Best Practices and Strategies for

Improving Rail Energy Efficiency

 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-14/02 Final Report

January 2014
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no 

liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, 

findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in 

this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies 

of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, or organizations imply 

endorsement by the United States Government. The United 

States Government assumes no liability for the content or 

use of the material contained in this document.

NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products 

or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear 

herein solely because they are considered essential to the 

objective of this report.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

January 2014

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Best Practices and Strategies for Improving Rail Energy Efficiency

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Aviva Brecher, Joseph Sposato, and Bernard Kennedy

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

U.S. Department of Transportation

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-13-02

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-14/02

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA, 22161, and through the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

In support of the FRA Energy, Environment, and Engine (E3) program, this study reviews and evaluates technology development

opportunities, equipment upgrades, and best practices (BPs) of international and U.S. passenger and freight rail industry segments 

for improving energy efficiency (E2) performance and attaining environmental sustainability goals. FRA’s Preliminary National 

Rail Plan, the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) initiative and environmental compliance requirements provide new 

impetus for renewed rail industry E2 advances. This report presents data on comparative rail energy efficiency, emerging energy 

efficient technologies, and alternative fuels. Based on a comprehensive literature review and on experts’ inputs, the report presents 

model corporate sustainability plans, rail equipment upgrade opportunities, system-wide BPs, and success stories that measurably 

improved E2 performance with environmental and economic benefits for all rail industry segments. Findings and 

recommendations are tailored to intercity and commuter passenger rail, as well as to freight rail carrier (Class I-III) needs and 

goals for improved, but cost-effective, E2 and environmental performance. Key opportunities include: public-private partnerships 

(P3) for R&D, demonstrations and equipment upgrades with Federal agencies (FRA), trade associations (AAR, APTA, 

AASHTO), international rail organizations (UIC), and regional and State environmental protection agencies for E2 and crossenterprise sustainability improvements.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Alternative fuels; best practices (BPs); commuter rail; diesel multiple units (DMUs); efficient 

and ultra-clean locomotives; electric multiple units (EMUs); emission reduction technologies; 

energy efficiency (E2); environmental sustainability; Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ; 

freight rail; green locomotives; high-speed rail (HSR); hybrid locomotives; passenger rail; rail 

equipment

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

98

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds 

(lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

Acknowledgments

The project leader and main author of this report is Dr. Aviva Brecher, Principal Technical 

Advisor in the Environmental and Energy Systems Technical Center, Energy Analysis and 

Sustainability Division at the Department of Transportation/Research & Innovative Technology 

Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. She was ably assisted in 

carrying out the research and preparing the report by project staff: Joseph Sposato, 

Environmental Science and Engineering Division, and Bernard Kennedy, Systems Safety and 

Engineering Division. Len Allen, Chief, and Suzanne Horton of the Systems Safety and 

Engineering Division are thanked for their assistance and advice as managers of the Volpe FRA 

Inter-agency Agreement on Rail Systems Safety research, which included this task on improving 

railroad energy efficiency. Cassandra Oxley, MacroSys, is thanked for her professional editing 

and for securing image reproduction rights.
iv

Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 9

1. Background and Need to Improve Rail Energy Efficiency (E2)............................... 12

1.1 Study Background, Objectives, and Approach ......................................................... 12

1.2 Synergy of the National Rail Plan with the National Energy Policy ........................ 14

1.3 Current High-Speed Rail (HSR) Initiative ................................................................ 18

1.3.1 Cost of Inaction of HSIPR Development.................................................................. 18

2. International and U.S. Rail Energy Efficiency Models and Best Practices............... 20

2.1 The UIC Railenergy Program and Products.............................................................. 20

2.2 U.S. Rail E2 Metrics and Performance ..................................................................... 28

2.2.1 Energy and Environmental Performance of Passenger and Freight Rail .................. 28

2.3 Existing and Emerging Fuel Efficient Locomotives................................................. 35

2.3.1 Equipment Technologies and E2 Strategies.............................................................. 35

2.3.2 Gensets: Switcher Locomotives with Scalable Power .............................................. 37

2.3.3 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) and Electric Multiple Units (EMUs)....................... 39

2.3.4 Energy Use Monitoring and Idle Reduction Control Devices .................................. 41

2.3.5 Dual Power Hybrid Locomotives.............................................................................. 43

2.3.6 Hybrid Electric Locomotives .................................................................................... 43

2.3.7 Battery Electric Locomotive ..................................................................................... 46

2.3.8 Efficient and Ultra-Clean Diesel-Electric Locomotives and Repower Kits.............. 46

2.3.9 Distributed Power Management and Control Technologies for Freight Rail Consist 

Fuel Savings.............................................................................................................. 49

2.4 Software Tools for Streamlined Operations to Enhance E2...................................... 49

2.4.1 Trip Logistics and Optimization Software ................................................................ 49

2.4.2 Efficient Rail Operations on Shared Track ............................................................... 50

3. Alternative Fuels for Environmental Sustainability.................................................. 52

3.1 Hydrogen Fuel for Fuel Cell Hybrid Locomotives................................................... 52

3.2 Natural Gas (CNG, LNG) Locomotives.................................................................... 54

3.3 Biofuels and Blends with Petrodiesel........................................................................ 56

4. U.S. Railroads E2 Best Practices (BP) and Success Stories...................................... 60

4.1 Freight Railroads BPs................................................................................................ 60

4.1.1 Class I Railroads........................................................................................................ 60

4.1.2 Regional (Class II) and Short Line (Class III) Freight Railroads.............................. 62

4.2 Passenger Railroads BPs and Success Stories........................................................... 64

4.2.1 Amtrak E2 BPs for Higher Speed Operations........................................................... 64

4.2.2 Commuter RR Best Practices.................................................................................... 66
v

5. Findings and Recommendations for Improved E2.................................................... 71

5.1 General Study Findings and Conclusions ................................................................. 71

5.2 Commuter Railroads.................................................................................................. 74

5.3 Freight Rail (Class I-III)............................................................................................ 75

6. Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 77

Appendix 1: List of Rail Contacts ................................................................................................ 87

Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Informational Calls to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) .......... 91

Appendix 3: Energy Unit Conversions......................................................................................... 92

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 93
vi

Illustrations

Figure 1. Total Energy Consumption and Modal Shares in 2011................................................. 14

Figure 2. Comparative Rail vs. Other Modal CO2 Emissions per Passenger-Mile ...................... 15

Figure 3. Comparative Energy Efficiency for Rail vs. Other Modes Based on UIC Data ........... 15

Figure 4. Ranges of Fuel Efficiency of Freight Trains by Type of Rail Car and Application, 

Based on the ICF 2009 Analysis........................................................................................... 17

Figure 5. UIC Data on Relative E2 among Commuter, Regional, and Long Distance 

Conventional and High-Speed Rail ...................................................................................... 18

Figure 7. Strategy Approaches to Energy Efficiency ................................................................... 21

Figure 8. International HSR: Sustainability and Renewable Energy Use .................................... 22

Figure 9. Total Energy Consumption with Losses in Generation for Regional and Suburban UK 

Rail........................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 10. Actual vs. Calculated Energy Consumption of EMUs Over Duty-Cycle ................... 25

Figure 11. Toshiba AC Electric Locomotive Used by Taiwan’s HSR......................................... 27

Figure 12. Toshiba HD-300 Hybrid-Electric Shunting Locomotive ............................................ 27

Figure 13. RTRI Hybrid Electric Locomotive with Regenerative Braking Schematics............... 28

Figure 14. Hybrid Battery DMU................................................................................................... 28

Figure 15. AAR 2010 E2 for Freight Railroads............................................................................ 29

Figure 16. GTR Flywheel WESS ................................................................................................. 37

Figure 17. CSX New Diesel Genset Switcher Locomotives Operating in Chicago, California, 

New York, and Indiana Railyards......................................................................................... 38

Figure 18. First NRE 3GS-21B Genset Locomotive Delivered to U.S. Army as USAX 6500.... 39

Figure 19. M-7 EMUs from Bombardier for use by LIRR and Metro-North............................... 40

Figure 20. Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. M8 Railcar EMU for Use by Metro-North and CDOT........ 41

Figure 21. NJ Transit DP Locomotive.......................................................................................... 43

Figure 22. RailPower-RJ Corman Green Goat (GG) Hybrid Switcher Locomotive.................... 44

Figure 23. GE Hybrid Electric Locomotive Schematic and Battery Module............................... 45

Figure 24. GE Battery Module for Hybrid Electric Locomotive.................................................. 45

Figure 25. GE Evolution Hybrid Locomotive Demonstrator ....................................................... 45

Figure 26. NS999 Prototype 1500 HP Battery Electric Switcher Locomotive............................. 46

Figure 27. 710ECO Repower........................................................................................................ 47

Figure 28. Brookville Passenger BL36PH.................................................................................... 48

Figure 29. Brookville Multipurpose BL20GH.............................................................................. 48
vii

Figure 30. GE Trip Optimizer Software Used for Status Display in Locomotive Cab ................ 50

Figure 31. BNSF Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrid Switcher Locomotive Demonstrated in 2010...... 53

Figure 32. Schematic of the BNSF Fuel Cell Locomotive Prototype .......................................... 53

Figure 33. Burlington Northern LNG Locomotive with Tender Car Attached ............................ 54

Figure 34. Napa Valley Wine Train Locomotive #73 .................................................................. 55

Figure 35. High-Level Tender Car Design Concepts by Westport............................................... 56

Figure 36. UP 9900 Prototype Uses Three After-Treatment Technologies to Cut Emissions..... 62

Figure 37. Amtrak Cities Sprinter Based on the Popular EuroSprinter Will Travel at 125 mph 

(201 km/h)............................................................................................................................. 66

Figure 38. GE Silverliner IV EMU............................................................................................... 69

Figure 39. Silverliner V ................................................................................................................ 69
viii

Tables

Table 1. Energy Intensity of Commuter Rail Systems, 2007 ....................................................... 30

Table 2. Energy Intensity of Commuter Railroads, 2010 ............................................................ 32
9

Executive Summary

The DOT/RITA Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) performed a 

review of contemporary international and domestic rail systems energy efficiency (E2) status and 

trends, in support of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Research and 

Development Energy, Environment, and Engine (E3) Research Program. The study identified 

rail industry and government Best Practices (BPs) and strategies for improving the E2 of freight 

and passenger railroads with technologically advanced equipment and infrastructure, and/or use 

of alternative fuels, operations optimization tools, and staff training. Specific E2 success stories 

across all rail industry segments illustrate the value and promise of energy consumption savings, 

economic and environmental benefits of advanced locomotive equipment, operations 

management software, and sustained implementation of multipronged sustainability initiatives. 

Recommended strategies for improving rail E2 in the United States include: 

• Fostering Public Private Partnerships (P3) involving Federal agencies (e.g., FRA, DOE, 

EPA), State and local transportation authorities, trade associations (AASHTO, AAR), and 

research bodies (e.g., TRB/NCRRP) in order to successfully develop, demonstrate, and 

deploy rail E2 and sustainability initiatives;

• Actively participate in international high speed rail (HSR) E3 initiatives, such as the 

annual UIC Sustainability Symposium and related R&D programs;

• Participate in multiyear joint research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) 

initiatives and activities related to advanced locomotive traction and energy storage 

technologies, alternative fuels, and operations control optimization tools promising to 

reduce emissions while improving E2 performance;

• Join, implement, recognize, and reward rail industry energy efficiency, cross-enterprise 

sustainability commitments and initiatives, and related Climate Change1 mitigation 

efforts;

• Join in rail industry sustainability initiatives led by industry and trade associations (e.g., 

the APTA Sustainability Commitment, the AAR Energy and Environment initiatives, and 

railroads’ Best Practices (BPs) such as Amtrak’s Climate Counts Scorecard.

2

)

• Join Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) to help build industry consensus and

facilitate the emergence of energy efficient rail technologies and fuels; 

• Play an active role in rail industry partnerships co-funded with Federal, State, and 

regional agencies to improve air quality and reduce energy consumption. 

The purpose of this study was to implement the E3 Action Plan recommendations and advance 

E3 Research Program objectives, which synergize with the Preliminary National Rail Plan 

(NRP)3 goals and the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future and Climate 

Change Action Plan.4 Study objectives were to develop guidance for rail transportation planners 

and operators, as well as to identify BPs and technology tools to improve the energy efficiency 

 1 See DOT’s Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse action plans at http://climate.dot.gov/about/index.html

2 See http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/432/735/Amtrak-Recognized-Strong-Environmental-Program-ATK-12-135.pdf

3 See NRP postings at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0522

4 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf
10

of legacy rail systems and of planned high-speed passenger rail services. The technical approach 

was to conduct a comprehensive literature review on rail E2 and E3 technologies, successes, and 

trends, and then build upon those findings with input from rail sector subject matter experts 

(SMEs). These consultations permitted identification of success stories, strategies, and BPs that 

can serve as models for achieving freight and passenger railroads’ E2 and E3 goals. 

Rail transportation is currently one of the most energy efficient (per passenger-mile, or ton-mile) 

and environmentally compatible transportation mode. The fuel efficiency of Class I freight rail is 

2 to 5.5 times better than that of trucks, having doubled over the past 30 years (1980–2011) to 

480 ton-miles/gallon (183,345 kg-km/l fuel)5

. Fuel efficiency has improved by 1 percent per year 

over the last decade (2000–2010) through upgrades in equipment (e.g., locomotives, freight cars, 

track structures, signal and control systems) and enhanced operating practices for asset and 

dispatch management. The energy intensity of U.S. intercity passenger rail (in Btu per passengermile) has also decreased by 1.9 percent annually over the past decade. Operational HSR systems 

worldwide have proven to be up to eight times more energy efficient than commercial aircraft 

and four times more efficient than car travel over the same geography and distances. In Europe, 

HSR uses one-third of the energy used by automotive travel, and in Japan, it is one-sixth due to 

technological advances.

The E2 metric for freight rail (Btu per ton-mi/gal) does not allow easy comparison with 

passenger rail (Btu per passenger-mi, or per seat-mile). The range of E2 for U.S. freight and 

passenger rail is very broad, reflecting many factors and variables including: aerodynamic losses, 

the weight and length of consists, number, age and technological vintage of locomotives, the 

railcar loading ratio, and idling due to network congestion. Stricter Tiers 3 and 4 EPA 

requirements for locomotives demand extra emissions abatement equipment that adds weight and 

cuts fuel efficiency. Also, mounting fuel costs have driven railroads to implement a broad range 

of new technologies and strategies to reduce both consumption and emissions, at lower operating 

cost. Projected passenger rail demand growth could counteract energy efficiency improvements 

and associated emissions reductions. It is also desirable to prevent and mitigate the increased 

energy consumption for emerging HSR projects per passenger-mile, the so-called “cost of 

speed.”

International rail E2 BPs applicable to the United States include: a UIC Railenergy online 

calculator and its database of 95 technology options, ranked by potential to improve E2 of 

passenger and freight rail. A Swedish study of HSR E2 (per seat-km) versus speed, found a 

negative “cost of speed” by 25–45 percent. In Japan, rail electrification, use of Electric Multiple 

Units (EMUs) with AC traction power and regenerative braking, and hybrid electric locomotives 

with onboard energy storage have improved E2 by 20–30 percent. For commuter rail with 

frequent stops, regenerative braking is an attractive E2 option. Since few U.S. intercity or 

commuter rail systems are electrified, they do not yet capture and reuse braking energy. Newer 

electric rail systems with regenerative braking capability (Amtrak Acela and some commuter 

rail) were able to save and reuse 10 to 20 percent of energy consumption. E2 equipment 

discussed include: Gensets increasingly deployed in rail yards to comply with Tier 3 EPA 

emission standards; fuel efficient switcher locomotives with 2 to 4 off-road diesel engines that 

 5 See AAR white papers posted at AAR Energy and Environment site: 

https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Pages/Energy-And-Environment.aspx#.Us6hk_RDtLA
11

can be turned on if needed. Ultra-clean diesel electric locomotives and repower kits are available 

for upgrades.

Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) in distributed power configurations combined with idle reduction 

devices and energy use monitoring capabilities reduce fuel consumption. EMUs on electrified 

track and hybrid electric and dual power locomotives offer E2 advantages in mixed-use territory, 

while a short-haul battery electric locomotive was tested and is being improved for long haul. 

Software tools for streamlined operations also improve asset management, logistics, and E2. Rail 

operations on shared track using GPS and Positive Train Control (PTC) for safety and asset 

management also improve E2. Alternative fuels being explored for environmental sustainability 

(biodiesel, hydrogen fuel cells, CNG, and LNG) promise equal or better E2. E2 success stories 

for industry leaders are illustrated to offer proven BPs as a model.
12

1. Background and Need to Improve Rail Energy Efficiency (E2)

1.1 Study Background, Objectives, and Approach

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Energy, Environment, and Engine (E3) research 

program supports the development and demonstration of technologies to advance and enhance 

the energy efficiency and environmental sustainability of the national rail system. The FRA E3 

program was motivated by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) strategic goal of 

environmental sustainability, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), and 

phase-in of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tiers 3 and 4 locomotive exhaust

emission regulations, reflecting rail community needs. The E3 program supports the 

development and demonstration of technologies which advance and enhance the energy 

efficiency and environmental sustainability of the national rail system. The primary goal of these 

efforts is to help ensure the safety of such new technology.

The FRA E3 program goals are achieved through collaborative research, demonstration, and 

testing efforts. FRA partners with stakeholders to disseminate findings, and to transfer to users 

technologies advancing rail energy efficiency (E2), emissions reduction, and engine upgrades. 

This research effort builds on the 2010 Volpe Center E3 Action Plan for FRA,6 which identified 

technology options, strategies, and lessons learned from international rail experience, as well as 

opportunities to enhance E3 for U.S. railroads and to leverage investments in high-speed rail

(HSR). The Action Plan’s most promising E2 strategies and technology options included:

• Modernizing power and propulsion equipment and infrastructure (e.g., track 

electrification and modernization of traction power substations) and use of wayside 

energy storage at or near substations;

• Modernization or fleet replacement for locomotives and railcars (e.g., through lightweighting or mass reduction, aerodynamic shaping, fuel-efficient diesel electric), or use 

of electric multiple units (EMUs) in electrified territory, using dual hybrid locomotives;

• Fleet renewal and equipment upgrades (e.g., automated start-stop to limit idling, speed 

limiters, shore-power for warm-up, electronic speed control, and global positioning 

system (GPS), that reduce fuel consumption, or radio communications for automated 

signal and control for positive train control (PTC) interoperability;

• Adoption of proven operational Best Practices (BPs) (e.g., the use of GPS for tracking 

and asset management, and of logistics optimization tools for efficient dispatch and 

routing, fuel burn monitoring, improved maintenance (lubrication), and engineer training 

and performance incentives for fuel conservation. 

To implement the E3 Action Plan recommendations and advance FRA’s E3 Research Program 

objectives, this study aims to develop guidance for rail planners and operators. The goal is to 

provide them with BPs and tools enabling improvements of legacy rail systems energy 

efficiency, environmental sustainability, and the development of more efficient commuter rail

systems and HSR. The study approach was to combine and analyze literature review and 

technology scan findings, with selected inputs and success stories from experts on recent and 

 6 “FRA Energy, Environment and Engine Technology (E3) Action Plan,” August 2010. Internal FRA report.
13

planned rail industry upgrades in technology and operational BPs proven effective in improving

E3 freight and passenger rail system performance. 

The goals of this study were to:

• Review initiatives on “greener” passenger rail transportation options applicable to the 

U.S. environment for power and propulsion of vehicle equipment and infrastructure (both 

new and retrofits), using transferable international lessons learned from deployment and 

operation of HSR systems and electrification (UIC/EU, Japan, Korea, and China);

• Identify appropriate rail industry metrics for energy efficiency and environmental 

performance; 

• If data permit, and using consistent metrics, compare U.S. passenger and freight rail 

energy efficiency and environmental footprint with modern systems (Europe, Japan, 

China);

• Identify international and U.S. standards and guidelines relevant to rail electrification 

infrastructure and vehicles’ energy efficiency, developed by Standards Developing 

Organizations (SDOs), such as: the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE), American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

(AREMA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), International Engineering 

Consortium (IEC), and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

(CENELEC);

• Identify the international BPs applicable and transferable to the U.S. rail operating and 

financial environment to improve energy efficiency of passenger and freight rail;

• Define E2 strategies that adapt and adopt available technologies to limit increased energy 

consumption with speed;

• Identify cost-benefit tradeoffs (e.g., retrofit versus fleet renewal) of introducing new 

technologies for energy recovery, storage, and management;

• Develop practical E2 Guidance for HSR, passenger rail, and freight rail planners and 

operators. 

The specific study objectives addressed in this report include:

• Improved understanding of energy efficiency metrics and tradeoffs against environmental 

emissions, as well as the effects of increasing speed on cost and E2;

• Identification of near-term options for reducing rail fuel consumption, while 

simultaneously achieving environmental compliance with EPA emissions requirements;

• Documentation of rail industry BPs and of “least-cost, no-cost” strategies that produced 

energy efficiency gains for passenger and freight rail projects;

• Development of a useful E2 resource with guidance for rail systems and operators, 

customized to the extent possible to high-speed and commuter passenger rail, and freight 

rail by Class I-III. The E2 Guidance should assist railroads in adopting BPs in planning, 
14

design, implementation, and deployment of new technologies and fuels, as well as help 

streamline operations.

Therefore, the technical approach for this study was to:

• Conduct first a comprehensive literature review on rail E2 and E3 technologies, 

successes, and trends;

• Complement the literature findings with inputs on rail E2 and E3 plans, programs, and 

BPs from representative rail industry subject matter experts (SMEs);

• Identify passenger and freight rail, as well as supplier industry strategies, BPs, and 

success stories that can serve as models for achieving E2 and E3 goals; and finally

• Disseminate the findings and recommendations to assist freight and passenger railroads. 

