Train Manufacturers Are About to Make A Ton of Money 

What about 3rd rail like Subways? Could that be an alternative in tornado prone areas?

Awesome video btw, very informative and factual.

"No executives at any of the railroads, or equipment manufacturers, are talking about or putting money towards third rail electrification or catenary" because the industry avoids spending any money on infrastructure like the plague. They value running bulk products without guaranteed schedules, because that's what maximizes shareholder value, hence the disaster which is Precision Scheduled Railroading, which like the Holy Roman Empire is neither precise nor scheduled and is barely considered railroading. As I've said elsewhere, catenaries work and have been shown to work for over a century, while these other technologies you highlight are at best pipe dreams, especially when considered within the timeline mandated by California. Here's a good youtube video from the Well There's Your Problem Podcast (a podcast about engineering disasters, with slides) that goes over the disaster which is American Freight Railroads: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jNkYNjADoZg.html

​@@musicandefy It really all has to be one or the other, catenary or third rail. Third rail would eliminate--to a degree--the tornado/wind problem but it still introduces a significant vulnerability to needing running electricity. Look at the Texas area right now and all the power outages they're having, if freight rail were electrified it would all be down in those areas right now, just totally stranded. Texas is a good example of the overall electric problem because it has extreme weather--prone to tornadoes, hurricanes, and heat--but is also the US state that has the most freight rail traffic.

@@musicandefy Third rail has 2 problems. (1) Since it is at ground level, it is dangerous to both trespassing wildlife and humans (2) it has a limited voltage and current capacity. It is ok to use in protected subway tunnels running light weight subway trains, but it it be useless to power large freight locomotives, which need 3.5 million to 4.5 million watts *each* to run. Freight trains in North American can weight over 20,000 tons and run at 50 to 70 mph. You need a massive amount of power for this and you are not getting that to work through a 3rd rail setup.

Exactly. They’ve been that way since day one. Also I would say they are very fuel efficient mostly because they have steel wheels rolling on steel rails. Low coefficient of friction

Technically, they are NOT Hybrids. They just convert the mechanical energy of the diesel engine to electrical energy to power the traction motors. But, I get your point.

@@markantony3875 is that not what a hybrid does by definition? Or is there another reason why they are technically not hybrids?

@@ellisjackson336 Hybrids by definition have a battery storage capacity that also allows regeneration from braking. Diesel-Electric locomotive have neither feature. Instead of using a purely mechanical transmission, they just convert the mechanical power into electrical power to power traction motors. This is the preferred way to do it for heavy equipment. The very largest mining trucks use the same system. The AC induction motors used to power the axles are virtually indestructible compared to a complex mechanical transmission.

@@markantony3875 I figured that the reason would’ve been due to no regenerative braking sending energy back into batteries. Probably because the tech for rechargeable batteries was not there yet when diesel locos were invented in the early 1900s. I’ve always known that they don’t use a mechanical transmission, although there have been some small switcher locomotives that do. Plus considering all of the weight that trains move, it would be a bit infeasible to use a mech transmission. One traction motor weighs 14000 lbs.

India's rail is state owned and operated, making it much easier for India to decree it's rail be electrified. With the thousands of rail stakeholders in the US, the size of the network, and that it connects with Mexico and Canada, electrifying via something like catenary is a virtual impossibility imo. Someone will say the railroads should be state owned then, and well, that's a totally different type of argument. And one I don't think gets anywhere.

@@Maxinomics I don't know, I think it gets a lot further than a battery locomotive. No idea where you got the 800 mile range figure from. Even battery multiple units (with much more space for batteries than a loco-hauled train) in use right now for passenger transport are short range, and usually rely on being on the wires for most of their journeys.

