California Passes 1st-In-Nation Emission Rules For Trains (apnews.com) 136
California has approved a groundbreaking rule to cut greenhouse gas emissions by limiting rail pollution, banning locomotives over 23 years old by 2030, increasing the use of zero-emissions technology for freight transportation, and imposing restrictions on idling. The Associated Press reports: The rule will ban locomotive engines more than 23 years old by 2030 and increase the use of zero-emissions technology to transport freight from ports and throughout railyards. It would also ban locomotives in the state from idling longer than 30 minutes if they are equipped with an automatic shutoff. The standards would also reduce chemicals that contribute to smog. They could improve air quality near railyards and ports.
The transportation sector contributed the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide in 2020, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But rail only accounts for about 2% of those emissions. Other states can sign on to try to adopt the California rule if it gets the OK from the Biden administration. The rule is the most ambitious of its kind in the country. "The locomotive rule has the power to change the course of history for Californians who have suffered from train pollution for far too long, and it is my hope that our federal regulators follow California's lead," said Yasmine Agelidis, a lawyer with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, in a statement.
The transportation sector contributed the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide in 2020, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But rail only accounts for about 2% of those emissions. Other states can sign on to try to adopt the California rule if it gets the OK from the Biden administration. The rule is the most ambitious of its kind in the country. "The locomotive rule has the power to change the course of history for Californians who have suffered from train pollution for far too long, and it is my hope that our federal regulators follow California's lead," said Yasmine Agelidis, a lawyer with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, in a statement.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Electrification.
It might not be suitable for all routes or all parts of a route but if you have a bi-mode diesel and electric loco it can be non polluting under the wires.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan has hybrid trains, some with batteries, some with fuel cells. The batteries are enough to cover parts of the route that don't have overhead cables for power.
They are also adding regenerative braking to the system. It's actually part of the transformers that connect the overhead wires to the grid. Slowing trains dump energy back into the grid if they don't have their own on-board batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
All trains that aren't light-rail, are, in fact, diesel electric.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
On a real train you can't really split all axles so that the left and right wheels are isolated, which means you need a third track and pick-up pads to complete a circuit. these are common in metropolitan underground rails, but are too dangerous wherever people or wildlife could get in contact with the tracks, so generally long distance electrified networks use overhead wires and a pantograph. Most of Europe's train network is electrified, you will only find diesel engines on low frequency routes. And even then most engines are diesel-electric, essentially an electric train carrying along a generator, because this allows the train to have motor units distributed along its length.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of Europe's train network is electrified, you will only find diesel engines on low frequency routes.
Or in backwater countries like Denmark :-/
Re: (Score:1)
Denmark is smaller than Colorado...
Re: (Score:2)
Denmark is smaller than... ....
Well...never mind...
8)
Re: Here's an idea (Score:2)
They're not backwater, they just prefer to communicate by singing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)
Umm. Aren't all "diesel" trains are Diesel electric? Trains don't ever run directly off the diesel engine. It doesn't have enough torque.
Re: (Score:1)
Most diesel locomotives are electric, but not all. There are some diesel-hydraulic locomotives in Europe. A few German imports by Krauss Maffei were tried in the U.S. in the 1960s but they weren't reliable enough and were retired. One is running currently on a tourist railroad, the Niles Canyon Railway... in California.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely correct. EVERY locomotive on the tracks today (aside from a tiny handful of vintage steam engines) is diesel electric.
But I don't know if you could reasonably get enough current from overhead lines. Maybe. I work on locomotives every day but I'm a pipefitter, not an electrician. I do know that the GEVO Tier 4 locomotives (highest/strictest emissions one out there) can generate around 2,500 amps if my calculations are accurate. The spec says 3.3 megawatts. Most trains will have multiple locomotive
Re: (Score:2)
" EVERY locomotive on the tracks today (aside from a tiny handful of vintage steam engines) is diesel electric."
Locomotives yes, DMUs no. Most of the latter here in the UK are direct drive via an auto gearbox.