1.2 Synergy of the National Rail Plan with the National Energy Policy

The 2011 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) analysis7 of transportation energy consumption 

total and modal shares indicates that rail consumes only 2 percent of total transportation energy 

use compared with 21 percent consumed by highway mode, 7 percent by air, and 4 percent by 

marine, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Total Energy Consumption and Modal Shares in 20118

 7 See Transportation Energy Futures overview posted at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/index.html

8 Source: DOE Transportation Energy Futures overview
15

Rail transportation has been recognized as the most energy efficient and environmentally 

compatible (per passenger-mile, or ton-mile) transportation mode, as shown by the U.S. and 

international data in Figure 2 and Figure 3. In particular, HSR systems have proven to be up to 8

times more efficient than aircraft and 4 times more efficient than car travel.

Figure 2. Comparative Rail vs. Other Modal CO2 Emissions per Passenger-Mile9

Figure 3. Comparative Energy Efficiency for Rail vs. Other Modes Based on UIC Data

An FRA report comparing highway and rail energy efficiency and environmental footprint10

showed that the fuel efficiency in ton-miles per gallon of Class I freight rail is 2 to 51⁄2 times 

better than that of trucks. The fuel efficiency of freight railroads has doubled over the past 30 

years and improved in the last decade by 1 percent per year through upgrades in equipment 

 9 Source: JRC2012-74130, P.A. Alexander, “Rail Transportation Energy Efficiency-Oriented Technologies.” Figures 2 and 3 

courtesy of American Society of Mechanical Engineers

10 “Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors” by ICF, 2009 at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04317
16

(locomotives, freight cars, signal, and control), track systems, and operating practices including

asset and dispatch management. The AAR 2011 Railroad Facts11 indicate that there are 7 Class I 

long-haul major freight railroads operating in the United States, about 33 Regional (Class II), and 

approximately 540 short-line (Class III) railroads. 

In order to successfully implement FRA’s National Rail Plan12 and related High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) initiatives, better E2 and E3 information using standardized metrics are 

needed (as discussed in Section 2.2), as well as a broad range of tools and strategies for railroad 

planners, owners, and operators.

In 2011, the White House issued a comprehensive National Energy Policy,

13 which called for 

reducing the fuel consumption of the national transportation system and expanding the use of 

renewable energy and fuels, as well as for rapid electrification or hybridization of power and 

propulsion in renewing the vehicle fleet. The March 2012 1-year progress report cited the HSR

and greening of Amtrak initiatives as promising strategies to improve the rail E2 performance.14

U.S. freight railroads have been steadily improving their fuel efficiency: E2 gains for U.S. Class 

I railroads were announced on Earth Day 2010 by the AAR.

15 E2 more than doubled over the

 11 https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Press-Releases/Pages/AAR-Issues-2012-Edition-Of-RailroadFacts.aspx#.UN3zfG_XYwM

12 Oct 2009 “Preliminary NRP” at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0522 and the 2010 progress report at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02696

13 “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

14 “The Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future: 1 Year Progress Report” at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/emailfiles/the_blueprint_for_a_secure_energy_future_oneyear_progress_report.pdf

15 “The Nation’s Freight Railroads Now Average 480 Ton-miles-per-gallon” at https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/PressReleases/Pages/2010-04-21-EarthDay.aspx

Expanding the U.S. High-Speed Rail network:

President Obama has established a goal to give 80 percent of Americans access to highspeed rail within 25 years. Over the past 3 years, the Administration has continued to 

develop and expand America’s high-speed and intercity passenger rail system. In May

2011, DOT announced $2 billion in high-speed rail, bringing our unprecedented 

investment to $10.1 billion to date. In FY 2011, intercity rail ridership surpassed 30 

million trips, marking a new record in Amtrak’s history. (“The Blueprint for a Secure 

Energy Future: 1 Year Progress Report,” March 2012)

“With its comparative energy advantage, rail serves a vital role in helping to reduce the 

need for foreign oil and to increase environmental sustainability. High-performance 

freight rail is more fuel efficient than trucks, and state-of-the-art, high-speed passenger 

rail can provide an environmentally friendly alternative to air travel. Rail can thus 

contribute to DOT’s goal of reducing emissions from freight transportation by improving 

the fuel efficiency of freight vehicles, as well as by reducing transportation’s petroleum 

consumption. (“National Rail Plan-Moving Forward, A Progress Report,” September 

2010)
17

past 30 years to 480 ton-miles/gallon (183,345 kg-km/l) fuel, thus making freight rail greater

than four times more fuel efficient than trucks. The seven largest Class I freight railroads operate 

a fleet of more than 43,000 locomotives, and efficiently move across the Nation 43 percent of all 

goods transported annually, with better efficiency than trucks by factors of 2–5. However, 

stricter Tiers 3 and 4 EPA requirements for extra emissions abatement equipment that adds 

weight and cuts fuel efficiency and mounting fuel costs require that railroads implement a broad 

range of technologies and strategies to reduce their fuel consumption and emissions at lower 

operating cost.

The range of energy efficiency for freight trains, measured in ton-miles per gallon of fuel, is very 

broad (see Figure 4), reflecting to a large extent the aerodynamic losses due to the shape of rail 

cars, the length of the consist, number of locomotives, railcar loading ratio, and the network 

congestion that leads to idling. 

Figure 4. Ranges of Fuel Efficiency of Freight Trains by Type of Rail Car and Application, 

Based on the ICF 2009 Analysis16

The energy intensity of intercity passenger rail (in Btu per passenger-mile) has also decreased 

over the past decade by 1.9 percent annually, as shown by time series trend and comparative data 

in the recent Transportation Energy Data Book.

17 Projected passenger rail demand growth could 

counteract energy efficiency improvements and associated emissions reductions. It is also 

desirable to prevent and mitigate the increased energy consumption for emerging HSR projects 

per passenger-mile, the so-called “cost of speed,” as shown in Figure 5.

 16 See ICF International. Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. Tech. Fairfax, 

VA: ICF International, 2009 at 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/31000/31800/31897/Comparative_Evaluation_Rail_Truck_Fuel_Efficiency.pdf

17 Transportation Energy Data Book 2012 at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Full_Doc.pdf [WEBPAGE CANNOT BE 

FOUND.]
18

Figure 5. UIC Data on Relative E2 among Commuter, Regional, and Long Distance 

Conventional and High-Speed Rail18

Since passenger and freight rail frequently share track right-of-way (ROW) in the United States, 

improving infrastructure and equipment, including signal, control, and communications (e.g., 

upgrading fleet tracking with NDGPS and PTC, and streamlining operations), could improve 

energy efficiency, as well as operations safety and on-time performance on shared tracks. 

Existing and emerging technologies for upgrading equipment, infrastructure, and operations, and 

the industry BPs cited below, promise relatively low-cost options and opportunities for further 

advances in both energy efficiency and environmental performance.19

1.3 Current High-Speed Rail (HSR) Initiative

1.3.1 Cost of Inaction of HSIPR Development

Today train travel is 17 percent more fuel efficient than airline travel on a per passenger-mile 

basis. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), “with a 70 percent

load factor, energy consumption per seat kilometer for aircraft is 2.57 megajoules (MJ) per p/km

[1.14 kWh per p/mile], compared with 0.5 MJ per p/km [0.22 kWh per p/mile] for conventional 

trains and 0.76 MJ per p/km [0.34 kWh per p/mile] for high-speed trains.”20 According to the 

International Transport Forum, the HSIPR advantage over air travel is that “...trains running at 

speeds up to 150 km/h [95 mph] emit 9.5 grams of carbon dioxides (CO2) per seat km [0.539 oz 

 18 A.A. Garcia, “High Speed, Energy Consumption and Emissions, December 21, 2010, p. 17

19 JRC2012-74130, P.A. Alexander, “Rail Transportation Energy Efficiency-Oriented Technologies”

20 http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HPPR-Cost-of-Inaction.pdf
19

per seat mile]; and trains running at speeds up to 280 km/h [174 mph] emit 15.4 grams of CO2

per seat km [0.874 oz per seat mile], compared with aircraft emitting 93.8 grams of CO2 per seat 

km [5.325 oz per seat mile].”21

The energy cost saving in the Northeast Corridor alone could be more than $404 million a year. 

HSR could produce as much as 6.5 times less particulate matter (PM) per passenger and 31.9 

times less nitrogen oxides per passenger than aircraft over the same distance. Between 100 and 

500 miles (161 km and 805 km), HSR can overcome air travel’s speed advantage because of 

reductions in access and waiting times—HSR will take you from city center to city center.

In Europe, HSR uses one-third the energy used by automotive travel, and in Japan, it is one-sixth 

due to technological advances. In the United States, car and light truck transportation currently 

consume approximately 60 percent of the Nation’s energy demand. Train travel (including 

intercity and commuter passenger rail travel) is 21 percent more fuel efficient than auto travel.

The APTA report cited sizeable expected socioeconomic gains, in addition to the energy and 

environmental benefits from investing in HSIPR infrastructure and equipment: over a 40-year 

period, an improved rail network could generate a net benefit of $660 million annually, or $26.4 

billion total. The cost of building and/or improving rail lines is also estimated to be significantly 

less than the cost per mile of alternative air and highway infrastructure. In many corridors, 

passenger rail is the only feasible option for adding capacity, given the congestion and land 

acquisition constraints on air and highway expansion. 

 21 http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200928.pdf
20

2. International and U.S. Rail Energy Efficiency Models and Best 

Practices

2.1 The UIC Railenergy Program and Products

The UIC has formulated a sustainability strategic plan and action plans for its implementation. 

Progress is monitored and reported every 2 years at the UIC Rail Sustainability conferences. The 

emphasis is on rail improvement of GHG/environmental performance and energy efficiency 

based on the comparative intermodal analysis illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

The European Commission (EC) 6th Programme has co-funded, with the European Rail Industry 

UNIFE multiple partners, and with UIC, a 4-year (2006–2010) comprehensive Railenergy R&D 

project, or NRG.22 The NRG project structure designed to develop a Railenergy global model is 

shown in Figure 6. The NRG data flow diagram displays steps to assess and optimize rail system 

E2 at both technical and operational levels. 

Seven Railenergy workshops were held between 2006 and 201023 to monitor progress, develop 

E2 data and performance indicators or metrics for railroad vehicles and operations, as well as 

develop a consistent assessment approach to energy consumption. A Railenergy Online 

Calculator24 with nine steps was developed and applied, which includes both technology and 

operational E2 measures, and may also be usable by U.S. railroads. Several useful reviews of rail 

market segments, infrastructure, equipment, operations management practices, decision support 

tools, and innovative technologies (e.g., electric traction, transformers, regenerative braking, 

trackside and on-board energy storage), as well as informative presentations on HSR efficiency 

with energy consumption facts and figures, were posted. The final UIC/UNIFE technical 

recommendations and voluntary standards are posted on a TecRec Web site.25 In addition, the 

ECORailS Guidelines issued in 2011 provide energy efficiency principles and practices in 

procurement of regional rail systems, and promise a 5 percent short-term energy gain and 15

percent by 2020.

26

 22 See Railenergy and “Innovative Integrated Energy Efficiency Solutions for Railway Rolling Stock, Rail Infrastructure and 

Train Operation” postings at www.railenergy.org

23 See Railenergy news and project outputs posted at www.railenergy.org/news.php#item1222

24 See 2010 final conference and calculator at www.railenergy.eu

25 See postings at www.tecrec-rail.org 

26 “Energy Efficiency and Environmental Criteria in the Awarding of Regional Rail Transport Vehicles and Services; Guidelines 

for Public Transport Administrations in Europe,” 2011 at 

http://www.ecorails.eu/media/de/ecorails_guide_english_freigabe_final.pdf
21

Figure 6. Strategy Approaches to Energy Efficiency27

Unlike the U.S. intercity rail network (with the exception of Amtrak NEC Acela and several 

commuter railroads), European rail systems are electrified, with 85 percent of energy used 

directly for traction, and only 5 percent wasted in catenary losses.28 The large-scale 

electrification and standardization of power and propulsion equipment includes regenerative 

braking that recovers and reuses up to 20 percent of the kinetic energy now lost as frictional 

heating during braking. 

The UIC has compiled a database on 95 technologies ranked by their potential to improve the 

energy efficiency of passenger and freight rail.29 UIC BPs for improved E2 per passenger-mile, 

or per ton-mile and the specific technologies for energy efficiency, which may be applicable to 

the U.S. rail industry, include:

• Standardization of infrastructure, rail propulsion, and environmental control 

technologies (e.g., noise barriers, cleaner fuels, upgraded power plants, nontoxic 

materials in maintenance);

 27 Figure source: http://www.railenergy.org/

28 “Rail Transport and Environment Facts and Figures,” 2008, http://www.uic.org/homepage/FactandFig%2011-08.pdf

29 http://www.railway-energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=210&SEL=210&OLDSETTINGS=1
22

• Light-weighting of locomotives, train cars, and consists through the use of lighter 

vehicle designs and materials, by eliminating dead-weight;

• Better train control and traffic dispatch and management to eliminate idling in congested 

bottlenecks and improve line-haul and traffic flow;

• Use of modular systems for efficient construction and maintenance, and use of 

distributed locomotives;

• Lower noise through better damping of vibrations, noise barriers, and aerodynamic 

vehicle, catenary, and pantograph designs. 

Figure 7 summarizes global efforts to diversify the production of electric power for HSR systems 

with renewable energy resources.

Figure 7. International HSR: Sustainability and Renewable Energy Use30

The British Rail Safety and Standards Board (UK/RSSB) has also conducted comparative energy 

efficiency studies and developed a set of practical Traction Energy Metrics for UK railroads. 

Adoption of such metrics would ensure the uniformity and consistency in reported E2 data so as

to enable comparisons and allow quantification of E2 improvements relative to baseline.

31

RSSB studies compared the energy efficiency and environmental emissions (CO2) of diesel, 

electrically powered rail systems, and modes (buses, passenger cars, aviation). Of immediate 

interest to defining consistent rail performance metrics are two reports:

 30 Source: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/325/a1a74ce4-1bb5-43a5-9a7d-a4f72011d9d0.pdf

31 See RSSB postings at www.rssb.co.uk and report on “Traction Energy Metrics,” December 2007 at 

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T618_traction-energy-metrics_final.pdf
23

1) T618-Traction Energy Metrics, which defines the traction energy consumption metrics 

for comparative analysis and standardization of existing versus benchmarking emerging 

technologies; and 

2) T618-Improving the Efficiency of Traction Energy Use, which focuses on intercity rail,

providing technology-specific energy consumption data. Near-term strategies for energy 

gains for both diesel and electric traction were: 

o Improved driving techniques (operational)

o Reduced idling (both through stop-start devices and operational practices)

o Running shorter electric suburban trains off-peak (optimal asset management and 

dispatch)

o Reducing “stabling loads” (cf., disconnect vehicles from grid when stationary, 

reduce idling, use wayside supply on demand versus on-board storage)

RSSB also identified several long-term strategies for additional energy savings: 

• Aerodynamic drag reduction 

• Train weight reduction 

• Improved heating and cooling systems

• Intelligent communications and control of diesel trains

• Fuel additives that reduce emissions and improve fuel burn

• Dual power source trains

• Hybrid drives, including: electric/diesel, diesel/battery drives with regenerative braking 

to recharge the battery, and other on-board storage devices for energy assist

The RSSB analysis of energy efficiency and losses for urban commuter and intercity rail is 

probably applicable to understanding similar equipment transmission and distribution losses in 

U.S. rail counterparts (see Figure 8).

The ELECRAIL Spanish32 study of energy reduction strategies for electric DC-powered 

commuter and AC-powered HSR with regenerative braking capability found that at high-speed 

power return to the grid or to another train without energy storage is the best E2 strategy, saving 

up to 9.5 percent energy. When combined with efficient driving, 18–34 percent of total energy 

could be saved. For DC-powered urban commuter rail or transit with high-traffic density and 

many stops, wayside kinetic energy storage systems (KESS) had advantages, especially when 

coupled with energy-efficient driving and scheduling.

 32 J.C. Martinez Acevedo and A. Mascaraque: “Energy Efficiency of Electric Traction Railways (ELECRAIL Project),” 

Proceedings of 2011 JRC Conference, paper no. JRC2011-56127.
24

Figure 8. Total Energy Consumption with Losses in Generation for Regional and 

Suburban UK Rail33

A Swedish HSR E2 study examined whether higher speeds would substantially increase energy 

consumption34, a topic (also called “the cost of speed”) of great interest to U.S. HSR planning 

efforts. The key finding is that the specific energy consumption (W-h per passenger-km) for 

modern trains is actually reduced by 25–45 percent despite higher average speeds. The key 

factors for reduced energy consumed by electrified HSR or E2 gains are: reduced aerodynamic 

drag (25 percent cut in energy consumed); regenerative braking (11–17 percent); more efficient 

power supply for electric traction (3–7 percent), as well as improved use of longer trains and 

interior space and higher load factors.

 33 Source: Peckham, Christian, “Improving the Efficiency of Traction Energy Use,” Rail Safety and Standards Board, United 

Kingdom: June 13, 2007, © Rail Safety and Standards Board.

34 See P. Lukaszewicz and E. Anderson: “Energy Efficiency of High Speed Rail-Will Higher Speed Cause Increased Energy 

Consumption?” presentation at the 6th World Congress on High Speed Rail, Amsterdam, 2008. 
25

A more detailed 2010 UIC study35 of “the cost of speed” documented only a modest increase in 

energy costs per seat-km as the average and maximum speed increase, compared with other cost 

elements (train ownership, infrastructure, direct operating costs, personnel, and maintenance). 

Technology and operational strategy options to reduce energy consumption for electric and 

conventional rail were also examined for the UK and Japan HSR systems and are also applicable 

to U.S.-planned HSR.

36

In Japan, most railroads and transit systems are electrified and have regenerative braking, so 

many successful applications of wayside energy storage systems (WESS) and on-board energy 

storage were highlighted in a 2007 status review.37 Since the 1980s when EMUs with AC 

traction power and regenerative braking capability were introduced in Japan, the issue of poor 

grid receptivity to the frequency and voltage of returned power (DC to the high voltage AC grid 

or DC catenary) was solved using two-way power converters, instead of rectifiers, and on-board 

and wayside storage at the DC power substations. The Rail Technology Research Institute 

(RTRI) developed a simplified calculation of EMU energy consumption over all phases of 

rolling stock operation38 (see Figure 8, similar to the UK energy tools shown in Figure 98).

Figure 9. Actual vs. Calculated Energy Consumption of EMUs Over Duty-Cycle39

RTRI and Japan’s railroads have developed and successfully implemented diverse options for 

wayside and on-board storage of braking energy, to enable electric and diesel trains operating 

 35 “Relationship Between Rail Service Operating Direct Costs and Speeds,” Dec. 2010 posted at 

http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/report_costshs.pdf

36 “Comparing Environmental Impact of Conventional and High Speed Rail,” NetworkRail 2009 study posted at 

www.networkrail.co.uk

37 “Wayside and On-Board Storage Can Capture More Regenerated Energy” by Satoru Sone, Railway Gazette, July 2007 at 

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/wayside-and-on-board-storage-can-capture-more-regeneratedenergy.html

38 Source: M. Kondo, “A Simplified Method to Calculate the Energy Consumed by Rolling Stock”, Railway Technology 

Avalanche, No. 38, March 21, 2012, https://webform.rtri.or.jp/ent/entry/backnumbers/38/RTA-38-226.pdf

39 Image courtesy of Railway Technical Research Institute
26

more efficiently.

40 Most passenger trains in Japan are electric (EMU) or diesel multiple units 

(DMU) operating on electrified ROW, but many branch and trunk lines are still not electrified. 

On-board energy storage systems (ESS) were developed for DC and AC traction railcars and for 

diesel-powered locomotives that use lithium ion batteries, or Electric Double Layer Capacitors 

(also called ultracapacitors) to recover, store, and reuse the regenerated braking energy for peak 

loads (in hill climbing and acceleration), thus improving energy efficiency by 20–30 percent. 

However, both technologies continue to be actively improved for more rail applications:

although lithium ion batteries have higher energy density and capacity for energy storage of 

braking energy than ultracapacitors, battery power, and cycle-life still need to be improved; 

ultracapacitors have higher power and longer life but insufficient capacity for on-board energy 

storage. The rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) architecture must be suited to the duty 

cycle of the train, since frequent stops allow the energy recovered from dynamic braking to be 

frequency-matched and returned to the grid. A high-speed intercity train with fewer stops faces 

greater challenges in regenerating braking energy and optimizing network receptivity. 

On-board RESS power packs may use supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, or nickel hydrogen 

batteries: 

• The JR Freight Railway Company introduced to Tokyo service in 2012 a mass-produced 

hybrid shunting locomotive storing regenerated braking energy in lithium ion batteries 

from GS Yuasa, improving fuel economy by 30 percent. 

• Hybrid diesel-battery traction for a “battery tram” was developed by RTRI using stored 

energy when operating on non-electrified tracks, in tunnels, or on gap segments using the 

recovered energy stored in lithium ion batteries. The Kawasaki Swimo project also 

developed and demonstrated a nickel-hydride (NiH) Gigacell battery for on-board energy 

storage.

• JR Central has evaluated since 2007 EDLC systems, instead of lithium ion batteries, for 

on-board energy storage performance on a Series 313 DC-powered suburban EMU41.

• JR East has tested since 2000 its New Energy Train (Figure ) with regenerative braking, 

using hybrid traction of diesel-alternator and battery, which was able to cut fuel 

consumption by 20 percent. The NE train has also been tested with hybrid drive that uses 

a fuel cell and 35 MPa (5 ksi) hydrogen tank, replacing the diesel alternator and fuel tank. 

Another hybrid version used instead of the diesel-alternator a fuel cell with a highpressure hydrogen tank for hybrid traction.