800 miles comes from the specs from the BEEs that are being tested today. But, I''ll be the first to admit, that is a true best-case scenario. And as an EV owner, I don't think I've ever hit the best-case scenario for my vehicle. On the other hand though, adding battery capacity to a train that hauls heavy cars as it's job isn't particularly complicated. The complicated part is ensuring reliability, sourcing the batteries at reasonable cost, and providing charging infrastructure that doesn't disrupt rail operations. What a lot of the comments on these videos tend to assume is that it's my opinion when I say battery-electric is next, but that's not my job. I'm relaying what the railroads and OEMs are saying and doing. OCLs aren't in any conversation, hydrogen is a distant second to battery-electric engines (BEE). There are multiple pilot programs for BEEs. Is it going to come to fruition? That's less of a certainty, but that's the path being traveled first.

@@Maxinomics Look at germanys train network. It used to be all private companies. They built a train network with all different operators and track gauges even. However a lot of companies were able to get to an agreement to built overhead wires and have standard gauge on their network. And btw. have you heard of dual mode locomotives? Existing locomotives (at least a large percentage) is already diesel-electric. Essentially they use their engine as a generator. If you only built overhead wires in california, that would already be a huge win for everybody, since from there on you can expand the network bit by bit with dual mode locomotives.

Gonna refer back to this comment… “What a lot of the comments on these videos tend to assume is that it's my opinion when I say battery-electric is next, but that's not my job. I'm relaying what the railroads and OEMs are saying and doing. OCLs aren't in any conversation, hydrogen is a distant second to BEEs. There are multiple pilot programs for BEEs.”

As part of the inner circle, we both agree that railroads are greedy bastards. What you said is the most plausible course of action if California enforces this.

Greed is good. People complaining about greed are usually actually upset you won't give them some.

@@train7163 Greed has nothing to due with it. The cost to electrify the lines would be so high it would only make sense on the heaviest used main lines. Branch lines and the short line smaller railroads would be abandoned due to the cost to upgrade. Thus California would only increase carbon emissions as more freight would have to move on trucks on overloaded highways. The other effect is California would only loose more jobs due to some rail dependent factories moving to states where railroads could serve them. The rural farming areas would also hurt if the smaller railroads were not available to move their products to the main line railroads terminals.

as a railfan this is a massive W

​@@Lordbillystrainsfacts

@@Lordbillystrainsas a railroader this is a massive w

@@manuelmontemayor4824 fr

I remember the Milwaukee's electrification from a trip I took as a kid in 1968 to Montana, Idaho and Washington state.

@@WAL_DC-6B Many don't know that the electric engines, nicknamed "Little Joe's " , were built for the Russian Railroad 🤔 for the then President Joseph Stoland. Then the cold War started and were never shipped. The Milwaukee Road got them for pennies. One remains on display at the Lake Shore Historical Society in North East, Pennsylvania. Hope this helps 🙏 ☺.

@@richardbause2453 According to the book, "The Electric Way Across the Mountains" (2nd ed.), General Electric offered all 20 "Little Joes" to the Milwaukee Road for 1 million dollars in 1948. The Milwaukee initially hesitated as at the time it was even considering eliminating all electric operations and dieselizing instead. A "Little Joe" was also tested on the Milwaukee, and it did not quite perform as GE said it would. In the meantime, the Chicago South Shore & South Bend Railroad and Paulista Railway of Brazil each respectively purchased 3 and 5 of the "Joes." Finally, the Milwaukee decided it indeed wanted the engines. But by now only 12 were left and the Milwaukee had to purchase the remaining units from GE in "as-is" condition for the original 1 million dollars that could have bought them all 20. The Milwaukee Road put the "Joes" into service starting in the Fall of 1950.

@@WAL_DC-6B Cool, thanks 😊. We'll head to The Lake Shore Historical Society in North East,Pennsylvania to start putting wire up across Pennsylvania and New York State 😄😁.

I remember 👍

The effort this would take is just enormous. 160k miles of track across three countries owned and operated by dozens of different railroads.

@@Maxinomics Nothing forces to electrify everything in one go, some not at all. First within California, then mainlines connected to California. Then selected mainlines elsewhere. Lightly used have no need to be electrified at all. It would be just like every other country with rail.

​@@Maxinomicsperhaps you could make a calculation of this option as a follow up video. I also think it would be cheaper to use/implement existing technology than waiting for new options to emerge.