Re: Here's an idea (Score:2)
Colorado Railcar made DMUs that use multiple Detroit Diesel engines apiece for direct traction. Basically, the same engines used by some city buses.
Tri-Rail in South Florida had a couple, but I think they sold them to Sunrail in Orlando a year or two after the new bridge over the New River in Fort Lauderdale (just north of I-595) was opened. Tri-Rail bought them because they were told the DMU could pull an additional unpowered passenger car. And, in fact, it could... but only on tracks that observed the sam
Re: (Score:2)
The Pennsylvania Railroad and other lines used electric locomotives to haul long freight trains. There's nothing about electric locomotives that excludes them from hauling the same long trains the diesel-electrics do.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)
Easily. BC Rail [wikipedia.org] had an electrified subdivision, Tumbler Ridge, that used 6000 HP GMD GF6C [wikipedia.org] locomotives with a 50 kV catenary system. They initially ran 4 of those per unit train of approximately 100 cars of coal, at grades up to 1.2% while loaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, no. Diesel-hydraulic locomotives exist. This drive mode is also fairly common on smaller DMUs.
Current is a problem for overhead lines. The solution is to increase the voltage.
The 1500 V DC overhead used in the Netherlands occasionally causes problems. The most common locomotive (1600 series) can draw up to 3 kA for 4500 kW of power, and the limit for the overhead catenary is less than 6 kA.
In France, on the other hand, the TGV uses 25 kV overhead. A single TGV consist can reach 9400 kW, and they're rout
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with straight diesel (and gas) locomotives was the transmissions not being strong enough. I believe some small switchers are still straight diesel.
There were also some experimental turbine powered locomotives that weren't practical
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much all older diesel locomotives are run directly off the engine with appropriate transmission. Remember that you can have near infinite torque by simply applying correct transmission ratio.
More modern locomotives are diesel-electrics because these are far less mechanically complex systems. So you don't have those fun moments like a friend of mine who's recently retired from being a locomotive driver likes to talk about. Where for example locomotive catches fire from its oil leaking due to extreme c
Re: Here's an idea (Score:2)
Certainly not all, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] has a bus engine and a transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol. Modded down for pointing out laws of physics. Go figure.
Laughing about your ignorance of simple mechanics does not make you any less wrong. The generator spun by the diesel engine to power an electric motor does not have to be high torque to generate enough power to energize a high torque electric motor.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use existing lines, just add overhead wires.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work that way because of tunnel size limits. You'd have to rebuild a lot of bridges going over rail lines and heighten a lot of tunnels.
No you don't. The UK has been electrifying existing lines with overhead catenary almost entirely without enlarging tunnels and raising bridges. Wires have just recently been put into the 140 year old Severn Tunnel for example.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what he said. However, in the vast majority of cases, even when factoring in transmission losses, running one or two large power plants can be made more efficient and less polluting(unless someone deliberately cuts corners for example) than if you run hundreds or thousands of smaller diesel generators such as in locomotives. Also, with electrified railway networks and locomotives, you can feed electricity recovered from regenerative braking back into the power grid. The Iore locomotives trafficking Malmbanan do that to great effect. In fact, during the descent from RiksgrÃnsen to Narvik, the loaded trains feed back enough electricity to power the empty trains returning to the mines in Sweden.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that the grid in California is only around 35% fossil (gas) which is going to be better than any diesel.
Fuel is expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to ask yourself, "Why are these companies burning expensive fuel to keep these engines idling?" Then, you need to solve that problem. After that, create legislation. Train engines that aren't allowed to idle will need to keep the coolant and lube oil hot and circulating.
Lube pumps are not high technology. It's not a difficult problem to solve. And there's no reason why the state should have to solve it. They did their part already.
"We can create the legislation first, and, once people are in an impossible situation, they'll figure a way out of it."
