway technology at the federal level follows a bottom-

up approach. The railway company follows an established procedure to prepare a

proposal that has been built on risk assessment-informed decision-making. This

typically involves detailed analyses where all the hazards associated with the proposed



new technology have been identified and the related risks have been assessed. The

following formula applies.

Risk = Probability × Consequence

Calculating the risk requires both qualitative and quantitative analyses and, where

required, adding safety barriers until the risk is managed to an acceptable level of risk.

In this process, it is important to understand that no use of technology can produce a

zero-risk condition. The stakeholders have set an appropriate standard for the risk that

is considered acceptable. Railway stakeholders in Canada (indeed, throughout the

North American rail sector) have used this approach to introduce innovative systems,

technologies and procedures. A recent Canadian example of alternative fuel and

powertrain deployment is the introduction and testing of prototype liquefied natural gas-

powered locomotives by CN in Alberta in 2013.11

Other Authorities Having Jurisdiction, standards organizations and codes

The introduction and use of hydrail systems would represent a technology change

within a railway, and thus would trigger a change to the safety management system,

which would need to be reviewed by the Rail Safety Group at Transport Canada. This

submission should demonstrate that local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) have

been engaged in the risk assessment and revision to the safety management system,

and that they do not object to the proposed operation. Such AHJs could include

provincial inspection and certification agencies (e.g., Technical Safety BC, Technical

Standards and Safety Authority (in Ontario) and the Electrical Safety Authority, as well

as first responder organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs.

Furthermore, it is expected that AHJs would consider it within their purview to inspect

and certify hydrogen system installations and supply chains within (and external to) a

proponent railway company.

Certification of hydrogen systems by AHJs is assessed against relevant codes, which

reference standards produced by accredited standards development organizations.

Those organizations involved in hydrogen systems in North America are:

11 Railway Age (W. Vantuono). Locomotives: Is LNG the next generation? 2014.

https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/locomotives-is-lng-the-next-generation/

https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/locomotives-is-lng-the-next-generation/



▪ SAE – Society of Automotive Engineers ▪ CSA – Canadian Standards Association ▪ ASME – American Society of Mechanical

Engineers ▪ BNQ – Bureau de normalisation du Québec ▪ NFPA – National Fire Protection Association ▪ API – American Petroleum Institute ▪ UL – Underwriters Laboratories ▪ ANSI – American National Standards Institute ▪ ICC – International Code Council

▪ AGA – American Gas Association ▪ ASTM – American Society for Testing and

Materials International ▪ IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers ▪ CGA – Compressed Gas Association ▪ IEC – International Electrotechnical

Commission ▪ ISO – International Organization for

Standardization

The following table summarizes the types of standards currently in use in North

America, identifies the custodian of the standards and, where applicable, the authorizing

organization (note TC – Transport Canada, ECCC – Environment & Climate Change

Canada).12

Vehicles Compression, Dispensing Storage Infrastructure

Controlling Authorities:

US-DOT, TC (on crash

worthiness)

US-EPA, ECCC (on

emissions)


State, provincial and local

government (zoning,

building permits)


US-DOT, TC (over-road

transport, pipeline safety)


TC

Measurement Canada

General fuel cell vehicle

safety:

SAE

Fuel cell vehicle systems:

SAE

Fuel system components:

CSA

Containers:

SAE

Batteries:

SAE

Emissions:

SAE

Recycling:

SAE

Service/Repair:

SAE

Storage tanks:

ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA,

API

Piping:

ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA

Dispensers:

UL, CSA, NFPA

On-site H2 production:

UL, CSA, BNQ, API

Codes for the

Environment:

ICC, NFPA, ECCC

Composite containers:

ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA

Pipelines:

ASME, API, BNQ, AGA

Equipment:

ASME, API, BNQ, AGA

Fuel transfer:

NPFA, API

Fuel specifications:

SAE, ASTM, API

Weights/Measures:

ASME, API, NIST

Fuelling:

SAE, CSA

Sensors/Detectors:

SAE, UL, CSA, NFPA

Connectors:

SAE, CSA

Communications:

SAE, UL, CSA, API, IEEE

Building and Fire Code

Requirements:

CSA (building code, fine

code, vehicle

maintenance facilities

code)

ICC, NFPA

12 This information was adapted from a CSA Group presentation at the North American Codes and Standards Forum convened in

Ottawa in March 2017).



Although not specific to railway systems, the following international standards are often

referenced for safety and design certification, and may be relevant to the assessment of

proposed hydrail systems:

▪ For fuel cell module design and installation, including mobile applications:

o IEC 62282-2, IEC 62282-3

▪ For on-board storage subsystems:

o CSA America HGV2 for compressed hydrogen gas storage

o ISO 13985 for liquid hydrogen storage

▪ For system level, including mobile applications:

o ISO 23273 for safety elements in vehicles fuelled by compressed

hydrogen

o ISO 6469 for electrical safety elements of hybrid electric vehicles

o IEC 60079-10 for classification of system environments and protective

measures

▪ For the production, transport and delivery of hydrogen:

o SAE J2719 and ISO 14687-2, describing hydrogen fuel purity

requirements for fuel cell vehicles

o CAN/BNQ 1784, used to guide the installation of hydrogen generating

equipment

o NFPA 55, covering the safe storage of hydrogen in compressed hydrogen

containers and cryogenic containers (for liquefied hydrogen)

o NFPA 2, general coverage of hydrogen systems

o ISO TC/197, covering design, operation and maintenance characteristics

of stand-alone outdoor public and non-public, and indoor warehouse

fuelling stations that dispense gaseous hydrogen

For further information on codes and standards, often referenced in regulation, the

following online resources should be consulted:

▪ Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Codes & Standards website:

http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/home.html

▪ Bureau de normalisation du Québec. Canadian Hydrogen Installation Code:

https://www.bnq.qc.ca/en/standardization/hydrogen/canadian-hydrogen-

installation-code.html

▪ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

Safety, Codes and Standards – Basics (website):

https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safety-codes-and-standards-basics

▪ International Standards Organization, Technical Committee 197. Corporate

website: https://www.iso.org/committee/54560/x/catalogue/

http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/home.html

https://www.bnq.qc.ca/en/standardization/hydrogen/canadian-hydrogen-installation-code.html

https://www.bnq.qc.ca/en/standardization/hydrogen/canadian-hydrogen-installation-code.html

https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safety-codes-and-standards-basics

https://www.iso.org/committee/54560/x/catalogue/



Understanding which of the various authorities to engage and the process of receiving

approval for a project or proposed operation requires some navigation. Often there are

multiple tiers of government from which approval must be received (or assurance of

clearance to operate). Frequently there are multiple AHJs within a given tier, as the

chart below shows.

Aspect Authority Having Jurisdiction

Federal Provincial Municipal

Bulk H2 fuel delivery, if applicable ✓

TC

On-site H2 fuel production, if applicable ✓

TC (RSG) ✓ ✓

On-site H2 fuel storage / compression /

dispensing

✓

TC (RSG) ✓ ✓

On-site vehicle repair structure (i.e.,

maintenance shed, garage)

✓

TC (RSG) ? ✓

On-vehicle powertrain ✓

TC (RSG) ?

TC – Transport Canada; RSG – Rail Safety Group

While the standards identified above provide a reference from which safety

management systems for hydrogen equipment can be developed in the early stages of

a hydrail transition, it should be recognized that due to the mass of the railcars and

trains involved, collision forces in railway applications can be of much greater

magnitude than in on-highway, rubber-tire conditions. The AAR, of which many

Canadian railway companies are members, establishes standards and recommended

practices. These are published in manuals often under the direction of various AAR

committees, and should be considered in the assessment of new technology deployed

into rail service. Given the integrated nature of the North American railway system and

the movement of rolling stock across the Canada-U.S. border, a system of new

rulemaking for hydrail systems would practically involve collaboration between

Transport Canada and the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) – the regulatory

agency with authority for rail safety under the U.S. Department of Transportation.



The AAR and FRA have been actively assessing the emergence of alternative

technologies and fuels, such as batteries,

compressed and liquefied natural gas, and

hydrogen, and may develop standards and

practices that could be referenced in regulation.

For example, the focus of an AAR working

group on liquefied natural gas tenders led to the

development of specification (M-1004) for

“interoperable fuel tenders” that are applicable

to any fuel carried in a tender. A 2019 report by

AAR, Crashworthiness and Puncture Protection

Analyses of LNG Tenders,13 is representative of

the detailed work that industry can undertake to

inform technical standards to enhance the

safety of early hydrail systems and subsystem

components. This report focuses on train-to-

train collision scenarios and those involving a

broadside collision with a heavy-duty road

vehicle. The inset image is taken from the report

to illustrate one of the numerous scenarios

examined.

To summarize, a transition to hydrail will certainly involve the development of new rules

and standards referenced in regulation. However, no need to amend the regulatory

framework itself, or the Railway Safety Act, is apparent. The legislation is not

technology-specific and appears to provide sufficient flexibility for a transition to hydrail

to proceed. Moreover, there is a wide range of codes and standards against which to

design hydrail systems, and numerous AHJs with which to consult and acquire

certifications needed to initiate deployment and operations.

13 American Association of Railroads. Crashworthiness and Puncture Protection Analyses of LNG Tenders – Final Report. 2019.

https://aar.com/standards/pdfs/LNG_report_cummulative_revised_07Mar2019.pdf

Source: AAR. Crashworthiness and Puncture

Protection Analyses of LNG Tenders. 2019

https://aar.com/standards/pdfs/LNG_report_cummulative_revised_07Mar2019.pdf



5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE

REQUIREMENTS

The operational impacts and implications of a complete hydrail transition in Canada

were addressed at a high level in the previous section of this report. A hypothetical

transition scenario was enumerated with estimates of locomotive turnover and

supporting hydrogen infrastructure and systems of supply. Concept-level locomotives

for each of the four categories of railway activity – freight, switcher, inter-city passenger

and commuter service – were identified, along with a concept hydrogen fuel tender.

These are not predictive designs; rather, these are simply compositing of the kind of

specifications evident in recent procurement trends.

Such guesswork is needed for this section, in which capital costs and operating

expenditures are estimated and modeled. The intent is to produce a rough

approximation of the scale of the financial commitment represented in the envisioned

hydrail transition. Order-of-magnitude levels of accuracy are all that can be expected of

this exercise. Nevertheless, there is value in the attempt, as it provides context to the

discussion on benefits to Canadian society of a hydrail transition in the section that

follows.

5.1 Methodology

To develop estimates of the capital requirements associated with the hydrail transition

scenario, some high-level assumptions about the costs of locomotive conversions,

locomotive manufacture and hydrogen facility construction needed to be made.

Hydrogen rolling stock (i.e., locomotives and tenders) cost estimates are based partly

on extrapolations from limited accounts in the published literature referencing existing

equipment, but mostly on the experience and reasoned judgement of the study team.

The commercial unit costs are summarized in the following table (in Canadian dollars).

Parameter

Mainline Freight

& Inter-City

Passenger

Yard Switching

& Work Train

Commuter

Rail

Fuel Type LH2 H2 (~350 bar) LH2

Liquefied hydrogen tender* $3,500,000 N/A $3,500,000

Freshly manufactured locomotive $6,500,000 $5,100,000 $6,500,000

Remanufactured locomotive $3,750,000 $3,150,000 $3,750,000

No. of hydrogen facilities (by 2050) 66 85 18

* One tender is assumed per locomotive.



