Hydrogen and Batteries: Better than Diesel Trains? 

It may cost more, but I think overhead quaternary is a better system then batteries in the long run.

I’m sorry but your statement by saying catenary is “impractical” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard a rail fan say… the United States was the world-class leader of rail electrification in the early 1900s which set precedent for Europe and Asia to follow in America’s footsteps. Unlike Europe and Asia, the US tore down and destroyed most of its electrified rail infrastructure during the 60s and 70s. By saying catenary is “impractical”, it is not only ignorant to America’s railroading history but also completely ignores the far superior electrified systems Europe and Asia enjoy in modern day. Hydrogen and battery trains are GIMMICKS, it is essentially a way for freight companies to greenwash rather than put in effort in constructing proper PROVEN infrastructure.

Overhead wires really aren’t that expensive. It’s 2-4M a mile of track. They could have taken a fraction of their stock buybacks and increased the number of tracks and done overhead power. Hydrogen and batteries really only make sense for low frequency branch lines and yard work The biggest issue with hydrogen right now is 99% of it is not green given it comes from oil. The actual green stuff done via electrolysis is still super expensive.

The research is great but class I railroads should really be thinking about overhead-wire electrification for their business sections of mainline. It’s cheaper in the long run. And when trains that run on those lines also have batteries on board for when they leave the main line then that solves logistic issues about comparability in many cases.

Ultimately, lugging around a full hydrogen fuel cell and all the fuel, or an even heavier battery will never be as efficient as overhead wires. Both battery and "hydrogen" locos are electric locos at their core. It's always going to be easier and cheaper to run those electric engines from overhead wires and not have to carry an extra ounce of fuel or batteries. I understand that the oil industry is the largest customer the Class 1s have and that they have to play this "hydrogen is viable" charade, but watch them all adopt dual-mode battery units with overhead "charging" and then progressively electrifying their networks. You can't argue with economics. And the cost breakdown just isn't in hydrogen's favor.

Over here in Europe battery powered EMUs are definitely winning out over hydrogen fuel cells, with literally hundreds of vehicles ordered by various regional rail companies from several manufacturers. The main reason being that large parts of our rail network are already electrified, so it's easy to recharge the trains whenever they run under catenary. Overall, a fleet of BEMUs is decidedly cheaper than electrifying little used branch lines, and also much cheaper than building up completely new infrastructure and logistics for hydrogen - it's a no-brainer economically. Also - after having diesel-hybrid locomotives available for quite some time already - there are now several types of electric locomotives with "last mile" batteries coming to the market. My guess would be that we'll see the same in those parts of the US that already have electrified mainlines. Cross-country it's a different story. There the higher energy density of hydrogen is a considerable bonus. The only real problem will be: where to get enough "green" hydrogen? Currently about 99% of all H2 is produced from natural gas, pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. And we're nowhere near changing that in the medium term. So ecologically it would be probably better to keep running modern Diesel engines, and use the resources that would be necessary to build up the hydrogen infrastructure to actually (re)build electrification instead.

Aren’t there other significant issues with the tech like hydrogen currently being significantly cheaper when bought from oil burning sources (guess where the penny pincher buys it from), batteries being heavy as all fuck and taking forever to charge while generally the range gets drastically slashed when compared to diesel locos?

In my honest opinion, I still think overhead catenary wires are superior. Sure, hydrogen and battery trains have their uses, but they aren't nearly as environmentally friendly as overhead wires powered by nuclear or renewable energy. Hydrogen/Batteries could be much better for switching, local, and branch line service, while catenaries/third rail are better for long distance or regional commuter networks. However, you are right about one thing: It's time for diesel power to be put to rest.

Overhead electrification would be expensive in the short term but would be far cheaper in the long term. There isn't exactly a limitless supply of lithium and the total cost to change every locomotive to lithium would exceed the cost to simply add catenary. We should be starting the process of adding catenary and investing in dual mode or even modifying existing locomotives to operating as dual modes. While the vast majority of locomotives currently in service use DC traction motors there are some that use AC that would be relatively easy to modify. It's also important to note that electric locomotives usually last longer than diesel electrics without expensive rebuilds and have more tractive effort and horsepower. In the meantime if we are still stubbornly going against catenary biodiesel is relatively cheap alternative fuel source that would have a more positive effect on the environment than going battery electric or hydrogen.