If you think adding a lube pump is an impossible situation, you provably do not belong here. Go shit up some other site with your ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's difficult to raise a price for an industry. These aren't cheeseburgers. Locomotives cost more than $2 and simply raising the price of fuel will result in costs passed onto the consumer while the old locos get run into the ground.
Simple price pressures affect an entire society very slowly and are good overall, but woefully ineffective at targeting key bad actors.
Re:Fuel is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Legislators don't seem to know much about trains in general and diesel locomotives in particular, nor do they have any real clue as to where pollution and carbon emissions truly come from, broken down by source. Despite their massive size and fairly poor and dirty emissions, trains are so incredibly efficient at moving cargo that, compared to all the other forms of cargo transportation, the pollution hardly matters. You could shut trains down completely while we wait for electric train infrastructure to be rolled out, and it wouldn't make one drop of difference on the whole to NOx and particulate levels.
To a lesser degree this is the same issue I have with agricultural diesel emission regulations as well.
Meanwhile Amtrak operates under much stricter emissions regulations (Tier 4) than freight trains do (ostensibly Tier 3), and the regs do nothing but increase costs and provide endless sources of work for the poor souls who try to keep the exhaust treatment and EGR systems working properly.
Re:Fuel is expensive (Score:4, Informative)
You're not wrong. Even on the GEVO Tier 4 locomotives, we can only clean the EGR cooler once and then it has to be entirely swapped out. It's not a small task. More than half the time we try to clean the EGR cooler on a Tier 4 it doesn't work anyway and we end up swapping it out. No small task. I forget the service interval on the EGR cooler, maybe 6 months? Our shop doesn't see a lot of them but I've definitely worked on them, including the EGR cooler portion.
The Tier 4 units themselves are such a clusterf to work on too.
Re: (Score:2)
And to be honest the difference between Tier 4 and Tier 3 isn't all that much of an improvement. As we move to Tier 5 it's a case of very diminished returns.
Re: Fuel is expensive (Score:2)
Re: Fuel is expensive (Score:2)
Hard to say. There a crap ton of extra piping all over the place inside a Tier 4. And wiring/sensors too.
What I donâ(TM)t get is why we canâ(TM)t use some kind of coil cleaner on them. The device looks internally like the fins on an air conditioner condenser. The GE-spec for cleaning them is literally just hot water. No cleaning solutions, no solvents, just pressurized hot water.
Why not try some coil cleaner or a solvent that will help dissolve the crap on the fins? Then maybe they would last a lo
Re: Fuel is expensive (Score:2)
DEF (Score:2)
The trucking industry has resigned itself to injecting DEF (diesel emission-control fluid, essentially urea) into the exhaust to accomplish the mandated control of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions.
The railroad industry has held firm that they don't want to use DEF. The only consumables they want to supply to a railroad locomotive are diesel fuel and traction sand.
The story I have heard is that using DEF may not eliminate all of the maintenance problems you describe, but it would go a long, long way to r
Re: (Score:2)
Despite their massive size and fairly poor and dirty emissions, trains are so incredibly efficient at moving cargo that, compared to all the other forms of cargo transportation, the pollution hardly matters.
Being efficient is just one factor as to whether something matters, another factor is how wide spread its use is. Whether it is targeted or not is the subject of a 3rd factor: the ease of substitution.
Yes pollution from diesel trains matter, even if they are efficient at hauling cargo. I can't find numbers for California, but in the EU rail transport is insanely electrified, massively underutilised for cargo compared to the USA, and emissions laws have existed for diesel locos for 20years and it still contr
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to carbon emissions or NOx and particulates? Keep in mind these regulations, while having some effect on CO2, typically target NOx and particulate emissions, where we've really reached the point of diminished returns.
I agree electrification of the rail is where everyone need to be. But these diesel train regulations are just a way of passing the buck and making someone else carry the cost. Like a lot of regulations these days including the federally-mandated CAFE standards, this kind of
Re: (Score:2)
I agree electrification of the rail is where everyone need to be. But these diesel train regulations are just a way of passing the buck and making someone else carry the cost.