Figures 10 to 13 illustrate innovative E2 equipment and technologies developed and deployed by 

the Japanese rail industry, with assistance from the Rail Technology Research Institute (RTRI): 

Figure 10 shows a typical AC Japanese electric EMU locomotive used in high-speed operations, 

and Figure 11is a freight hybrid switcher locomotive using lithium ion batteries for on-board 

energy storage; Figure 12 is the NE hybrid train, and Figure shows the hybrid battery DMU. 

 40 See http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/wayside-and-on-board-storage-can-capture-more-regeneratedenergy.html (2007)

41 See “Wayside and On-Board Storage Can Capture More Regenerated Energy,” 2007 at 

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/wayside-and-on-board-storage-can-capture-more-regeneratedenergy.html
27

The Hayabusa hybrid rail transit system was developed by Hitachi and operated by the Eastern 

Japan Railway for DMU operations. It uses a stack of 48 high energy density 1 KWh (3412 Btu) 

lithium ion batteries, and uses regenerative braking and on-board energy management to switch 

off the engine in stations. It has shown up to 20 percent fuel savings and reduced particulate 

emissions. A more powerful hybrid drive version is being tested in the UK as well. The three 

Kiha E200 diesel battery hybrid units (Figure 13) were launched into service in 2007 on the 

Koumi line, and 10 additional hybrid DMUs were added to service in 2010. JR East data show 

fuel consumption savings of 10 percent and emission cuts of 60 percent and 20–30 dB noise 

reduction compared with standard DMUs.

Figure 6. Toshiba AC Electric Locomotive Used by Taiwan’s HSR42

Figure 11. Toshiba HD-300 Hybrid-Electric Shunting Locomotive43

 42 Source: http://www.toshiba.co.jp/sis/railwaysystem/en/products/locomotive/hybrid.htm and 

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/sis/railwaysystem/en/products/locomotive/electric.htm

43 Images courtesy of Toshiba Corporation
28

Figure 12. RTRI Hybrid Electric Locomotive with Regenerative Braking Schematics44

Figure 13. Hybrid Battery DMU45

2.2 U.S. Rail E2 Metrics and Performance

2.2.1 Energy and Environmental Performance of Passenger and Freight Rail 

The DOT/BTS National Transportation Statistics, the National Transit Database, and the 

Transportation Energy Data Book 201146 include comparative fuel consumption trends and 

energy intensity data (in Btu/passenger-mile) for rail vehicles in comparison with other surfaces

modes, marine, and air. The lower the energy intensity, the more energy efficient a rail system is. 

The AAR-posted data showing the remarkable doubling of freight rail energy efficiency over the 

past 3 decades, in ton-miles per gallon (see Figure 7).

As Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate in Section 1.2, the comparative E2 performance among rail 

service types (commuter, regional, and long-distance conventional versus HSR) and among 

modes varies with service type (passenger versus freight), route (number of stops, length, grade), 

 44 Image courtesy of RTRI

45 Image courtesy of http://tokyorailwaylabyrinth.blogspot.com/2013_02_01_archive.html

46 See ORNL Transportation Energy Data Book 30th Edition, July 2011 at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
29

and technology specifics (EMU, power cars, diesel or electric), and the primary power (diesel

versus electric). The metrics and units are not consistent and do not permit easy comparisons. 

For instance, Amtrak energy consumption is 2,435 Btus/passenger-mile, converted into 1.6 

MJ/passenger-km, but also varies with the loading factor: the passenger yield is typically 60–80

percent on the Northeast Corridor.

Unit conversions are required: European passenger rail energy consumption (e.g., for the Swiss 

SBB in 2011) is expressed as 2,300 GWhr/yr or 0.47 MJ/passenger-km (where 1 MJ/passengerkm is equivalent to 0.33 kWhr/passenger-km). East Japan Railway Company (EJR) cites train 

energy efficiency per car-km at 20.6 MJ/car-km or 0.35 MJ/passenger-km. An OECD 200947

discussion paper cites an average of 0.5 MJ/pass-km for conventional passenger rail, but only 

0.76 MJ/pass-km for HSR, noting the modest “cost-of-speed.” The energy efficiency metrics for 

freight rail are usually given in gallons of fuel burned per ton-mile, or ton-km, and again, do not 

allow for easy and meaningful comparisons with passenger rail.

Figure 7. AAR 2010 E2 for Freight Railroads48

 47 See C. Nash, 2009 “When to Invest in HSR Links and Networks?” OECD discussion paper at 

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200916.pdf

48 See AAR 2011 brief at http://www.fecrwy.com/sites/default/files/help-reduce-emissions.pdf
30

2.2.1.1 E2 for Commuter Rail

Table 1 shows a sample of commuter rail systems energy intensity performing below and above 

the national average (in red). The spread in commuter rail data in Table 1 is rather narrow—

within a factor of 2—and reflects differences in technology (electric or diesel), route, duty cycle,

and load factors compared with a national average (in 2007).

Table 1. Energy Intensity of Commuter Rail Systems, 200749

City/State Btu per Passenger-mile

Chesterton, IN 1,638

Boston, MA 2,117

Newark, NJ 2,538

Chicago, IL 2,634

All Commuter Rail Systems 2,679

Jamaica, NY 2,786

New York, NY 2,818

Philadelphia, PA 4,223

 49 Source: Department of Transportation (National Transit Database, April 2009).
31

Table 2 reproduces more recent data on commuter rail and heavy rail energy intensity from the 

2011 ORNL Transportation Energy Data Book and shows a wider range reflecting their diverse 

technologies, ages, routes, duty cycles, and load factors. Currently, few commuter rail systems

are electrified in the United States due to the high cost of electrification infrastructure; most

regional heavy rail systems are still diesel-powered. Promising system-wide E2 improvements 

through fleet equipment, infrastructure, and operations modernization are illustrated in Section 

4.2 for passenger railroads (Amtrak and commuter rail).
32

Table 2. Energy Intensity of Commuter Railroads, 201050 51

Btu per Passengermile

Stockton, CA 1,907

Los Angeles, CA 1,917 

San Carlos, CA 1,984 

Alexandria, VA 2,037 

Chesterton, IN 2,448 

Boston, MA 2,487 

Baltimore, MD 2,556 

Seattle, WA 2,591 

Albuquerque, NM 2,769 

Portland, ME 2,830 

New York, NY 2,837 

Chicago, IL 2,884 

Oceanside, CA 2,897 

Jamaica, NY 2,919 

All Commuter Rail 

Systems 2,923 

Newark, NJ 3,205 

Pompano Beach, FL 3,252 

Fort Worth, TX 3,279 

Minneapolis, MN 3,327 

Austin, TX 3,686 

Philadelphia, PA 3,865 

Salt Lake City, UT 5,152 

Portland, OR 5,961 

Harrisburg, PA 8,167 

Newington, CT 16,505 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National 

Transit Database, May 2012. (Additional resources: 

www.ntdprogram.gov).

 50 From the ORNL Transportation Energy Data Book at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml.

51 See Energy Intensity of Commuter Rail Systems, 2011, Ch. 2, Figure 2.4 at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml
33

2.2.1.2 Energy Efficiency for High-Speed Rail

An APTA 2011 report52 on the business case for HSIPR systems provided strong support for

Federal and private investments and identified major economic productivity and benefits. 

Investment in modern rail technologies for infrastructure and equipment would also enable 

environmental and energy-efficiency gains. The APTA report cited UIC data that high-speed 

trains get 106 mi (170 km) per KW-hour of energy, versus 13 mi (21 km) for airplanes, 24 mi 

(39 km) for cars and 34 mi (55 km) for buses. It also cited findings of a Center for Clean Air 

Policy/Center of Neighborhood Technology 2006 study53 highlighting HSR and maglev air 

quality and sustainability advantages versus conventional rail, highway, and air modes: CO2

emissions for HSR operations are substantially lower (0.1- 0.3 lb/passenger-mile or 0.03-0.08 

kg/passenger-km) than those for cars (0.5 lb/p-mi or 0.14 kg/p-km) and for airplanes (0.6 lb/p-mi 

or 0.17 kg/p-km). The introductory overview in Section 1.1 discussed freight versus passenger 

rail. The 2006 study compared the CO2 emissions by corridor for current U.S. conventional rail 

and future planned HSR along the 12 potential HSR corridors identified by FRA, including 

emissions saved relative to highway and air modes, with largest impacts for the NEC and 

California corridors. A recent Lifecycle Analysis of HSR and conventional rail versus air and 

highway modes54 indicated that a comprehensive system-wide comparison must include building 

and operation of rail infrastructure, maintenance and fuel, high occupancy/load factors, and a 

clean supply for electric power from renewable sources, rather than coal-fueled power plants. 

Freight rail consumes more than 90 percent of the energy used by the domestic rail sector; it 

merits specific focus. 

2.2.1.3 Efficiency for U.S. Freight Rail 

The rail mode represents only a modest 4.1 percent of the energy consumed for heavy duty 

transportation, amounting to 0.54 quadrillion Btus in 2009. The majority of the rail sector’s 

freight revenue is accounted for by Class I freight railroads (93 percent in 2007), which carry 

more than 90 percent of rail freight volume. The Class I railroads have become remarkably more 

energy efficient over the past three decades and continue to improve. Overall, the U.S. freight 

railroads have implemented in the past decade a wide range of successful efforts to improve E3 

performance, with sizeable economic gains. Whereas passenger rail consumed about 20,000 

barrels of oil per day in 2010, freight rail has consumed 10 times more, up to 250,000 barrels per 

day. For comparison55, in 2010 the 4.8 million heavy trucks on the road consumed more than 1.6

million barrels of diesel oil per day, or 5.1 quadrillion Btu in 2010, for an average fuel economy 

of only about 6 miles per gallon (2.55 km/l).

 52 “APTA report: “The Case for Business Investment in High Speed and Intercity Rail” at 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/documents/HSRPub_final.pdf

53 “High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US,” 2006 at 

http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf

54 “Life-cycle Assessment of High-Speed Rail: The Case of California” by M. Chester and A. Horvath, 2010 Environ. Res. Lett.5, 

014003 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014003 and http://stacks.iop.org/ERL/5/014003

55 See EIA transportation sector data in the AEO 2012 Forecast at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2012).pdf
34

The AAR has posted relevant findings, resources, and statistics on rail Energy and 

Environmental performance56 indicating that freight rail is currently the greenest and most fuelefficient ground transportation option. The findings are summarized below:

- Of more than 560 U.S. freight railroads, the 7 Class I railroads account for 68 percent of 

ton-mileage, 89 percent of employees, and 93 percent of revenues.

- The freight railroads transport 43 percent more ton-miles of freight than any other mode.

- On average, freight trains are 4 times more fuel efficient than trucks, moving a ton of 

freight for 484 mi per gallon (206 km/l) of fuel.

- Each ton-mile of freight moved by rail rather than highway reduces greenhouse gases 

(GHG) emitted by 75 percent.

- A loaded freight train is equivalent to removing about 280 trucks, or 1,100 cars, from 

roads, thereby providing both emissions reduction, as well as congestion relief.

- Switching 10 percent of freight from highway to rail can save 1 billion gallons of fuel and 

12 million tons GHG per year.

A 2011 AAR white paper listed the most effective strategies for freight railroads to both reduce 

GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency.

57 It documented a dramatic doubling of fuel 

efficiency from 235 mi/gal (100 km/l) fuel in 1980, to 469 mi/gal (200 km/l) in 2011 to move a 

ton of freight. The AAR summarized the wide range of E3 BPs in technology deployment and 

operational changes for improved FE and environmental gains:

• Redesign freight cars to increase the average tonnage capacity;

• Overhaul to upgrade fuel efficiency, or renew the fleet of switchers, short-haul, and longhaul locomotives;

• Reduce idling through “stop-start” and other (e.g., Auxiliary Power Units—APU) 

equipment upgrades;

• Provide engineers with training on advanced engine control systems to save fuel and 

reward savings; 

• Adopt computer control software and hardware for route optimization, speed profile for 

peak fuel efficiency, to monitor and control locomotive operations;

• Implement incremental, but synergistic, fuel and equipment improvements such as: better 

wheel and gear lubricants, use of fuel additives for improved combustion, low-torque 

railcar bearings that reduce weight and save fuel, optimal placement of locomotives in 

long consists for more efficient distributed power (DP), etc.

These strategies, as well as related fuel efficiency options for passenger rail (commuter and 

higher speed intercity), will be illustrated below with successful Best Practices (BPs). There are 

other options for rail system E2 improvements, although this report focused primarily on 

opportunities related to equipment and operations. For instance, lighter rail cars, aerodynamic 

shapes, top-of-rail (TOR) lubricants to reduce wheel-to-rail and internal friction, use of steerable 

 56 See AAR postings at www.aar.org/KeyIssues/Energy-Environment.aspx and resources on North American Freight Railroad 

Statistics, 2010; An Overview of America’s Freight Railroads; and Class I Railroad statistics, 2011. 

57 See AAR “Freight Railroads Help Reduce GHG Emissions” at https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/BackgroundPapers/Freight-RR-Help-Reduce-Emissions.pdf
35

or radial trucks and of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes, as well as PTC, provide 

incremental and synergistic E2 benefits.

58

2.3 Existing and Emerging Fuel Efficient Locomotives

2.3.1 Equipment Technologies and E2 Strategies 

An American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Joint Rail Conference 2012 presentation 

reviewed proven and promising E2 technology options for deployment in new rail systems, 

retrofits, or upgrades for system-wide E2 gains.59 It identified modernization of the traction and 

propulsion system to be the most important factor for improving E2.

Additional system-wide E2 gains may also be achieved by modernizing the heat, ventilation, and 

air conditioning (HVAC) system controllers for railcars, focusing on integrating:

• Variable speed motor drives for refrigerant compressor that can save up to 70 percent of 

energy for ventilation and heating;

• Variable dampers or fans;

• Permanent magnet motors that increase efficiency and reduce size and weight of 

compressors and pumps;

• CO2 sensors. 

Lighting system options with superior efficiency for both rail cars and facilities (multimodal 

terminals, stations, depots, and railyards) include day-lighting, automatic ambient light sensors,

and motion detectors, as well as replacing incandescent and fluorescent lighting with long-lived, 

low-power, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). 

Regenerative braking can be used to capture and reuse the electricity produced by dynamic 

braking. Dynamic braking runs the electric motor in reverse to slow the train, so that it acts like a 

generator producing electricity. Currently, most trains dissipate the dynamic braking energy by 

using banks of resistors located on top of locomotives that heat up in the process (called 

rheostatic braking). A cooling grill for the brake grid resistors is typically placed at the top of the 

locomotive. ECP (air) brakes are increasingly used, but energy savings can be realized only if all 

railcar brakes are connected. Regenerative braking requires an on-board RESS to store and 

deliver on demand the recovered kinetic energy, which is typically wasted as frictional heat. The 

recovered braking energy, otherwise wasted, can be returned to the grid or reused for peak load 

demand such as acceleration, or hill climbing. 

At present, most light and heavy rail and electric commuter rail systems do not yet capture and 

reuse braking energy. Newer electric rail systems with regenerative braking capability (Amtrak 

Acela, international HSR, and some commuter light rail vehicles (LRVs) were able to save and 

reuse 10 to 20 percent of energy consumption. For commuter rail with frequent stops, 

regenerative braking is an attractive E2 option.

 58 Potential for Energy Efficiency Improvement Beyond the Light-Duty Sector, Feb. 2012, at

www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/index.html

59 P.A. Alexander, LTK Engineering “Rail Transportation Energy-Efficiency Oriented Technologies.” Proceedings of Joint Rail 

Conference (JRC2012), April 2012, Philadelphia, PA: JRC 2012-74130.
36

Both WESS and on-board RESS technologies were also recently evaluated by APTA and the 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in a 2010 TRB/TCRP60 report, which offers guidance 

to rail transit agencies. Emerging RESS system options include:

• An on-board RESS using battery packs or super capacitors (also called ultracapacitors). 

Advanced lithium ion batteries with diverse chemistry options, or lower cost larger and 

heavier nickel metal hydride (NiMH), have been evaluated, but not yet deployed in the 

United States. 

• An on-board flywheel (FESS) or Kinetic Energy Storage System (KESS), such as that 

demonstrated in the FRA/DARPA Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System (ALPS) 

project completed in 2003.61 The ALPS demonstrator consisted of a gas turbine and 

synchronous alternator, combined with an induction motor coupled to a 2 MW (2682 hp) 

rapidly spinning FESS (Figure 15). However, the prototype failed and did not prove 

practical and ready for application. Related research on KESS for heavy-duty 

applications (rail, marine) is ongoing.

• A WESS pilot deployment by the Los Angeles Metrolink commuter rail that was funded 

by an FTA Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) 

grant in 2010.62 The Red Line Westlake Energy Storage System based on flywheels will 

capture and release regenerated braking energy at the Westlake at-grade rail station and is 

currently being tested and evaluated. 

• Another FTA 2011 TIGGER sustainability award funded the South Eastern Pennsylvania 

Transit Authority (SEPTA) electric light rail system, which has regenerative braking 

capability, to deploy WESS in an updated substation on the Market Frankford line and 

evaluate energy savings. This WESS uses advanced lithium ion batteries for energy 

storage and reuse at peak loading.63 This complements the 2010 SEPTA WESS pilot 

project funded by the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority. SEPTA partnered 

with Viridity Energy to optimize substation energy storage for return and reuse to the 

grid; Saft to provide lithium ion batteries for trackside energy storage; Envitech to serve 

as WESS integrator and use its Vpower software for power quality; and ENVISTORE 

DC for the DC converter and power control system. 64

 60 2010 TCRP report by M. Schroeder “Guiding the Selection and Application of Wayside Energy Storage Technologies for Rail

Transit and Electric Utilities.”

61 See the ALPS project overview posted at http://www.cte.tv/darpa/alps.pdf

62 See WESS and other E2 technologies in “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost Effectiveness Study” by ICF for LACMTA, 2010 

posted at http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/GHGCE_2010_0818.pdf

63 See SEPTA Sustainability blogs postings at http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/07-15.html and

http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/11-23.html

64 See details of SEPTA WESS project at http://www.septa.org/sustain/pdf/viridity-faq.pdf
37

Figure 15. GTR Flywheel WESS65

2.3.2 Gensets: Switcher Locomotives with Scalable Power

Class I freight railroads are gradually replacing the single powerful diesel locomotive engine in 

yard switch locomotives with fuel-efficient Genset switchers. Gensets are particularly useful for 

maintenance “switching activities” in and around railyards, where the locomotive often must 

operate at idle, usually near already noisy and congested metropolitan areas. Gensets are 

equipped with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces or eliminates PM locomotive 

emissions.

Gensets have multiple (2–4) smaller off-road diesel engines to provide scalable power on 

demand, using heavy-duty diesel engines from Cummins, Caterpillar, or Deutz, which comply 

with Tier 3 EPA emission standards. If motive power is not needed within a certain 

predetermined time interval, one or more engines are shut down automatically, or enter a sleep 

mode. Gensets also use LED lighting for better energy efficiency. 

Manufacturers of Gensets include: R.J. Corman-Railpower, Caterpillar/Progress Rail, Electro

Motive Diesel (EMD), Motive Power/Wabtec, and Brookville. RailPower delivered 98 Gensets 

to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and claimed more than 40 percent fuel savings and up to 80

percent cuts in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions for its Genset. The National Railway

Equipment Company (NREC) Gensets have up to 3 engines of 700 hp (522 kW) each in 1, 2, or 

3 engine models. The NREC N-ViroMotiveTM road switcher Genset locomotive was certified by 

CARB in CA and by the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) program as an ultra-low 

 65 See http://www.railwaygazette.com
38

emissions locomotive (ULEL). N-Viromotive Gensets are used by CSX and UPRR in yards 

located in sensitive or nonconformity areas in California, Texas, Indiana, New York, Michigan,

and Illinois. In addition to a growing CSX fleet of new Gensets (more than 25 in 2011), NREC 

has been retrofitting the entire CSX switcher fleet (Figure 16).

Figure 16. CSX New Diesel Genset Switcher Locomotives Operating in Chicago, California, 

New York, and Indiana Railyards66

Gensets were proven to achieve 20–40 percent fuel savings compared with conventional 

switchers, although UPRR, which pioneered Genset adoption in 2004 and operates more than

165 units in California and Texas, reported fuel savings of only 15–25 percent. New Gensets 

may be up to six times more expensive, and retrofits during repowering of aging locomotives are 

more affordable. 

Under a State Rail Emissions Reduction Program, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

and railroads entered in 2005 a statewide railyard emissions abatement agreement with UPRR 

and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad,

67 committing them to deploy Gensets and 

idle reduction technologies for railyard switch locomotive fleets and for line haul locomotives 

operating intra-state. In 2010, BNSF owned and operated two liquefied natural gas (LNG)-

powered Gensets and implemented idle-reduction and DPF equipment and training on most of its 

California diesel locomotive fleet.

NREC also delivered 73 Gensets to BNSF and 60 to UPRR. As of 2009, UPRR operated 70 

Gensets in California, and Texas had a similar set of requirements for TERP. 68

The U.S. Army started to modernize its locomotive fleet with new, energy-efficient Genset

locomotives in 2007, when it received new National Railway Equipment (NRE) 3GS-21B 

locomotives69 (see Figure 17). To date, seven such Gensets are in service around various Army 

locations.

 66 Photographs © Tim Hurst

67 See CARB Railyard Emission Reduction Program postings at http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/railyard.htm.

68 See TERP program postings at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/terp/program_info.html/.

69 See NRE Genset locomotive specifications at http://www.trainweb.org/Gensets/nre.html.
39

Figure 17. First NRE 3GS-21B Genset Locomotive Delivered to U.S. Army as USAX 650070

2.3.3 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) and Electric Multiple Units (EMUs)

The self-propelled DMUs may be diesel-electric, diesel-mechanical, or diesel-hydraulic units. 