Toronto has embarked on an ambitious commuter rail electrification plan for their extensive all-diesel fleet . A few years ago they evaluated a hydrogen loco plan but rejected it on the grounds of unknown costs and high risk of new technology and delays. They stuck with the tried-and-tested tech: overhead high-voltage wire.

I do think trains using overhead wires are practical because of other places like all of Europe, most of their system is electrified.

Very informative and great footage as well..thanks for sharing.

thanks for this. well done!

A good use of the WABTEC battery locomotive is for regenerative braking and safety on long grades. It also improves the efficiency of the diesels and makes for a good DPU replacement.

I think the rail network should be government owned, similar to the US highway system. Imagine if trucking companies owned the roads and were in charge of paying for their maintenance and construction, it would make no sense. When the rail network is government owned, then we can put in the massive investment of putting up poles and wires.

no one ever seems to remember the real issues with batteries being that, they degrade very fast for this application, they're flammable, and they take ages to charge, even the best lithium ion batteries today can lose 20% or more of their capacity over just a few hundred charge cycles, and the degradation only gets worse from there, if the battery pack of a locomotive has to be replaced outright with no way to refurbish it and very limited recycling capacity for the raw materials then the railroads will probably get very sick of that very fast as opposed to a diesel prime mover that can last decades without any insane maintenance. let's all also not forget the tendency of lithium ion batteries to spontaneously catch fire, and that's not an issues with wiring, or current battery chemistry, but just Lithium as an element, it's an alkali metal, the most reactive group of the periodic table, it doesn't take much to cause lithium to catch fire. the mining issues mentioned aren't even the worst, the truth that companies like Tesla try to hide as best they can is the cobalt in the battery chemistry, which is mined mostly with child slave labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo(I wish I was making that up, please do your own research on it instead of taking the word of a random person in the RU-vid comments, it is not ok and more people need to understand the humanitarian harm happening for our first world battery powered future, lithium ion batteries are deeply flawed) and even after all of that, they still take forever to charge, and before you start making points about fast charging, please understand that the faster you charge a lithium ion battery, the faster you degrade the battery, that may be fine for your cell phone which is charging at only 5Amps anyways, but for a locomotive, in order to charge it in a reasonable amount of time as opposed to the time it would take to steam a steam loco from cold, the batteries lifespans would be cut in half or worse. at the end of the day, more effort and resources for research should be pointed to fuels produced from direct carbon capture, that's my opinion at least, nuclear power and direct carbon capture, but I always encourage people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, so please, look into the engineering, chemistry, economics, politics, etc behind all these things in order to form a fully informed opinion, never listen to the marketing material from manufacturers, and don't fall into the futurist tech bro pitfall, battery powered everything is never going to be sustainable, trying to make all our power from solar and wind is never going to work, just, please, everyone, do your research into the engineering of things

The best solution is probably to use the hydrogen to run the power plants themselves in addition to locomotives that have to go long distances between charging stations. Dual-modality would be something to look into.

If one of UP or BNSF even commits or tries to electrify one of their mainline from Chicago to the West, then it could be a game changer in the American Railroad. That might increase the chances and more focus on electrifying all the mainlines from all different railroads.

That NS podium is adorable.

Battery locomotives and fuel cell locomotives would be literal WMD's on wheels. Plus, overhead pantograph systems actually EXIST, and they DO SOMETHING.

Battery and hydrogen locomotives (currently diesel) are for rail yard work, not transporting long distances… that’s how it’s done here in Europe. Long distance uses overhead catenary.

We already have a solution to electrifying trains safely, efficiently, and cleanly using overhead wires. Why use dangerous, inefficient, and dirty batteries? (Hint: short term cost cutting, but the company can still claim to be 'green')

Short answer: yes (ish) long answer: while better than diesels in some ways, hydrogen and battery-electrics are just an excuse not to put up the wires. additionally, we all know that batteries have emissions when made and also hydrogen harvesting isn't actually done through an environmentally friendly electrolysis process, but actually through burning fossil fuels

21:29 That looks like a nuclear power plant which, contrary to popular belief, actually produces fewer emissions in a lifetime than a coal powered plant can produce in 1 year. (There's actually a video on how nuclear power isn't that dangerous.)