Right, "someone else", like someone directly responsible for the pollution...
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of incentive to innovate. Fuel isn't expensive enough to justify developing mitigations. They could jack the cost of fuel up, but the goal is to produce specific behaviour that can be targeted more directly.
The Prius solved the coolant temperature problem in the late 90s. Toyota added a vacuum insulated flask that hot liquid is pumped into and stored until the car is started up again.
Re: Fuel is expensive (Score:2)
This sounds more like an air quality thing (Score:4, Insightful)
To me this sounds like it's mostly targeted at particulate emissions, which given the port infrastructure and climate in that region is probably a legitimate concern (especially in the era of environmental justice). Remember that LA looked like Delhi or Beijing not that many decades ago, California has always struggled with air quality in the modern era. The "reduces greenhouse gas emissions" angle is just how everything is sold nowadays, just generic air quality isn't sexy enough to rile people up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Racism has become such a taboo that many people will accept any argument if the smallest connection to racism can be established.
Re: This sounds more like an air quality thing (Score:5, Informative)
Environmental justice isn't necessarily about race (although that's frequently involved). It's about the development of industrial facilities and major polluters in economically poor areas, leading to higher cancer rates/lower life expectancy. That industrial development also reduces property values nearby, increasing poverty. As those neighborhoods become poorer, businesses leave, and the industrial facility becomes the dominant local employer. The same people that are being killed by the facility come to depend upon it for their livelihood, so taking legal action means risking losing their livelihoods. Classic examples of this in the US are the Manchester neighborhood in Houston, and "Cancer Alley" between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
Despite the fact that those facilities are frequently responsible for local increases in cancer, asthma, and other diseases, most people in those neighborhoods don't have the resources to legally challenge the big facility operators. Environmental justice is about shining a light on that problem, and providing a legal mechanism to help those people.
Re: (Score:2)
More like class relations but because racism it's both. If something isn't banned outright, the sources pollution just get moved into poor areas where people have no money or political influence to do anything about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, right. Let's pull up the tracks and run them through the colored people's neighborhoods.
You know that's pretty much what happened, right, just not with trains?
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
Obviously it goes the other way too, that poorer minorities have no choice but to only live in shitty places, either because they can't afford anything else or because they just weren't allowed to.
Re: "Air quality" is yet another excuse (Score:2)
Actually in many cases idling engines are major sources of pollution. Most engines are optimized for efficiency at higher rpm (or higher load). When they're low rpm the combustion efficiency is worse, leading to more pollution per kg fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It's not actually good for the engines, either, as it also causes contamination of lube oil.
Remanufacturing exemption? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope they have some sort of remanufacturing clause in this legislation, but knowing California, they probably don't because they think a train is like a car and is scrapped every 10 years.
First off, all current freight trains have electric drive wheels, so the frame itself is already green. The engine is basically a generator that supplies electric to the wheels and is the component that pollutes. When trains are remanufactured they tend to modernize the engine with newer control mechanisms and parts, which tends to make them more efficient vs their older systems. Also the big trend is to replace the older DC drive systems with AC systems which further increases their efficiency and haul capacity, which also reduces pollution.
The EPA already has pollution standards in place regarding locomotives that are separated into 4 tiers. if the legislation is written to phase out the older tiers for the newer tiers, than that would be fine, since older engines can be remanufactured to meet the more stringent standards, but banning the locomotive frame just because the frame hit an arbitrary age is not only short sighted, but wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, all current freight trains have electric drive wheels, so the frame itself is already green.
They do not. Though this legislation will effectively ensure they will going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The legislation is written in a way to take effect only after Caltrain electrification happens. Caltrain is probably the worst offender of any train in the state (including freight trains) when it comes to pollution. You can smell the engine and fumes from a ways off.
It turns out that all of these news stories are grossly misleading:
Re: (Score:2)
would they replace the old engine with a newer one that's still more than 20 years old?