Note that estimates of the number of hydrogen facilities, including refuelling stations,

were made in Section 4 under Scenario assumptions – locomotives and refuelling

infrastructure. For simplicity, all LH2 facilities were considered to be equally sized and

costed. In reality, different sizes would emerge to serve the varying needs of mainline,

inter-city and commuter rail activities across the country, but a consistent, average size

is needed for this analysis.

These conceptual facilities are essentially fuel transfer stations, in which LH2 is received

by truck (or rail), stored on-site and then dispensed. Off-site production is assumed, as

LH2 plants tend to be sized up to 30 tonnes/day, which exceeds the needs and

throughput capacity of a single station. The cost of hydrogen delivered reflects the

investments made upstream in the supply chain and are thus captured in the analysis

herein. The facilities are composed of a cryogenic LH2 dewar, transfer pumps,

dispensers and safety and control systems, as well as various standard components,

such as low temperature piping and connection hoses. These systems are located in a

fenced-in, outdoor compound that includes all necessary safety barriers, containment

berms and boil off venting systems.

The compressed hydrogen facilities in switchyards are similarly assumed equal, for the

purposes of this fleetwide costing exercise. As described in Section 4, the switchyard

facilities assume hydrogen produced on-site via electrolysis, sized to meet the demands

of a fleet of 10 switcher locomotives; that is, a captive fleet that returns to refuel on a

regular basis (perhaps refuelling once every one-to-two days).

The capital outlay can be deferred by staging the build-out of LH2 facilities to align with

the growth in hydrogen-powered locomotive population and activity. It is assumed that

each refuelling facility will initially be built at one-quarter of its full design capacity, with

three equal expansions occurring as required to keep pace with hydrogen demand. The

initial build-out of an individual station will cost half of the total, with each expansion

adding another one-sixth to the summed cost (e.g., 50% + 17% + 17% +16% = 100%).

This does not affect the total capital invested over the transition period from 2030 to

2050; it simply provides a schedule for the investments over time. This approach de-

risks the capital spending by reducing the upfront commitment.

The capital schedule is also constrained by the need to functionally serve a growing

number of LH2-fuelled locomotives operating throughout the railway network. Even if the

absolute volumes of hydrogen required do not necessitate a certain amount of LH2

infrastructure build-out, the logistical need to refuel locomotives operating over a large

area may require a minimum number of hydrogen facilities to be operating. So, while it



is reasonable to assume that initial growth in hydrail activity will likely occur around

several hubs in Canada, the total number of LH2 facilities forecasted will need to be built

and operating well before the hydrogen-powered locomotive population (for mainline

and inter-city service) reaches its target in 2050. This threshold is chosen to be 15% of

the total 2050 population, which is 3,375 locomotive units. Put simply, when roughly 500

of these locomotives are in service, all the LH2 facilities need to be at least partly built-

out. For example, mainline freight service reaches this threshold at around 2036 in the

hydrail transition scenario.

For switcher and commuter locomotives, no staging of facility build-out is assumed.

Instead, the facilities are built to their full size when hydrogen-powered locomotives are

first adopted in the locality. There are two reasons for this. First, switcher and commuter

service can be considered operationally separated from the other railways from a

refuelling perspective. This means that, for the purpose of the model, facility

construction follows the population growth curve. Second, since these stations will each

serve a contained and relatively small population of locomotives, the benefits of staging

capital investments become negligible in the model.

Change Energy Services’ proprietary technoeconomic assessment model was used to

produce specifications and comprehensive cost estimates of hydrogen systems and

installations, as well as operating costs. The model is calibrated to real-world cost data

for high-fidelity simulation. The results are tabulated as follows.

Parameter

Mainline Freight,

(also serving Inter-

City Passenger)

Yard

Switching &

Work Train

Commuter

Rail


Cost of fully built-out hydrogen facilities $9,956,995 $5,853,202 $7,110,532

Hydrogen facility throughput (kg/day) 16,684 291 5,316

The rolling stock and infrastructure cost estimates presented above are used in a year-

over-year capital cost requirement assessment, summarized in the following subsection.



5.2 Capital requirements assessment

The table below presents the total capital spend needed to support the hydrail transition scenario, inlcusive of locomotives

and tenders, as well as hydrogen facilities refuelling, year-over-year. The calculations are based on the estimated values

presented and disussed in the previous subsection. Note that these estimates are not incremental to business-as-usual

projections for diesel-powered railway operations.

Hydrail Transition Scenario – CapEx schedule – 2030 – 2050

Parameter 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Hydrogen facilities $14,935,492 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $88,783,205 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $0 $36,508,981

Locomotive - freshly manufactured $200,000,000 $294,766,040 $297,654,747 $300,571,763 $303,517,367 $306,491,837 $309,495,457 $312,528,512 $315,591,292 $318,684,087 $421,807,191

Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $213,151,129 $204,621,953 $204,621,953 $485,980,399 $477,477,313 $477,451,223 $622,395,034 $613,891,948 $622,395,034 $1,432,379,759

TOTAL $214,935,492 $560,191,392 $554,550,923 $557,467,940 $841,771,989 $836,243,373 $875,729,885 $971,432,528 $965,992,221 $941,079,121 $1,890,695,931

Hydrogen facilities $11,706,404 $5,853,202 $5,853,202 $5,853,202 $11,706,404 $17,559,606 $11,706,404 $17,559,606 $17,559,606 $17,559,606 $40,972,414

Locomotive - freshly manufactured $51,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $22,193,776 $22,193,776 $18,494,813 $51,785,477 $48,086,515 $48,086,515 $62,882,365 $62,882,365 $62,882,365 $147,958,506

TOTAL $62,706,404 $28,046,978 $28,046,978 $24,348,015 $63,491,881 $65,646,120 $59,792,919 $80,441,971 $80,441,971 $80,441,971 $188,930,920

Hydrogen facilities $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $0 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $7,110,532 $0 $7,110,532 $7,110,532


Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $16,935,115 $16,935,115 $8,467,557 $33,870,229 $25,402,672 $33,870,229 $33,870,229 $42,337,786 $42,337,786 $84,675,573

TOTAL $107,110,532 $56,644,534 $50,185,979 $42,383,439 $75,574,961 $67,799,288 $69,862,034 $77,692,403 $79,783,661 $87,643,110 $130,744,792

Mainline Freight & Intercity Passenger

Road/Yard Switching & Work

Commuter Rail

Parameter 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 TOTAL

Hydrogen facilities $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $657,161,665

Locomotive - freshly manufactured $501,830,903 $509,253,842 $516,786,955 $524,431,878 $532,190,275 $540,063,833 $548,054,263 $556,163,306 $564,392,723 $572,744,305 $8,747,020,574

Locomotive - remanufactured $1,468,648,066 $1,468,648,066 $1,400,440,748 $1,428,179,879 $1,428,179,879 $1,215,028,750 $1,251,297,056 $1,242,767,880 $970,763,901 $899,516,987 $18,127,836,957

TOTAL $2,006,987,950 $2,014,410,889 $1,953,736,684 $1,989,120,738 $1,996,879,135 $1,755,092,582 $1,799,351,320 $1,798,931,186 $1,535,156,624 $1,472,261,292 $27,532,019,196

Hydrogen facilities $35,119,212 $40,972,414 $40,972,414 $35,119,212 $40,972,414 $29,266,010 $35,119,212 $35,119,212 $23,412,808 $17,559,606 $497,522,169

Locomotive - freshly manufactured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000,000

Locomotive - remanufactured $144,259,544 $147,958,506 $140,560,581 $136,861,618 $140,560,581 $118,366,805 $118,366,805 $118,366,805 $85,076,141 $85,076,141 $1,782,900,000

TOTAL $179,378,756 $188,930,920 $181,532,995 $171,980,830 $181,532,995 $147,632,815 $153,486,017 $153,486,017 $108,488,949 $102,635,747 $2,331,422,169

Hydrogen facilities $14,221,064 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $14,221,064 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $127,989,576


Locomotive - remanufactured $93,143,130 $93,143,130 $84,675,573 $84,675,573 $84,675,573 $76,208,015 $76,208,015 $67,740,458 $50,805,344 $59,272,901 $1,109,250,000

TOTAL $147,102,055 $140,786,280 $133,129,376 $133,956,241 $134,799,644 $134,302,889 $128,069,833 $120,497,302 $104,475,114 $106,763,324 $2,129,306,790

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight & Intercity Passenger

Road/Yard Switching & Work



The final column shows the cumulative sums for each row. Overall, the capital

expenditures from 2030 through 2050 approach $32 billion.

The chart below visualizes the schedule of the deployment of CapEx. Midway through

the 2030-2040 transition period, the scale of investment doubles. This is primarily the

result of the growth rate curve used in the model. The growth rate is assumed to be

“moderate”. A moderate growth curve has three key regions. First, there is an initial

period of slow growth as the technology is introduced and achieves a level of

acceptance. This is followed by a period of relatively rapid adoption, followed by a

tapering off period as the hydrail transition reaches its conclusion. The result is a cost

curve that reflects greater locomotive conversion activity in the mid-point of the

transition period, accompanied by a concomitant need for refuelling infrastructure

deployment. These two effects result in the sharp increase in rate of capital

expenditures projected in the mid-point of the timeframe hypothesized.

Note: The estimate of capital spending required for the hypothetical hydrail transition

explored herein does not in any way reflect the financial capacity of the railway industry

to finance the undertaking. No attempt was made by the study team to assess the

wherewithal of the companies and stakeholders comprising the Canadian railway sector

to allocate the capital considered in this exercise.



5.3 Operating expenses assessment

Attempting to predict the annual operating expenditures for a hydrail system over a

period of decades involves much guesswork. Since it relies on commodity pricing to a

large extent, the exercise may offer little guidance of value to stakeholders. The more

practical question is whether OpEx will differ much between diesel and hydrail systems

in the future? As discussed earlier in Section 4.2, the personnel, training and

maintenance burden are not expected to deviate much from the current requirements.

Hydrail systems involve different activities and procedures, but the knowledge and skills

involved are not so specialized that personnel cannot be trained in safe, efficient

operations. Changes in operating expenditures will most likely be determined by the

price of hydrogen relative to diesel.

A comparison of the annual fuelling expenses for diesel and for hydrogen-powered

locomotives within the hydrail transition scenario is presented in the table below. The

values are taken from the business-as-usual and hydrail scenarios for the year 2050,

simply to ensure the average fuel consumption rates are reflective of a mature, fully

utilized set of assets (i.e., this should not be taken as a prediction of costs in 2050). A

cost of $1.00/litre is assumed. This cost is compared to the costs of liquefied and

gaseous hydrogen. As referenced earlier in Section 4.2, the cost of producing gaseous

hydrogen from renewable power in Canada has been previously estimated at $5 –

$12.25/kg, ranging according to the input costs of electricity. This cost is adjusted

upward here to $6.25 – $15.30/kg for the switchyard facilities, reflecting a more

conservative outlook on power pricing across the country. The incremental costs of

liquefaction and transportation associated with LH2 facilities further increases its cost to

$7.50 – $17.80/kg.

Recall that switchyard hydrogen is produced on-site, and so the cost can be considered

as already paid. Thus, the unit cost in this table can be considered to reflect the cost of

on-site production.