Conrail was the last Class I to use electrics to operate freight, but electric freight stopped because of Amtrak's costs on the NEC and Keystone Corridor and Potomac Yard's closure.

Outstanding video! This is your most detailed episode yet, and I can tell this took months to research, but it's worth it. I personally feel most existing diesels should be converted with battery or hydrogen engines, so this way there isn't a backlog of relatively new or reliable diesels waiting to be scrapped. Furthermore, it's cheaper to convert existing engines rather than buy new ones from scratch, similar to NS rebuilding their Dash 9s with T4 diesel engines.

American freight will do literally anything to avoid actual electrification lmao

In my opinion, I don’t mind. As long as more Hydrogen Fuel Locomotives are built like CP 1001 (Which is a Cowl Unit), then they cool. Also, the Best part about Hydrogen Fuel Cell locomotives is that all you Need to Refuel them is to take water, and use electricity to Divid the water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, and then that Hydrogen should be used as fuel.

also, battery as source of power tends to last/perform less in cold weather, something you somehow forgot to mention :D

Yeah, great video dude 😎😎😎!!!

I'm in CP's camp, 110%!

Put up wires, that’s it. No stupid batteries or hydrogen trains, just wires.

I have a feeling that as soon as an electric locomotive has therman runaway in a town or in the bc fraser/thompson canyon and starts a forrest fire that takes out a town, everyone will stop using fhem because of the therman runaway

You should talk for high speed rail week is what the High speed rail alliance want to do with the Mid west. All the both commuter and high speed rail trains In the Midwest.

Norfolk Southern SD70ACe #1047, Norfolk Southern D940CW #9608, Amtrak Midwest SC-44 Charger #4613, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner SC-44 Charger #2115.

The biggest problem with hydrogen is shipping and storage. You can't move hydrogen by pipeline, and you need to refrigerate it once it gets there.

Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days

This is an excellent video. Impressive in every capacity. Well done!

Hey when are u gonna do the credit cause u said that on the video that I caught AMTK 157 and 197

The railroads say it's too expensive to electrify their lines, but they do have plenty of money to buy crazy expensive prototype battery and hydrogen powered locomotives that will never work. This is a scam to avoid environmental fines. They are not serious about cutting their emissions or reducing their dependence on imported oil. Many car manufacturers made so-called fleet compliance electric cars that would bring the average efficiency of a car model to standards set by government regulations, but it's nearly impossible to actually buy one. I think the railroads are doing the same thing with this. There is actually a simple solution to this problem that could actually make it through Congress. Since railroads in the US are private companies, they have to pay taxes. If the government gave them a tax break of a certain amount for every kilometer they installed overhead wires on and taxed pure electric locomotives at a lower rate than diesel locomotives the railroads would suddenly have lots of money for electrifying their lines. This could actually pass Congress. Democrats love infrastructure bills, and Republicans love cutting taxes on big business. They both get what they want. It's a tragedy this is what it takes to solve a problem like this but this is how it is. The technology exists to solve this problem. The northeast corridor successfully demonstrated this technology decades ago. All that's missing is the political will and the money.

Well done video, Sam! I do agree, the next few years are going to be very interesting for railroads.

UP has probably 2000 units currently sitting in storage not sure why they would buy units that will definitely go into storage as well.

Awesome! When will “This Month On The Railroad” series be happening again

Hybrid locomotives use tons of batteries. If they're lithium ion that could cancel out the advantages of shutting down the prime mover. Where steam locomotives once traveled, there was much plant growth near the tracks. They were fertilized with 99% pure carbon. Electrification has many advantages. If powered by nuclear power plants the problem could be solved. India is working on electrification nation wide, and France runs 75% on nuclear power. Using hydrogen fuel is extremely dangerous. Can anyone imagine a wreck with a locomotive with hydrogen in the fuel tanks?