​@@jaketus I see your point, I just think about it from the standpoint of the railroads and how complicated those network/schedules are and think it's one of those things that seems quite simple at first but quickly becomes a nightmare on implementation. Especially across dozens of private rail companies operating in three countries. What I'm trying to convey in this video isn't my opinion--I don't have a dog in the fight on how the network is electrified, that's not my thing. This is what's happening in the the US rail industry, what's being talked about on conference calls, industry conferences, etc. Railroads and OEMs are making moves forward with battery-electric engines, they are not talking at all about catenary or any other from of electrification.

​@@Maxinomics ok but this needs to happen anyway. Buying trillions of dollars of batteries that will need to be replaced every 10 years is not feasible. Catenary electrification is what is needed and I imagine we will see tri-parallel locomotives that have a smaller diesel engine, a battery for hybrid operation, and a pantograph for electrical pickup. Weight is not a concern because locomotives need tons of weight anyway to achieve traction, and often even add weight ballasting for this very purpose. Time and time again it has been made clear that the numbers just dont support electrification. Look up Alan Fisher's video on why battery electric locomotives are foolish. Hybrid battery/ diesel / electric? Not dumb at all. The technology for all this very much already exists, we just need to give the rail companies an impetus to do it and this is it. And yes, 160k miles of electrified track is not some extreme thing. Europe did it with fewer resources, so can we. Tired of the "oh the same rules don't apply here" argument lol. Not even 50 years ago the Milwaukee Road the Penn Central had electrified main line freight lines. I will say it again, it needs to happen eventually, we might as well start catching up now.

My thoughts exactly, It's all about profit for the class 1's and especially the class 3's. This will kill those smaller railroads that rely on California. But, also knowing the Class 1's they will just be like "Meh, Just bring us your goods on truck to Nevada or New Mexico." or they will just open a new port in Oregon or Washington

There are already ports in Mexico with major investor backing gearing up to bypass West Coast U.S. and Canadian government and union bllsht. Trains will take it from there.

Honestly this is probably the only option. 0 emissions = 0 economy

​@@MilwaukeeF40C that and east coast ports will take up the different

Yea The SCOUTS will be glad to Spank Ca

As the folks at Well There's Your Problem are wont to point out, we've had the technology to do this for a century - it's called a catenary

@@TheSquire06 precisely

I'm not arguing that it's a bad idea, in fact I think it's likely going to be a big part of the move to BEE, but most likely not directly at the locomotive as we see in light rail across most installations. I suspect that what we will start seeing is stretches of 100 miles or so every 500 miles of rail, where "Battery Cars' will raise a catenary to an installation of overhead power that will be used to recharge the batteries. The aim won't be to bring them to 100%, more likely they will aim to bring them to about 80% of capacity from hopefully not below 20%. Eventually these cars will have traction motors that will run directly off the batteries on board, but be controlled by lead locomotives in much the same way that locomotives today often have mid-line locomotives for distributing the power load over the length of the train. Long term we may see the lead locomotive simply become a control cab. Longer term fewer of the battery cars will be needed as more and more catenary drive power units are added to the mix along with more miles of overhead line. The problem I believe most rail is looking at is that since there isn't an overhead power system in the US that is used for heavy rail, and especially not for the lengths of trains they are running today, they look at putting that infrastructure in and maintaining it, as an added expense that they don't want to pick up, especially as none of their current set of locomotives can make use of it. Yes we have had electrified rail for heavy rail in the past, I believe that the MIlwaukee Road line through Montana was electrified, but I'm pretty sure that any locomotives from that era wouldn't qualify under California rules, if only because of their age. If any were still viable, I'm pretty sure that they might get an exception, but I'm pretty sure all of them were junked. I'm guessing however that the 'stopgap' measure is going to be making use of sidings outside of the state of california to stage locomotives that can be used to move single or dual engine pulled sections into California. This won't be an easy help for remote power locomotives in a train, that's going to require more engineers, more engines, and more time for each train to hook up and swap out locomotives. I don't see that as being a good solution, even short term. Especially with all of the effort that the railroads have been making to cut down on the number of crews that get deployed. Long term, yes the overhead power solution is likely to be the solution, it's just bridging the decades between when the restrictions go into effect, and when the facilities and locomotives are available and in deployment. Mean time I suspect we're going to see a lot more container ships going to the port of Seattle.

