Yep. It is just bullshit greenwashing. Green rail is solved. It is just running on the grid, and trying to turn the grid as green as possible. All this other stuff is bullshit.
From a technological point, yes. That being said, there are some complications. The US runs double-stacked intermodal freight so clearance is a concern, first of all. It’s doable, in fact India has many electrified lines that allow for double-stacked intermodal freight, but it does add a little to the cost and effort. The second issue is, unfortunately, cost, but not because it’s outright “too expensive”. Rather, it would eat too much into the short-term quarterlies of the various publicly traded rail companies that own a vast majority of the US’s rail lines during the installation. And as publicly traded companies, even if one of the major rail companies wanted to spend the money to electrify, they would get sued by their shareholders for doing so because there’s no immediate return on profits. And the final issue? NIMBYs already hate rail as-is, they’d hate the overhead lines even more.
So, yeah, a lot of challenges to electrification unique to the US, almost all of them political in nature. It would be really nice to put in electrified rail again (late PRR and New Haven were almost fully electrified but most of that was ripped out after the Penn Central merger. Seriously, everyone likes to rag on New Haven for screwing that up but honestly the evidence all points to the New York Central’s management team being the real culprits).
It’s kind of sad that we live in a world where even if a CEO wanted to do something to help the planet at the expense of his own profits, they’d be sued for doing so.
The one way a company can avoid that is to not go publicly traded in the first place. Problem is there’s a huge a mount of incentive to go publicly traded - specifically, it’s a huge boost to cash-on-hand, which can be crucial for expanding a business - so most corporations will basically do so without batting an eyelash at it. It’s a lot slower to build a company solely from net profits and private investors. But the cost of faster growth is a loss of control of the company.
Idk, seems like it’d be easier just to string up electric lines and run on electricity. Probably more efficient too since you don’t have to haul fuel.
Also, most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels because it’s super inefficient to convert renewables to hydrogen.
Yep. It is just bullshit greenwashing. Green rail is solved. It is just running on the grid, and trying to turn the grid as green as possible. All this other stuff is bullshit.
From a technological point, yes. That being said, there are some complications. The US runs double-stacked intermodal freight so clearance is a concern, first of all. It’s doable, in fact India has many electrified lines that allow for double-stacked intermodal freight, but it does add a little to the cost and effort. The second issue is, unfortunately, cost, but not because it’s outright “too expensive”. Rather, it would eat too much into the short-term quarterlies of the various publicly traded rail companies that own a vast majority of the US’s rail lines during the installation. And as publicly traded companies, even if one of the major rail companies wanted to spend the money to electrify, they would get sued by their shareholders for doing so because there’s no immediate return on profits. And the final issue? NIMBYs already hate rail as-is, they’d hate the overhead lines even more.
So, yeah, a lot of challenges to electrification unique to the US, almost all of them political in nature. It would be really nice to put in electrified rail again (late PRR and New Haven were almost fully electrified but most of that was ripped out after the Penn Central merger. Seriously, everyone likes to rag on New Haven for screwing that up but honestly the evidence all points to the New York Central’s management team being the real culprits).
It’s kind of sad that we live in a world where even if a CEO wanted to do something to help the planet at the expense of his own profits, they’d be sued for doing so.
The one way a company can avoid that is to not go publicly traded in the first place. Problem is there’s a huge a mount of incentive to go publicly traded - specifically, it’s a huge boost to cash-on-hand, which can be crucial for expanding a business - so most corporations will basically do so without batting an eyelash at it. It’s a lot slower to build a company solely from net profits and private investors. But the cost of faster growth is a loss of control of the company.