US freight companies refuse to go overhead electrification because they want to do the bare minimum to maintain anything. Not installing or ripping off existing wire so they can spend less maintaining infrastructure. So they actively avoid electrification despite the fact that it is a very good solution for mainline freight due to electric locomotive having higher traction than diesel loco. And with these investment into new tech and infrastructure to refuel hydrogen/ recharging it could ended up being even more expensive than overhead wire locomotive and infrastructure as it is existing and proven one as oppose to totally new tech. Also battery aren't cheap, especially with such large amount of lithium battery on train. Oh and battery will degrade as well. So u have to replace them more frequently compare to only need to replace parts. In the end it will be more expensive than traditional electric locomotive. For high density freight line, overhead electrification make more sense especially in the long term. Unless u want to get in and sell it quick.

There just isn't enough electrical power infrastructure (power plants AND transmission lines) to support electric RRs--and it won't be very long before electric autos will be dimming houses everywhere.

11:11 2 F40’s x an SD70ACe

3:48 - Is this train seen on the route of 'Empire Servce' ? / New York City to Buffalo and Toronto

One other option that was not discussed is what FEC (Florida East Coast) is doing right now with LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas). Otherwise this was a well done program.

According to a good friend at UP the 2O ordered are being recycled from SD60m locomotives, you forgot to mention the SD40-2s UP rebuilt into battery

Meanwhile Europe with their Stadler Eurodual, Siemens Vectron DM, TRAXX LM, Mireo Plus B and many more being like: "You guys call this innovation?"

Obviously overhead wires are the much better option in literally any case, but if its between batteries and hydrogen, hydrogen makes more sense. The amount of battery it must take to fill a loco is insane and very wasteful, and there is plenty of space to fit the equipment for hydrogen fuel and fuel cells. Combined with the fact that hydrogen will refuel faster and that they only need refueling stations in specific places means hydrogen just makes more sense.

I think hydrogen tenders would be better in between locomotives. The PRR electrified in the 1930s to save on high-speed costs, where as MILW electrified its Pacific Extension to reduce costs. The PRR is still electrified east of Harrisburg, but MILW de-electrified in 1974.

Just finished binge watching the series up to today’s release. These are awesome videos! Most surprising to me is the rapid expansion and success of the Brightline, compared to the glacial pace of CA HSR construction here in my state. I get how different the projects are, although I totally agree with your viewpoint that the route alignment chosen is insane. I especially enjoyed the original footage you shot of some of these projects where you were able.

Conrail stopped operating electric freight when they moved most traffic off the NEC and the Keystone Corridor.

I love all these go green programs, trucks, trains, cars and more. The problem is no one talks about where the “power” to charge these batteries is coming from. We can build all the electric vehicles we want, but the power still comes from the grid that is 90% fossil fuel driven. This is not a solution, it a money making diversion.

I like its number. the 999 (6:15), an alternate 'Galaxy Express' locomotive :P

Did you know about the upgraded versions of the turbines that was able to produce anywhere from 8500 - 10,000 HP the cabs even looked different compared to the version you showed in the video. BTW I like the content

UAC Turbo Train 170 MPH thats faster than the early Shinkansen train in the 1960.

I noticed that when u explained the GTEL history, those locomotives are not passenger locomotives, they were pure freight haulers as you may guess as sitting right behind a loud and hot jet engine might be uncomfortable for all passengers The GETLs saw service from 1952-1970 (18 years) of freight hauling and the reason why it ran on Bunker C fuel was because the fuel was considered waste and Union Pacific was going to take a crap fuel source at a cheap rate until the plastic industry realize the usefulness to Bunker C fuel into a lighter fuel source. That’s what killed the GTELs

The problem with overhead wires is, where do you plug them in once you are far from a city? There's also the problem with damage to the wires from the weather and how long it takes to repair the wires.

Thanks for mentioning the environmental impact of battery and hydrogen locomotives. It bothers me when people forget the other sorces of environmental impact associated with "clean and green" energy.