Parameter Units

Mainline Freight Road/Yard

Switching &

Work

Intercity

Passenger

Commuter

Rail Class I Regional &

Short Line

Diesel use L / locomotive / year 891,674 386,141 103,317 266,794 983,999

Diesel cost $/L $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

$/year $891,674 $386,141 $103,317 $266,794 $983,999

Hydrogen use kg / locomotive / year 130,673 56,588 15,141 39,098 144,203

Hydrogen cost

(low estimate)

$/kg $7.50 $7.50 $6.25 $7.50 $7.50

$/year $980,048 $424,411 $94,631 $293,236 $1,081,523

Hydrogen cost

(high estimate)

$/kg $17.80 $17.80 $15.30 $17.80 $17.80

$/year $2,325,979 $1,007,269 $231,655 $695,947 $2,566,816



The value in the table above shows that fuelling expenses range from comparable to

more than double. Should future diesel prices increase (due to carbon pricing or carbon-

intensity fuel regulations, for example), and should the hydrogen production and

delivery costs decline as scales of economy improve, a circumstance could arise in

which a reduction in overall OpEx begins to lift the return on capital invested in the

equipment. A more detailed and narrowly-scoped analysis would be needed to better

identify the circumstances in which this could be expected. Nevertheless, the possibility

cannot be dismissed. As noted earlier in this report, less maintenance and more

productive up-time is already being reported with fuel cell-electric transit buses.

Advancing hydrogen-powered locomotives into real-world service will generate the

operational cost data and experience needed to assess the economic potential of

hydrail systems in the longer-term. Also, it should be noted that the assumptions of unit

costs in this study are conservative. As hydrogen systems develop, there is certainly

room for costs to decline in the coming years.



6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS

The benefits to Canadian society arising from a hydrail transition scenario as

hypothesized in this study cut across the domains of environment and climate change,

public health, employment and quality of life, and competitiveness through innovation.

Environment & climate change

A complete transition to hydrail can deliver a net reduction in GHG emissions. In the

scenario described herein, between 2030 and 2050, virtually all diesel use is replaced

by hydrogen use. In terms of combustion emissions, this effectively eliminates GHG

emissions from the sector, as shown in the chart below. By 2050, an estimated 9

megatonnes of CO2e that would otherwise be emitted are eliminated, annually.

Note that this assessment does not consider lifecycle emissions of diesel and hydrogen.

Emissions generated in the production and delivery of fuel to the railways can be

significant. However, if low-carbon sources of energy are used to synthesize, compress

or liquefy the hydrogen, such as renewable power, hydroelectricity and nuclear power,

then the “upstream” emissions for hydrogen tend toward zero. Furthermore, as

discussed in Section 3.0, hydrogen produced via SMR+CCUS may emerge as low-

carbon, low-cost option.



Based on these assumptions, the estimated cumulative GHG emissions reductions

avoided through the hydrail transition is roughly 78 megatonnes. Recall from the

previous section that $32B in capital spending is needed to achieve these reductions.

Therefore, the abatement cost can be coarsely estimated at approximately $385/tonne.

This does not incorporate any increases to operating expenses. It also disregards the

ongoing accumulation of avoided emissions beyond 2050.

The scale of hydrogen system deployment contemplated in this hydrail transition

scenario would also contribute to substantive volumes of hydrogen, as well as

experience and expertise, that could advance its application in other sectors. These

could include a variety of low-carbon heat, power and mobility applications, including

fuel cell-electric heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., commercial trucks, transit buses) and

portable power generators. Wherever diesel or natural gas is currently used, hydrogen

is a potential alternative.

Public health

In addition to GHG emissions, the combustion of diesel produces criteria air

contaminants (CACs), which contribute to human health impacts, including respiratory

disease. Some CACs are directly hazardous to human health, while some play a direct

role in the formation of photochemical smog, which subsequently impacts human

health. The railway industry monitors, reports and manages downward key CAC

emissions, including oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide

(CO), hydrocarbons (HC) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Fleetwide CAC emissions are

usually estimated as a function of diesel combustion in locomotives. Using the

emissions factors presented in the 2017 RAC LEM Report, Table 8 – CAC Emissions

Factors for Diesel Locomotives (g/L), the totals were calculated and summed in the

following chart. As shown, the hydrail transition progressively eliminates these

emissions. It is important to note, however, that through advancements in emissions

control systems, fuels and fuel efficiency, CAC emissions could be reduced

notwithstanding continued reliance on combustion engines for locomotive power.



Employment and Quality of Life

A hydrail transition involves the adoption of new training opportunities and employee

experiences that may increase in market value as hydrogen systems are adopted more

broadly. As part of a clean technology and clean energy transition, there are potentially

many advantages to those involved, but these are difficult express quantitatively. As a

coarse attempt to assess the job creation potential, an average, fully-loaded labour cost

of $75/hour could be applied to the capital costs contemplated in this scenario. This

results in approximately 53,260 person-years over a 20-year period, or 2,663 full time-

equivalent jobs. This ignores the secondary and tertiary job opportunities arising from

related economic activities; nonetheless, it indicates the potential for positive job growth.

Quality of life improvements might include a reduction in engine noise or vibration from

locomotive operations. Sound from the movement of rolling stock in switchyards would

not be affected, but the diesel genset noise direct from the locomotive would be

eliminated. The only significant noise expected from a fuel cell-electric powertrain would

be that of the blower fans exhaust heat from the interior.

Competitiveness through innovation

As the transition to hydrail proceeds, it builds hands-on experience in advancing

hydrogen system innovation. This knowledge can translate to other sectors of the

economy. As well, the distribution of railway activity across Canada necessitates an



equally distributed hydrogen infrastructure, which effectively multiplies the hydrogen

production opportunities along the railways. This network also interconnects nearly

every major city and centre of economic activity across Canada, which is important to

mobilizing the country’s hydrogen potential – as a user and as an exporter. Indeed, just

as the railways are significant carriers of oil products, the network could also support the

distribution of hydrogen as a cargo. Such as approach could enable Canada to

establish a competitive position, internationally, in the export of low-carbon hydrogen

overseas (and into the U.S.).

Were Canada to take the lead in supporting the advancement of hydrail systems, it is

conceivable that a centre of global competence in the application of hydrogen

technologies to freight rail applications could be established. Should the transition to

hydrail begin across North America, then Canada could become the destination for

design expertise in hydrogen-powered locomotive, as well as for locomotive conversion

work that would continue for several decades.

By focusing on the development of hydrail systems, Canada may be able to more

rapidly build out a domestic market to complement and support its established

leadership in fuel cell and electrolysis system development.



7.0 DEVELOPING A HYDRAIL TRANSITION ROADMAP

The last major energy system transition, as described in the introduction, was driven by

a strong commercial value proposition. Compared to coal-fired steam locomotives,

diesel was a compelling alternative because it cost less to build, operate and maintain.

Diesel was a cleaner, more energy-dense fuel and it could be used much more

efficiently than coal. As a stable liquid, diesel was logistically easier to manage and it

eliminated boiler water as a paired input with coal. In contrast, the value proposition of

hydrail, to the extent it is explored in this study, relies more on a societal valuation. This

means that a roadmap to a hydrail transition in Canada will likely rely on government

leadership, especially in the early stages of technology trials and validation.

Premise: The cost of reducing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and

decarbonizing the global economy is much less than costs imposed by climate

change on society if nothing is done to mitigate the effects.

Accepting this premise provides stakeholders with a sense of permission to tackle the

prospect of a hydrail transition from a perspective in which change is imminent and

unavoidable. Put simply, if combustion of diesel were not permitted by 2050, what

alternatives should be rapidly developed? There are numerous fuel and powertrain

candidates, including hydrocarbon fuels synthesized from low-carbon and renewable

feedstocks, catenary electrification, rechargeable batteries, and so on. However, as

shown in the global scan of hydrail initiatives earlier in this report, hydrail is gaining

traction with railways in both the passenger and freight sectors.

Generally, the interest of governments in promoting technologies that enable

decarbonization, and that support regional commercial opportunities, drives adoption in

passenger applications, predominantly in Europe and Asia. As passenger railway

service is often publicly supported, government procurement provides needed leverage

to underwrite adoption. Further, hydrail is usually just one aspect of a broader hydrogen

strategy in such jurisdictions. This contrasts with freight applications, in which hydrail

has been trialed nominally by private companies only, and which have been exclusively

focused on switcher locomotives (to date). For any hydrail transition in Canada to

achieve substantive progress in the freight sector, which represents the overwhelming

majority of energy use in the railway industry, commercial viability will need to be

confidently defined.



The roadmap for hydrail transition in Canada, therefore, should be two-pronged, in

which government-funded procurement can strategically support and motivate

development and deployment in passenger systems, while commercialization should be

the goal for freight applications. Forcing the advancement of hydrogen systems into

commercial use without a sound business case sets up the technology for

disappointment and failure. What, then, are the conditions for success? Speculatively,

these would include:

▪ Technological efficacy, in which overall performance is similar to (or better than)

diesel, inclusive of locomotives and supporting hydrogen supply systems;

▪ Economical practicability, in which use of hydrail systems can generate positive

returns on invested capital, competitive with other freight transport services; and

▪ Safe operability, in which comprehensive testing, simulation and analysis informs

risk assessment and mitigation strategies that work within the regulatory

frameworks of Canada and the U.S.

The less disruptive a hydrail transition can be to established railway operating

procedures and business models, the better (at least in the early stages of

commercialization). The analysis within this report identifies no insurmountable barriers

to the success conditions listed above. Yet the challenges remain daunting. Technology

does not turnover quickly in the railway sector. Locomotive service life is measured in

decades. Thus, innovation is often incremental and incorporated through retrofits. At

present, new locomotive procurement in North America is at negligible levels. The

number of manufacturers serving the market is low and dwindling. Increasingly, railway

companies appear to be taking the lead in developing and trailing new technologies,

instead of the traditional OEMs, but this may not be ideal for driving innovation.

Regarding safety, railways must perpetually earn the public’s trust. Railway accidents

can be catastrophic, and operators are invested with tremendous liability. The adoption

of hydrail systems need not undermine this responsibility, but the process of developing

new rules, standards and guidelines takes time.

Overriding these challenges is the integrated nature of the North American Class 1

freight railways. Locomotives and rolling stock flow across the Canada-U.S. border

daily. Canada’s Class 1 railways, CN and CP, extend deeply into the U.S. Common

standards are referenced in both country’s railway legislations. Therefore, a hydrail

transition roadmap would best be developed and implemented as a joint Canada-U.S.

initiative, co-led by government agencies and industry, at least so far as Class 1

operations are concerned. For geographically constrained railway operations (e.g.,

switcher, regional freight, commuter services), a hydrail transition occurring in Canada



alone is conceivable, although it would still make more sense for both countries to share

resources in addressing a shared challenge. Combining intellectual and financial assets

would surely accelerate the roadmap process and its intended outcomes.

Notwithstanding the benefits of a binational approach to developing and implementing a

hydrail transitions roadmap, actions to develop Canada’s technical capacities can begin

immediately. Pilot demonstrations of hydrail systems can advance with the intent of

building a base of knowledge and experience. In freight applications, conversions of a

handful of switcher locomotives from diesel to hydrogen powertrains could be

undertaken, with willing switchyard operators as potential host sites. A commuter rail

application could also be readily deployed as a trial program. This could involve the

conversion of an existing vehicle, or a new unit could be competitively procured from

existing suppliers, of which many are identified in this report (see Section 2). In both

cases, systems of hydrogen supply can also be designed, installed and tested. With

government support, such pilots could generate valuable information that can inform

and enhance forward-looking hydrail roadmaps.