A rebuilt one, yes. The diesel engine might be overhauled or even replaced. New traction motors and modern controls installed. But the frame (and therefore the engine age) may be older than 23 years.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual legislation says that if it gets rebuilt with a Tier 4 engine or better, the rebuild date is considered the build date, so overhauling with current tech basically keeps moving the sliding window indefinitely... up to 2030, anyway. Anything built/rebuilt after 2030 (passenger trains) or 2035 (freight trains) has to be zero-emission.
Is rail transport really a culprit? (Score:2)
Trans do 1.7% of overall transport emissions and .5% of overall emissions?
And they are one of the most energy (and carbon) efficient transport systems we have!
Seriously? Go after that? Better to force truckers to use rail whenever possible! That'll save more greenhouse gas.
Why do California legislators make stupid mandates instead of really attacking the problems? Want less emissions? Target the trucks and the cars!
Want people to use electric cars? Don't just mandate that the car manufactures sell ele
Re: (Score:2)
Why do California legislators make stupid mandates instead of really attacking the problems? Want less emissions? Target the trucks and the cars!
California is already doing that.
In other words, have a plan instead of just aspirations!
They have a plan, you just don't understand it.
Re: Is rail transport really a culprit? (Score:2, Insightful)
I lived in California for well over 15 years and can say from experience that the plan basically consists of passing knee jerk, heavy handed legislation up front to buy the votes of useful idiots who keep electing the same trash into office. Pesky things like determining if it is even feasible, what the long term effects of it are going to be, and how to even go about implementing it are left up to the plebs.
It is the legislative equivalent of shoot first, ask questions later.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in CA 66 years, i.e. all my life - and you summed up the CA legislature beautifully.
Example - We want to encourage cleaner power generation - I know - lets raise the price all-ready installed solar by charging $11/month for each installed Kilowatt of generating capacity. Along with that - lets lower the amount we are paying to purchase the excess to the lowest tier.
The first part of that deal didn't work out - so PG&E and SDG&E are back at the trough trying to raise prices again.
Can you tel
Re: (Score:2)
Example - We want to encourage cleaner power generation - I know - lets raise the price all-ready installed solar by charging $11/month for each installed Kilowatt of generating capacity. Along with that - lets lower the amount we are paying to purchase the excess to the lowest tier.
The first part of that deal didn't work out - so PG&E and SDG&E are back at the trough trying to raise prices again.
Can you tell I'm a bit peeved.
Yes I can. But it's probably because you, like the op, don't actually understand things you accuse the government of not understanding. Like the issues residential rooftop solar can bring to the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
The solar situation is incredible bullshit, and the state's failure to control PG&E frankly has to be based on corruption at all levels. There's no other plausible explanation for why they have been permitted to do so much to so many for so long.
With that said, a lot of the opposition to credible solutions to California's problems is simply nimbyism. Humboldt rejected offshore wind years ago, and only just recently agreed to it because PG&E declared that they had no plans to increase generation capa
Re: (Score:2)
Trains are already pretty efficient and green, per ton transported. Looks like CA is barking up the wrong tree.
Great, Now do Planes. (Score:1)
Commerce Clause (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the trains (freight in particular) run interstate routes to and from California. Assuming that the operating companies are outside California, I don't see how they will get away with this without federal legislation.
and amtrack they can't control that! (Score:2)
and amtrack they can't control that!
Does CA even have the authority? (Score:2)
I wonder if CA even has the authority to make laws concerning rail. Rail Roads are something that is covered by Federal Law. Note that this a question - not a statement. Where is the cross over between state authority and Federal authority in this space?
Re: (Score:2)
They need a waiver from the EPA. Any doubts whether Biden's EPA will grant that waiver?
Wrong reason (Score:3)
The stated reason is more that the diesel exhaust is bad for anyone who lives nearby. This is correct. The solution is do not allow housing within half a mile of tracks, not disrupt the entire rail system. But when it comes to housing, Democrats love the Republican developers and the trade unions they employ, so they get anything they want.