Of course you have to see what it would cost to electrify all the tracks in North America. The technology currently exists to pull heavy trains. The example of high electric traction can be seen in the double locomotives from Bombardier "MTAB IORE" for Sweden and Norway. Here I currently see the cheaper alternative in synthetic fuels and "E-Fuels" to quickly get away from diesel fuel. You can then use the new fuels to create the same properties as with diesel power. The diesel locomotive can then be operated with “E-Fuels”, which then have the properties of conventional diesel fuel. The infrastructure and the machines do not have to be changed significantly when operating with "E-Fuels".

I'd say Hydrogen & BioDiesel are better.

C a t e n a r y

23:34 U.P. GTEL's were NOT used in passenger service

Norfolk Southern SD70ACe 1047 & Norfolk Southern D940CW 9608, Amtrak SC-44 4613 & 2115.

Overhead wires are great for passenger transport and small grids, like in many European countries. In the US however I see hydrogen engines because maintaining an overhead wire system over an entire continent with low population density in between is difficult.

What if Indonesia High Speed Rail (KCIC Jakarta - Bandung & Surabaya) we compared with the California High Speed Rail? Which is better?? I must know the answer from @Worldwide Railfans

union pacific is always first in line for getting and trying out new locomotives. union pacific is the only company in the world that has tried every new trial loco's. if they worked they ordered many of them. and other rail companies followed suit, if they didn't work out well. no company bought any.

Sorry I am late to the party. At 2400 KWhr it would run for 1.6 hours at half power. How is this going to work?

I wonder which one is CSX Chosing

They should do both hydrogen and battery

I think Hydrogen or Biogas is the better alternative. Electric trains [Overhead powered] will still be the only true enviromentally friendly locomotive. I make the same argument as with buses here. In cities/populated areas. Electrified. [In trains case basically major lines] and for rural areas [low frequency branchlines] will use Hydrogen/Biogas. This is still no permanent soloution. In about 20 years all lines SHOULD be electrified and private companies cant make the excuse "ToO eXnSiVe, iSnT bAtTeRy GuD eNoUgH?!?" And electric cars have the exact same problems as battery electric trains, plus the fact that theyre STILL CARS. Still being incredibly space inneficient and having a HORRIBLE economy of scale.

Norfolk Southern SD70ACE 1047 and D940CW 9608.

LIRR said battery was a no go after spending $1,000,000 studying the problem

Wabtec’s FLXdrive is pronounced “Flex Drive” I’d you want to save yourself some time. Also Net Zero Emissions doesn’t mean no emissions so UP isn’t going to dive into electric traction if it’s not economically viable yet, it just means they’ll offset their emissions in other ways.

The gteL never on a passenger service only freight

The LIRR test failed and wasn’t found feasible

I think as long as a considerable part of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, there’s not much to be gained from electrifying transportation. Wired electric trains are cool though :D

Batteries trains does better for commuter rail since they stop allot and when they reach the end of the line, they can plug it in and charge it up before heading the other way. hydrogen train should be done on freight trains.

Hydrogen is awesome. If it was plentiful both polution and energy problems would be solved. Only problem it is not an energy SOURCE. Hydrogen readily combines with pretty much everything (and is way lighter than air when it doesnt) so it exists in a usable state exactly nowhere on earth. Only way to produce it is to either strip hydrocarbons (and when you strip hydro from hydrocarbon you leave carbon - which is what we're trying to STOP using) or use some other energy source to split water into H and O. So its more like a battery. But if you had plentiful solar, wind or geothermal power someplace with lots of water but too remote for wires, you could electrolysize the water with the power and store the gasses (O2 being useful also) but without massive refrigeration they would need gigantic tanks to store them in gaseous form. If we had working, practical fusion power, that could both power the world and create hydrogen for when you needed portable energy without wires (airliner, for example). SO keep scientisting!

Battery power and hydrogen fuel cell are just methods of storing electricity. But the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, so what's the point? Might as well stick with safe proven diesel electrics until such time as we make the significant investments in clean electricity generation (which is going to have to include a lot of nuclear). But if we do want to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the short run, a good way to do it would be to ban long haul trucking. All of that cargo should be transported by rail and only by truck for the "final mile" services to homes and businesses.