In the past, commercially successful locomotive products have emerged from many

years of painstaking development. The benefits of a hydrail transition are very

compelling but are unlikely to be broadly realized in North America without a concerted,

long-term effort by wide array of dedicated stakeholders working cooperatively. The

hypothetical scenario modeled in this report assumes a decade of aggressive product

and supply chain systems development, followed by two decades of commercial

adoption. Even when compared to the rapid transition from coal to diesel locomotives,

the envisioned pace of change is ambitious to say the least. Yet, such ambition is

needed to confront the challenge of decarbonizing our society’s systems of energy

production, distribution and use. Indeed, according to the premise presented at the start

of this discussion, the cost of delay in addressing climate change is higher than the cost

of getting started.



8.0 CONCLUSIONS

The key findings of the study are summarized below, according to the relevant sections

and in the sequence occurring in the body of the report.

Section 2 – Regarding the state of hydrail developments, globally

▪ There are approximately a dozen hydrail locomotives and self-propelled railcars

currently in some level of operation today, ranging from pilots and

demonstrations to full commercial service.

▪ Hydrail systems are currently composed of mature hydrogen technologies,

inclusive of fuel cell power modules, batteries and storage systems, that are

commercially available. However, their integration and adaptation to railway

applications is at a very early stage of development. Hydrail systems are most

advanced in regional passenger and in light commuter railways, mainly in Europe

and Asia. The study team estimates technology readiness levels of 7-8 in light

passenger systems, and 5-6 in North American freight systems. Commercial

readiness is at much lower level, reflecting the extensive design, testing and

deployment efforts that would need to be undertaken.

Section 3 – Hydrail system elements and assessment of commercial potential

▪ The definition of a hydrail system extends beyond the locomotive, encompassing

the elements of the hydrogen supply chain. In this report, the hydrail system is

considered to comprise the following elements.

o hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production;

o storage and distribution;

o dispensing facilities; and

o locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime

movers, in which the following subcomponents are integrated:

▪ fuel cells power modules;

▪ battery packs and/or ultracapacitors;

▪ control systems to manage power distribution;

▪ onboard hydrogen storage tanks and hydrogen tenders; and

▪ onboard thermal management systems.

▪ Mature, commercially available technologies exist in each of the above

categories, but further development is needed in certain areas of technology.

Identified priorities for achieving commercialization, by railway service, include:

o Commuter passenger – Adaptation and optimization of battery and

ultracapacitor system design, as well as robust controller design to



optimally manage acceleration rates and shorter-range characteristics of

the duty-cycle, from which arise opportunities for regenerative braking.

o Inter-city passenger – Development of cryogenic fuel tender designs for

safety, function and interoperability with locomotives and coaches

comprising the train. Liquefied hydrogen fuel may be needed to meet the

longer-range characteristics of this service.

o Switcher locomotives –Switchers are considered the railway application

nearest to commercial viability. However, further trials and testing are

needed to validate such expectations.

o Long-distance freight – As the most technically demanding sector of the

railway industry, solving the innovation challenges of hydrogen-powered

linehaul freight service would probably resolve most barriers facing the

other sectors, listed above. This makes commercialization of hydrail in

long-distance freight a more ambitious and comprehensive objective.

Section 4 – Assessing the operational impacts

▪ To speculate about the practical impacts to railway operations resulting from a

transition to hydrail in Canada by 2050, a scenario of locomotive fleet population,

energy use and fleet turnover is needed. The following chart summarizes the

energy use and locomotive populations prior to the hydrail transition, based on

actual fleet data, and at the conclusion of hypothetical scenario in 2050. The

annual diesel consumption that would have occurred in 2050 is displaced by the

hydrogen-equivalent amount of fuel. Put simply, in 2050, there are 4,193

locomotives operating across Canada using nearly half-a-million tonnes of

hydrogen (which effectively displaces more than 3 billion litres of diesel).

Railway service 2017 (actual) 2050 (projection) H2-equivalent

Freight

(Class 1, Regional &

Short Line, Road &

Yard Switching)

815 GTK 1,567 GTK

430 RTK 827 RTK

2,037 million litres 2,773 million litres 406,472 tonnes

2,925 locomotives 3,845 locomotives

Intercity & Tourism 51 million litres 28 million litres 4,161 tonnes

82 locomotives 106 locomotives

Commuter 65 million litres 238 million litres 34,927 tonnes

126 locomotives 242 locomotives

▪ The scale of these operations can be supported by a network of hydrogen

refueling stations: 84 dispensing liquid H2 and 85 dispensing gaseous H2 at 350-

bar, in this hypothetical scenario.



▪ New training for personnel will be needed regarding the safe operation and

maintenance of hydrogen equipment, and new rules and standards must be

developed in the transition to hydrail. However, no fundamental technical or

regulatory impediments to hydrail system deployments are evident, nor any

change to railway staffing requirements. Nonetheless, the envisioned

undertaking is not trivial, and substantive engineering work over many years will

be needed to realize commercially practical deployments of hydrail systems.

▪ The total hydrogen required to fuel the hydrail scenario in 2050 is one-sixth of

Canada’s current hydrogen production levels, and it is conservatively estimated

to represent less than a tenth of its low-carbon hydrogen production potential.

Section 5 – Capital and operating expenditures

▪ The estimates used to assess the overall CapEx and OpEx associated with the

hydrail transition scenario are summarized in the following table.

Parameter Mainline Freight &

Inter-City Passenger

Yard Switching &

Work Train Commuter


LH2 tender (one per locomotive) $3,500,000 N/A $3,500,000

Freshly manufactured locomotive $6,500,000 $5,100,000 $6,500,000

Remanufactured locomotive $3,750,000 $3,150,000 $3,750,000

No. of H2 facilities (by 2050) 66 85 18

Fully built-out H2 facilities $9,956,995 $5,853,202 $7,110,532

H2 facility throughput (kg/day) 16,684 291 5,316

▪ Total capital expenditures from 2030 through 2050 approach $32 billion, with the

majority of the spending occurring from 2040 onward.

▪ OpEx associated with hydrail systems are expected range from comparable to

current levels (i.e., diesel) to more than double.

▪ The source of the financing to implement the hypothetical transition is not

considered by the study team, and it is not assumed that the financial

wherewithal exists within the Canadian railway industry.

Section 6 – Environmental and societal benefits

▪ 78 megatonnes of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the 2030-

2050 period are achieved from avoided diesel combustion (not including

upstream emissions from fuel production and distribution). Emissions of criteria

air contaminants from locomotives are eliminated by 2050.

▪ An estimated 2,663 new full-time jobs could arise from the hydrail transition

scenario, on the basis of capital expenditures alone.



Section 7 – Roadmap recommendations

▪ To advance hydrail systems in passenger applications, focus efforts on

accelerating deployment into commercial service. Governments’ power of

procurement can be levered to initiate pilots and trials of hydrail systems. This

will build familiarity and experience with hydrogen equipment, which is key to

mitigating barriers to development and commercial adoption.

▪ To advance hydrail systems in freight applications, the focus should be on long-

term commercialization to develop the crucial aspects of the value proposition,

including:

o Efficacy of the technologies

o Economic practicability

o Safe operability

A joint Canada-U.S. initiative to establish a hydrail innovation program is one way

to de-risk industry engagement and leadership. An industry-government task

force could work to develop a suitable reference locomotive, which can be built-

to-spec by locomotive manufacturers or aftermarket builders, and then later

improved upon by innovators during the successive design iterations that follow.



APPENDIX 1: RAILWAY NETWORK ACROSS CANADA

In the process of conducting its analysis, the study team produced a comprehensive,

multilayered map of Canada’s network of railways. This is a valuable tool that can be

used in future hydrail system planning or simulation work. The details of the map are

viewable at high resolutions. Here, the magnification of the maps is set to a regional

level.



APPENDIX 2: EXTRAPOLATION FROM PAST TRENDS

Mainline Freight (Class I and Regional and Short Line), Road/Yard Switching, and Work Trains

Explanation of method

▪ Historical growth in GTK, RTK, diesel use and number of active locomotives were calculated based on actual data

for 1990, 2009 and 2017, taken from the Railway Association of Canada’s 2017 Locomotive Emissions Monitoring

report. Based on an assessment of the historical growth, future growth rates were conservatively estimated through

2030, 2040 and 2050. However, these projections are not the study team’s predictions for future locomotive

population and diesel use. Rather, these are simply reference values against which to compare the scenario

projections based on per-GTK/RTK activity levels, described next.

▪ A ratio of the locomotive population-to-GTK and to-RTK, as well as to-diesel use, is calculated for the actual

historical data in 1990, 2009 and 2017. Note that the rate of growth in these ratios turn out to be negative,

indicating improvements in the productivity of locomotive operations and in diesel use efficiency. The study team

assumes a declining rate of improvement (i.e., less negative) in locomotive-per-GTK/RTK over the 2030, 2040 and

2050 timeframes, while a constant rate of improvement in diesel use-per-GTK/RTK is assumed (i.e., unchanging at

-2.00%).

1990 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Gross Tonne-Kilometres (GTK) (billions) 433 580 815 88.22% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1,054 1,285 1,567

Revenue Tonne-Kilometres (RTK) (billions) 233 310 430 84.55% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 556 678 827

Diesel Litres (x 106) 1,960.85 1,763.18 2,036.64 3.87% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 2,076.25 2,107.24 2,138.70

No. of Locomotives 2,742 2,925 6.67% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 3,081 3,206 3,337

Locomotive per GTK 4.73 3.59 -24.08% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 2.85 2.58 2.45

Locomotive per RTK 8.85 6.80 -23.10% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 5.41 4.89 4.65

Diesel Litres per GTK 4.529 3.040 2.499 -17.80% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 1.922 1.570 1.283

Diesel Litres per RTK 8.416 5.688 4.736 -16.73% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 3.642 2.976 2.432

No. of Locomotives (based on GTK, RTK) 3,008 3,316 3,844

Total Diesel Litres (based on GTK, RTK) 2,026,074,852 2,017,985,125 2,009,927,698

Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 5,605,874,086 5,689,553,548 5,774,482,102

Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 11,211,748,172 11,379,107,096 11,548,964,205


Variable Annual Traffic Growth (from 2018 onwards)

Parameter

ProjectionExisting Data

Growth

% Overall

% per Year



▪ By multiplying the initially-projected GTK and RTK values for 2030, 2040 and 2050 by the projected ratios for

locomotives and diesel use per GTK and RTK, respectively, an estimate of the future locomotive population and

total diesel use is produced. These figures (in bold) are checked against the initial projections of the number

locomotives and diesel use, which were not based on ratios to activity levels, and are found to compare well. The

activity-based projections result in a slightly higher number of locomotives and a slightly lower level of diesel use,

compared to the initial estimates.

▪ Assuming that each diesel locomotive in the future is converted or replaced by one hydrogen fuel cell-powered

locomotive, the associated hydrogen use can be estimated (accounting for powertrain efficiency differences).