@@sophiamadams I feel like people who always preach that forget that A) the power still has to come from a source, one that probably isn't green. B) there used to be several major electrified freight railroads in America. The technology predates diesel electric locomotives. Namely, Pennsylvania Railroad, Virginian, and the Milwaukee Road. Funnily enough, none of those railroads are around, and they or their successors removed the electrification. Interesting how that works out huh? Edit: I also want to add that freight railroads only contribute 0.5% of pollution in America. The EPA themselves have said that electrification is effectively pointless for this reason.

@@Amigafur THE COST OF ELECTRIC WAS TO HIGH INFERSTRUCTOR MATANANCE THEY EVENTUALY WENT TO DIESEL

You just described how Marxism can subvert a free economy. Atlas Shrugged

Knowing how California is politically they probably see this as a complete win-win….

Remember Conrail

@@mr.sir. Conrail worked for a short time and in a small area, sure shared assets still exist but in the us at least nationalized anything isnt sustainable just due to how us Americans are and how independent we like to be.

It’s California when have they ever made a good decision

@@caseihpopperdid you not just listen to how CA’s regulations helped push for better car emissions and unleaded gas? 2:33

@@stir-fryblob Obviously not. California bashers are probably living in states that are net-negative economically and needs CA money to prop them up.

​@@stir-fryblobbut at the same time if no trains are running in California that means they would need to truck them in means 1 truck for 1 intermodal container rather than one locomotive for 100 intermodal containers at the least and that's with a modern locomotive, so if something like this were to happen trucking is WAY more fuel costly than the trains and thats not getting into cars fuel

Probably use electric trains like the NEC does. Are you Amish and have never heard of such a thing?

¡VLLC!

EXACTLY! Electric engine have been around since rhe 1920s, if people picked up a Bloody history book they'd know that.

It'd be nice to get one of the remaining ones in a museum operational again.

​@@WAL_DC-6BIt will never happen. Nearly every ounce of them is insanely toxic and nobody wants to even rebuild them because the transformers alone have huge amounts of PCB oil. Then there's asbestos, beryllium, etc.

@@WAL_DC-6B Besides the question of the steel structure starting to fail the transformers on the GG 1 used a toxic oil to cool them. So even though there are several saved GG 1’s they will most likely never run under their own power again. Not to mention they were only able to operate over the old Pennsylvania Railroad electrification system. Most modern systems use higher voltages and different AC electric cycles.

​@johnchambers8528 Do a modified restoration. Classic exterior with modern electrical and electronics system & multiple voltage overhead pantograph. With using modern electrical and electronics, you use a lot less space compared to what the older electrical systems used inside the GG1 locomotive and with modern updates you can keep maintenance way down and provide a fully climate controlled cab for the operators. Maybe even fit in a bathroom onboard in one of the noses of the GG1. Also, have modern updated controls in the cab and Positive Train Control installed. Also, have it built to be a large battery electric locomotive like EMD's Joule Battery locomotive but also have the modern ability to run on multiple overhead catenary voltages or just on battery power alone. As well as have controls to run in multiple unit operations with other passenger and freight diesel electric locomotives. Run on point at the front of the train and be able to go anywhere. It's doable, it just takes money and support. 😊

My question is why do you think that's a problem ?

Coal fired power stations? no to dirty Nuclear power stations? Not in my back yard

@@johnks6733 electrifying the US Rail system would require doubling the electrical grid, including the number of power plants a transmission lines. Same would be if you tried to have only all electric vehicles. It's just not feasible. "Dirty Nuclear", lol. Nuclear is probably the only real solution to clean AND stable electrical grid.

​​@@CJ-jo6doThen double the fuсkiиg electrical grid you ponce. We should have done it 40 years ago but we were too busy cutting taxes for the rich.

Because diesel locomotives definitely don't regularly catch fire in catastrophic manners. Right. Moron.