Just electrify the damn lines already If Conrail and Milwaukee Road didn't spend so much time dismantling the little electric freight infrastructure that was already in place there may have been at least some testbed for electrics to prove their worth.

They could make two way engine for commuter electric for electric lines diesal for off the electric or hybrid. Battery is good for short range yard use. Electric overhead you are burning fuel at powerplant. The vast distances going coast to coast. All locomotive have to work together in multiple locomotive trains like triple headers

the roadster was not the first production car to use LI ion batteries. there's been a weird altering of history over the past few years where everything tesla uses tesla must have invented, they didn't invent squat

Hydrogen is the true answer to Trains , Planes and Automobiles , not AC or DC .

Batteries? Bad idea. Only really suited to short journeys - shunting & brief "transition" runs. Fuel Cells? Also a bad idea. While a better option than batteries, fuel cells are phenomenally expensive & a pain to maintain. Also, you need to train up a whole new workshop crew to maintain them. The best option (imo) would be to convert the current diesel engines to run on hydrogen. This has several advantages - chief amongst which is the fact that the engines that would be used ALREADY EXIST. This saves the environment much more effectively than batteries, as there is no need to dig up & process the materials needed to build the batteries... What does converting a diesel engine to run on hydrogen involve? Basically, a head swap. You need to tweak the compression, add direct injection (if not already present) and spark ignition. That's pretty much it (for the engine). The much trickier part is the fuel system - hydrogen is notoriously hard to store. 'Tis a tricky challenge, but not insurmountable. JCB have done it, having converted & tested several of their diesel excavator models to run on hydrogen. Humanity has a heckuvalot of experience building & maintaining IC engines. It might well be worth looking into how to make use of that knowledge, before rushing off to the "Ooh! Shiny!" realms of fuel cells or the environmentally dubious "benefits" of batteries.

I'm happy UP is experimenting with biofuels after hearing what the Rio tinto had to say, battery electric locomotives are a joke and show people are still ignorant to the laws of thermodynamics. Biodiesel is renewable, carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure unlike hydrogen and electric locomotives. Plus we in the US produce enough waste cooking oil every year to run every single diesel in the states (including the steam locomotives). Switching to EVs and Hydrogen is a waste and a terrible idea when you realize just how much biofuel is actually available.

So, you mention that the source of electricity is not 100% renewables and therefore, the battery systems aren't renewable until the grid that feeds them are. A fair argument. But then you go on to completely neglect that hydrogen has the exact same problem. H2 systems are nothing more than a different kind of chemical battery. Which is charged from the same exact sources as a lithium battery. Pretty misleading presentation.

Bruh when are we gonna see CP 1001 in action because it’s literally on HU but there literally isn’t anything going on with it they got us all hyped for nothing.

1:36 Increasing oil prices due to Russian invasions of Ukraine did push the changes towards Battery and HydroAmmonium. but GE Must be hurry before the US

i am curious, where is the electricity going to come from?

Though, coal and diesel can be used to generate Hydrogen centralized in high quality stations. How about storing solo energy with gravity logistically?!!

EV1 started out with Nickel Cadmium batteries. Nickel Metal Hydride was a later improvement. Just for the record; not really important to this story.

How about biodiesel

LIRR once again going bach to battery, from there early age of steam. Ironic

What about solar power locomotives

Can’t beat a noisy diesel clagging away….

Mixed is the best.. those diesel engines generate more power than they really utilize.. i would run one diesel that could regenerate the battery powered engines.. The Hydrogen fuel cell is the future IMO.. The problem is the infrastructure to generate the Hydrogen required. it might be better to have a small source of hydrogen on the train to get things going and just store water in the "fuel" tank. As the train is running it generates it's own hydrogen on the run. there are downfalls to the battery power.. supply and lifespan of the batteries.. we are already seeing this issue with the Teslas and other electric cars.. the batteries fail.. they are major polluters in the beginning process.. the required minerals are being mined by manpower not machinery.. pros and cons to both.. there really needs to be a completely unbiased study done for which is the best route.. i'm betting there will be ultimately a Frankenstein design that utilizes all 3.. diesel, hydrogen and battery.