Intercity/Tourist Locomotives

Commuter Rail Locomotives

2006 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Diesel Litres (x 106) 64.30 63.50 51.00 -20.68% -2.08% -2.08% -2.08% 38.78 31.42 25.45


Diesel Litres per Locomotive 824,675 621,951 -24.58% -2.53% -2.53% -2.53% 445,607 344,798 266,794





% Overall

% per YearExisting Data

Parameter

Projection

Projection to 2050 Based on Historical Trend from 2006 to 2017

Growth

2006 2009 2017 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050

Diesel Litres (x 106) 34.20 42.70 64.50 88.60% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 83.44 101.71 123.98


Diesel Litres per Locomotive 335,294 511,905 52.67% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 662,203 807,222 983,999





Existing Data

Growth

% Overall

% per Year Projection

2% Annual Growth Projection (from 2018 onwards)

Parameter



APPENDIX 3: FLEET TURNOVER SCHEDULE

Locomotive Growth Profile

2017 2018 2019 2020

2,925 2,931 2,938 2,944

Class I (1)

2,064 2,070 2,075 2,081

Regional & Short Line (1) 285 286 287 287

576 576 576 576

82 83 83 84

126 129 131 134

Locomotive Type


Commuter Rail (4)

Mainline, Switching & Work Total

Mainline Freight

Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (2)

Intercity & Tourist (3)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2,950 2,957 2,963 2,969 2,976 2,982 2,988 2,995 3,001 3,008

Class I (1) 2,086 2,092 2,097 2,103 2,109 2,114 2,120 2,125 2,131 2,137

Regional & Short Line (1) 288 289 290 290 291 292 293 293 294 295

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

85 85 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 91

136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 163


Locomotive Type


Mainline Freight



Commuter Rail (4)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

3,037 3,067 3,097 3,127 3,158 3,189 3,220 3,252 3,284 3,316

Class I (1) 2,163 2,189 2,215 2,242 2,269 2,296 2,323 2,351 2,379 2,407

Regional & Short Line (1)299 302 306 310 313 317 321 325 329 332

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98

166 170 173 176 180 184 187 191 195 199


Locomotive Type


Mainline Freight



Commuter Rail (4)



NOTES:

(1) Assumes ratio is the same as in the retrofit scheduling table.

(2) Based on 0% growth.

(3) Based on projection using historical data.

(4) Based on 2% growth.

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

3,365 3,415 3,466 3,518 3,570 3,624 3,678 3,732 3,788 3,845

Class I (1)

2,451 2,495 2,540 2,585 2,631 2,678 2,725 2,773 2,822 2,872

Regional & Short Line (1) 338 345 351 357 363 370 376 383 390 397

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

99 100 101 101 102 103 104 105 105 106

203 207 211 215 219 224 228 233 237 242

Locomotive Type




Mainline Freight

Commuter Rail (4)


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0

Regional & Short Line 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type


Mainline Freight




Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 43 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 50


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist


Commuter Rail

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type




Total Hydrogen Locomotives

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 26 25 25 59 59 58 75 75 75 174


7 7 6 16 15 15 20 20 20 47

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 1 5 4 5 5 6 6 12

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 175 175 167 167 167 141 142 141 100 100


46 47 45 43 45 38 38 38 27 27

4 4 4 8 8 8 11 11 21 10

13 13 12 12 12 11 11 9 7 8

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0


Locomotive Type

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight




Total Diesel Locomotives

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 62 113 164 249 335 420 523 626 729 931


17 24 30 46 62 77 97 117 137 184

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

16 21 26 34 41 49 58 67 77 92Commuter Rail


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,150 1,369 1,581 1,794 2,007 2,195 2,384 2,574 2,723 2,872


230 277 321 365 409 447 484 522 549 576

15 19 24 32 41 49 61 74 96 106

109 126 142 158 174 189 204 218 229 242

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 2,070 2,075 2,081


576 576 576

83 83 84

129 131 134

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type




2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 2,086 2,092 2,097 2,103 2,109 2,114 2,120 2,125 2,131 2,127


576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 566

85 85 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 91

136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 153

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 2,101 2,076 2,051 1,993 1,934 1,876 1,801 1,726 1,650 1,476


559 552 546 530 514 499 479 459 439 392

92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 88

151 148 147 142 139 134 130 124 118 106

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,301 1,126 959 792 624 483 341 200 100 0


346 299 255 211 167 129 92 54 27 0

84 81 77 69 61 54 42 31 10 0

93 81 69 57 46 35 25 15 8 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




APPENDIX 4: FUEL CONSUMPTION

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 903,503 903,142 902,782 902,421

Regional & Short Line 391,263 391,107 390,951 390,795

104,688 104,646 104,604 104,562

661,463 641,667 622,462 603,833

511,587 521,844 532,306 542,978

Mainline Freight (1)



Commuter Rail (1) (2)

Locomotive Type

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive (L)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 902,061 901,701 901,341 900,981 900,621 900,261 899,902 899,543 899,183 898,824


104,520 104,479 104,437 104,395 104,354 104,312 104,270 104,229 104,187 104,145

585,760 568,229 551,223 534,725 518,722 503,197 488,137 473,527 459,355 445,607

553,864 564,969 576,295 587,849 599,635 611,657 623,920 636,428 649,188 662,203

Locomotive Type






2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 898,465 898,107 897,748 897,390 897,031 896,673 896,315 895,957 895,600 895,242


104,104 104,062 104,021 103,979 103,938 103,896 103,855 103,813 103,772 103,730

434,323 423,326 412,606 402,158 391,975 382,049 372,375 362,946 353,755 344,798

675,447 688,956 702,736 716,790 731,126 745,749 760,664 775,877 791,394 807,222


Locomotive Type





2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 894,885 894,527 894,170 893,813 893,456 893,099 892,743 892,386 892,030 891,674


103,689 103,647 103,606 103,565 103,523 103,482 103,441 103,399 103,358 103,317

336,067 327,557 319,262 311,178 303,298 295,618 288,133 280,837 273,725 266,794

823,367 839,834 856,631 873,763 891,239 909,063 927,245 945,790 964,705 983,999Commuter Rail (1) (2)





Locomotive Type



NOTES:

(1) The consumption per locomotive for each of these types is based on the data provided in Table 3 of the RAC

Locomotive Emissions Report, 2017.

(2) The diesel consumption per locomotive in this case increases due to growth of the commuter rail sector and

heavier use of each locomotive.

A bottom-up approach to estimate total fleet fuel consumption produces a higher figure than the top-down

approach to estimate fleetwide fuel consumption previously presented in Appendix 2. The effect is to make the

future projects of energy demand more conservative.

Total ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel Consumption

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 1,869,075,944 1,873,328,926 1,877,588,958

Regional & Short Line 111,763,892 112,018,205 112,272,939

60,275,923 60,251,856 60,227,799

53,032,076 51,851,053 50,696,330

67,067,384 69,780,236 72,602,822

Mainline Freight


Locomotive Type

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel Consumption (L)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 1,881,856,052 1,886,130,221 1,890,411,478 1,894,699,834 1,898,995,303 1,903,297,897 1,907,607,629 1,911,924,512 1,916,248,557 1,920,579,778


60,203,751 60,179,713 60,155,684 60,131,665 60,107,656 60,083,656 60,059,666 60,035,685 60,011,714 59,987,753

49,567,324 48,463,460 47,384,180 46,328,935 45,297,190 44,288,423 43,302,120 42,337,783 41,394,921 40,473,057

75,539,581 78,595,130 81,774,276 85,082,017 88,523,554 92,104,301 95,829,887 99,706,173 103,739,252 107,935,468


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Total Diesel Consumption (per Hydrail scenario)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 1,943,083,417 1,965,796,739 1,988,721,715 2,011,860,334 2,035,214,606 2,058,786,556 2,082,578,232 2,106,591,699 2,130,829,041 2,155,292,363


59,963,801 59,939,858 59,915,925 59,892,002 59,868,088 59,844,184 59,820,290 59,796,404 59,772,529 59,748,663

39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 33,879,113

112,296,061 116,832,822 121,552,868 126,463,604 131,572,734 136,888,272 142,418,558 148,172,268 154,158,428 160,386,428

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 2,193,281,255 2,231,818,092 2,270,910,819 2,310,567,494 2,350,796,291 2,391,605,506 2,433,003,551 2,474,998,964 2,517,600,403 2,560,816,655


59,724,806 59,700,959 59,677,122 59,653,294 59,629,476 59,605,667 59,581,867 59,558,077 59,534,297 59,510,526

33,281,940 32,695,293 32,118,986 31,552,838 30,996,670 30,450,304 29,913,570 29,386,296 28,868,316 28,359,466

166,866,040 173,607,428 180,621,168 187,918,263 195,510,161 203,408,771 211,626,486 220,176,196 229,071,314 238,325,795

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 1,869,075,944 1,873,328,926 1,877,588,958

Regional & Short Line 111,763,892 112,018,205 112,272,939

60,275,923 60,251,856 60,227,799

53,032,076 51,851,053 50,696,330

67,067,384 69,780,236 72,602,822

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Total Diesel Consumption (L)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 1,881,856,052 1,886,130,221 1,890,411,478 1,894,699,834 1,898,995,303 1,903,297,897 1,907,607,629 1,911,924,512 1,916,248,557 1,911,591,535


60,203,751 60,179,713 60,155,684 60,131,665 60,107,656 60,083,656 60,059,666 60,035,685 60,011,714 58,946,299

49,567,324 48,463,460 47,384,180 46,328,935 45,297,190 44,288,423 43,302,120 42,337,783 41,394,921 40,473,057

75,539,581 78,595,130 81,774,276 85,082,017 88,523,554 92,104,301 95,829,887 99,706,173 103,739,252 101,313,434


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 1,887,574,516 1,864,632,938 1,841,709,379 1,788,187,851 1,734,708,770 1,682,326,991 1,614,169,875 1,546,066,920 1,478,018,091 1,321,554,833


58,189,284 57,432,865 56,799,189 55,067,110 53,458,456 51,851,078 49,757,160 47,664,906 45,574,314 40,683,805

39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 30,431,137

101,761,940 102,187,861 103,410,866 102,130,415 101,611,291 100,159,562 98,609,119 96,050,417 93,349,924 85,789,060

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,164,163,508 1,006,897,659 857,120,761 707,463,309 557,925,230 431,621,328 304,367,943 178,265,945 88,994,231 0

Regional & Short Line 67,286,322 58,172,854 49,520,801 40,875,647 32,237,390 24,966,839 17,702,089 10,443,136 5,455,287 0

35,918,954 31,036,190 26,400,644 21,890,407 17,262,204 13,366,791 9,474,485 5,585,286 2,791,528 0

28,374,743 26,402,980 24,512,881 21,510,979 18,645,388 15,911,128 12,200,965 8,668,496 2,700,760 0

76,926,779 67,675,691 59,024,282 49,999,745 40,590,618 31,846,856 22,737,107 14,354,854 7,881,650 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen (L)

Locomotive Type

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,988,244

Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,892,371

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,041,454

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,622,034Commuter Rail



Intercity & Tourist

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



Total Hydrogen Consumption

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 55,508,902 101,163,801 147,012,336 223,672,483 300,505,836 376,459,566 468,408,357 560,524,779 652,810,950 833,737,530


1,774,517 2,506,994 3,116,737 4,824,892 6,409,632 7,993,106 10,063,130 12,131,499 14,198,215 19,064,858

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,447,976

10,534,121 14,644,961 18,142,002 24,333,190 29,961,443 36,728,710 43,809,440 52,121,851 60,808,503 74,597,368

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,029,117,747 1,224,920,433 1,413,790,058 1,603,104,185 1,792,871,061 1,959,984,177 2,128,635,609 2,296,733,019 2,428,606,172 2,561,022,877


23,805,853 28,664,770 33,276,478 37,762,887 42,367,272 46,238,876 50,107,382 53,972,792 56,742,769 59,510,526

4,907,197 6,292,313 7,606,106 10,041,859 12,351,282 14,539,177 17,712,605 20,717,799 26,167,555 28,395,035

89,939,261 105,931,737 121,596,886 137,918,518 154,919,543 171,561,916 188,889,379 205,821,342 221,189,664 238,331,271

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Total Hydrogen Consumption (kg)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,465

Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 607,339

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162,501

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,033,258

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 8,633,297 15,683,410 22,718,252 34,454,342 46,142,275 57,621,362 71,468,273 85,253,318 98,977,401 126,012,726


275,990 388,659 481,639 743,223 984,191 1,223,435 1,535,401 1,845,147 2,152,694 2,881,500

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521,134

1,638,371 2,270,406 2,803,537 3,748,266 4,600,540 5,621,741 6,684,306 7,927,501 9,219,618 11,274,793

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 155,056,803 183,983,376 211,692,167 239,295,737 266,796,289 290,766,883 314,817,931 338,640,190 356,992,414 375,312,732


3,586,819 4,305,456 4,982,614 5,636,875 6,304,654 6,859,613 7,410,711 7,957,980 8,340,890 8,721,147

739,366 945,107 1,138,891 1,498,951 1,837,988 2,156,911 2,619,634 3,054,721 3,846,494 4,161,235

13,551,116 15,910,975 18,207,165 20,587,129 23,053,503 25,451,493 27,936,093 30,347,183 32,513,725 34,926,967

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




APPENDIX 5: ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS

Annual ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel GHG Emissions

The tonnes of CO2 presented in the following charts are based on emissions factors developed by Change Energy Services

and embedded in its proprietary modeling. These values should be considered CO2-equivalent emissions, comprising key

species of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2, CH4 and N2O.