As for the GHG angle, it will make no difference at all in global warming. Just another religious war from CARB and the California junta.
BTW, they are also killing diesel trucks. The good part is as above; the bad part is as above.
Consequences? Everything in California will become much more expensive, including electricity, whose demand will ever more exceed supply, despite all the solar panels and windmills.
It can only be hoped that so many people will move out of California that at least housing prices will go down, but that's unlikely because the junta is subsidizing illegal immigrants, who drive up the cost of "affordable" housing.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is do not allow housing within half a mile of tracks
That's not going to happen lol. You didn't think through the consequences of your proposal. It's pretty expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The stated reason is more that the diesel exhaust is bad for anyone who lives nearby. This is correct. The solution is do not allow housing within half a mile of tracks, not disrupt the entire rail system.
Your "solution" would disrupt the entire rail system. You do realize that passenger rail and freight tend to share rail lines when going through metropolitan areas, right? That means you want housing as close as possible to the rail lines, or else public transit isn't viable. In other words, your proposal can basically be summarized as "ban all rail transit in the LA Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area." That's just not realistic.
As for the GHG angle, it will make no difference at all in global warming.
You're joking, right? The new rules require all engines built or rebuilt
Pretty soon walking will be the only way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats, you're effed (Score:5, Informative)
Congratulations, rest of the country. Between this and the diesel truck ban, good luck getting any product from Asia without paying through the nose for shipping. IMHO, this should be headed for a constitutional challenge because of the interstate commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, this should be headed for a constitutional challenge because of the interstate commerce clause.
They're not making any rules for other states. If your train doesn't enter California, they can't regulate its emissions. And California is unique among states in the right to set its own emissions regulations, because we have demonstrated that we are more responsible at it than the feds.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a huge percentage of goods coming in to the country from Asia enter through the port of LA and Long Beach. From there, they are loaded onto trains and trucks going East. Fun fact: the original boundary of the state of Arizona included the Gulf of California which would have allowed for a domestic port not in California. The railroad didn't like this so they convinced the powers-that-be to clip off the southwestern corner of Arizona.
Who owns the tracks (Score:2)
Remember, in most of California the tracks are owned by private parties. Union Pacific Railroad leading by over 3,000 miles alone. (Across the United States they own more tracks than the entire nation of France, so figure). And the second one is BNSF Railway, and list goes on like that. There is very minuscule amount of public owned tracks in here, meaning they are almost always part of the national network. (That is why passenger transport on the West coast is terrible in terms of rail lines, since all inc
Up next: the end of CA ports of entry... (Score:2)
Between the unions blocking port automation and the eco-virtue signaling of our wonderful politicians we're going to see the end of California as a major port-of-entry. TEUs numbers have been falling in the LA port complex while Gulf Coast and East Coast ports are picking up. The recent emissions moves against trains and on-road tractors will mean that it'll be more expensive to unload and move cargo.
Frankly, with the new Panama expansion and expanded port capacities on the other side it seems like containe
Re: (Score:2)
It's a GOOD thing if there is less traffic through the port of Los Angeles. It's a parking lot both on and off land, and a major pollution source.
The one-party-rule idiocy continues (Score:3)
Here in California, the political party in charge has greater than super-majority majorities in both chambers of the legislature, ALL state-wide offices, and essentially all the judges. This is never a good thing, whether on the left or the right, because it allows a political majority to run rough shod over their opposition and ignore them, which creates a thought bubble, and ends up with nobody seriously questioning policies or challenging the administration and the bureaucrats to do better.
This state NEVER allocates sufficient resources to [a] removing dead vegitation from open spaces and [b] having sufficient men and equipment (particularly equipment) to detect and fight wildfires. As a result, this state's government will passify some of the political supporters of the people in charge by telling them they've clamped-down on those nasty smelly dirty trains, and passify other supporters by having not disturbed mother nature by hauling away dead plants, while having far less of a pollution impact than they could have had. Every year in California multiple massive wildfires burn out of control, often for weeks on end, POURING carbon into the sky in such massive quantities that it blocks a significant amount of the visible sunlight, causes respiratory problems for many people, and when the wildfires reach structures they burn all sorts of materials that add tons of very toxic elements to the mix.... but don't worry folks, those train engines will emit an imperceptible amount less.