Yeah, like Texas.

Mexican ports!

‘Cheapest?’ Do you know how many billions upon billions the railroads would have to invest to electrify when they barely want to pay for upkeep of their infrastructure and equipment?

Mainline railroad infrastructure and equipment is in better condition than ever, but it is a low margin business and that kind of major capital upgrade is not possible.

So you think installing a cantanary system, it can magically take care of itself and there won't be any sunk costs or maintenance needs for it? 🧐

​@@ogjkJust like how there's no sunk cost for diesels? Nope, there's no need to replenish oil, rebuild massive engines, FUEL. Nope, that's all free.

@@pootispiker2866 duh,, your going to have sunk cost on your motive power, goes without saying whether it be steam, diesel, hydrogen, electric. When your talking overhead cantanary your introducing more sunk cost. Educate yourself, research Milwaukee road rocky mountain division. See how that worked out for them. Albeit the timming was pre diselkzation the economics still hold true.

Tje only time a battery locomotive makes sense is if it was an industrial engine, a locomotive that moves a couple cars a day and barely leaves the site or yard. For long distance locomotives it just ain't economical

@@joshuahill6994I could see a use case for something like this.

Catenaries are a great invention you know.. Trains could even be hybrid. Run on wire parts of the time and run on battery/hydrogen the rest of the time. My country recently introduced hybrid catenary/diesel trains on streches previously only served by pure diesel. Bigger, faster, more comfortable. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZLRwjieJJtg.html Quality trains built by Stadler. In my country the big city ferries have been converted to fully electric as well. These are quite big passenger ferries ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7bwLhe3NJi8.html

This. Just use overhead lines and skip the lithium mining and efficiency losses.

Very dense lines only? Someone better tell literally all of Europe and Siberia! They'll be so mad when they find out their electric trains do not in fact work.

You didn't listen to the first minute of the video, did you?

You mean economically or environmentally worse? Because if we're talking about emissions, electric locomotive powered by coal power plant is slightly less polluting than diesel one (and I guess that California uses mostly gas and renewables, with a little bit of nuclear to generate electricity).

@thelloydersvk5068 I'm saying that Cali doesn't have the electrical output to support electrifying. They already tell people to limit when they charge their EVs. Lol And you're telling me that a diesel ELECTRIC locomotive somehow pollutes more than a coal power plant that burns train loads of coal? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, and by the way, I do have a bridge for sale if you're interested.

"all that is needed"... that's a lot that is needed. Especially for an industry that is not owned by the government in the US, as opposed to countries like India.

Other countries arent a total capitalistic shit show. It’s costing the California taxpayers 300 million per mile for the “new” State sponsored high speed rail corridor and has gone what? 40 miles? Not to mention almost 100% of the states rail is privately owned by BNSF or Union Pacific.

yankeesforlife24 No other place has the rail freight market share that North America does, nor the low prices for rail shipping. Europe is clogged with trucks compared to the U.S. because of bureaucratic bllsht.

​@@MaxinomicsAnd batteries solve this how?

Dual mode locomotives have been around forever and are a joke. They cost 3X, are expensive to maintain, and have had a history of operational problems.

Exactly. However, a modest battery could be useful for regenerative rather than dynamic braking. it would reduce the energy required by the train, as well as allow continued operation if the catenary goes down, or, if there are gaps between lines.

@@vincentrobinette1507 You do make a good point

@@vincentrobinette1507 Locomotives with overhead wires can have regenarative breaking too.

Yes, but railroads have adopted the quarterly profits accounting practice, and the cost of the dedicated infrastructure installation (a one time cost) and maintenance (wear and tear on the cables and catenaries, as well as training up new maintenance crews for the new locomotives) won't show a profit in the next 90 days. Keep in mind that what the railroads call rail maintenance in the USA would be considered criminal in Europe. Deregulation has that effect at times.

@@RNMSC wow. I didn’t know the US railroad is so blind. 90 day of profit for an zero emission and vastly more powerful rolling stock is something they should strive for. I mean an electric locomotive could reach powers of up to 10.000PS which would also eliminate the need for a lot of locomotives as you don’t need 4 or 5 for a heavy train. But if the government would fund such an upgrade it could be possible for the US to go full electric.