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475

Regional & Short Line 332,060 332,816 333,572

179,085 179,013 178,942

157,563 154,054 150,623

199,263 207,323 215,709

6,421,152 6,439,023 6,457,321

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Locomotive Type

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,706,204


178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 178,229

147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249

224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 320,685

6,476,056 6,495,242 6,514,890 6,535,014 6,555,628 6,576,746 6,598,383 6,620,556 6,643,282 6,666,577

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Locomotive Type


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 5,773,064 5,840,547 5,908,659 5,977,406 6,046,794 6,116,828 6,187,515 6,258,861 6,330,872 6,403,555


178,157 178,086 178,015 177,944 177,873 177,802 177,731 177,660 177,589 177,518

118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 100,658

333,641 347,120 361,144 375,734 390,914 406,707 423,138 440,232 458,018 476,522

6,748,200 6,831,044 6,915,136 7,000,503 7,087,175 7,175,179 7,264,548 7,355,313 7,447,506 7,541,161


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total



Annual Diesel GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 6,516,423 6,630,919 6,747,067 6,864,890 6,984,413 7,105,661 7,228,658 7,353,430 7,480,002 7,608,402


177,447 177,377 177,306 177,235 177,164 177,093 177,023 176,952 176,881 176,811

98,883 97,140 95,428 93,746 92,094 90,470 88,876 87,309 85,770 84,258

495,773 515,802 536,641 558,321 580,877 604,345 628,760 654,162 680,590 708,086

7,678,185 7,817,743 7,959,891 8,104,688 8,252,191 8,402,462 8,555,564 8,711,561 8,870,521 9,032,511Total


Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475


179,085 179,013 178,942

157,563 154,054 150,623

199,263 207,323 215,709

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Locomotive Type

Commuter Rail

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,679,499


178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 175,134

147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249

224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 301,011Commuter Rail


Intercity & Tourist


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 5,608,143 5,539,981 5,471,873 5,312,856 5,153,966 4,998,335 4,795,834 4,593,495 4,391,316 3,926,450


172,885 170,638 168,755 163,609 158,830 154,054 147,833 141,616 135,405 120,875

118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 90,413

302,343 303,609 307,242 303,438 301,896 297,582 292,976 285,374 277,350 254,887

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 3,458,828 2,991,578 2,546,578 2,101,933 1,657,643 1,282,383 904,303 529,643 264,409 0

Regional & Short Line 199,913 172,836 147,130 121,445 95,780 74,179 52,594 31,027 16,208 0

106,718 92,211 78,439 65,038 51,287 39,714 28,149 16,594 8,294 0

84,304 78,445 72,830 63,911 55,397 47,273 36,250 25,755 8,024 0

228,556 201,070 175,366 148,553 120,598 94,620 67,554 42,649 23,417 0


Intercity & Tourist

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Locomotive Type

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2)

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,705


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,094

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,675

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 164,922 300,566 436,786 664,550 892,828 1,118,493 1,391,681 1,665,366 1,939,556 2,477,104


5,272 7,448 9,260 14,335 19,044 23,748 29,898 36,044 42,184 56,643

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,244

31,298 43,511 53,901 72,296 89,018 109,124 130,162 154,858 180,667 221,635

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 3,057,595 3,639,342 4,200,489 4,762,957 5,326,771 5,823,278 6,324,355 6,823,787 7,215,593 7,609,014


70,729 85,165 98,867 112,197 125,877 137,380 148,873 160,358 168,588 176,811

14,580 18,695 22,598 29,835 36,697 43,197 52,626 61,554 77,746 84,364

267,217 314,732 361,275 409,768 460,279 509,725 561,206 611,513 657,173 708,102

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

Mainline Freight

Locomotive Type

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




Annual Total (Hydrogen & Diesel) GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Locomotive Type


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475


179,085 179,013 178,942

157,563 154,054 150,623

199,263 207,323 215,709

6,421,152 6,439,023 6,457,321

Mainline Freight


Total

Locomotive Type

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,679,499


178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 175,134

147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249

224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 301,011

6,476,056 6,495,242 6,514,890 6,535,014 6,555,628 6,576,746 6,598,383 6,620,556 6,643,282 6,605,539


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 5,608,143 5,539,981 5,471,873 5,312,856 5,153,966 4,998,335 4,795,834 4,593,495 4,391,316 3,926,450


172,885 170,638 168,755 163,609 158,830 154,054 147,833 141,616 135,405 120,875

118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 90,413

302,343 303,609 307,242 303,438 301,896 297,582 292,976 285,374 277,350 254,887

6,526,947 6,451,526 6,378,931 6,199,348 6,023,917 5,847,667 5,620,145 5,391,189 5,160,667 4,619,637

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total




2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 3,458,828 2,991,578 2,546,578 2,101,933 1,657,643 1,282,383 904,303 529,643 264,409 0

Regional & Short Line 199,913 172,836 147,130 121,445 95,780 74,179 52,594 31,027 16,208 0

106,718 92,211 78,439 65,038 51,287 39,714 28,149 16,594 8,294 0

84,304 78,445 72,830 63,911 55,397 47,273 36,250 25,755 8,024 0

228,556 201,070 175,366 148,553 120,598 94,620 67,554 42,649 23,417 0

4,078,319 3,536,141 3,020,343 2,500,881 1,980,705 1,538,169 1,088,851 645,669 320,353 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total




APPENDIX 6: CUMULATIVE GHG EMISSIONS

Cumulative ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel GHG Emissions

2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474


179,085 358,098 537,040

157,563 311,617 462,240

199,263 406,586 622,295

6,421,152 12,860,175 19,317,496

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,182,985


715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,322,534

609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773

846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,322,504

25,793,553 32,288,795 38,803,685 45,338,699 51,894,326 58,471,072 65,069,455 71,690,012 78,333,294 84,999,870


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 78,956,049 84,796,597 90,705,256 96,682,662 102,729,456 108,846,284 115,033,799 121,292,660 127,623,532 134,027,087


2,500,691 2,678,777 2,856,793 3,034,737 3,212,610 3,390,412 3,568,143 3,745,803 3,923,393 4,100,911

1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,887,638

3,656,145 4,003,265 4,364,409 4,740,143 5,131,057 5,537,763 5,960,901 6,401,133 6,859,151 7,335,672

91,748,071 98,579,115 105,494,251 112,494,754 119,581,929 126,757,108 134,021,656 141,376,969 148,824,475 156,365,636

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Total



Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 140,543,510 147,174,429 153,921,496 160,786,386 167,770,799 174,876,460 182,105,119 189,458,548 196,938,551 204,546,952


4,278,358 4,455,735 4,633,041 4,810,276 4,987,440 5,164,533 5,341,556 5,518,508 5,695,389 5,872,200

2,986,521 3,083,662 3,179,090 3,272,836 3,364,930 3,455,400 3,544,276 3,631,585 3,717,355 3,801,613

7,831,445 8,347,248 8,883,888 9,442,209 10,023,086 10,627,431 11,256,191 11,910,353 12,590,943 13,299,029

164,043,821 171,861,564 179,821,456 187,926,143 196,178,334 204,580,796 213,136,360 221,847,921 230,718,442 239,750,953

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474


179,085 358,098 537,040

157,563 311,617 462,240

199,263 406,586 622,295

Mainline Freight

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,156,280


715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,319,439

609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773

846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,302,830


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 78,764,423 84,304,404 89,776,277 95,089,134 100,243,099 105,241,434 110,037,269 114,630,764 119,022,079 122,948,530


2,492,325 2,662,962 2,831,718 2,995,327 3,154,156 3,308,210 3,456,043 3,597,659 3,733,064 3,853,939

1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,877,393

3,605,173 3,908,782 4,216,024 4,519,462 4,821,358 5,118,940 5,411,916 5,697,290 5,974,640 6,229,527Commuter Rail


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist



Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 126,407,358 129,398,935 131,945,513 134,047,446 135,705,089 136,987,472 137,891,775 138,421,418 138,685,827 138,685,827


3,960,658 4,052,869 4,131,307 4,196,346 4,247,633 4,287,347 4,315,496 4,332,091 4,340,385 4,340,385

2,961,697 3,040,143 3,112,972 3,176,883 3,232,280 3,279,554 3,315,804 3,341,559 3,349,583 3,349,583

6,458,083 6,659,153 6,834,519 6,983,073 7,103,671 7,198,290 7,265,844 7,308,494 7,331,911 7,331,911

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,705


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,094

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,675


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 191,626 492,193 928,979 1,593,528 2,486,356 3,604,849 4,996,530 6,661,896 8,601,453 11,078,557


8,366 15,815 25,075 39,410 58,454 82,202 112,100 148,144 190,328 246,971

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,244

50,972 94,484 148,385 220,681 309,699 418,823 548,985 703,843 884,510 1,106,145


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 14,136,152 17,775,494 21,975,983 26,738,940 32,065,711 37,888,988 44,213,344 51,037,131 58,252,724 65,861,738

Regional & Short Line 954,657 1,178,325 1,434,645 1,723,695 2,045,557 2,396,271 2,775,924 3,184,605 3,615,673 4,070,573

317,701 402,866 501,733 613,930 739,807 877,186 1,026,060 1,186,417 1,355,005 1,531,816

24,824 43,519 66,117 95,952 132,649 175,846 228,472 290,026 367,772 452,136

1,373,362 1,688,095 2,049,369 2,459,137 2,919,416 3,429,140 3,990,347 4,601,859 5,259,032 5,967,135

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 0 0 0


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail




Cumulative Total (Hydrogen & Diesel) GHG Emissions

2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


2017 2018 2019 2020

Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474


179,085 358,098 537,040

157,563 311,617 462,240

199,263 406,586 622,295

6,421,152 12,860,175 19,317,496Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Locomotive Type

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,156,280


715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,319,439

609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773

846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,302,830

25,793,553 32,288,795 38,803,685 45,338,699 51,894,326 58,471,072 65,069,455 71,690,012 78,333,294 84,938,832

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total


2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 78,764,423 84,304,404 89,776,277 95,089,134 100,243,099 105,241,434 110,037,269 114,630,764 119,022,079 122,948,530


2,492,325 2,662,962 2,831,718 2,995,327 3,154,156 3,308,210 3,456,043 3,597,659 3,733,064 3,853,939

1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,877,393

3,605,173 3,908,782 4,216,024 4,519,462 4,821,358 5,118,940 5,411,916 5,697,290 5,974,640 6,229,527