DMUs with power-driven wheels are more energy efficient than locomotive-pulled trains and 

achieve faster acceleration, as well as shorter braking distance. They may be used in distributed 

power configurations (discussed in Section 2.3.9) when powered cars are linked by cable or radio 

link communications. 

EMUs are also self-propelled railcars, which are individually powered by direct current (DC) 

from a third rail, or via a vehicle pantograph in contact with the alternating current (AC)

overhead catenary system (OCS). EMUs can achieve higher speeds than DMUs, are more energy 

efficient and environmentally friendly, but cost more. EMUs also require costly OCS 

electrification infrastructure, traction power conditioning and transfer, as well as multiple 

traction power substations (TPSS) along the ROW. EMUs are considered the most energyefficient option for electrified commuter and light rail systems.

71

An AC drive EMU is more energy-efficient than DC traction, although it has an additional stepdown transformer to convert the high voltage from the overhead line to a lower voltage for 

controlling the motors, as well as an AC to DC rectifier (the complete unit is a converter).

EMUs are currently used by commuter railroads with electrified territory, such as MTA’s MetroNorth Railroad (MNR) operating on three routes in New York and Connecticut, the Long Island 

Railroad and New Jersey Transit, which operates EMUs on several electrified routes. The NJT

Coastline commuter rail locomotives are electrically powered by a 60 Hz, 12.5 kV OCS. MNR

uses both newer AC drive EMUs, such as the Bombardier M-7 powered by third rail, and older 

DC drive EMUs. All SEPTA regional commuter rail lines are electrified with overhead catenary 

system (OCS) at 12 KV, 25 Hz. The SEPTA commuter rail uses a mixed fleet of EMUs 

consisting of older GE Silverliner IV, and newer Rotem Silverliner V.

 70 Source: http://www.greenrailnews.com/owners/usax.html; photograph © Mark Mautner

71 See “The Return of the EMU” in Rail Magazine Summer 2012 issue, p 48 at www.railmagazine.org
40

Figure 18. M-7 EMUs from Bombardier for use by LIRR and Metro-North72

Emerging rail technology options73 offer different degrees of powertrain electrification, as 

illustrated in Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20. Options include EMUs (such as the EMD 

AEM-7, or the ABB ALP-44) and dual power locomotives like the Bombardier ALP45DP, 

which combine diesel engine with electric traction, depending on availability of track 

electrification infrastructure. The trend toward progressive locomotive electrification promises to 

improve system E2, especially when electric motors are able to store regenerated braking energy 

on board, or on wayside (such as Bombardier ALP equipped with EnergyStor). 

In January 2013, Amtrak and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) with FRA 

participation issued a joint Request for Information74 for purchase of next generation high-speed 

trainsets: EMUs are preferred for power distribution among all cars and bi-directional operation 

with a cab car on each end, which allows for high passenger occupancy of 400 to 600 

passengers. 

Amtrak’s Acela trains have electric locomotives at each end, which are powered via pantograph 

by a 60 Hz, 2x25 KV catenary on its northern segment, and by an older 25 Hz, 12.5 kV catenary 

on its southern segment. 

The SEPTA electrified commuter rail in Pennsylvania and the Chicago METRA Electric 

Division operate EMUs on the electrified track segments. Some commuter rail trains operate

electric locomotives in push-pull configuration. The Metro-North Commuter Railroad and the 

Connecticut Department of Transportation have purchased and are integrating new Kawasaki 

Railcar M8 EMUs in their fleet. These cars will eventually replace all 240 M2, 54 M4, and 48 

 72 Photograph © Bombardier; Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/productsservices?docID=0901260d800102a8

73 “Is Full Electric in Our Future?” Mass Transit Magazine, June 2012, at 

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10715700/hybrid-update-is-full-electric-in-our-future

74 See press release at http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/620/710/Amtrak-CHSRA-Joint-RFI-HSR-Train-Sets-ATK-13-012.pdf
41

M6 railcars which were built by Budd starting in the 1970s. The new M8 car is similar to the M7 

car, which is used on the Metro-North Harlem Line and by Long Island Railroad and is able to 

pick up 750 volt direct current from third rail operation from Grand Central Terminal to Pelham, 

NY. The M8 is also able to switch to overhead catenary wire via pantograph from Pelham, NY,

to New Haven, CT. These cars can also transfer to Amtrak 25kV AC power from New Haven to 

Boston, MA.

Figure 19. Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. M8 Railcar EMU for Use by Metro-North and CDOT75

2.3.4 Energy Use Monitoring and Idle Reduction Control Devices

The EPA SmartWay program76 has certified several locomotive idle reduction technologies 

available as retrofit kits, which save fuel and reduce locomotive emissions in railyards in and 

near nonconformity areas. EPA-approved idle reduction technologies and products include:

• Shore Connection Systems (SCS) for railyards replace switcher locomotive idling 

needed to keep the engine warm and control cab HVAC, especially in severe weather, 

with electrically powered heaters and some fuel-operated heaters.

• Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and generator sets verified for effectiveness by EPA

are the Teleflex EcoTrans, the Kim Hotstart Manufacturing Co. products, and the Power 

Drives, Inc., model DWS-APU. In 2002, CSXT formed EcoTrans Technologies as a joint 

venture with International Road and Rail Inc., to market the K9 Auxiliary Power Unit 

 75 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_(railcar)

76 See idle reduction technologies at www.epa.gov/smartway/technology/idling.htm
42

(APU). The APU consisted of a turbocharged Kubota diesel engine effectively cooled by 

water-glycol jacket, coupled to a generator set and shutdown timer, and used to reduce 

idling fuel waste and emissions. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) evaluated the K9 

effectiveness in yard switching operations in 2003. In 2006, DOE/EERE77 considered the 

EcoTrans K9 technologies to be a commercialization success story for energy efficiency 

technologies, with more than 3,600 units installed in locomotives, which improved E2 by 

up to 83 percent and cut emissions (NOx by 91 percent, hydrocarbon (HC) by 94 percent, 

carbon monoxide (CO) by 96 percent and PMs by 84 percent).

• Automatic Engine Stop Start (AESS) systems available as retrofits to improve the 

performance of older locomotives78 include: the GE Transportation AESS; AESS models 

by Motive Power-Wabtec79; and the ZTR Control Systems/Hotstart SmartStart80, which

integrates the AESS with an Auxiliary Power System (APU) for GE and EMD 

locomotives. The AESS requires sophisticated control hardware and software for 

shutdown prevention and smooth locomotive restart in all weather. Examples of smart 

controllers integrated with AESS are the EMD EM20000 control system81, and the 

ELCON traction motor management module82, that reduce idle time and associated fuel

waste, pollutant emissions, and noise.

• NS Locomotive Engineer Assist Display and Event Recorder (LEADER®) was 

developed by the New York Air Brake Corporation with FRA R&D funding and has 

been extensively tested and used by Norfolk Southern (NS) since 2004. It logs train 

operating conditions and monitors fuel burn to create a statistical profile for an optimal, 

fuel efficient run. It assists engineers to eliminate frequent braking and throttle use, in 

order to conserve energy. As of mid-2009, NS reported that its Locomotive Engineer 

Assist Display and Event Recorder (LEADER) helped achieve 25 percent fuel savings 

per unit coal trains and equipped more than 150 trains with LEADER hardware and 

software.

83

• CSX Event Recorder Automated Download (ERAD): CSX locomotive engineers84 are 

trained on locomotive simulators on the BPs for fuel-efficient train handling. CSX is 

utilizing the locomotive Event Recorder Automated Download (ERAD) system, 

leveraging GIS and communication technologies to provide feedback to locomotive 

 77 See “Auxiliary Power Unit Cuts Emissions, Fuel Use in Locomotives” at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/success/locomotive_apu.pdf.

78 See Mechanical Equipment for the Eco-Minded,” March 2009 article in Progressive Railroading.

79 See postings at http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/emissions-reduction/

80 See http://www.hotstart.com/assets/PDF/epafundstestofhotstartapu.pdf

81 See EM2000control system retrofit benefits at www.EMDiesels.com

82 See http://www.elconinc.net/html/traction_motor.htm

83 See Progressive Railroading March 2010, “Class Is Employ Fuel Saving Practices that Promise Stingier Diesel Usage” at 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/Class-Is-employ-fuelsaving-practices-that-promise-stingier-dieselusage--22736#.

84Se CSX sustainability BPs listed at http://corporate-social-responsibility.csx.com/
43

engineers on how to improve fuel efficiency, performance, and safety in operations. A 

scorecard produced by ERAD tracks operational habits (starting/stopping/braking) to 

optimize performance, and thus improves efficiency. In 4 years, ERAD has contributed to 

CSX saving more than 20 million gallons (75 million liters) of fuel.

2.3.5 Dual Power Hybrid Locomotives

Bombardier developed the ALP-45DP dual powered (diesel and electric) hybrid locomotive,

85

which is now being deployed and operated by New Jersey Transit commuter rail. NJT ordered 35 

locomotives with an option for more. Two diesel engines are complemented in electrified 

territory by power from the overhead catenary system. The DP locomotive can reach a speed of 

160 km/h (100 mph) under diesel power and up to 200 km/h (124 mph) for electric runs. It will 

be used in push-pull operation with double deck coaches; for greater efficiency and on-time 

performance, it can switch from diesel to all-electric operation when the engineer presses a 

button.

Figure 20. NJ Transit DP Locomotive86

2.3.6 Hybrid Electric Locomotives

The future for hybrid electric locomotives using battery stacks to recover braking energy and 

store it for on-demand delivery looks bright: Pike’s Research predicted that by the year 2020 

hybrid locomotives will be readily available for the industry, utilizing lead acid or lithium ion 

large-capacity batteries. This low-cost hybrid technology could reduce emissions by 80 percent 

over standard locomotives and reduce noise levels and maintenance costs.87

RailPower Technologies Corp. (now RJ Corman RailPower) introduced its GG20B hybrid 

switching locomotive in 2002. The GG20B, marketed as the “Green Goat,” was a yard switching 

 85 See http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles.html#1365795278211

86 Photograph courtesy of Bombardier

87 “Hybrid Electric Locomotives Will Utilize 514 Megawatt Hours of Battery Capacity by 2020.” Pikeresearch.com. 9 Aug. 

2011. 20 Dec. 2011. http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/hybrid-electric-locomotives-will-utilize-514-megawatt-hours-ofbattery-capacity-by-2020
44

locomotive and used three sets of lead acid battery packs capable of generating up to 1,200 hp 

(895 kW) (see Figure ). The batteries were charged using an on-board 300 hp (224 kW) diesel 

engine manufactured by Deutz. The GG20B locomotive was EPA-certified as Tier 3 compliant 

and had relatively low acoustic emissions. The Green Goat hybrid electric switcher locomotive 

had a small diesel engine and a large battery pack consisting of 330 rechargeable lead acid 

batteries on-board to supply peak power on demand while the diesel engine recharged the 

batteries. This configuration eliminated idling energy waste, which amounts to 75 percent of 

operational time and wastes approximately 30 percent of fuel in conventional switchers. 

In 2007, 59 units were recalled in Fort Worth, TX, following the on-board fire of a Green Goat 

yard switcher after a lightning strike. Railpower repaired all Green Goats, or converted some to 

Genset switchers. As of 2009, there were 12 Green Goats operating in California.

The Green Goat hybrid-electric switcher locomotives showed fuel savings of 30–80 percent, 

with commensurate environmental benefits due to lower fuel burn, an efficient catalytic 

converter, and particulate reduction technologies. These hybrids also achieved lower operating 

costs as well as lower noise. Hybrid locomotives are expensive, with an average payback of

more than 8 years. Fuel-efficient, battery-assisted diesel hybrid switcher locomotives will be 

used increasingly in railyards to meet EPA emission standards. The advanced storage battery and 

power control electronics are widely applicable.

Figure 21. RailPower-RJ Corman Green Goat (GG) Hybrid Switcher Locomotive88

GE Transportation developed and released in 2010 the demonstrator ES44HAC Evolution hybrid 

locomotive,

89 which captures braking energy and stores up to 2,000 hp in rechargeable heavyduty, sodium nickel chloride batteries for reuse on demand, thus reducing fuel consumption up to 

15 percent and emissions by up to 50 percent compared with conventional freight locomotives 

(Figure 22–24). GE also announced a $100 million program to build large capacity sodium sulfur 

batteries (which operate at high temperature) for the energy storage systems of its own hybrid 

locomotive. This prototype meets the EPA 2015 Tier 4 emissions standard. Other Tier 4 

locomotives are available: EMD released a prototype in November 2011.

 88 Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0144320620070601; photograph © Bob Lehmuth

89 http://www.ge.com/about-us/ecomagination
45

Figure 22. GE Hybrid Electric Locomotive Schematic and Battery Module90

Figure 23. GE Battery Module for Hybrid Electric Locomotive91

Figure 24. GE Evolution Hybrid Locomotive Demonstrator

 90 Source: ES44HAC_GE_Demonstrator_Side.jpg and http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/geunveils-prototype-for-next-evolution®-series-locomotive.html#.UEdSIbKPXyA; courtesy of General Electric Company

91 Source for Figures 24, 25: ES44HAC_GE_Demonstrator_Side.jpg and http://www.getransportation.com/rail/railproducts/locomotives/hybrid-locomotive.html, courtesy of General Electric Company
46

2.3.7 Battery Electric Locomotive

The experimental NS all-electric switcher locomotive NS99992 is a 1,500 hp (1,118 kW) batteryelectric prototype, developed with DOE and FRA support in partnership with Pennsylvania State 

University (Figure 25). It was tested and evaluated in Altoona, PA, in 2009 for yard operations

and demonstrated in California in 2010. The RESS consists of 1,080 12 Volt advanced 

Absorbent Glass Mat (AGM) lead-acid batteries that store the regenerated braking energy from 

its dynamic braking system. In 2010, Axion Power International (API) developed a battery 

management system (BMS) to improve the charge/discharge cycling of battery-powered switcher 

locomotives for urban railyard operations. The original 999 battery was a very large advanced 

lead acid AGM model. Since then, NS hired Axion Power93 to develop advanced lead carbon 

(PbC) batteries and a BMS for a refurbished NS999, which would be capable of efficiently 

storing and delivering regenerated braking energy. In 2012, NS ordered from Axion its higher 

performance PbC batteries for use in NS999 and future retrofits. The new batteries were

delivered to NS in January 2013 to undergo integration and performance testing.

94 Currently, NS 

and Axion are partnering to develop battery power for a larger and twice as powerful electric,

long-haul locomotive.

Figure 25. NS999 Prototype 1500 HP Battery Electric Switcher Locomotive95

2.3.8 Efficient and Ultra-Clean Diesel-Electric Locomotives and Repower Kits

Several new locomotive prototypes in test and evaluation are able to meet the EPA Tier 4 

emission limits being phased in by 2015, which will reduce by approximately 70 percent NOx

and particulate emissions, relative to 2005 emission values. GE describes its Evolution series 

diesel-electric locomotive with 12 cylinder engine as its most technologically advanced, fuel-

 92 See “Batteries Are Included” at 

http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/Media/News%20Releases/2009/batteries.html

93 http://seekingalpha.com/article/540501-battery-powered-locomotives-compellingly-green-economics and 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axion-powertm-to-work-with-norfolk-southern-on-battery-driven-locomotive-project95943869.html

94 See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axion-power-pbc-batteries-continue-to-demonstrate-effectiveness-for-railroadapplications-186452901.html and http://seekingalpha.com/article/540501-battery-powered-locomotives-compellingly-greeneconomics

95 Photograph courtesy Norfolk Southern
47

efficient, and environmentally compatible (Tier 2 and 3), with over 3,700 locomotives operating 

in 10 countries. It is more efficient than the GE 16 cylinder PowerHaul diesel electric 

locomotive, also part of Evolution series. 

Since 2003, more than 5,000 GE Evolution series locomotives, designed to save 9 percent fuel 

compared with current fleet average and meet the Tier 2 EPA standards, are operating in the 

United States and globally. The latest GE Evolution heavy-haul locomotive prototype that meets 

Tier 4 standards was unveiled in August 2012.

96 Its advantage over competing clean Tier 4 

locomotives is that it does not require urea additives to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

used to reduce exhaust NOx emissions and therefore requires no expensive infrastructure 

upgrades to store and supply urea. Alternatives include the Progress Rail and SwRI Ultra Clean 

Diesel Locomotive (UCDL) using urea-based SCR after-treatment certified by SwRI in Texas; 

and the UP 9900 experimental Tier 4 lower power EMD locomotive with three after-treatment 

systems being evaluated for 18 months near Sacramento, CA. 

Since locomotives have a typical life of 40 years, and new locomotives are costly, the more costeffective option to achieve E2 and E3 improvements is to retrofit aging locomotives with 

repower kits that reduce emissions and fuel burn. In 2010, Progress Rail Services (PRS), a

Caterpillar division, purchased Electro Motive Diesel (EMD) which has long been 

manufacturing locomotives, with the goal of repowering switcher low power, medium power 

regional, and powerful long-haul locomotives with cleaner operation and efficient traction.

For instance, the 8,500 EMD 710 engines and 10,000 AR-10 alternators would be reconditioned 

into the 710ECO or EM22ECO by adding the EM2000 digital control system for optimized burn 

and an integrated AESS for idle reduction. The 710ECOTM Repower locomotives (Figure 26) 

minimize fuel consumption while maintaining emissions compliance; they achieve up to 25

percent fuel savings and 50 percent lube oil reductions, which are important benefits for railroads 

facing rapidly escalating fuel costs. Similar kits for repowering Gensets are also available. 

Demonstrated 70 percent reduction in emissions makes these EPA certified kits eligible for both 

State and Federal funding as clean air projects, able to meet Tier 2 and 3 criteria cost-effectively.

Figure 26. 710ECO Repower97

 96 See www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/GE-Unveils-the-First-Tier-4-Heavy-Haullocomotive-3aa1.aspx

97 Source: http://www.progressrail.com/repowered-locomotives-710ECO.asp; © Progress Rail Services
48

At the 2011 APTA Expo, EMD announced a 125 mph (201 km/h) Tier 4 diesel passenger 

locomotive demonstrator powered by Caterpillar engines, microprocessor controlled, and 

scheduled for release in 2014. 

The Brookville Equipment Corporation98 has developed new passenger and multipurpose 

locomotives that will operate cleaner and with less fuel than their predecessors. Pictured below 

are units for South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and MNR.

• Brookville BL36PH – A next generation 4-axle diesel-electric passenger locomotive 

featuring a Tier 4 ready main engine and separate head end power (HEP) package. The 

locomotive is constructed with a modern all-steel aerodynamic nose and semimonocoque frame providing a safe and lightweight unit built to operate efficiently 

(Figure 27).

• Multipurpose BL20GH – A multipurpose locomotive that can be used for both 

passenger and freight applications. This unit is designed with a separate HEP generator so 

it can be used as a freight switcher or a passenger locomotive for small passenger lines 

(Figure 28).

Figure 27. Brookville Passenger BL36PH

Figure 28. Brookville Multipurpose BL20GH

 98 See http://www.brookvillecorp.com/locomotive-passenger.asp; images courtesy of Brookville Equipment Corp.
49

2.3.9 Distributed Power Management and Control Technologies for Freight Rail 

Consist Fuel Savings

Distributed power places locomotives in the middle, as well as at ends of trains instead of the 

traditional push-pull configuration. Distributed locomotive power along a heavy and long train 

consist is increasingly used by freight trains, since it offers greater E2 (by approximately 5 

percent) than push-pull configurations. In a distributed power configuration, several locomotives 

are physically spaced along the train consist and controlled remotely (by radio control from the 

leading, or both head-end units).

Distributed power also increases safety because it makes a train less prone to derailments by 

reducing the physical braking and turning forces on a train, thereby evenly distributing the force 

on rail-car couplers. Distributed power facilitates more even braking and can potentially reduce 

wheel and track wear and shorten the stopping distance. Freight railroads have realized 4–6

percent fuel savings on distributed power trains versus trains using conventional power.

Distributed power management and control software enables optimization of power distribution 

for a desired speed curve. For instance, the GE Transportation Locotrol-distributed power

management device and software are widely used by CSX and UP for heavy freight, like coal 

trains. Other providers, such as Canac and Wabtec, offer competing products for the distributed 

power market. The BAE Systems HybriDrive for hybrid locomotives and LTK also offer power 

management products tailored to specific rail technologies.

For instance, NS has achieved up to 30 percent fuel savings with distributed power, by

combining ECP brakes that communicate along the consist with GE’s Locotrol, with the 

LEADER train management and control system. UP has successfully used distributed power for 

fuel savings, with multiple locomotives placed by optimizing tons-per-equivalent-powered-axle

(TPA) instead of horsepower/ton. UP has also installed AESS devices on its locomotives fleet 

and deployed Gensets.