@@MrLOLCraftLP1 I'm not saying your wrong, just that I'm talking about people with that variety of mindset.

@@MrLOLCraftLP1 Horsepower is useless if you don't have tractive effort, and US locomotives have the most. Electric locomotives are lighter without purposely ballasting them and even if you do, you'll still need more than one because you have to distribute the power throughout the train. Obviously, electrifying the railroad means provide electricity, and if it isn't green, you accomplished nothing.

@@gsf_ryder Ballast = Batteries

Tbf even if California fully electrified, the freight companies would still run under the wires on diesel power

With California stupid emission rules even the trucking industry is going to leave

The trucking industry is under similar rules with similar time lines.

The mandates have killed off most owner operators, it is a big ass regulatory entry barrier gift to big companies that can afford it.

@@markantony3875 See note one and two and three on why that is not a solution.

Then why did you elect presidents who blew off maintaining our infrastructure to go to stupid wars like Vietnam and Iraq? If we had anybody but Reagan we would be well past this issue. What a shit for brains take you had.

That is correct but they had to retire due to the cooling oil in their transformers. Also you have to build out the electric wires and substations to feed the electric into the wires. Most people also don’t realize two dams were built on the Susuquanaha river to add electric generation to help supply power to the electrified rail lines when the Pennsylvania Railroad built the electrification for their main line. Does California have the spare electrical power generation to be able to power a full statewide mainline railroad system? Most likely not.

​@@johnchambers8528I don't think you realize how little energy it takes to move a train, but go off.

@@pootispiker2866 Yes I do! Trains regardless of fuel are the most energy efficient mode of transportation. The problem with using electric powered trains is the expense to build the substations and wire instillation needed to run it. It is only economical where there is very heavy freight or passenger train traffic. That is why you usually only see it where there is a lot of commuter trains in passenger service. In the east where you mentioned the GG1 is a system that was built by the Pennsylvania and New Haven railroads and the final section to Boston was built by Amtrak. Conrail the government sponsored freight railroad shut down the electrified routes that they first operated and changed to diesel engines due to the economics of being able to run through the old electrified territory with diesel engines instead of having to change to electric engines for only part of the trip. You also have to have the electric grid have available power to run the trains. When the Pennsylvania railroad electrified its lines two hydro electric dams were constructed to help power the system. So electrification is not a simple solution to reduce emission’s to run the trains.

Either way, we need to have the ability to operate these trains independently of using just electricity. Redundancy and Wartime considerations demand such.

​@@darklelouchg8505When has the US ever faced wartime?

@@pootispiker2866 We always take Wartime factors under consideration. It's almost like our entire interstate system and other works expressly have that as a cornerstone of design consideration. It's almost like War is one of the primary providences of the government and one of the reasons (primary reason) that the State enjoys a near monopoly on Force (Violence).

@@darklelouchg8505 I guess your cousins will be setting off landmines any day now.

The results just came out: for the seventh year California has the fifth largest GDP in the world. And now that companies are requiring workers to come in to work, the population is growing again.

Elon musk go to texas. Your source ​@@danielcarroll3358

Ok boomer

Watch them fall

Maybe they'll break away, and drift far, far out to sea.😂😂

UP and BNSF have tracks in the pacific north west and CN and CPKC have the remaining track rights

I wonder how long that's going to work, considering the fact that there have been a substantial number of arial copper mining operations collecting high tension power lines in various parts of the country. Not making the news all that much these days, but since large stretches of these have network fiber infrastructure attached to the static lines, and I've worked with carriers of various longhaul data carriers over the years, I assure you that it's still an issue in many places. I have little doubt that this is going to be an issue on freight line rail lines in remote parts of the country.

​@@RNMSCTrans Siberian Railroad has been using these wires in Siberia for many years. Also, you should visit one of these rail lines going in and out of California. You would be shocked at how busy they are, night and day. Listen to the video, count the numbers, and then figure out how many trains per hour.