91,465,779 97,917,305 104,296,236 110,495,584 116,519,501 122,367,168 127,987,313 133,378,502 138,539,169 143,158,806

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 126,407,358 129,398,935 131,945,513 134,047,446 135,705,089 136,987,472 137,891,775 138,421,418 138,685,827 138,685,827


3,960,658 4,052,869 4,131,307 4,196,346 4,247,633 4,287,347 4,315,496 4,332,091 4,340,385 4,340,385

2,961,697 3,040,143 3,112,972 3,176,883 3,232,280 3,279,554 3,315,804 3,341,559 3,349,583 3,349,583

6,458,083 6,659,153 6,834,519 6,983,073 7,103,671 7,198,290 7,265,844 7,308,494 7,331,911 7,331,911

147,237,125 150,773,266 153,793,609 156,294,489 158,275,195 159,813,363 160,902,214 161,547,883 161,868,236 161,868,236


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total


Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight



APPENDIX 7: ANNUAL CAC EMISSIONS

Annual ‘business-as-usual’ diesel criteria air contaminant (CAC) emissions (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 67,600 68,390 69,188 69,993 70,805 71,625 72,453 73,288 74,132 74,983


4,146 4,144 4,143 4,141 4,139 4,138 4,136 4,134 4,133 4,131

2,240 2,201 2,162 2,124 2,086 2,049 2,013 1,978 1,943 1,909

6,327 6,582 6,848 7,125 7,413 7,712 8,024 8,348 8,685 9,036

84,355 85,407 86,477 87,567 88,677 89,807 90,958 92,131 93,325 94,542

Class I 1,399 1,415 1,432 1,449 1,465 1,482 1,499 1,517 1,534 1,552


90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

46 45 44 43 43 42 41 40 40 39

129 134 140 145 151 157 164 170 177 184

1,747 1,769 1,791 1,814 1,837 1,860 1,884 1,908 1,933 1,958

Class I 14,282 14,449 14,617 14,787 14,959 15,132 15,307 15,483 15,662 15,841


441 441 440 440 440 440 440 440 439 439

280 275 270 265 260 256 251 247 242 238

789 821 855 889 925 962 1,001 1,042 1,084 1,128

16,609 16,813 17,019 17,228 17,441 17,657 17,876 18,098 18,324 18,554

Class I 2,837 2,870 2,904 2,937 2,971 3,006 3,041 3,076 3,111 3,147


240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240

87 86 84 83 81 80 78 77 76 74

246 256 266 277 288 300 312 324 338 351

3,580 3,623 3,668 3,713 3,758 3,805 3,852 3,901 3,950 4,000

Class I 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

45 46 47 47 48 48 49 50 50 51

NOx

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight




2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 76,304 77,645 79,005 80,385 81,784 83,204 84,644 86,105 87,587 89,091


4,129 4,128 4,126 4,124 4,123 4,121 4,119 4,118 4,116 4,115

1,875 1,842 1,810 1,778 1,746 1,716 1,685 1,656 1,626 1,598

9,401 9,781 10,176 10,587 11,015 11,460 11,923 12,405 12,906 13,427

96,273 98,039 99,841 101,681 103,559 105,476 107,433 109,432 111,473 113,558

Class I 1,579 1,607 1,635 1,664 1,693 1,722 1,752 1,782 1,813 1,844


90 90 90 89 89 89 89 89 89 89

38 38 37 36 36 35 34 34 33 33

192 200 208 216 225 234 243 253 263 274

1,993 2,030 2,067 2,105 2,144 2,183 2,224 2,265 2,307 2,350

Class I 16,121 16,404 16,691 16,983 17,278 17,578 17,883 18,191 18,504 18,822

Regional & Short Line 923 940 956 973 990 1,007 1,024 1,042 1,060 1,078

439 439 439 438 438 438 438 438 438 437

234 230 226 222 218 214 210 207 203 199

1,173 1,220 1,270 1,321 1,374 1,430 1,488 1,548 1,610 1,675

18,890 19,232 19,581 19,937 20,299 20,667 21,043 21,425 21,815 22,212

Class I 3,202 3,258 3,316 3,373 3,432 3,492 3,552 3,613 3,676 3,739


239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239

73 72 70 69 68 67 66 64 63 62

365 380 396 412 428 445 463 482 502 522

4,071 4,145 4,219 4,295 4,373 4,452 4,532 4,615 4,699 4,785

Class I 44 45 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 51


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

NOx

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Total

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail



Annual diesel CAC emissions avoided (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 1,931 3,519 5,115 7,782 10,455 13,097 16,296 19,501 22,711 29,006

Regional & Short Line 231 328 425 585 730 892 1,085 1,263 1,457 1,825

123 173 215 334 443 553 696 839 982 1,318

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194

593 825 1,022 1,371 1,688 2,069 2,468 2,937 3,426 4,203

Class I 40 73 106 161 216 271 337 404 470 600


3 4 5 7 10 12 15 18 21 29

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

12 17 21 28 34 42 50 60 70 86

Class I 391 712 1,035 1,575 2,116 2,650 3,298 3,946 4,596 5,870


13 18 23 35 47 59 74 89 104 140

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

74 103 128 171 211 258 308 366 427 524

Class I 81 148 215 327 439 550 684 818 953 1,217


7 10 12 19 26 32 40 49 57 76

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

23 32 40 53 66 80 96 114 133 163

Class I 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 11 13 17


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

SO2

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

HC

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

PM

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

CO

Annual Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

NOx

Mainline Freight



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 35,803 42,615 49,186 55,772 62,374 68,188 74,055 79,903 84,491 89,098


1,646 1,982 2,301 2,611 2,929 3,197 3,464 3,732 3,923 4,115

276 355 429 566 696 819 998 1,167 1,474 1,600

5,067 5,968 6,851 7,770 8,728 9,666 10,642 11,596 12,462 13,428

Class I 741 882 1,018 1,154 1,291 1,411 1,533 1,654 1,749 1,844


36 43 50 57 64 69 75 81 85 89

6 7 9 12 14 17 20 24 30 33

103 122 140 159 178 197 217 237 254 274

Class I 7,245 8,623 9,953 11,286 12,622 13,798 14,986 16,169 17,097 18,030

Regional & Short Line 450 530 607 685 763 831 900 968 1,021 1,078

175 211 245 278 311 340 368 397 417 437

34 44 53 71 87 102 125 146 184 200

632 745 855 970 1,089 1,206 1,328 1,447 1,555 1,675

Class I 1,503 1,788 2,064 2,341 2,618 2,862 3,108 3,353 3,546 3,739


95 115 133 151 170 185 201 216 228 239

11 14 17 22 27 32 39 45 57 62

197 232 266 302 339 376 414 451 484 522

Class I 21 24 28 32 36 39 43 46 49 51


0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5

SO2

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

HC

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

PM

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

CO

Annual Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

NOx

Mainline Freight



Annual total (hydrogen and diesel) CAC emissions (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 65,669 64,871 64,073 62,211 60,351 58,528 56,157 53,788 51,420 45,977


4,023 3,971 3,927 3,807 3,696 3,585 3,440 3,296 3,151 2,813

2,240 2,201 2,162 2,124 2,086 2,049 2,013 1,978 1,943 1,714

5,733 5,757 5,826 5,754 5,725 5,643 5,556 5,411 5,259 4,833

81,476 80,561 79,701 77,496 75,361 73,197 70,414 67,592 64,749 57,996

Class I 1,359 1,343 1,326 1,287 1,249 1,211 1,162 1,113 1,064 952


87 86 85 83 80 78 75 71 68 61

46 45 44 43 43 42 41 40 40 35

117 118 119 117 117 115 113 110 107 99

1,688 1,669 1,651 1,605 1,561 1,516 1,459 1,400 1,341 1,201

Class I 13,289 13,127 12,966 12,589 12,212 11,844 11,364 10,884 10,405 9,304


428 422 417 405 393 381 366 350 335 299

280 275 270 265 260 256 251 247 242 214

715 718 727 718 714 704 693 675 656 603

15,482 15,303 15,131 14,705 14,289 13,871 13,331 12,788 12,241 10,958

Class I 2,756 2,722 2,689 2,611 2,533 2,456 2,357 2,257 2,158 1,929


233 230 228 221 214 208 200 191 183 163

87 86 84 83 81 80 78 77 76 67

223 224 226 224 223 219 216 210 204 188

3,459 3,420 3,383 3,289 3,198 3,105 2,987 2,867 2,746 2,459

Class I 38 37 37 36 35 34 32 31 30 26


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

44 43 43 42 41 39 38 36 35 31

NOx

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 40,501 35,030 29,819 24,613 19,410 15,016 10,589 6,202 3,096 0

Regional & Short Line 2,341 2,024 1,723 1,422 1,122 869 616 363 190 0

2,483 2,146 1,825 1,514 1,194 924 655 386 193 0

1,599 1,488 1,381 1,212 1,050 896 687 488 152 0

4,334 3,813 3,325 2,817 2,287 1,794 1,281 809 444 0

51,258 44,500 38,074 31,577 25,063 19,500 13,828 8,248 4,075 0

Class I 838 725 617 509 402 311 219 128 64 0


54 47 40 33 26 20 14 8 4 0

33 30 28 25 21 18 14 10 3 0

88 78 68 57 47 37 26 17 9 0

1,062 922 788 654 519 404 286 171 84 0

Class I 8,196 7,089 6,034 4,981 3,928 3,039 2,143 1,255 627 0


264 228 194 161 127 98 70 41 21 0

199 186 172 151 131 112 86 61 19 0

541 476 415 351 285 224 160 101 55 0

9,674 8,388 7,164 5,932 4,698 3,648 2,583 1,531 760 0

Class I 1,700 1,470 1,251 1,033 815 630 444 260 130 0


144 124 106 88 69 54 38 22 11 0

62 58 54 47 41 35 27 19 6 0

168 148 129 109 89 70 50 31 17 0

2,173 1,885 1,613 1,337 1,061 825 585 348 172 0

Class I 23 20 17 14 11 9 6 4 2 0


1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

27 24 20 17 13 10 7 4 2 0

NOx

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes)



Annual CAC emissions, visualized



APPENDIX 8: CUMULATIVE CAC EMISSIONS

Cumulative ‘business-as-usual’ diesel CAC emissions (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 924,538 992,928 1,062,116 1,132,109 1,202,914 1,274,539 1,346,992 1,420,280 1,494,412 1,569,394


58,194 62,338 66,480 70,621 74,761 78,898 83,034 87,168 91,301 95,432

36,293 38,493 40,655 42,779 44,865 46,915 48,928 50,906 52,849 54,758

69,331 75,913 82,761 89,886 97,299 105,011 113,035 121,383 130,069 139,105

1,143,639 1,229,046 1,315,524 1,403,091 1,491,768 1,581,576 1,672,534 1,764,665 1,857,991 1,952,533

Class I 19,134 20,549 21,981 23,430 24,895 26,377 27,877 29,394 30,928 32,480


1,263 1,352 1,442 1,532 1,622 1,712 1,801 1,891 1,981 2,070

741 786 830 873 916 958 999 1,039 1,079 1,118

1,415 1,550 1,689 1,835 1,986 2,143 2,307 2,478 2,655 2,839

23,696 25,466 27,257 29,071 30,907 32,767 34,651 36,559 38,492 40,449

Class I 195,325 209,774 224,391 239,178 254,137 269,269 284,576 300,059 315,721 331,562


