A version of this article first appeared in Railway Age

The Class I railroads set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions about five years ago, but a review of recent data shows mixed progress at best. Two railroads set goals based on reducing overall fuel consumption, which thus far has been helped along by a decline in car loadings (Exhibit 1). The others set goals based on carbon intensity (carbon emissions per million gross ton-miles) — and appear to be headed in the wrong direction (Exhibit 2).

Two assumptions likely fueled the railroads’ original targets: that fuel efficiency would continue to improve by 1% a year, as it had historically, and that bio-based diesel fuels would quickly become available to replace standard low-sulfur diesel fuel. Unfortunately, these assumptions have not panned out.

More critically, a lack of progress on near-term emissions creates doubt about how the railroads are going to achieve the larger goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Given that the railroads will likely need 15 years or more to fully transition to interoperable net-zero locomotives (including supporting infrastructure and facilities), they have run out of time to fail fast and try again.

Inertia (or the perception of it) from here on out raises the specter of increased regulation. And it risks railroads losing a key competitive edge over trucking, as truck fuel efficiency is improving while truck emissions are falling. The much shorter replacement cycle for trucks (three to five years for major fleets versus 20-25 years for locomotives) is locking in real gains quickly. Trucks have already fully achieved locomotive Tier 4 emission standards, and with a push from regulators, are likely to achieve zero emissions well before rail.

The 2030s conundrum — fuel efficiency, biofuel availability

Upgrading to more fuel-efficient locomotives as they become available has been a key way for the industry to reduce emissions historically, but the latest Tier 4 locomotives do not provide the fuel efficiency gains of past models. Only 137 new road locomotives have been built in the past five years — 2.5% of the new locomotives built in the prior decade.

Railroads also face stiff competition for renewable biofuels. Demand from the aviation industry, which has few choices to reduce emissions, far outstrips supply. Plus, major airlines may outbid railroads for what supply there is. The trucking industry also is making use of biofuels, along with electrification, to reduce emissions.

The lack of measurable improvement in locomotive fuel efficiency, coupled with the high cost and likely limited availability of biofuels, calls into doubt whether railroads can meet their near-term 2030-era goals. And it raises a larger question — should the railroads be focusing instead on the longer and more difficult transition to net zero by 2050?

Transitioning to 2050 — lessons learned from the rail industry  

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has voiced a preference for hydrogen as the alternative locomotive fuel of choice to meet net-zero 2050 goals. But let’s consider what has to happen between now and 2050 in the rail industry to make any alternative fuel the de facto standard – by looking at two of the biggest locomotive technology changes to date: positive train control (PTC) and the switch from coal-powered to diesel-electric locomotives.

Positive train control

Positive train control was the largest undertaking by the railroads in at least five decades. A crucial factor in its success was the use of collaborative AAR industry committees to ensure interoperability across the entire US rail network. There was no substitute for their role.

Initially, in the early 2000s, federally mandated PTC implementation was going nowhere fast until railroad CEO leadership got involved and built consensus; then things started to happen, including jumpstarting AAR committee formation, at the same time that teams on the individual railroads got to work. We believe something similar must happen with any alternative fuel choice for the industry to meet a net-zero 2050 goal.

The AAR Alternative Fuel Tender Technical Advisory Group and various AAR locomotive subcommittees have begun to look at current issues around alternative fuels and emissions. But it’s crucial for these  AAR committees to start determining what the net-zero 2050 endgame for railroads will be and then develop implementation plans and timelines. Hurdles specific to the rail industry must be identified —  such as lower fuel energy density, technical and safety protocols, and refueling infrastructure — and subcommittees must begin working on how these challenges will be resolved,

A key area, for example, is supporting infrastructure. While the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $7 billion in funding for the development of six to 10 hydrogen production and storage hubs, how will this hydrogen be distributed? Pipeline transport faces big hurdles — existing pipes limit potential volume and hydrogen embrittles conventional steel. The likely best option, at least for a transitional period, could be rail tank cars.

The list goes on. Shops will need appropriate ventilation systems. Servicing facilities must be designed. How will hydrogen be stored and in what form? Will large servicing facilities include hydrogen production plants? Will the industry approve direct truck to locomotive (DTL) hydrogen refueling? What training will the FRA require for train crews? The industry as a whole needs to be tackling such issues now.

PTC planning and design provides two important lessons. First, by working together, the railroads engineered a solution that ensured PTC locomotives could operate anywhere in the United States. Second, with a clear plan in place, the railroads were able to work with regulators to establish a workable implementation timeline.

Coal to diesel locomotives

The transition from coal to diesel-electric locomotives occurred between 1945 and 1960. While General Motors’ Electro Motive Division (EMD) built the new diesel engine, the railroads had to take the lead in transforming their operations to utilize diesel instead of coal, including shop redesign and fueling infrastructure — and this took time. They also had to develop a new fuel distribution network, using tanks cars to move diesel during the build out of today’s pipeline network.

A critical factor that is relevant to the next leap forward in fuel technology is that the railroads used a gradual approach to the transition, starting by proving the technology in yard and local service. This avoided transitioning the entire network to a new fuel supply chain all at once and allowed the economics to be focused where they were most compelling.

Navigating rail tech for a sustainable 2050

The first moon landing was not a one-shot deal — early space missions incrementally built up the technical expertise and confidence required for success. Similarly, the rail industry is facing a challenging, complex, multi-year technology project, which needs a definitive goal and a series of agreed upon and well-planned steps.

There has been enough academic research on batteries, hydrogen as a fuel, electrification, and other technologies that the industry, through the AAR and MxV Rail and with expert assistance, should be able to undertake problem solving, develop an economic model, and reach consensus on a best solution. With the 2050 deadline in view, we believe the industry must quickly align on the following issues.

Evaluate greenhouse gas emissions targets 

Review current GHG emissions targets and model potential scenarios for economy-wide biofuel availability, demand, and cost, to clarify a path to achieving 2030-era goals and beyond.

Define and agree on 2050 goals 

Gather and deploy resources to define and agree on what the 2050 net-zero endgame will look like, with a focus on road locomotives to ensure interoperability. This sector also consumes the most fuel and generate the highest emissions.

Develop the transition plan and timetable 

Develop a well-documented transition plan and timetable, targeting initial deployment toward  yard and local service as well as captive routes with high-density unit trains for road locomotives. Since such unit trains operationally cycle the fastest and undergo rigorous usage, this would quickly uncover any issues in road service, while minimizing the need to develop new supply chains for alternative fuels. Work is under way on battery-electric locomotives (BEL), an apparent solution for yard units. Intermediate horsepower locomotives for local service and shortlines may require their own solution, which this plan also could address.

Engage with regulatory agencies 

With an end goal and transition plan in place, the industry will be well positioned to work with regulatory agencies at the federal and state level as needed. Regulators are more likely to be open to discussion if they believe their goals have been accepted and that a concrete pathway for success has full industry backing. 

Railroads’ race for net-zero transition

Tick-tock! The net-zero clock is running for railroads. The shorter the transition period gets, the greater the chance of stranded investment, loss of competitiveness, and increased regulation. The rest of the world, especially the North American trucking industry, is on the move to reduce emissions. With flat rail traffic volumes and dwindling coal demand, there is little call for new locomotives at present. This offers a rare window for the industry to tackle the net-zero challenge wholeheartedly and collaboratively, once again demonstrating the leadership that has made rail the transportation backbone of the continent for nearly two centuries.

Read the original piece, here.