Any Idea how expensive that will be?

If you run overhead lines you won't be able to run trains along the Gulf Coast for 2 weeks after every hurricane.

@@jacobpfeifertrains1998 Much less expensive than developing technologies that may never be feasible and certainly aren't going to be available in time

Batteries make sense as part of a Hybrid setup. Hybrid meaning diesel, electricity delivered by catenary though a pantograph, or, battery. If California puts up catenary lines like passenger trains, the trains can shut down their diesel engines while in California, then revert to diesel where there is no catenary. Being able to store electrical energy rather than waste dynamic brake energy as heat, can greatly reduce fuel consumption, thus reduce emissions, without any significant changes to the existing diesel engines. Remember, locomotives are already electrically driven!

@@vincentrobinette1507 Hybrid locos yes ,but not completely battery driven!!

What about overhead wires? For example, Switzerland has over 99% of all railways electrified this way, and also one of the best trains in the world.

This is the angle railroads are attacking this from, interstate commerce

Years ago California banned railroad refrigerator cars that were using two stroke diesel engines to power the refrigeration plant. That stuck so I would say the answer is yes.

toddsilk8153 Big changes coming for California's bllsht.

​@@MilwaukeeF40CIf you say so, weirdo.

India has successfully done electrified doublestack trains. They just use taller pantos. Next bad-faith argument, please.

India runs double stacks under catenary.

@@danielcarroll3358 No they don't. It's just a "show off". The "indian" trains are NOT well cars so the pantograph is sitting WAY HIGH to the point it loses tension to holding to the wire. Since North America uses well cars, the pantograph is still low and thus holds strong tension.

@@danielcarroll3358 this is exactly right and what I point out when viewers on short-form have suggested railroads will just build yards outside of CA and switch. That would work but only if others states don’t then adopt the standard, and other states will adopt the standard. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are a few states that have legislation that automatically adopts CA emission standards

@@Maxinomics There is a DOE website that lists the states that have adopted the California ZEV, LEV and ACT standards: afdc.energy.gov/laws/california-standards#/tab-zev

Railroads are also governed federally not on the state level. Sorry Cali

Virginia shtcanned that sht. All of those states have lackluster investment attractiveness for that kind of sht.

@@danielcarroll3358 That also means they have the right to rescind that decision. If they feel it will hurt their economy and tax revenue I am sure they will not adopt the California railroad rule.

Strange that other civilized countries in the world are able to electrify their lines... Hell when even India manages to do it...

Train service men who speak and employ logic like you are rare. I have talked to more crane operators and MOW bosses who sound like professors.

There are big automated port developments going on in Mexico too, the California port unions have been resisting automation. Fckm.

money's an issue

California is having brown outs all ready now tack on rail electricity load

@@alphonsotate2982 Actually no. Everyone has been commenting that we came through this extended heat wave in great shape. The only places with blackouts have been in far northern California to prevent forest fires. And that problem is slowly being solved by undergrounding of power lines.

i really love the word just...just wake up and think about what you said. how many miles of track? how much steel for supports, how much cable to carry the power....

How did India and China manage to do it? ​@@scottersandman6408

How is electric trains extreme? Just build catenaries like the rest of the world.

Locomotives are not all diesel. The only thing the large diesel does is turn an equally large traction alternator to produce 3.5 million watts of electric power. The rest of the locomotive runs just like an all electric locomotive.

What a stupid and wasteful idea. We already have a power grid. Your dumb idea would waste billions that we could put into that for upgrading to handle rail traffic.

And in the meantime Cali is blowing up hydroelectric dams, where is the state going to get its power?

Just electrify the railroads? Overhead wires don't need massive amounts of lithium..

Which stocks would you recommend

@@Renzel_NYC Not my style

@@Renzel_NYC with that being said there are a lot of ways to look at this. Some of which: - How do the railroads fare? - What’s the profit look like for the train manufacturers? - The charging and grid infrastructure has to be built by someone. - How much tighter does this make the battery supply chain and where are the bottlenecks? Bottlenecks tend to move prices dramatically. - how is the additional electricity generated?