6,186 6,627 7,067 7,507 7,947 8,387 8,827 9,267 9,706 10,145

4,529 4,803 5,073 5,338 5,598 5,854 6,105 6,352 6,594 6,833

8,651 9,472 10,327 11,216 12,141 13,103 14,104 15,146 16,230 17,357

225,878 242,691 259,709 276,938 294,379 312,035 329,911 348,009 366,333 384,887

Class I 38,799 41,669 44,573 47,510 50,482 53,487 56,528 59,604 62,715 65,861


3,375 3,615 3,856 4,096 4,336 4,576 4,816 5,056 5,295 5,535

1,411 1,496 1,580 1,663 1,744 1,824 1,902 1,979 2,054 2,128

2,695 2,951 3,217 3,494 3,782 4,082 4,394 4,718 5,056 5,407

48,600 52,224 55,891 59,604 63,362 67,167 71,020 74,920 78,870 82,870

Class I 531 571 611 651 692 733 774 816 859 902


17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 28

13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 19

25 27 29 32 35 37 40 43 46 49

618 664 710 757 805 853 902 952 1,002 1,053

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight

NOx



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,645,699 1,723,343 1,802,348 1,882,733 1,964,517 2,047,721 2,132,365 2,218,471 2,306,058 2,395,149


99,562 103,689 107,815 111,940 116,063 120,184 124,303 128,421 132,537 136,652

56,633 58,475 60,284 62,062 63,808 65,524 67,209 68,865 70,491 72,089

148,506 158,287 168,463 179,050 190,066 201,526 213,449 225,853 238,759 252,187

2,048,805 2,146,844 2,246,685 2,348,366 2,451,925 2,557,401 2,664,834 2,774,266 2,885,740 2,999,297

Class I 34,059 35,666 37,301 38,964 40,657 42,379 44,131 45,913 47,725 49,569


2,160 2,250 2,339 2,429 2,518 2,607 2,697 2,786 2,875 2,965

1,156 1,194 1,231 1,267 1,302 1,337 1,372 1,406 1,439 1,471

3,031 3,231 3,439 3,655 3,880 4,113 4,357 4,610 4,874 5,148

42,443 44,472 46,539 48,644 50,788 52,971 55,195 57,460 59,767 62,117

Class I 347,683 364,087 380,778 397,761 415,039 432,617 450,500 468,691 487,195 506,017


10,584 11,023 11,461 11,900 12,338 12,776 13,214 13,652 14,090 14,527

7,067 7,296 7,522 7,744 7,962 8,176 8,386 8,593 8,796 8,995

18,530 19,751 21,021 22,342 23,716 25,146 26,634 28,182 29,792 31,467

403,777 423,009 442,591 462,527 482,826 503,493 524,536 545,961 567,776 589,989

Class I 69,064 72,322 75,638 79,011 82,443 85,935 89,487 93,101 96,776 100,515


5,774 6,014 6,253 6,492 6,731 6,970 7,209 7,448 7,687 7,926

2,201 2,273 2,343 2,412 2,480 2,547 2,613 2,677 2,740 2,802

5,773 6,153 6,548 6,960 7,388 7,834 8,297 8,779 9,281 9,803

86,942 91,086 95,305 99,600 103,973 108,424 112,957 117,572 122,271 127,056

Class I 946 991 1,036 1,082 1,129 1,177 1,226 1,275 1,326 1,377


29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 40

20 21 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26

53 56 60 64 67 72 76 80 85 90

1,104 1,157 1,210 1,265 1,321 1,377 1,435 1,493 1,553 1,614

NOx

PM

CO

HC

SO2

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail

Total

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist



Cumulative diesel CAC emissions avoided (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 2,244 5,763 10,878 18,659 29,114 42,211 58,507 78,008 100,719 129,725

Regional & Short Line 367 695 1,119 1,704 2,435 3,326 4,411 5,674 7,131 8,957

195 368 584 917 1,360 1,913 2,609 3,447 4,429 5,747

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194

967 1,792 2,814 4,185 5,873 7,942 10,410 13,347 16,773 20,976

Class I 46 119 225 386 603 874 1,211 1,614 2,084 2,685


4 8 13 20 30 42 57 75 96 125

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

20 37 57 85 120 162 212 272 342 428

Class I 454 1,166 2,201 3,776 5,891 8,542 11,839 15,785 20,381 26,251

Regional & Short Line 74 141 226 345 493 673 893 1,148 1,443 1,812

21 39 62 97 145 203 277 366 471 611

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

121 224 351 522 733 991 1,299 1,665 2,093 2,617

Class I 94 242 457 783 1,222 1,771 2,455 3,274 4,227 5,444


11 21 34 53 79 111 151 200 257 333

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

38 70 109 163 228 309 405 519 652 815

Class I 1 3 6 11 17 24 34 45 58 75


0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

SO2

HC

Mainline Freight



Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail

CO

Mainline Freight

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

PM

NOx

Mainline Freight


Cumulative Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

Locomotive Type



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 165,528 208,143 257,328 313,100 375,474 443,662 517,718 597,621 682,112 771,210


7,393 9,375 11,676 14,287 17,216 20,413 23,877 27,609 31,532 35,647

471 825 1,254 1,820 2,515 3,335 4,332 5,500 6,974 8,574

26,043 32,011 38,862 46,632 55,360 65,026 75,668 87,264 99,726 113,153

Class I 3,426 4,308 5,326 6,480 7,771 9,182 10,714 12,368 14,117 15,961


160 203 253 310 374 443 518 599 684 773

10 17 26 37 51 68 88 112 142 175

532 653 793 952 1,130 1,327 1,545 1,781 2,036 2,310

Class I 33,496 42,119 52,072 63,358 75,980 89,778 104,764 120,933 138,030 156,060


786 997 1,241 1,519 1,830 2,170 2,538 2,935 3,352 3,789

59 103 156 227 314 416 541 686 870 1,070

3,250 3,994 4,849 5,819 6,908 8,114 9,442 10,889 12,444 14,119

Class I 6,947 8,735 10,799 13,140 15,757 18,619 21,727 25,080 28,626 32,365

Regional & Short Line 469 579 705 847 1,005 1,178 1,364 1,565 1,777 2,000

429 544 677 829 998 1,184 1,385 1,601 1,829 2,067

18 32 49 71 98 130 168 214 271 333

1,012 1,244 1,511 1,813 2,152 2,528 2,941 3,392 3,876 4,398

Class I 95 120 148 180 216 255 298 344 392 443


2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3

9 11 14 17 20 23 27 31 35 40Commuter Rail

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

SO2

HC

Mainline Freight



Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail

CO

Mainline Freight

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

PM

NOx

Mainline Freight


Cumulative Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

Locomotive Type



Cumulative total (hydrogen and diesel) CAC emissions (tonnes)

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Class I 922,294 987,165 1,051,238 1,113,449 1,173,800 1,232,328 1,288,485 1,342,272 1,393,693 1,439,670


57,999 61,970 65,897 69,704 73,400 76,985 80,425 83,721 86,872 89,685

36,293 38,493 40,655 42,779 44,865 46,915 48,928 50,906 52,849 54,563

68,364 74,121 79,948 85,702 91,426 97,069 102,625 108,036 113,296 118,129

1,139,867 1,220,428 1,300,129 1,377,625 1,452,987 1,526,184 1,596,597 1,664,189 1,728,938 1,786,934

Class I 19,087 20,430 21,756 23,044 24,292 25,504 26,666 27,779 28,843 29,795


1,258 1,344 1,430 1,512 1,592 1,670 1,745 1,816 1,885 1,946

741 786 830 873 916 958 999 1,039 1,079 1,114

1,395 1,513 1,632 1,749 1,866 1,981 2,095 2,205 2,313 2,411

23,619 25,287 26,939 28,544 30,105 31,621 33,080 34,480 35,821 37,022

Class I 186,633 199,760 212,725 225,314 237,527 249,370 260,734 271,618 282,023 291,327


6,166 6,588 7,005 7,410 7,803 8,184 8,550 8,900 9,235 9,534

4,529 4,803 5,073 5,338 5,598 5,854 6,105 6,352 6,594 6,808

8,530 9,249 9,976 10,694 11,408 12,112 12,805 13,481 14,137 14,740

216,970 232,273 247,405 262,110 276,399 290,269 303,600 316,388 328,629 339,587

Class I 38,705 41,427 44,116 46,727 49,260 51,716 54,073 56,330 58,488 60,417


3,364 3,594 3,822 4,043 4,257 4,465 4,665 4,856 5,038 5,202

1,411 1,496 1,580 1,663 1,744 1,824 1,902 1,979 2,054 2,121

2,657 2,881 3,108 3,331 3,554 3,773 3,989 4,199 4,404 4,592

48,442 51,862 55,245 58,533 61,731 64,837 67,823 70,690 73,435 75,894

Class I 530 567 604 640 675 708 741 772 801 828


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 19

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

616 659 702 744 784 824 862 898 933 964

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

SO2

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

CO

HC

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

NOx

PM

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total



2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Class I 1,480,171 1,515,201 1,545,020 1,569,633 1,589,043 1,604,059 1,614,648 1,620,850 1,623,946 1,623,946


92,168 94,314 96,140 97,653 98,847 99,771 100,426 100,812 101,005 101,005

56,162 57,650 59,031 60,243 61,293 62,189 62,877 63,365 63,517 63,517

122,463 126,276 129,601 132,418 134,705 136,500 137,781 138,589 139,033 139,033

1,838,193 1,882,693 1,920,766 1,952,344 1,977,406 1,996,906 2,010,734 2,018,983 2,023,058 2,023,058

Class I 30,633 31,358 31,975 32,484 32,886 33,197 33,416 33,544 33,609 33,609


2,000 2,046 2,086 2,119 2,144 2,165 2,179 2,187 2,191 2,191

1,146 1,177 1,205 1,230 1,251 1,269 1,283 1,293 1,297 1,297

2,500 2,578 2,645 2,703 2,750 2,786 2,812 2,829 2,838 2,838

38,084 39,006 39,794 40,448 40,967 41,370 41,657 41,828 41,912 41,912

Class I 299,523 306,611 312,646 317,626 321,554 324,593 326,735 327,990 328,617 328,617


9,798 10,026 10,220 10,381 10,508 10,606 10,676 10,717 10,737 10,737

7,008 7,193 7,366 7,517 7,648 7,760 7,846 7,907 7,926 7,926

15,281 15,756 16,171 16,523 16,808 17,032 17,192 17,293 17,348 17,348

349,261 357,648 364,812 370,744 375,442 379,091 381,673 383,205 383,965 383,965

Class I 62,117 63,587 64,838 65,871 66,686 67,316 67,760 68,021 68,151 68,151


5,346 5,470 5,576 5,664 5,733 5,787 5,825 5,847 5,858 5,858

2,183 2,241 2,295 2,342 2,383 2,417 2,444 2,463 2,469 2,469

4,760 4,908 5,038 5,147 5,236 5,306 5,356 5,387 5,404 5,404

78,067 79,952 81,565 82,902 83,962 84,787 85,372 85,720 85,892 85,892

Class I 851 871 888 902 914 922 928 932 934 934


27 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29

20 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23

43 45 46 47 48 48 49 49 49 49

991 1,015 1,035 1,052 1,065 1,076 1,083 1,087 1,090 1,090


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

SO2

Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total

Mainline Freight

CO

HC

Mainline Freight


NOx

PM

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes)

Locomotive Type

Mainline Freight


Intercity & Tourist

Commuter Rail

Total



Cumulative CAC emissions, visualized

hydrail railway transition in canada: technological

Documents