This is, of course, the same state government that screams about water shortages and droughts, and (during the dry years when such activity would be very inexpensive in relative terms) REFUSES to build new reservoirs, or even dig-out more acres (area, NOT depth, therefore no changes in the dams themselves would be needed) in existing reservoirs so that more can be stored in wet years. This year we have had record rainfall, the snow pack on our mountains is something like triple normal, and as this snow melts, the majority will be allowed to flow straight out into the ocean (after doing some flooding damage on the way, of course) and within 12 months we will probably be back to being told to ration water in the face of drought. This is entirely predictable (particularly given the increase of population over the decades) and entirely avoidable, but one-party-rule makes it so that nobody in Sacramento can effectively question policy, challenge appointed bureaucrats, or suggest better policies.
This is not partisan, and the problem is structural and inherent to one-party rule; I'd have the same criticism if we had a governor Trump and Lt Governor Desantis, SecState Rudy Guliani, Atty Gen Ted Cruz and any other nightmare-of-the-left leaders one could pick instead of the current left-wing government. Unquestioned and unchallenged leaders are NEVER a good thing and cannot produce effective, efficient solutions; they tend to do symbolic crap to satisfy various constituencies and/or corrupt associates, or simply out of arrogance and incompetence.
Commuter diesel trains (Score:2)
In Chicago we have diesel commuter trains. They are filthy. Note that they were overhauled about ten years ago, and are less filthy than they were before that, and yet are still awful.
But the problem for them is not the pollution they put out as they move from station to station -- as the article points out, it's not that big a proportion of our pollution -- It's the pollution they make sitting idling in the downtown train stations. It's not so much global warming as lung cancer. They put out really dan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Alright, so stupidity through politicians failing to do their homework it is, then.
Since their lawmaking does affect the rest of society and they know this, how then is stupid rulemaking that obviously misses the mark if you think about it for half a second, not evidence of focusing on how it looks to the voters?
They might well be sincerely and honestly doing exactly that, but it still is knowingly focusing on appearances, not substance.
Maybe we need a different word for that, though. "Virtue signalling"
Re:Fairly stupid (Score:4, Funny)
Have fun taking the stairs instead of using the elevator.
Re:Fairly stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It is hard to understand your point. Or you in favor or against public transportation?
Re: (Score:3)
It is generally effective in Eu
Re: Fairly stupid (Score:2)
European cities are usually older than the United States. Bombing has destroyed far less than you think.
Re:Fairly stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a rail expert, but a long time observer of public policy. Public transportation is effective where it is effective. It is not effective where it is not effective. Simple as that. Where it it effective it is worth the price. Forcing it an attempt to be effective just pisses off the US tax payer. Electrification of rail is exactly like that. Nobody should be using political capital to get their dream made true, they should be using cost benefit reporting.
You're just pretending that the status quo is some sort of inevitable, natural outcome, but all this doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Things exist the way they are because of certain policy choices that have been made and continue to be made. You subsidize highway construction and fuel prices and end up with endless suburban sprawl. If you instead build commuter rail, denser neighborhoods would be popping up around them.
Political capital should be used exactly that way, in order to achieve goals such as clean air and mitigation of climate change. That's the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
You subsidize highway construction and fuel prices and end up with endless suburban sprawl.
Which can then be effectively electrified by solar panels near the point of use. Solar energy is diffuse energy. The "suburban sprawl" you bitch about so virulently is ideal for harvesting a diffuse energy source like sunlight. Your precious dense housing can't possibly be solar powered by its own footprint. And no, the efficiency gains of multi-family vs single-family dwellings doesn't close the gap either. So you're advocating for the worst of all possible worlds--increased human misery by packing pe
Re: (Score:2)
Preferences vary wildly. Even in suburbia there are tons of people who don't go outside. To them the city is all benefit, except for cost.