2.4 Software Tools for Streamlined Operations to Enhance E2 

2.4.1 Trip Logistics and Optimization Software

The GE Evolution series diesel electric locomotives for Class I freight railroads can be integrated 

for better fuel efficiency with the GE Locotrol distributed-power and Trip Optimizer energy 

management software for operational optimization and engine control. The Trip Optimizer 

(Figure 29) automated throttle controller automatically optimizes the locomotive speed profile 

and minimizes braking, based on train length, weight, grade and track conditions, and weather. It 

has been implemented successfully on 200 Canadian Pacific (CP) freight locomotives since 

2009, achieving up to 6–10 percent annual fuel savings on certain routes. Although the Trip 

Optimizer improves fuel efficiency by only 1 percent for the average mainline locomotive, this 

translates into annual fuel savings of 32,000 gallons (121,600 liters), 365 tons (328,500 kg) of 

GHG, 5 tons (4500 kg) NOx, and 0.2 tons (180 kg) of PM cuts. This software is also compatible 

with the GE LOCOTROL distributed power controller and the GE’s RailEdge Trip Planner to 

secure further fuel savings of 3–15 percent, depending on the territory.
50

Figure 29. GE Trip Optimizer Software Used for Status Display in Locomotive Cab99

The GE Trip Optimizer can be coupled to other GPS tracking and scheduling software in the GE 

Evolution series of energy efficient, eco-friendly railroad products: auto-engine start-stop; 

automated Notch 8 Fuel Economy to adjust the power; the AccuFuel gage measuring fuel level 

for improved monitoring and management; and the engine Smart Burn optimizer to balance 

engine performance over the duty cycle. Implementation of the full suite of GE Fuel Savings 

Solutions can improve locomotive efficiency by up to 10 percent. CSX uses LEADER, an Event 

Recorder Automatic Download (ERAD), and locomotive and engineer operations monitoring 

software,

100 which is enabled by GIS, GPS, and communication capabilities. Software tools

require operator training to save fuel: for instance, the UP Fuel Masters program, which 

monitors engineers’ fuel consumption performance by territory, promotes idle reduction, and 

rewards conservation, is an industry model. The BNSF Fuel Most Valuable Player (MVP)

program101, introduced in 2007, rewards locomotive engineers using fuel-efficient train handling 

practices and measures their performance with a fuel-efficiency scorecard. By agreement with 

the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), BNSF has trained and rewarded with gift 

cards those engineers who (1) reduced locomotive idling, which burns an average of 5 gallons 

(19 liters) of fuel per hour; (2) avoided stretch braking, which consumes on average 5 gallons (19 

liters) of fuel per braking; and (3) promoted consistent wheel lubrication to reduce wheel-rail 

friction by 40 percent. Many TOR lubrication products and friction management options offer 

both friction reduction and fuel savings.102

2.4.2 Efficient Rail Operations on Shared Track

The Northeast Corridor is the busiest rail corridor in the United States, with 2,200 trains 

operating daily on shared track and ROW. Fifty freight trains a day from the major Class I and 

regional railroads (CSX, NS) and regional (Connecticut Southern, Conrail, Pan Am Southern) 

 99 Source: http://www.gereports.com/ges-fuel-autopilot-software-set-for-200-locomotives/; photograph courtesy General Electric 

Company

100 CSX Fuel Efficiency postings at http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/

101 See 2008 news release at http://www.teradata.com/newsrelease.aspx?id=84

102 See April 2012 article at http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mow/article/Maintenance-of-way-technology-Topofraillubrication-and-friction-modifiers--30591
51

share track with the Amtrak Acela high-speed express and regionals trains. In addition to the 

Amtrak and freight trains, commuter rail services operated by transit agencies Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), New York Metro-North, Long Island Railroad, South 

East Pennsylvania Transit Authority-SEPTA, New Jersey Transit-NJT, Maryland Transit 

Administration Commuter Rail-MARC, and Virginia Railway Express-VRE also share the right 

of way along the Northeast Corridor. Fuel efficiency improvements can be achieved through 

more efficient asset management operations, scheduling, tracking, and dispatch, as well as by 

maintaining an optimal speed profile for fuel burn and reducing idling on sidings while waiting 

for other trains to pass. Northeast Corridor infrastructure upgrades and repairs currently 

underway, thanks to ARRA and Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 

2008 funding, will improve the shared rail infrastructure for operational and E3 gains, as detailed 

in the cooperatively developed 2010 “Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan.”103

Although HSR systems abroad operate on dedicated ROW and tracks for high-speed efficient 

and safe operations, the same is not possible or practical in the United States, where the legacy 

infrastructure that must be shared and maintained slows both passenger and freight rail 

operations. As the Acela has proven, the shared-use HSR system can be improved incrementally 

by building more dedicated segments over time as ridership increases and benefits become clear.

Major benefits of shared-use of rail network infrastructure are:

• Lower costs for all partners as a result of sharing maintenance costs of tracks and 

facilities;

• Reduced economic, environmental, and social impacts;

• Improved accessibility since shared-use enables HSR trains to use rail stations in city 

centers;

• Network utilization benefits since transit and commuter rail lines feed passengers to HSR 

hubs and lines. 

Adoption of PTC and GPS or radio communications, navigation, tracking, and control systems 

are enabling safer shared operations and more efficient routing, scheduling, and dispatch. 

However, as discussed in a recent NCHRP report,

104 rail operations on shared ROW for 

passenger, freight, and commuter railroads may pose major challenges to speed optimization for 

on-time arrivals and to achieving further energy-efficiency gains.

 103 See NEC Infrastructure Master Plan posted at http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-InfrastructureMaster-Plan.pdf

104 TRB/NCHRP Report 657 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors, 

2010 at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_657.pdf
52

3. Alternative Fuels for Environmental Sustainability

3.1 Hydrogen Fuel for Fuel Cell Hybrid Locomotives

In order to pursue environmental improvements in the rail industry for compliance with current 

Tier 3 and the 2015 Tier 4 EPA standards, alternative fuels for locomotives are a necessary 

stepping-stone. Several options for emerging locomotive fuels are discussed below.

Use of hydrogen fuel cells in locomotives can reduce the amount of particulate pollution around 

rail lines and reduce the amount of GHG expelled into the atmosphere. Hydrogen fuel cell 

locomotives can also reduce railroad dependency on fossil fuels. 

A partnership between BNSF, the U.S. Army, and Vehicle Projects, LLC as designer and leader

has developed and demonstrated a fuel cell hydrogen locomotive prototype for railyard switching 

operations. The goal was to reduce dependence on fossil fuel and improve energy security, as 

well as minimize the environmental impact of locomotive engines.105 BNSF partners included

RailPower Hybrid Technologies (the Montreal manufacturer of the basic Green Goat 

locomotive); Dynetek Industries of Calgary, Alberta (provider of pressurized hydrogen tanks); 

General Atomics of San Diego, CA, a developer of power electronics; the University of Nevada, 

Reno, as designer of the refueling system; and others. The prototype was unveiled in Topeka, 

KS, in January 2009. It then traveled to Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, for 

additional testing, and then was sent to California in 2010. It was tested in the Los Angeles 

railyards in Commerce and Hobart through 2010 and 2011. In 2012, BNSF was awarded Patent 

No. 8,117,969 for the fuel cell locomotive design.

106

The hydrogen hybrid locomotive design is based on a commercial diesel hybrid platform: the 

locomotive cab includes batteries to drive electric traction motors, which are recharged by a 

Ballard fuel cell stack rated at 240 kW (322 hp) (continuous), with light composite hydrogen fuel 

tanks storing 70 kg (154 lb) of hydrogen at 350 bar (5,076 psi) on the roof, associated power 

electronics, and battery ventilation. If battery temperatures become excessive, as in the event of a 

fire, temperature sensors would activate pressure relief devices to ventilate the batteries as well 

as the hydrogen fuel cells.107

The locomotive also had 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) of ballast added, displacing the traditional diesel 

fuel tanks. This design was said to reduce both air and noise pollution in railyards and provide a 

contingency for mobile backup power of up to 200 kW (268 hp). The primary technology 

concern is the hydrogen storage capacity and the limited range between refuelings. The fuel cell 

recharges the battery, which drives the electric motors. The locomotive includes 9,000 kg 

(19,842 lb) of ballast added to provide sufficient traction between wheels and tracks. 

The hydrogen-fueled switch locomotive was unveiled by BNSF in a Los Angeles yard in January 

2010, where its operation was evaluated and the technology refined.108 (See Figure 30 and Figure 

8.)

 105 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009-ALT-1/documents/2009-09-29_workshop/presentations/Vehicle_Projects_presentation.pdf

and http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrail/jr-east-demonstrates-worlds-first-commuter-hydrogen-train/

106 See www.fuelcellpropulsion.org/projects.html

107 Miller, A. “System Design of a Large Fuel Cell Hybrid Locomotive.” 2007

http://www.vehicleprojects.com/docs/System%20design_Manuscript%20_06%20Sep%2007_.pdf

108 “Hydrogen fueled locomotive unveiled,” http://www.ocregister.com/news/-231592--.html
53

Figure 30. BNSF Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrid Switcher Locomotive Demonstrated in 

2010109

Figure 8. Schematic of the BNSF Fuel Cell Locomotive Prototype110

The International Union of Railways (UIC) HyRail Consortium, funded by the European 

Commission 6th Framework Programme (FP6, 2002 to 2006), conducted a technology feasibility 

study of fuel cell locomotive platforms and hydrogen supply for rail operations and established 

the Hydrogen Railway Applications Lighthouse.111 International conferences were conducted to 

establish a vision, define the R&D agenda, and coordinate globally a deployment strategy for the 

Hydrail technology initiative. Korea, USA, Canada, Italy, and Japan are considering using or are 

already using the fuel cell for rail propulsion. The 2009 International Hydrail Conference, held at 

UNC-Charlotte,112 featured emerging applications of hydrogen fuel cells for both transit and rail. 

By 2012, fuel cell mining locomotives were tested in South Africa, FC-powered light rail trains 

entered service in China and Aruba, and FCs for rail infrastructure were used in the UK.

113

 109 See http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrail/bnsf-hydrogen-hybrid-train-meets-gov-arnoldschwarzenegger/

110 See https://www.bnsf.com/communities/environmental/fuel.html; image courtesy BNSF

111 http://www.hyrail.eu/pages/introduction.html

112 www.hydrail.org

113 See news posted at http://hydrail.org/
54

3.2 Natural Gas (CNG, LNG) Locomotives 

Figure 32. Burlington Northern LNG Locomotive with Tender Car Attached114

Natural gas has a rather short past as an alternative fuel with the railroad industry, including just 

18 years of LNG locomotive service in California. In the 1980s, the former Burlington Northern 

Railroad utilized natural gas-powered locomotives (Figure 32). Morrison Knudsen, now Motive 

Power Inc., built four LNG switch locomotives in the early 1990s. UP owned two of the LNG 

switch locomotives, but transferred ownership to BNSF in the mid-1990s. As a result, all four of 

the LNG switch locomotives are operated by BNSF in the Los Angeles area. BNSF’s four LNG 

switch locomotives are the only active operating LNG switch locomotives in the United States.

In 1999, the Napa Valley Wine Train installed a 60 percent compressed natural gas (CNG)

locomotive; a full 100 percent CNG locomotive was put into service in 2008. (See Figure 33.)

 114 Image courtesy BNSF
55

Figure 33. Napa Valley Wine Train Locomotive #73115

In 2007, a coalition of BNSF, UP, AAR, and California Environmental Associates completed an 

evaluation of the reliability and operational efficiency of natural gas-fueled locomotives. Dealing 

mostly with retrofitting freight locomotives with a natural gas conversion system and developing 

new high-horsepower natural gas-fueled locomotives, it was found that there is no NOx or 

particulate emissions benefit to using a natural gas fueled locomotive. The locomotives were less 

energy efficient and produced more GHG than their diesel-powered locomotive counterparts. It 

was proven that natural gas locomotives are not more cost effective either. The North American 

natural gas market is too unstable and the investment necessary in new infrastructure is too great 

to be cost effective.116

In October 2012, FRA hosted a Natural Gas Locomotive Technology Workshop at the DOE 

Argonne National Lab (ANL), which highlighted success stories and BPs in the field of natural 

gas technology advancement. Topics ranged from modern combustion technology for dual fuel 

(diesel and natural gas) locomotives to the need for regulatory review of standards for natural gas 

equipment and emissions. Presentations were made from around the rail industry, highlighting 

not only the usefulness of natural gas, but the substantial obstacles in the way of large-scale 

adoption.

Westport Innovations is collaborating with Caterpillar to develop natural gas fuel systems for 

locomotives and certain mining trucks. This project will use high-pressure direct injection 

technology for combustion and should be ready in approximately 5 years. The main goals are to 

create full horse powered, emissions-compliant, mainline locomotives with interchangeable 

tender cars. This technology will require the use of only 5 percent of diesel fuel for combustion;

therefore, 95 percent of the diesel fuel will be replaced with natural gas that will allow the 

locomotive to maintain full horsepower. Funded by Sustainable Technology Development

Canada, Westport Innovations in partnership with Canadian National (CN) Railway, EMD, and 

Gaz Metro, plans to unveil a fully functioning LNG high-pressure direct-injection fuel system

(HDPI) in 2014, with testing of in-revenue-service of two LNG fueled mainline diesel-electric 

 115 Photograph © Steve Hoffman

116 Caretto, L., Fritz, S., Hedrick, J., Iden, M., Schmid, L., Stehly, M., Trump, A., Wheeles, D., Weldon, S. “An Evaluation of 

Natural Gas-Fueled Locomotives.” November 2007.
56

locomotives currently underway in Alberta, Canada.

117 For demonstrations, Westport plans to 

utilize a multipurpose LNG tender car equipped with a pump and vaporizer to inject highpressure compressed natural gas (HPDI) into the locomotive.118 (See Figure 34.)

Figure 34. High-Level Tender Car Design Concepts by Westport119

Energy Conversions, Inc. is also working in collaboration with BNSF and others to create 

convertible engines with dual fuel systems. This system allows for up to 92 percent diesel 

replacement, while also being nonintrusive and easy to install. It utilizes low-pressure direct 

injection (LPDI), without need for a pump, and reduces NOx emissions caused by premixed 

combustion. However, thermal efficiency is a potential issue with LPDI technology—4 to 6 

percent energy loss. This system could save up to 300,000 gallons (1.1 million liters) of diesel

fuel per year per locomotive.120 In 2013, BNSF will begin its testing of LNG on a small number 

of locomotives. BNSF believes that the economics and technology have improved enough to 

make natural gas in long-haul locomotives operationally feasible.121

Biofuels and Blends with Petrodiesel

Biofuels are liquid fuels derived from renewable and, fundamentally, nonexhaustive energy 

sources. Their production involves the conversion of biological materials into liquid fuel where 

the feedstock is plant or animal products or organic wastes, rather than fossil fuels. Biodiesel fuel 

(also known as mono-alkyl ester) is a byproduct of a chemical process, transesterification, in 

which glycerin is separated from fat or vegetable oil, usually using a base-catalyzed technique. 

Biodiesel is manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases and 

reacted with alcohol to produce fatty acid mono-alkyl ester. Currently, biodiesel is made 

primarily from soybean oil, but other raw materials, such as vegetable or animal fats, may also 

be used.

 117 See http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cn-testing-lng-fueled-main-line-locomotive.html

118 Westport Innovations. “Research and Development Priorities Natural Gas Locomotive and Tender Car.” October 2, 2012.

119 Ibid; image © Westport Innovations

120 Energy Conversions Inc. “Locomotive Natural Gas Conversions.” October 3, 2012.

121 http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=35446
57

Biodiesel can be blended with petroleum diesel in any percentage to create a biodiesel blend. 

Blended biodiesel is denoted by the percentage of biodiesel it contains. For example, B20 

contains 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel, while pure biodiesel is known as 

B100. Conventional diesel can contain up to 5 percent biodiesel and be used in any diesel engine 

applications. Blends of 6 to 20 percent (B6 to B20) can be used in many applications that use 

petroleum diesel with a few minor or no modifications to the equipment. Blends over 20 percent 

require special handling and may require equipment modifications.

The following are some general properties of biodiesel as an alternative transportation fuel:

• Nontoxic, biodegradable, and reduces serious air pollutants (i.e., PM);

• B20 can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines;

• Can be used in pure form (B100) but may require engine modifications;

• Has a higher cetane number and provides more lubricity;

• B20 contains 8 percent less energy content per gallon than does #2 diesel fuel.

For on-road use of B20, this 8 percent decrease in energy content equates to a 1 to 2 percent loss 

in fuel economy. However, on-road users of B20 report no noticeable difference in torque or 

power. 

122 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines the fuel standard 

for biodiesel. The ASTM biodiesel standard represents the minimum accepted values for 

properties of the fuel needed to provide adequate customer satisfaction and/or protection. The 

ASTM standard for biodiesel in blends of B6 to B20 is ASTM D7467-09A.

The general conclusions of the EPA’s analysis on biodiesel showed that the B20 blend of 

biodiesel reduced fuel economy by 1 to 2 percent. Also, while emissions of CO, HC, and PM all 

showed a net decrease compared with diesel fuel, NOx emissions increased by approximately 2

percent over traditional diesel fuel measurements.

123 To date, there has been limited testing of 

biodiesel use in locomotive engines. In 2000, SwRI conducted a test of several blends of 

biodiesel on a 2,000 horsepower General Motors Electro-Motive Diesel, Incorporated (EMD) GP 

38-2 Tier II passenger locomotive engine. The findings of the study concluded that the 

locomotive engine was able to produce around 98 percent of full rated power when using the 

biodiesel blends. This result is similar to the fuel economy reduction that was observed in EPA’s 

analysis for other diesel engines. SwRI also observed that there was a 4 to 6 percent NOx

increase for the B20 blend compared with the EPA-certified diesel fuel.124

In 2012, Amtrak, with FRA support, completed emissions testing on a locomotive using B20 

biodiesel-blended fuel. The emissions test was performed by GE Transportation Services. Prior 

to the emissions test, the locomotive, a GE P-32, was used in revenue passenger service on 

Amtrak’s route from Fort Worth, TX, to Oklahoma City, OK. The revenue service test lasted 12 

 122 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide. Golden, CO: U.S. Department of 

Energy.

123 EPA, Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions, EPA420-P-02-001, October 2002.

124 S.G. Fritz, Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel in an EMD GP38-2 Locomotive, Southwest Research Institute, NREL/SR-510-33436, 

May 2004. Note: FRA will release in 2013 a new emission testing report conducted by SwRI with 5 percent and 20 percent 

biodiesel with EPA certified fuel and CARB diesel. The report is being edited by FRA and should be released in 2013. 
58

months. The biodiesel fuel was derived from animal fat through the transesterification process. 

This test demonstrated that the B20 biodiesel fuel does not adversely affect the locomotive. The 

emissions, powering, and fuel-consumption performance results were all comparable to 

locomotives using regular diesel fuel.125

In the industry, biofuels have been slow to be adopted, but there have been some success stories. 

The Dynamic Fuels project, started by biofuels developer Syntroleum Corp. and Tyson Foods 

Inc., has partnered with Mansfield Oil Co. and NS to integrate “renewable diesel,” or fuel that 

comes from recycled sources, into NS’s fleet. This biofuel, consisting of animal fat, vegetable 

oil, and other renewable sources, will be used as a replacement for petroleum diesel, with no 

modifications to the locomotives. The U.S. Navy has also purchased 450,000 gallons (1.7 million 

liters) of biofuel.

126

BNSF also signed on for a trial, using B20 in a diesel locomotive in northern Montana. Locally 

sourced biodiesel, made up of alternative feedstock sources, was used. Oxidation, fuel stability,

acid content, degradation, and emissions were measured during trips. The results were promising 

and have led BNSF to believe that biofuels are the future of the railroad industry’s fuel.127

Fischer-Tropsch fuels are synthetic alternatives to petroleum fuel. The Fischer-Tropsch process 

was developed in 1923 by German scientists Dr. Franz Fischer and Dr. Hans Tropsch. FischerTropsch is a liquefaction process that converts gas or coal to liquid fuel. The United States Air 

Force Research Laboratory has conducted an analysis of a natural gas derived Fischer-Tropsch 

fuel that was blended at various volumes with JP-8 aviation fuel that was used to power a T63 

turbo shaft engine. The results of the analysis showed that the synthetic fuel blend significantly 

reduced PM emissions which can be attributed to the reduced aromatic content of the synthetic 

fuel.128 

Currently, Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel is not designated as a Federally defined alternative fuel 

under Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992). In order to achieve this designation, DOE must 

find that the fuel is (a) substantially nonpetroleum based, (b) yields substantial energy security 

benefits, and (c) offers substantial environmental benefits. Upon its last review, DOE has 

verified the first two requirements, but was unable to find that Fischer-Tropsch diesel is likely to 

yield net environmental benefits. However, DOE has been petitioned by industry to pass 

rulemaking approving Fischer-Tropsch diesel as an alternative fuel under EPAct (section 

301(2)), and an open docket is now maintained on the rulemaking issue.129

 125 Deitchman, Roy, Shurland, Melissa, Smith, Wade. “Emissions Testing of An Intercity Passenger Locomotive Operating on 

B20 Biodiesel Fuel.” JRC2012-74061. Philadelphia, PA. 17 Apr. 2012.

126 Walton, Rod. “Dynamic Fuel Signs on Norfolk Southern.” February 15, 2012. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20120215_49_E1_Tulsab667660

127 Voegele, Erin. “Steaming ahead to a Better Fuel.” June 14, 2011. http://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/7859/steaming-aheadto-a-better-fuel

128 Corporan, E., DeWitt, M., Belovich,V., Pawlik, R., Lynch, A., Gord, J., Meyer, T., Emissions Characteristics of a Turbine 

Engine and Research Combuster Burning a Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel. Energy & Fuels, 2007, 21, 2615-2626.

129 Proposed Rules, Federal Register, “Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuels (Docket number 

EE–RM–02–200).” February 14, 2005. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-2779.pdf
59

The Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR), a new partnership between the University of 

Minnesota and Sustainable Rail International (SRI)130, is also researching cleaner rail 

technology. By utilizing torrefied biomass, or biocoal, as an alternative to regular coal, emissions 

can be reduced on a steam engine. This technology would theoretically be more powerful than 

the diesel electric locomotives, reaching speeds up to 130 miles per hour (209 km/h). Although 

this new biocoal is not as cheap as regular coal, it is still less expensive than the current diesel 

electric locomotives. The CSR is currently working on converting an old steam engine from 

1937 to run on biocoal, hopefully showing that steam engines can be operated and maintained 

economically and are environmentally friendly. These claims for a powerful, carbon-neutral 

locomotive powered by biocoal are under active research and are as yet unproven.