Re: (Score:1)
Because neither the old trains will be scrapped, nor the new trains manufactured in California. "Not our problem guv'nor"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you assume this is short sighted? You haven't read it and literally every piece of legislation for environmental purposes has carved out exemptions for things of historical significance. Find the legislation, read it and quote what you disagree with rather than making low effort clueless posts.
Re:Short sighted (Score:4, Informative)
Why would you assume this is short sighted? You haven't read it and literally every piece of legislation for environmental purposes has carved out exemptions for things of historical significance. Find the legislation, read it and quote what you disagree with rather than making low effort clueless posts.
The regulation specifically applies to historic locomotives, as stated in 2478.1(c)(5). The only exceptions are locomotives of rated power below 1006hp, and locomotives not used to convey passengers or cargo but specifically used for training mechanics and locomotive engineers by educational institutions, and military use. GP specifically identifies Santa Fe 3751, which Wiki says has a power output of 3,220HP and is used to pull occasional mainline excursion trains with passengers, and is clearly not a military engine. So yes, GP is correct, some historic engines (such as the one he specifically identified) would be affected by this legislation. Maybe next time you find a comment to be inaccurate, and you feel moved to respond, you should take the time to find the regulation, read it and quote what you find to be relevant? Particularly if you are so concerned about whether other people are making "low effort clueless posts" that you take the time to chide them for it...
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like they're going to have to switch steam engines to a cleaner fuel, like propane.
I don't think they should make any exemptions whatsoever, including for tourist trains. When I worked for Roaring Camp & Big Trees in Felton, they were burning used motor oil. It had been centrifuged for heavy metals AFAIK, but you can't get the additives out.
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Informative)
Oh and, you also didn't read enough of the law. As I scrolled through the definitions I found "historic locomotives" so I searched that and got this:
46
 2478.13. Historic Railroad Low-Use Exemption.
(a) A Historic Locomotive Operator may seek an exemption from the requirements
in sections 2478.4 and 2478.5 for their Historic Railroad Fleet if:
(1) The Locomotive Operator meets the definition of Historic Railroad in
section 2478.3; and
(2) The Locomotive Operatorâ(TM)s entire Historic Railroad Fleet does not use
more than 10,000 gallons of fuel collectively during each Calendar Year
So maybe you want to finish reading something before you critique it
Re: (Score:2)
That's good info! And you're correct, I did stop with the definitions, since that's about as far as I got over breakfast. My ire was more directed at someone making rude and unconstructive commentary accusing others of making low-effort posts, while making a low-effort post themselves. Thanks for digging into the material more deeply.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe next time you find a comment to be inaccurate, and you feel moved to respond, you should take the time to find the regulation
I didn't say it was inaccurate. I said the comment was based on ignorance and the OP is lucky he was correct. I'm striving for a better slashdot. This site would be worlds better if his comment were more like yours with actual relevant information rather than pointless guessing about.
The topic of my comment was that the OP's was low effort. Do you disagree?
Re: (Score:1)
This is some seriously flawed legislation unless it has exemptions for steam locomotives like the Santa Fe 3751, which are living representations of our history.
The law only applies to older trains actively used to transport freight.
It sounds like the Santa Fe 3751 is, or damn well should be, a historic train.
If it IS still transporting freight then, yea, sorry dude, it needs to go.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no, the train nerds might need to find another hobby!
A real railfan would know about UK "green steam" (Score:2)
https://www.martynbane.co.uk/m... [martynbane.co.uk]
https://blazersfuels.co.uk/mor... [blazersfuels.co.uk]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/... [thesun.co.uk]
New build steam locomotives are of course quite practical as they're simple affairs. Clean burning fuels of any suitable sort will do to heat a boiler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]