 130 See Marchetti, Nino. “Biofuel Steam Locomotive Tomorrow’s Cleaner Mass Transit?” 

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/63647-biofuel-steam-locomotive-tomorrow-s-cleaner-mass-transit
60

4. U.S. Railroads E2 Best Practices (BP) and Success Stories

4.1 Freight Railroads BPs

4.1.1 Class I Railroads

The seven large Class I railroads with long-haul operations in the United States and part of 

Canada lead in the implementation of system-wide fuel savings to improve operational efficiency 

and environmental performance at reduced cost. An overview of fuel saving BPs of Class I 

railroads in the 2010 Progressive Railroading131 included a wide range of technologies and 

strategies (DP, TOR lubricators, throttle control software, etc.), in addition to traditional 

conservation. The examples below illustrate successful BPs of selected Class I freight railroads 

obtained from the literature and railroad managers’ inputs. 

• BNSF: As discussed above, BNSF, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense, 

FRA, and private entities, was the first railroad to design, develop, demonstrate, and 

evaluate the feasibility of hydrogen fuel cell motive power for switchyard locomotives. 

Since 2000, BNSF has modernized its locomotive fleet with more than 2,500 new fuelefficient locomotives. Although the volume and mileage of freight moved over the past 

decade increased more than 30 percent, fuel consumption increased by only 14 percent. 

BNSF acquired more than 85 ULEL; each has three low-power engines (instead of a 

large one) which burn fuel on demand, thus reducing emissions and saving fuel. The 

ULEL emissions of NOx and particulates are 80 percent lower than for a standard diesel 

switcher locomotive, and its fuel efficiency is 25 percent higher. 

• CSX: CSX has employed a cross-functional fuel Process Improvement Team (PIT) to 

identify options for reducing by 1 percent per year the fuel intensity (gallons/ton-miles) 

for cost savings and environmental gains. CSX was the first Class I railroad to join the 

Climate Leaders Program and was named the “Greenest Railroad” by Newsweek’s 2009 

and 2010 Green Rankings. In 2011, CSX joined the Environmental Defense Fund 

Climate Corps program. CSX has improved its fuel efficiency by 80 percent since the 

1980s, voluntarily reduced GHG emissions by 8 percent from 2006 to 2011, and invested 

more than $1.5 billion to upgrade its fleet with GE Evolution Tier II and III locomotives. 

CSX has installed AESS to reduce locomotive idling, the GE Trip Optimizer for route 

and logistics improvements, and deployed 25 Gensets in railyards in or near EPA 

noncompliance and sensitive urban areas, such as Chicago, New York City, New 

Orleans, and several Northeast cities. 

• NS: According to the NS 2011 Sustainability Report132, GHG emissions were cut by 3.9

percent per revenue ton-mile of freight in 2010. NS estimates that approximately $10 

million in the last 4 years has been saved—energy and fuel cost savings. NS, along with 

other freight railroads, joined the Carbon Disclosure Project, an independent nonprofit 

 131 See March 2010 Progressive Railroading at http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/Class-Is-employfuelsaving-practices-that-promise-stingier-diesel-usage--22736

132 See 2011 Norfolk Southern Sustainability Report at http://nssustainability.com/reports/2011-sustainability-report/
61

organization working to reduce emissions and promote accountability.133 Because of the 

Clean Air Act, NS has been buying newer locomotives and retrofitting 50 to 100 

locomotives to enhance fuel efficiency. As mentioned in Section 2.3.9, NS has achieved 

approximately 30 percent fuel savings with distributed power by combining ECP brakes 

communicating along the consist with implementation of both the GE’s Locotrol 

software and the New York Air Brake LEADER. Currently, NS has approximately 20 

projects ongoing to further improve fuel efficiency in their locomotives:

o The NS locomotive fleet improved its fuel efficiency by more than 2.2 percent in 

2010, saving 10.2 million gallons (38.8 million liters) of diesel fuel and 104,924 

metric tons (231 million pounds) of CO2 equivalents emissions. NS has about 10 

Genset locomotives in operation, as well as the NS999 battery-powered 

locomotive that is still in the experimental test and evaluation phase, as discussed 

above. 

o To help engineers monitor and control the in-service locomotive fuel 

consumption, a computer dashboard for cab engineers displays real-time speed, 

fuel consumption rate, and other real-time data. Use of GE’s Locotrol with 

LEADER required staff training and incentives to save fuel. LEADER has been 

implemented and installed in approximately 60 percent of the NS locomotive 

fleet, with projected completion by 2014. Training for this technology is ongoing.

o In addition, NS has also installed AESS idle reduction kits on 1,797 fleet 

locomotives which have substantially reduced fuel burn due to engine idling time.

NS also installed a Wireless Event Recorder Information Systems (WERIS) in 

approximately 1,400 locomotives to wirelessly and automatically monitor train 

performance.134

o NS is also researching alternative fuels. NS is substituting petroleum for biodiesel 

(both synthetic and from animal waste) to lower emissions at a fueling station in 

Meridian, MS. More than 800,000 gallons (3 million liters) of biodiesel a month 

are used. In 2012, NS agreed to purchase diesel fuel produced by Dynamic Fuels, 

a 50/50 venture owned by Tyson Foods, Inc. and Syntroleum Corporation. NS has 

been testing the blended fuel in a Meridian, MS, railyard with positive results.

• Union Pacific (UPRR): As part of a $20 million investment in clean locomotives, UP 

unveiled in August 2012 an advanced system that will use three different technologies to 

cut emissions to required Tier 4 levels: Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), diesel 

oxidation catalysts (DOC), and diesel particulate filter (DPF). The UP 9900136 is one of a 

series of 25 new technology locomotives developed with funds from the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) mandated by the 

Assembly Bill (AB) 118 initiative137 and coordinated by the Sacramento Metropolitan 

 133 https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx

134 See http://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/article/Norfolk-Southern39s-technology-embrace--24996

135 See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/union-pacific-railroad-unveils-experimental-locomotive-to-test-emissionsreduction-technology-167069835.html

136 See Fall 2012 AIRlines AMAQMD newsletter at http://www.airquality.org/communicationsoffice/2012/2012Fall.pdf

137 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/aqip.htm
62

Air Quality Management District. It was designed to reduce diesel PM emissions by more 

than 80 percent, and UP and CARB are now testing and will jointly analyze its 

performance over the next 18 months. UP won the 2010 EPA Clean Air Excellence 

Award for its Ultra-Low Emissions Genset locomotive (see Figure 35).

138

Figure 35. UP 9900 Prototype Uses Three After-Treatment Technologies to Cut 

Emissions139

At the Roseville railyard UP showed how to effectively reduce locomotive idling time for the 

400 locomotives retrofitted with AESS. UP is evaluating the energy efficiency and emission 

reduction benefits of consists reconfigured for reduced fuel consumption, when combined with 

engineers training. UP’s “Fuel Masters Unlimited” is a training program that measures and 

compares locomotive engineers’ fuel consumption when running a train and tracks the gallons of 

diesel fuel saved each month. This program helped UP lower its fuel consumption rate by 3 

percent in 2010. 

4.1.2 Regional (Class II) and Short Line (Class III) Freight Railroads

E3 BPs are especially valuable to regional and short line freight RRs that operate on a narrower 

profit margin than the seven Class I railroads. A 2010 Progressive Railroading article140

highlighted several efforts to shrink the short-line RR environmental footprint, while saving both 

fuel and capital. 

• The American Short Line and Regional Railroads Association (ASLRRA) posts 

information resources and success stories141 on energy efficiency and environmental 

gains of its members, and its regional annual conferences offer the opportunity to share 

BPs. In addition, State clusters operating in a common environment, like the California 

Short Line Railroad Association,

142 also share experience with fuel-efficient

technologies. 

 138 See http://www.epa.gov/air/cleanairawards/winners-cleanairtech.html

139 © Sacramento Bee/ZUMAPress.com

140 See “Green short lines: Short Line Railroads and Environmental Stewardship” in Aug. 2010 Progressive Railroading at 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/short_lines_regionals/article/Green-short-lines-Shortline-railroads-and-environmentalstewardship--24055 141 See www.aslrra.org

142 See www.cslra.org
63

• The EPA West Coast Collaborative143 annual meetings feature summaries of regional 

Clean Locomotive Activities.

• The Genesee and Wyoming, Inc. (GWI),144 which owns 60 regionals and short line 

railroads, has repowered more than 20 percent of its locomotive fleet, installed Gensets 

on 3 locomotives, and introduced 14 mother-mate, or mother-slug, dual locomotive 

configurations. The Mother is a conventional diesel locomotive sending via large cables 

excess electrical power to the Slug; the latter has only traction motors, but no diesel 

engine, generator, or other components of a “stand alone” locomotive. The “mate” adds 

tractive power to the “mother” without burning diesel and adding emissions. GWI also

installed on many of its locomotives APUs, AESS, and plug-in electric warming devices 

to reduce idling, pollution, and noise while saving fuel.

• The Iowa Interstate Railroad, a 500 mi (800 km) regional railroad, has been using 

renewable biodiesel (blends of 10–20 percent), biodegradable soybean grease, to reduce 

wheel-track wear on curves and has also installed AESS units on its locomotives to save 

fuel. It also acquired new GE locomotives that are 25 percent more fuel efficient than 

older ones.

• The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) operates passenger sightseeing services, as 

well as freight trains, on scenic routes over its 470 mi (752 km) of track between Seward 

and Fairbanks. Its Environmental page posts “Green Railroading” highlights, such as the 

fact that it takes only 1 gallon of fuel to move 1 ton of freight along its entire route. Since 

1993, ARRC has held a Green Star Award; 145in 2007, it received a Green Star Air 

Quality Award, and in 2011, a Supernova Award for upgrading its track, equipment, and 

operations to conserve energy and reduce emissions and waste. A BP of note is the use of 

wind and solar photovoltaic energy production along its ROW to power the new PTC 

system. Another success story is progress achieved through a recently launched Idle 

Reduction Program (IRP).146

• The Providence and Worcester (P&W) Railroad Company is a Northeast Regional 

operator with 545 mi (872 km) of track that opted for idle reduction Auxiliary Power 

Units (APUs) manufactured by Power Drives on 17 locomotives, as well as AESS from 

GE Transportation on 13 locomotives, which saves 10 percent of fuel on switchers and 3

percent on road locomotives. 

 143 See May 31, 2012 Seattle, WA presentation “Cleaner Locomotive Activities in Western US” at 

http://westcoastcollaborative.org/files/meetings/Partners2012/Day%202_May%2031/03_AM%20Breakouts/TM_%20Locomotiv

e/03_Pat%20Kerr.pdf

144 See http://www.gwrr.com/about_us/community_and_environment/gwi_green/motherslug_locomotives

145 See Louis, Julie St. "Alaska Railroad Tapping into Wind and Solar Power: New Technology Being Utilized on Turnagain 

Arm." Turnagain Times. 17 Apr. 2008. 4 Jan. 2012. http://www.turnagaintimes.com/current%20issue/4-17-08/solarwind.html

146 See “Idle Reduction Initiative Pays Dividends for Alaska Railroad” on 12.3.2012 at 

www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=33510
64

• The California Short Line Railroad Association (CSLRA) also has members that are 

pushing environmental and sustainable agendas. The Modesto & Empire Traction 

Company (METC) recently converted its entire fleet from 1950s diesel engines to all 100

percent Genset locomotives. It is using the old frames with brand new interiors for the 

Genset locomotives. In-house training is provided for all Genset locomotives, as well as 

maintenance classes off site. With this new overhaul, the locomotives have used 35

percent less fuel. The METC facility also utilizes idle reduction processes as well as 

switches on the tracks for less stopping and starting. 

• A partnership of the New York State DOT (NYSDOT), NYS Energy R&D Authority 

(NYSERDA), and suppliers (Power Drives, Inc. and New West Technologies) of the 

electric plug-in Diesel-Warming System (DWS-120) idle reduction technology 

demonstrated real world, in-service operational benefits on 11 locomotives for 7 NYS

short line railroads.147 The environmental (noise and emissions) benefits, as well as fuel 

and cost savings of the DWS models (powered by electricity or a small diesel engine) 

were quantified between November 2011 and January 2012) for 7 short line railroads,

and the DWS-120 and DWS-APU (diesel) systems were certified by EPA to have an 

average payback period of 6.7 months in fuel savings. 

4.2 Passenger Railroads BPs and Success Stories

4.2.1 Amtrak E2 BPs for Higher Speed Operations

The Amtrak Acela on the Northeast Corridor is the only HSR in the United States, and Amtrak 

has instituted system-wide E2 improvements. Amtrak posts information on its energy and 

environmental performance on the Web and reports annually on plans and progress in improving 

E2 and E3 performance. The Amtrak Web site, “Travel Green with Amtrak,”148 posts 

information on energy-efficient travel, details energy efficiency and environmental benefits, such 

as “Going Green on Acela,” a rail carbon footprint calculator for passengers, and publishes its 

ClimateCounts.org scorecard. 

In November 2012, Amtrak launched regional high-speed 110 mph (177 km/h) services, an 

increase from its current 79 mph (127 km/h), in:

• Illinois, on a portion of the Chicago to St. Louis route—a 15-mile (24 km) stretch of the 

Amtrak Lincoln Service route between Dwight and Pontiac, MI; 75 percent of the 

corridor is slated to achieve high-speed service by 2015.149

• From 95 mph (153 km/h) to 110 mph (177 km/h) on the Amtrak Wolverine Service 

route in western Michigan and northern Indiana, currently on 80 mi (128 km) of track 

between Kalamazoo, MI, and Porter, IN. 

 147 “Demonstration of Locomotive Idle Reduction Technology for NYS Short Line Railroads,” 2011 at 

http://www.dieselwarming.com/nyserda/docs/Short%20line%20DWS%20Demonstration%20Project%20Summary%20and%20C

ase%20Studies.pdf

148 See http://www.amtrak.com/travel-green-with-amtrak and “Amtrak Means Energy Efficiency” at 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245661727

149 See details at http://www.idothsr.org/faqs/
65

System-wide energy and fuel conservation measures listed in the 2011 “Environmental Health 

and Safety Report150 include:

• The successful completion of a 20 percent biodiesel-fuel intercity passenger train test 

(with FRA collaboration);

• Measures to reduce fuel usage by 1 percent a year by 2015, including:

o Installing regenerative braking in 80 percent of NEC locomotives and other 

electrified territory, to recover and reuse 8 percent of power consumed;

o Aerodynamic improvements of rolling stock;

o Installing locomotive anti-idling retrofits, such as automatic stop-start 

technologies, reducing locomotives diesel engine idling by shut-down within 1 

hour of arrival and departure, and using 480V ground power at layovers for 

HVAC and lighting;

o Implementing simulator training of locomotive engineers to help conserve fuel;

o Increasing use of dynamic braking (which uses electric traction motors to provide 

resistance to rotating wheel axles in diesel-electric locomotives), rather than 

braking with power applied;

o Demonstrating the benefits of Trip Optimizer and cruise control locomotive 

technologies;

o Upgrading fuel management systems for deliveries and consumption tracking;

o Increasing seat miles/kW-hour for electric traction power, while reducing 

electricity consumption for stations and facilities;

o Conducting annual environmental compliance audits and reporting GHG 

inventories;

o Seeking grant support from Federal and State agencies to replace aging switcher 

locomotive fleet in railyards with Gensets, as done in California, Illinois, New 

York, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia;

o Seeking equipment upgrades for E2 and E3: a 2010 order of 70 new Siemens 

Amtrak Cities Sprinter ACS-64 electric locomotives and ARRA-funded upgrades 

in power and propulsion substations and infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor

(see Figure 36).

 150 “2011 Environmental Health and Safety Report- Connecting with Amtrak Vision” at 

www.Amtrak.com/ccurl/294/246/Environmental-Health-Safety-Annual-Report-2011.pdf
66

Figure 36. Amtrak Cities Sprinter Based on the Popular EuroSprinter Will Travel at 125 

mph (201 km/h)151

4.2.2 Commuter RR Best Practices 

Commuter rail E3 BPs highlighted below were selected because they were successfully 

implemented and illustrate the wide range of technology options and system-wide strategies that 

have saved fuel or power and led to both environmental and financial gains:

• In June 2012, FRA approved the first alternative design waiver152 for the Denton County

Transportation Authority to purchase and operate 11 new diesel-electric DMU 

lightweight unit cars. The DMUs will be used on the A-Train, serving a 21-mile (34 km) 

commuter rail line shared with freight trains, and linked to Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 

These lightweight railcars are expected to be more fuel efficient by 30–70 percent, 

operate up to 75 mph (120 km/h) with less noise, and feature a Tier 1 crash energy 

management system.

• In April 2012, the MNR, in partnership with the New York Power Authority (NYPA), 

announced major upgrades for energy efficiency.153 Metro North/NYPA upgrades in 

heating and cooling equipment in Grand Central Terminal, along with replacement of 

wasteful incandescent bulbs with LED lighting, will reduce its energy use by 30 percent

and attain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. This 

$22 million outlay will be completed by the end of 2013, with anticipated energy savings 

over 11 years of approximately $3 million a year in energy cost. NYPA-MTA recently 

completed E2 enhancements of four Metro-North train yard facilities to lower by 20

percent energy consumption—through the use of energy efficient lighting, wireless 

remotely controlled and monitored HVAC, high-efficiency motors, and chillers.

• In March 2012, the Bay Area Transportation Authority agreed to fund with State HSR 

bonds the electrification of Caltrain commuter rail.

154 Operation of lightweight energyefficient EMUs on a hybrid line shared with the planned California HSR and equipped 

with PTC for safe operations. 

 151 Image courtesy of Siemens

152 See “Commuter rail Lightens Up” in ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine at 

http://www.asce.org/CEMagazine/Articlens.aspx?id=25769811158

153 See http://thetransitwire.com/2012/04/26/metro-north-and-chicago-transit-authority-announce-energy-upgrades/

154 See www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/21/BAPS1NOFAV.DTL
67

• METRA, operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), is a commuter rail agency

that serves more than 100 communities with 241 stations on 11 lines running from 

Chicago’s downtown. It too committed to “green” operations:

155 Metra Electric Line 

operates electric-powered EMU cars over 32 miles (51 km) and is the only Metra line 

that uses electric, self-propelled coaches powered from an overhead catenary wire 

system. In 2010, METRA contracted with Sumitomo Corporation of America to buy 160 

new and more energy efficient Nippon Sharyo Highliner bilevel cars for its electric 

commuter rail, due by 2015. These rail cars are more expensive (totaling $560 million) 

because they are self-propelled, not pulled by a diesel locomotive.156 Metra Electric does 

not share equipment with the other 10 Metra lines, which have diesel locomotives, but it 

does share parts with diesel bi-level cars. METRA diesel locomotives are all equipped 

with AESS controls to reduce idling and save fuel.

• The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)157commuter rail, operated 

under contract by the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR), is the 

fifth largest in the United States (after New York, New Jersey, and Chicago area 

systems). MCBR is a partnership of Veolia Transportation, Bombardier Transportation,

and Alternate Concepts, Inc. The MBCR commuter rail network is shared with several 

freight rail operators: over 12 CSXT mainline freight trains per day operate on the

Worcester Line, a part of CSXT’s Boston Line. 

o Partnering BPs: MBCR, the state of Massachusetts, and CSX entered a publicprivate partnership to plan a multiyear sustainable rail transportation plan for 

shared infrastructure.

158 Streamlined scheduling and operations will allow 

commuter rail expansion on the Worcester line, as well as freight operations 

growth, establishing the first double-stack rail route in New England and a major 

intermodal terminal in Worcester. There will also be fewer CSX trains impeding

commuter rail traffic and thus reduced idling and delays.

o Facility BPs: The three MBCR railroad mechanical facilities and 11 layover yard 

facilities have ground power to shut down the locomotives, while keeping them 

warm in cold weather and eliminating idling that consumes fuel and generates air 

pollution. The MBTA is procuring solar power arrays for two of its facilities to 

generate about 2.7 MW (3620 hp) of electricity and is purchasing under Solar 

Power Purchase Agreements (SPPA) 20 percent of its power from renewable

solar power. Additionally, a 100 KW (134 hp) wind turbine was installed at the 

Kingston Commuter Rail Station and Layover Facility that will generate 65

percent of the facility energy needs. MBTA is also building a 250 KW (335 hp)

wind turbine at the Bridgewater site.

 155 See http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/RTA_GreenTransitPlan.pdf

156 http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120327/NEWS05/120329821/japanese-manufacturer-to-open-factory-hireworkers-for-metra

157 See http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/environment/

158 See http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x21085477/State-finalizes-100-million-deal-to-buy-tracks-fromCSX#ixzz2Pc72VRAF
68

o Equipment BPs: The MBCR fleet currently consists of 90 diesel locomotives

equipped with HEP, placed at both ends of push-pull trains, using both passenger 

and rebuilt freight locomotives for passenger use. Twenty new four-axle ACtraction Motive Power. Inc. AC MPI HSP46 diesel-electric locomotives are on 

order, able to meet applicable EPA Tier 3 emissions standards. New National 

Railway Equipment Corporation ULEL NRE 3GS-21B switcher locomotives 

were acquired to reduce yard emissions in the Boston metropolitan area. Seventyfive new energy efficient bilevel passenger coaches were ordered from Hyundai 

Rotem: the first four were delivered and put into service in April 2013; fifteen 

will be in service by fall 2013.

• METROLINK159 is governed by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(SCRRA), comprises 5 county agencies, and links 6 counties with 7 service lines, 55 

stations, and 40,000 daily passengers over a 512 route-mile network. The fuel 

efficiency and environmental BPs being implemented include:

o In April 2012, Metrolink initiated a ground power plug-in program at its Central 

Maintenance Facility. This technology enables its trains to run on electricity 

during times of service and inspection, reducing locomotives idling noise and 

emissions by 33 percent.

o Metrolink will become the first rail system in the country to achieve Tier 4 status 

in revenue service. It is replacing or rebuilding/repowering locomotives to comply 

early with the 2015 Tier 4 emission standards160. The Board authorized Metrolink 

to acquire 10 Tier 4-compliant locomotives, with an option to purchase up to 10 

additional locomotives, under a contract with Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. The first 

three demonstration locomotives will be completed in fall 2015. The new 

locomotives will be more fuel efficient and reduce PM by 86 percent and NOx by 

84 percent relative to Tier 2.

o In December 2012, the Board also committed Metrolink to testing in future 

operations emerging alternative fuel sources and technologies, such as liquefied 

natural gas and battery technology.

• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA):

161 SEPTA 

operates the only fully electrified commuter railroad in the United States, thus 

improving the regional air quality by offsetting localized emissions. In 2012, SEPTA 

was honored with the APTA Sustainability award, recognizing it as a national leader 

in improved sustainability practice, from advanced energy production and storage 

systems to improved facilities and recycling. SEPTA operates all forms of public 

transit, including commuter rail, to serve six counties in the greater Philadelphia area.

SEPTA also serves counties in Delaware and New Jersey. It controls 280 active 

stations, over 450 miles (720 km) of track, 295 revenue vehicles, and 196 routes. 

SEPTA commuter rail equipment includes: 231 GE Silverliner IV EMUs (see Figure 

 159 See http://metrolinktrains.com/agency/page/title/sustainability

160 See http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news/news_item/news_id/836.html

161 See http://www.septa.org/sustain/index.html and http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/03-11.html
69

37); 120 Silverliner V EMUs from Hyundai Rotem, see Figure 38); 6 Pullman 

Standard Comet 1 Coaches/Cab Cars; 10 Bombardier Cab Cars/25 Trailer Coaches; 

10 Bombardier Center Door Push-Pull Coaches; 7 AEM-7 Electric Locomotives; and 

1 Bombardier ALP-44 Electric Locomotive.

Figure 37. GE Silverliner IV EMU162

The purchase of 120 new “Silverliner V” railcars from Hyundai Rotem USA for its regional rail 

fleet, featuring an energy-efficient propulsion system, will reduce energy consumed while 

providing improved acceleration and braking. Regenerative braking energy is converted to 

electrical energy to be used by other cars on the line, or returned to the power company. The first 

three Silverliner V cars just started operation. These EMUs were also designed with day-lighting 

(bright and large windows, mid-car doorways) and digital flat-panel screens displaying trip 

details, as well as energy-efficient climate-control systems. 

Figure 38. Silverliner V163

 162 Source: http://www.philadelphiatransitvehicles.info/Specs/General_Electric_Silverliner_IV.php
70

SEPTA also received a $1.2 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

National Clean Diesel Campaign to significantly reduce air emissions from one of its six dieselpowered maintenance locomotives, by repowering it with state-of-the-art engine technology: the

ULEL “dual Genset” with DPF. This technology improves both the fuel economy and emissions 

performance by providing power on an as-needed basis. Repowering will also reduce noise 

pollution, an additional benefit for surrounding communities.

 163 Source: www.septa.org/silverliner; photograph courtesy of SEPTA
71

5. Findings and Recommendations for Improved E2

5.1 General Study Findings and Conclusions

The material presented above shows that the wide range of rail industry BPs has led to 

substantial system-wide reductions in fuel consumption, resulting in sizeable environmental and 

financial gains. Though no single “silver bullet” solution exists for reducing energy consumption 

and cost, or for ensuring compliance with upcoming EPA Tier 4 locomotive emissions standards, 

railroad industry segments have made great progress toward these goals. 

A recent DOE Transportation Energy Futures evaluation164 analysis of modal energy efficiency

projects a Class I freight fleet average E2 increase of 15–20 percent by 2030, if the historical rate 

of E2 progress over the past two decades continues. It is clear that each individual E2 technology 

opportunity—or the adoption of asset and fleet management software tools, or improvements in 

car and consist aerodynamics and in Operations and Maintenance (O&M)—offers only 

incremental E2 and fuel saving benefits. However, bundling of E2 options (e.g., idling reduction 

through both Automated Stop-Start devices and improved scheduling optimization software) 

offers synergistic higher gains.

Multiple rail technologies, best operational practices, and success stories were illustrated above, 

based on literature and interviews with selected railroad industry experts. The examples cited for 

best-in-class industry leaders offer suitable and cost-effective energy-saving options and 

initiatives across all rail industry segments, including OEMs, suppliers, international and U.S.

rail trade associations, railroad owners, and operators. 

As leaders of industry showed in the success stories cited, large rail system-wide E2 

improvement can result from the cumulative impacts of upgraded equipment, tracking, and 

operations management software, maintenance of state of good repair for both equipment and 

track and signaling infrastructure, combined with operations optimization and staff training.

Furthermore, adoption of PTC on shared tracks would afford multiple benefits, including safety, 

mobility and congestion management, as well as fuel savings from improved operations.

It is also apparent that the E2 and E3 technologies and strategies selected and implemented must 

be tailored to the rail industry segment and application needs in order to yield the desired energy 

and environmental benefits and to ensure optimal integration with legacy systems. To achieve 

system-wide E2 and E3 gains, synergistic and parallel changes must be made in equipment, 

operations, infrastructure, and human factors.

FRA does and could continue to serve as a catalyst for and resource on BPs to the rail industry in 

order to accelerate E2 and E3 improvements. An excellent example of a multimodal P3

partnership to enable and advance the national rail system is the American Association of State 

Highway Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail Transportation (SCORT).

165 FRA 

has actively participated in SCORT and its subcommittee on HSR,

166 as well as the PRIIA 

 164 Potential for Energy Efficiency Improvement Beyond the Light-Duty Sector at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/index.html

165 See AASHTO postings at http://rail.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx

166 See http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/default.aspx
72

Section 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee (NGEC).

167 NGEC has reviewed 

locomotive technology options and developed common passenger rail equipment specifications 

for Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool to enable large-scale orders and affordability of

state-of-the-art passenger rail equipment. Specifications were developed for DMUs, EMUs, and 

bi-level coaches that promise fuel-efficiency improvements.

Public-Private-Partnerships (P3) are a promising BP for further improving E2 of rail equipment, 

facilities and operations: FRA could partner with rail E2 stakeholders, including trade 

associations, industry, and Federal (EPA, DOE) and State agencies (NYSERDA, Caltrans). Such 

partnerships could leverage not only funding, but also knowledge: university and business

researchers under an umbrella initiative such as this could inform State and regional 

transportation agencies. It is desirable that an E2 and E3 Strategic Action Plan be outlined and 

evaluated in the framework of the National Rail Plan168. A P3 dedicated to industry-wide Energy 

Efficiency gains could include the FRA, AAR and, AASHTO, and TRB. This plan would 

explicitly address rail system energy efficiency and sustainability goals and constraints, as well 

as ensure that gradual progress is made and measured. Locomotive and railcar fleet renewal with 

new or retrofit campaigns should be carefully evaluated and selected based on the company, 

State, or regional E3 goals. Realistic E2 targets must be defined, based on rail system 

characteristics and on financial, environmental, or infrastructure capacity constraints, and 

progress over time should be monitored using quantifiable metrics. 

Key E2 and E3 Strategic Plan implementation considerations include the following:

• In-service fleet age and performance;

• The state of good repair of equipment, track, and signaling infrastructure;

• Network congestion management and optimal scheduling, driver and asset management

for specific route, loading, and duty-cycle;

• Ability to simultaneously minimize capital and operations and maintenance costs, fuel 

consumption, and emissions;

• Compatibility of new technology tool, equipment, and fuels with the legacy fleet and 

infrastructure;

• Market readiness of new equipment;

• Adoption of proven technologies for operational safety, maintainability, reliability, and 

affordability. 

Based on this study’s findings and BPs illustrated above, tailored E2 and E3 solutions are 

suggested below for each rail industry segment. Recommendations that apply to both FRA and 

the rail industry sector are to:

• Join and actively participate in rail and environmental trade associations, as well as 

interest groups and nonprofits dedicated to sustainable mobility in their committees for 

specific E2 and E3 initiatives. 

• Foster and participate in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of new 

locomotives, alternative fuels, and devices to improve E2 or reduce emissions. An 

 167 See postings at http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx

168 See NR$P and state guidance posted at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0522
73

excellent example is the joint FRA-industry effort to demonstrate, test, and evaluate 

biodiesel (B20 blend) locomotive fuel efficiency, emissions, and engine wear.169

• Publicize E2 and E3 Efforts and Successes of U.S. Railroads: Freight railroads can 

benefit from AAR’s environmental and energy efficiency initiatives and activities.170

AAR lists Environmentally Friendly railroads as a key issue on its legislative agenda and 

publicizes the successful environmental initiatives of its members.171 Recently, AAR 

showcased its carbon calculator at the 2nd annual Sustainability Symposium hosted by NS

and featuring industry E3 BPs.

172

• Participate in International HSR E3 Initiatives: UIC’s annual Sustainability Symposium 

features rail successes in reducing energy consumed and environmental emissions, 

confers Sustainability awards in several categories, and offers information and solutions, 

such as the UIC/Unife NRG project and the 4-year Railenergy modeling and analysis

tools.173

• FRA Leadership in a multiyear E2 and E3 Research, Development, Demonstration, Test 

and Evaluation (RD2T&E) efforts: FRA could initiate a multiyear effort similar to the 

EU’s and the UIC NRG-Railenergy Programme discussed above, which successfully 

focused on energy efficient and environmentally sustainable rail systems and operations 

specific to the U.S. environment. This could be a cost-shared effort with rail trade 

associations (APTA, AAR, AREMA), partner Federal agencies (DOE, EPA), States, 

research organizations (TRB), and leading rail industry stakeholders.

• Join and Implement Climate Mitigation Efforts: Join the nonprofit ClimateCounts.org, as 

Amtrak did, to reduce emissions and modify practices that speed up climate change. 

Amtrak’s ClimateCounts scorecard174 is a model for the industry. FRA could also join 

and present its E3 research accomplishments and R&D plans for emissions reduction and 

climate mitigation projects. The TRB National Cooperative Rail Research Program 

(NCRRP), co-funded by FRA jointly with AAR, APTA, AASHTO, and NARP rail 

passengers, is an excellent showcase opportunity. FRA-funded TRB-IDEA and ITS 

projects that also contribute to E2 and E3 could also be publicized and continued. 

• Commit to Cross-Enterprise Sustainability Best Practice: Passenger railroads could 

subscribe to and implement the APTA Sustainability Commitment.

175 Signatories are 

 169 See M. Shurland presentation at 2012 R&D Review posted at http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L01673

170 See postings at http://www.aar.org/Environment.aspx

171 See http://www.aar.org/KeyIssues.aspx and member initiatives list at http://www.aar.org/Environment/MemberEnvironmental-Initiatives.aspx

172 See story at http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2012/09/27/railroad-sustainability-symposium-highlights-environmentalopportunities-for-rail-sector/

173 See latest at http://www.uic-sustainability.org/spip.php?article80

174 See Amtrak ClimateCounts scorecard at http://climatecounts.org/scorecard_overview.php

175 See postings at http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/sustainability/Pages/default.aspx
74

ranked from entry level to bronze, silver, and gold level for which they must qualify by 

meeting multiple energy and environmental criteria. Attendance at annual APTA 

sustainability workshops for transit and commuter rail also affords valuable peer-to-peer 

information exchanges, and winning the annual Sustainability Award as recognition for 

sustained E3 gains is a great honor (SEPTA won it in 2012).

• Join Rail Industry Trade Associations and Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs):

Active participation and use of other rail and research associations and SDOs (e.g., 

AREMA-American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of way Association, HSRAHigh-Speed Rail Association, and the Society of Automotive Engineers-SAE and IEEE 

Rail committees) to develop standards for emerging technologies and fuels, share BPs,

and learn from peers. A good illustration of this successful strategy is FRA’s E3 program 

managers’ active participation in the SAE TC7 Subcommittee on Biodiesel in Railroad 

Applications, in the Committee on PRIIA Next Generation Equipment, and in the 

AASHTO/SCORT. Joint FRA test and evaluation of biodiesel B20 emissions and 

performance by Amtrak in-service locomotives involved partnering with GE 

Transportation Services, Chevron-Oronite, and OK DOT. 

• Continue Industry Partnerships with State DOT authorities, Federal, regional, and State 

environmental agencies: States in nonconformity or air quality management regions have 

incentive programs to reduce rail equipment emissions. State programs offer co-funding 

opportunities for RD&T, demonstrations, and the deployment of equipment retrofits or 

upgrades and of related alternative fuels and infrastructure E3 improvements. 

5.2 Commuter Railroads

Though FRA monitors the safety of commuter railroads operated by transit authorities, the 

commuter railroads benefit from FTA funding of new starts, or capital improvement programs,

as well as dedicated “green” programs, such as Clean Fuels, TIGGER, and CMAQ Grants, to 

reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency. Applicable and transferrable BPs and success 

stories were discussed above for SEPTA, METRA, LIRR, and other commuter railroads. Several 

new and/or expansion projects for commuter rail (e.g., RailRunner in Albuquerque, NM, 

Orlando’s SunRail, Northern Lights Express, MN, the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) linking 

Dallas to Ft. Worth, TX, and four Colorado and Utah new starts) benefit from available fuel 

efficient equipment. For instance, more than 100 Motive Power (MPXpress) diesel-electric 

commuter locomotives have been delivered or ordered by eight different transit agencies since 

2003, making it the proven and preferred choice for commuter rail agencies. More than 1,100

Bombardier M-7 EMUs were delivered to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and Metro-North for 

use on electrified territory. These new M-7 cars feature state-of-the-art technology, including 

energy efficient IGBT propulsion and dynamic braking and on-board monitoring and diagnostic 

systems. Equipped as married pairs, the M-7 EMUs have stainless steel car-bodies for long life 

and low maintenance. The Bombardier Bi-level coaches, which offer 70 percent more capacity,

are now ordered or in operation in more than a dozen U.S. city railroads, including the Seattle 

Sounder, the Minneapolis–St. Paul Northstar; the Albuquerque New Mexico Rail Runner 

Express, the North San Diego County Coaster, the San Francisco–San Jose Caltrain, the Los 

Angeles Metrolink, and SunRail in Florida.
75

5.3 Freight Rail (Class I-III)

Class I railroads have entered and benefited from State and regional public-private partnerships 

to retrofit or upgrade equipment for emissions reduction, especially in EPA noncompliance 

metropolitan areas. A recent example176 is the partnership of CSX with the Southeast Louisiana 

Clean Fuel Partnership and the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (RPC), which was

partially funded by an EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grant. The effort has

retrofitted an existing locomotive into in a ULEL Genset switcher locomotive for operation in 

the Gentilly Yard in New Orleans. This modification reduced CO2 emissions by 25 percent and 

nitrous oxide and particulates emissions by 80 percent. This is the latest (July 2012) of three

DERA-funded CSX locomotives and more than 30 operating on the CSX network. In 

cooperation with FRA, NS has conducted R&D on a battery-powered locomotive. A yard 

switcher has been evaluated and plans have been made to build a road unit to store and reuse 

braking energy once the battery technology is ready.

State funding and private-public partnerships are essential for short line railroads that operate on 

narrower profit margins and benefit the most from energy saving technologies, but may be 

unable to afford them. A model partnership in New York State was the demonstration and 

implementation of locomotive idle reduction with funding support (loans and subsidies) from 

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and with cost sharing from New West 

Technologies and Power Drives, Inc. The PowerhouseTM Diesel Warming System (DWS) was 

installed on 11 different locomotives utilized by 7 short line railroads operating in New York 

State, with an average system payback of 7 months.177

• By cost sharing in the implementation of clean rail initiatives with Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations, State Transportation Improvement programs, and local/regional or port 

authorities (e.g., CARB, Calstart, Port of Tacoma, Port of Long Beach-Los Angeles),

railroads can afford new equipment or retrofit campaigns to assist local agencies in 

nonconformity metropolitan areas to meet air quality standards for mutual benefit. 

Chapter 2 discussed success stories for BNSF and UPRR railyard emissions reduction 

and locomotive fleet upgrades funded by CARB and Texas incentive programs to comply 

with EPA Tier 4 emission requirements.

• The CARB Carl Moyer178 Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program has 

provided since 2004 grants to Class I–III railroads and heavy duty fleets to reduce air 

pollution emissions. Each CA Air Quality Management region (Bay Area, Sacramento, 

Southern California) offers guidance and funding incentives to reduce switchers and road 

locomotive fuel consumption and emissions for repower or retrofit kits (idle limiters), 

Gensets, or HEP unit purchases. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

has offered since 2000 substantial funding incentives for repowering with heavy duty 

 176 See http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/media/press-releases/csx-and-regional-partners-reduce-emissions-to-help-bring-cleanerair-to-louisiana/

177 See Demonstration of Locomotive Idle Reduction Technology for NYS Short line Railroads

http://www.dieselwarming.com/nyserda/docs/Short%20line%20DWS%20Demonstration%20Project%20Summary%20and%20C

ase%20Studies.pdf

178 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/supplemental-docs.htm
76

clean engines or purchasing new locomotives, both passenger rail and freight fleets, for 

line haul, short line, or switch yard service.179

 179 See http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Internet%20Locomotive%20handout.pdf
77

6. Bibliography

Acevedo, J. C. Martinez, and A. Mascaraque. “Energy Efficiency of Electric Traction Railways 

(ELECRAIL Project).” 2011. JRC2011-56127.

Alexander, Pamela E. Rail Transportation Energy Efficiency-Oriented Technologies. JRC2012-

74130, JRC-2012, Philadelphia, PA. 

“Alternative Fuels.” BNSF Railway. 2012. http://www.bnsf.com/communities/bnsf-and-theenvironment/alternative-fuels/

“Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuels (Docket number EERM-02-200).” Federal Register. February 2005. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-

02-14/pdf/05-2779.pdf

American Public Transportation Association. “The Case for Business Investment in High Speed 

and Intercity Passenger Rail.” February 2011. 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/documents/HSRPub_final.pdf

American Public Transportation Association. “High Speed Rail: On the Move in America.”

2012. http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-On-theMove-in-America.pdf

American Public Transportation Association. “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed 

Rail.” January 2012. 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf

American Public Transportation Association. “Opportunity Cost of Inaction: High Speed Rail 

and High Performance Passenger Rail in the United States.” July 2012. 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HPPR-Cost-ofInaction.pdf

Amtrak. “2010 Environmental Health and Safety Report.” 

http://procurement.amtrak.com/wps/wcm/connect/1d97c70047eeb14f9b2dfffa2cf878f3/A

mtrak_2010_Annual_EHS_Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=1d97c70047eeb1

4f9b2dfffa2cf878f3

Amtrak. “2011 Environmental Health and Safety Report.” 2012. 

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/294/246/Environmental-Health-Safety-Annual-Report2011.pdf 

Amtrak. “Amtrak Goes ‘Green’” Amtrak Ink Apr. 2008: 1-3. 

Amtrak. “Amtrak Means Energy Efficiency.” 2010. 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FL

ayout&cid=1241245661727

Amtrak. “Travel Green with Amtrak.” 2011. http://www.amtrak.com/travel-green-with-amtrak

Amtrak. “Amtrak – Defining Energy Efficiency.” 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=WSArticlePage&pagename=WhistleSt

op%2FWSArticlePage%2FBlank_Template&cid=1153323727125 

“Amtrak Measures Its Carbon Footprint.” 5 Mar. 2012. http://www.mmdnewswire.com/amtrak92860.html

Anderson, E., and P. Lukaszewicz. “Energy Efficiency of High Speed Rail – Will Higher Speed 

Cause Increased Energy Consumption?” 2008. Presentation.

APTA Executive Committee. “High Speed Rail Corridor and Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Principles Task Force: Policy Principles.” May, 2009. 
78

http://www.apta.com/gap/legissues/passengerrail/Documents/APTA_HSR_Policy_Princi

ples.pdf

“APTA: High Speed Rail Plans Taking Shape." Railway Age. 5 Oct. 2010. 6 Oct. 2010. 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/high-speed-rail-plans-taking-shape.html

Arthur, Holly. “The Nation’s Freight Railroads Now Average More Than 480 Ton-miles-pergallon.” 22 April 2010. https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Press-Releases/Pages/2010-

04-21-EarthDay.aspx#.UZu_OLWG2E0

Association of American Railroads. “Energy and Environment.” 2011. 

http://www.aar.org/KeyIssues/Energy-Environment.aspx

“Axion Power PbC Batteries Continue to Demonstrate Effectiveness for Railroad Applications.”

11 January 2013. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axion-powertm-to-workwith-norfolk-southern-on-battery-driven-locomotive-project-95943869.html

Bai, Yun, Baohua Mao, Fangming Zhou, Yong Ding, and Chengbing Dong. "Energy-Efficient 

Driving Strategy for Freight Trains Based on Power Consumption Analysis." Journal of 

Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology 9.3 (2009): 43-

50. Science Direct. 

Barkan, Chris. “Railroad Transportation Energy Efficiency.” 2009. 

http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/20091118.pdf

Belovich, V., Corporan, E., DeWitt, M., Gord, J., Lynch, A., Meyer, T., Pawlik, R. “Emissions 

Characteristics of a Turbine Engine and Research Combuster Burning a Fischer-Tropsch 

Jet Fuel. Energy & Fuels. 21, 2615-2626. 2007.

“Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” March 30, 2011. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

“Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future: One Year Progress Report”, March 2012,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/emailfiles/the_blueprint_for_a_secure_energy_future_oneyear_progress_report.pdf

BNSF Railway. “BNSF 2011 Review.” 2011. http://bnsf.com/about-bnsf/bnsf-review/2011/

“BNSF to test liquefied natural gas on long-haul locomotives.” Progressive Railroading. 7 March 

2013. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=35446

Bombardier. “ALP-45DP Dual-Power Locomotive.” 2012. 

Bombardier Transportation. EnerGstor Wayside Energy Storage. Bombardier Transportation. 3 

Mar. 2011. 

Boozarjomehri, E., E. Morrison, I. Roth, and G. Lovegrove. Moving Away from Diesel and 

Towards All-Electric Locomotives in North America: Planning & Logistics Of UltraCapacitor/Battery Technology. Tech. no. JRC2012-74123. Philadelphia, PA: ASME, 

2012. 

Cabanatuan, Michael. “Caltrain Upgrades a Step Toward High-speed Rail.” SF Gate. San 

Francisco Chronicle, 22 Mar. 2012. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/21/BAPS1NOFAV.DTL

“Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog.” Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog. 4 Apr. 2012. 

http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ “Carbon Disclosure Project.” 2012. 

https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx

“Caltrain kicks off environmental review of electrification project.” 1 February 2013. 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Caltrain-kicks-offenvironmental-review-of-electrification-project--35040
79

Caretto, L., Fritz, S., Hedrick, J., Iden, M., Schmid, L., Stehly, M., Trump, A., Wheeles, D., 

Weldon, S. “An Evaluation of Natural Gas-Fueled Locomotives.” November 2007.

Carpenter, Eric. “Hydrogen-fueled locomotive unveiled.” The Orange County Register. 29 

January 2010. http://www.ocregister.com/news/-231592--.html

Center For Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology. “High Speed Rail and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S.” January 2006. 

http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf

Chan, Michael, and Michael D. Jackson. Evaluation of the Advanced Locomotive Emissions 

Control System (ALECS). Rep. Cupertino: TIAX LLC, 2007.

Cheli, R., G. Grande, R. Giglioli, R. Manigrasso, and G. Pede. Rail-car Hybrid Trains to Reduce 

Fuel Consumption and Emissions. 2006.

Chester, M. and Horvath, A. “Life-cycle Assessment of High Speed Rail: The Case of 

California.” January 2010. Environmental Research Letter. 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014003/

“Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors.” 19 Nov. 

2009.

“Comparing environmental impact of conventional and high speed rail.” NetworkRail. 2009.

Cotey, Angela. “Amtrak, California High Speed Rail Authority partner to buy new trains.”

February 2013. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/article/AmtrakCalifornia-High-Speed-Rail-Authority-partner-to-buy-new-trains--35119

Cotey, Angela. “Florida East Coast Industries to Develop Private Passenger-rail Service.”

Progressive Railroading. 22 Mar. 2012. http://www.progressiverailroading.com 

Cox, Wendell and Joseph Vranich. “The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence 

Report.” September 2008. 

http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf

CSX Corporation Inc. “Environmental Leadership - CSX.” Environmental Leadership - CSX. 

CSX Corporation Inc. 10 Apr. 2012. 

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/responsibility/environmental-leadership/ 

Davis, David D., Semih F. Kalay, Medhi Ahmadian, Christopher P.L. Barkan, and Gary Fry. 

“AAR Affiliated Laboratory Project Summary.” Technology Digest 11-051 (Dec. 2011). 

Deitchman, Roy, Shurland, Melissa, Smith, Wade. “Emissions Testing of An Intercity Passenger 

Locomotive Operating on B20 Biodiesel Fuel.” JRC2012-74061. Philadelphia, PA. 17 

Apr. 2012.

“Demonstration of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Locomotive,” K.S. Hess, Miller et al., Fuel Cell 

Propulsion Institute, paper for APTA 2010 technical forum 8, posted at 

http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2010/Papers/Demonstration-of-a-Hydrogen-FuelCell-Locomotive.pdf

“Diesel Locomotive Technology.” Railway-technical.com. Railway Technical Web Pages. 19 

Jan. 2012. http://www.railway-technical.com/diesel.shtml

DOE/EERE, Potential for Energy Efficiency Improvement Beyond the Light-Duty Sector, Feb. 

2013. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/index.html

ECORailS Guidelines “Energy Efficiency and Environmental Criteria in the Awarding of 

Regional Rail Transport Vehicles and Services; Guidelines for Public Transport 

Administrations in Europe.” 2011. 

http://www.ecorails.eu/media/de/ecorails_guide_english_freigabe_final.pdf
80

“Electric Locomotive.” Toshiba. 2012. 

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/sis/railwaysystem/en/products/locomotive/electric.htm

“Electro-diesel locomotive.” Wikipedia. 24 Apr. 2012.

“EnerGstor Wayside Energy Storage.” Transportation Sustainability Technology. Bombardier. 3 

Mar. 2011. 

“Energy Efficiency Technology for Railways.” 2003. http://www.railwayenergy.org/tfee/index.php

“Energy & Environment.” 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment

“Energy Conservation and Management.” LTK Engineering Services. 11 Apr. 2012. 

http://www.ltk.com/systemsEngineering.aspx?id=486 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Annual Energy Outlook.” 2010. Washington, D.C.

Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), Policy Studies. “Regenerative Braking in 

Trains.” ClimateTechWiki.org. 2006. 12 Jan. 2012. 

http://climatetechwiki.org/technology/regenerative_braking_in_trains

EPA. “Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions.” EPA-420-P-02-

001. Oct. 2002.

EPA. “Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Switch Yard Locomotive Idling 

Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans.” EPA-420-B-09-037. October 2009.

EPA. “Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources.” EPA-420-

R-92-009. December 1992.

EPA. “Technical Highlights.” EPA-420-F-09-025. April 2009.

EPA. “Verified Idling Reduction Technologies.” 30 August 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/technology/idling.htm

Federal Railroad Administration. National Rail Plan. Rep. Federal Railroad Administration, 

Sept. 2010. 16 May 2012.

Federal Transit Administration. “TIGGER: Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy 

Reduction.” July 2011. 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TIGGER_CA_77_0002_LACMTA_r1_w150.pdf

Flyvbjerg, Bent. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press. 

2003.

Foran, Pat. “Builders of Passenger-rail Locomotives, EMUs and DMUs Talk Technology, 

Global Market Trends.” Progressiverailroading.com. Sept. 2009. 18 Jan. 2012. 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/Builders-of-passengerraillocomotives-EMUs-and-DMUs-talk-technology-global-market-trends--21418

“FRA Energy, Environment and Engine Technology (E3) Action Plan,” August 2010

FRA. National Rail Plan Moving Forward: A Progress Report. Rep. FRA, 2010. 

FRA. Next Generation High-Speed Rail Technology Demonstration Program. Rep. FRA. 20 

Dec. 2011.

“Freight as Passenger Rail.” Freight as Passenger Rail’s Worst Enemy Or Something Else? The 

Transport Politic. 22 Sept. 2010. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/06/29/freightas-passenger-rails-worst-enemy-or-something-else/ 

“Freight Trains Double Fuel Efficiency Since 1980.” Gas2.org. 10 Apr. 2012. 

http://gas2.org/?s=Freight+Trains+Double+Fuel+Efficiency+SInce+1980 

Fritz, S. G. “Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel in an EMD GP38-2 Locomotive.” Southwest Research 

Institute. NREL/SR-510-33436. May 2004.
81

“Fuel Efficiency in Transportation.” Wikipedia. 12 Jan. 2012. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

GE. “Evolution Hybrid Locomotive.” 2012. http://ge.ecomagination.com/

GE. GE Transportation. GE Transportation Announces New $100 Million Battery Manufacturing 

Facility to Advance Hybrid Technologies. 12 May 2009. Press Release.

“GE and TÜLOMSAŞ Showcase First PowerHaul® Locomotive Assembled in Turkey.”

GEtransportation.com. GE, 28 Feb. 2011. 20 Dec. 2011. 

http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-blog/ge-and-tuelomsa-showcase-firstpowerhaulr-locomotive-assembled-in-turkey.html

“GE celebrates premiere of Powerhaul locomotive.” RAIL EXPRESS. 22 Dec. 2010. 

http://railexpress.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/ge-celebrates-premiere-of-powerhaul-loco/ 

“GE Evolution Series.” Wikipedia. 24 Apr. 2012. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GE_Evolution_Series&oldid=491858954

“GE Transportation Touts Trip Optimizer.” Railway Age. Oct 2010. 

www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/ge-transportation-touts-trip-optimizer.html

Garcia, A.A. “High Speed, Energy Consumption and Emissions, International Union of Railways 

(UIC), Paris, 21 Dec. 2010.

Grbenick, Mara. “High-speed rail still a dream in US.” 22 May 2012. 

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/05/22/High-speed-rail-stilla-dream-in-US/UPI-19121337682600/

Gunselmann, W. “Analysis of Energy Efficiency in Railway Systems.” 2006. 

http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/22Analysis_of_Energy_efficiency_in_railways_systems_W

GUNSELMANN.pdf

Herbst, John. “Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System.” Center for Transportation and the 

Environment. http://www.cte.tv/darpa/alps.pdf

“High Speed Train, Flight Rail Corp. – VECTORR VAC TRAC Technology.” High Speed 

Train, Flight Rail Corp. 30 Sept. 2010. http://www.flightrail.com/vactractechnology.html 

“High-speed Railroading.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 July 2010. 22 Sept. 

2010. http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

Humann, David and Slezak, Lee. “Auxiliary Power Unit Cuts Emissions, Fuel Use in Railroad 

Locomotives.” U.S. Department of Energy. January 2006. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/success/locomotive_apu.pdf

“Hybrid Electric Locomotives Will Utilize 514 Megawatt Hours of Battery Capacity by 2020.”

Pikeresearch.com. 9 Aug. 2011. 20 Dec. 2011. 

http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/hybrid-electric-locomotives-will-utilize-514-

megawatt-hours-of-battery-capacity-by-2020

“Hybrid Locomotive.” Toshiba. 2012. 

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/sis/railwaysystem/en/products/locomotive/hybrid.htm

Hybrid Locomotives. Rep. Pike Research, 2012. 24 Apr. 2012. 

www.pikeresearch.com/research/hybrid-locomotives

“Hybrid Update: Is Full Electric in Our Future?” 1 June 2012. Mass Transit. 

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10715700/hybrid-update-is-full-electric-in-ourfuture

ICF International. Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive 

Corridors. Tech. Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2009, posted at 
82

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/31000/31800/31897/Comparative_Evaluation_Rail_Truck_Fuel_Effi

ciency.pdf

“IEC/TS 62597.” Message to Aviva Brecher. 11 Jan. 2012. E-mail. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” 2007.

“International Hydrail Conference 2012.” 2012. http://hydrail.org/

“JR East Demonstrates World’s First Commuter Hydrogen Train.” Hydrogen Fuel Cars and 

Vehicles. 25 October 2006. 

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrail/jr-east-demonstrates-worldsfirst-commuter-hydrogen-train/

Kageson, Per. “Environmental Aspects of Inter-City Passenger Transport.” December 2009. 

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200928.pdf

King, Robert D. “DOE Heavy Vehicle Systems Optimization.” 21st Century Locomotive 

Technology (locomotive System Tasks) (2006).

Lionginas Liudvinavičius and Leonas Povilas Lingaitis “Management of Locomotive Tractive 

Energy Resources, Energy Management Systems.” ISBN: 978-953-307-579-2, InTech, 

2011. http://www.intechopen.com/books/energy-management-systems/management-oflocomotive-tractive-energy-resources

Louis, Julie St. “Alaska Railroad Tapping into Wind and Solar Power: New Technology Being 

Utilized on Turnagain Arm.” Turnagain Times. 17 Apr. 2008. 4 Jan. 2012. 

http://www.turnagaintimes.com/current%20issue/4-17-08/solarwind.html

Mandelbaum, Robb. “Stop That Train!” IEEE Spectrum. Mar. 2009. 17 Jan. 2012. 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/mass-transit/stop-that-train

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. Case Studies of the Use of Exhaust Emission 

Controls on Locomotives and Large Marine Disel Engine. Rep. Washington, DC: 

MECA, 2009. 

Marchetti, Nino. “Biofuel Steam Locomotive Tomorrow’s Cleaner Mass Transit?” May 2012. 

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/63647-biofuel-steam-locomotivetomorrow-s-cleaner-mass-transit

Meinert, M. New Mobile Energy Storage System for Rolling Stock. Tech. Erlangen, Germany: 

Siemens AG, 2009. 

Mercado, Anthony. “Optimizing the Future Railway. 28 March, 2007. Systems Interface 

Committee (SIC) on Vehicle/Traction Supply (V/TS).

Midwest High Speed Rail Association. “Fact vs. Fiction.” Midwest High Speed Rail Association. 

16 Apr. 2012. http://midwesthsr.org/fact-vs-fiction 

Miller, Arnold. “Projects – Fuelcell-Hybrid Shunt Locomotive.” 18 March 2010. 

http://www.fuelcellpropulsion.org/projects.html

Miller, Arnold. “Operation of a Fuelcell-Hybrid Switch Locomotive in the Los Angeles Basin.”

Presentation. 29 September 2009. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009-ALT1/documents/2009-09-29_workshop/presentations/Vehicle_Projects_presentation.pdf

Miller, Arnold R., John Peters, Brian E. Smith, and Omourtag A. Velev. “Analysis of Fuel Cell 

Hybrid Locomotives.” Journal of Power Sources 3rd ser. 157.2 (2006): 855-61. 

Sciencedirect.com. 3 Feb. 2006. 20 Dec. 2011. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775305016915

Miller, A., K. Hess, D. Barnes, and T. Erickson. “System design of a large fuel cell hybrid 

locomotive.” 2007. 
83

http://www.vehicleprojects.com/docs/System%20design_Manuscript%20_06%20Sep%2

007_.pdf

“MTU Launches Green Diesel Engines.” International Rail Journal. 23 Sept. 2010. 

Nagode, C., M. Ahmadian, and S. Taheri. Axle Generator For Freight Car Electric Systems. 

Tech. no. JRC2012-74069. Philadelphia, PA: ASME, 2012. 

National Railway Equipment Co. “The N-ViroMotive – The Green, Fuel Efficient Locomotive 

for Passenger, Mainline Freight and Yard Operations.” Nationalrailway.com. Locomotive 

National Railway News 18 Jan. 2012. http://www.nationalrailway.com/nviro.asp

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). “Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide.” Golden, 

CO.

“NJT/AMT Dual-power Prototype Spotlighted at InnoTrans.” Railway Age. 5 Oct. 2010. 6 Oct. 

2010.

Norfolk Southern. “2011 Sustainability Report.” 2011. 

http://nssustainability.com/images/uploads/pdfs/ns-sustainability-report-2011.pdf

Norfolk Southern. “Batteries Are Included.” 2009. www.nscorp.com/

“The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan.” The NEC Master Plan Working Group. 

May 2010. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-InfrastructureMaster-Plan.pdf

NREL/DOE “Potential for Energy Efficiency Improvement Beyond the Light-Duty Sector”, Feb. 

2013, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/index.html

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Transportation Energy Data Book: 28th Edition. Table 2.12.

ORNL Transportation Energy Data Book. 30th Edition. July 2011. 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

Peck, Steven M. Technical Oversight of Amtrak’s Capital Improvement Programs. U.S.

DOT/Federal Railroad Administration. 

Perry, Mark J. “CARPE DIEM: Rail Freight Fuel Efficiency Has Doubled Since 1980.” Weblog 

post. : Rail Freight Fuel Efficiency Has Doubled Since 1980. 10 Apr. 2012. 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/05/rail-freight-fuel-efficency-has-doubled.html 

Petersen, John. “Batter-Powered Locomotives: Compellingly Green Economics.” 29 April 2012. 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/540501-battery-powered-locomotives-compellinglygreen-economics

Pletz, John. “Japanese manufacturer to open factory, hire workers for Metra production.” 27 

March 2012. 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120327/NEWS05/120329821/japanesemanufacturer-to-open-factory-hire-workers-for-metra

Pletz, John. “Nippon Sharyo to build high-speed rail cars at Rochelle factory.” 27 September 

2012. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120927/NEWS10/120929802/nipponsharyo-to-build-high-speed-rail-cars-at-rochelle-factory

“President Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and 

Emissions Standards for Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks.” 2010. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administrationcreate-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em

“President’s National Energy Policy; Republicans Object.” ENewsUSA. Waste Information & 

Management Services, 30 Mar. 2011. http://enewsusa.blogspot.com/2011/03/presidentsnational-energy-policy.html
84

Public Transportation Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Conserves Energy. Rep. American Public 

Transportation Association, Feb. 2008. Feb. 2008. 

“Railenergy: Innovative Integrated Energy Efficiency Solutions for Railway Rolling Stock, Rail 

Infrastructure and Train Operation.” 20 February 2012. 

www.ec.europa.eu/research/transport/projects/items/railenergy_en.htm

“Rail Transport and Environment Facts and Figures.” 2008. 

http://www.uic.org/homepage/FactandFig%2011-08.pdf

Railway Age, Oct. 31, 2011, “The Power of Green.”

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/the-power-ofgreen.html#.T-G3srWe7Po

“Railways and the Environment – Building on the Railways’ Environmental Strengths.” 2009. 

http://www.uic.org/homepage/railways_and_the_environment09.pdf

Raygorodskaya, Polina. “A Talk With Roy Deitchman, Environmental Health and Safety VP at 

Amtrak.” 7 Dec. 2011. http://greenxc.com/talk-roy-deitchman-environmental-healthsafety-vp-amtrak/

“Relationship Between Rail Service Operating Direct Costs and Speeds.” Dec. 2010. 

http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/report_costshs.pdf

“Research: Airliners Can Be More Eco-friendly than Trains.” The Register. 10 Oct. 2010. 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/08/airliners_greener_than_trains/ 

Research Results: “Locomotive Exhaust Emissions.” Issue brief no. RR 09-18. Federal Railroad 

Administration, Sept. 2009. 

Roy, B., P. Windover, L. Panzica, K. O'Neal, J. Tario, and J. English. Real-World Benefits of the 

Diesel Warming System For Short Line Locomotives. Tech. no. JRC2012-74052. 

Philadelphia, PA: ASME, 2012. 

“RSSB Vehicle/Train Energy.” 2012. www.rssb.co.uk/groups/SIC/VTEnergy/Pages/default.aspx

Schroeder, M. “Guiding the Selection and Application of Wayside Energy Storage Technologies 

for Rail Transit and Electric Utilities.” TCRP Report. 2010.

Sease, Gary. “CSX and Regional Partners Reduce Emissions to Help Bring Cleaner Air to 

Louisiana.” 9 July 2012. http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/media/press-releases/csx-andregional-partners-reduce-emissions-to-help-bring-cleaner-air-to-louisiana/

SEPTA. “SEPTA Successful in 2011 Grant Competitions.” 23 November 2011. 

http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/11-23.html

SEPTA. “SEPTA – Viridity Energy Pilot Project for Optimization and Incorporation of Wayside 

Energy Storage Device: Frequently Asked Questions.” October 2010. 

http://www.septa.org/sustain/pdf/viridity-faq.pdf

SEPTA. “Wayside Energy Storage Project – Progress Update.” 15 July 2011. 

http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/07-15.html

Shimada, Motomi, Ryoichi Oishi, Daijiro Araki, and Yasushi Nakamura. Energy Storage System 

for Effective Use of Regenerative Energy in Electrified Railways. Rep. Hitachi, 2010. 

Shurland, Melissa, Roy Deitchman, and Wade Smith. Emissions Testing of an Intercity 

Passenger Locomotive Operating on B20 Biodiesel Fuel. Tech. no. JRC2012-74061. 

Philadelphia, PA: ASME, 2012. 

Siuru, Bill. “Stationary System Designed to Reduce Rail and Port Emissions.”

Advancedcleanup.com. Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc., 2006. 20 Dec. 2011. 

http://www.advancedcleanup.com/index.php?article=16
85

“SmartWay Technology Program.” U.S. EPA. 26 Sept. 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/technology/idling.htm

Stagl, Jeff. “Class Is Employ Fuel-Saving Practices that Promise Stingier Diesel Usage.”

Progressive Railroading. March 2010. 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/Class-Is-employ-fuelsavingpractices-that-promise-stingier-diesel-usage--22736#.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “What is the Texas Emission Reduction Plan 

(TERP)?” October 2010. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/terp/program_info.html/

“TGVweb - Acela Express.” TrainWeb.org. 22 Sept. 2010. 

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html

Tolliver, D; Lu, P; and Benson, D. “Analysis of Railroad Energy Efficiency in the United 

States.” MPC Report No. 13-250. May 2013. http://www.mountainplains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC13-250.pdf

“Tracking High-Speed Rail's Energy Use and Emissions.” UC Berkeley Institute of 

Transportation Studies. Mar.-Apr. 2010. 6 Mar. 2012. 

http://its.berkeley.edu/btl/2010/spring/HRS-life-cycle

“Traction Energy Metrics.” December 2007. 

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T618_tractionenergy-metrics_final.pdf

Transportation Energy Data Book. 2012.

TRB/NCHRP Report 657. “Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared 

Passenger and Freight Corridors.” 2010. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_657.pdf

UIC. “HyRail: Hydrogen Railway Applications International Lighthouse.”

http://www.hyrail.eu/pages/introduction.html

UNIFE. “RailEnergy.” 2006. http://www.railenergy.org/

U.S. DOE/USDA. “Biodiesel Lifecycle Inventory Study.” 2007. Washington, D.C.

U.S. DOT, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. “Achieving Energy Independence: 

The U.S. Transportation System in the Age of Rising Oil Prices and Supply Disruptions.” 

2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on 

Exhaust Emissions.” http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf

Voegele, Erin. “Steaming ahead to a Better Fuel.” June 14, 2011. 

http://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/7859/steaming-ahead-to-a-better-fuel

Wall, Richard W., and Brian K. Johnson. Regenerative Train Control Networks. Tech. Moscow, 

ID: University of Idaho, 2002. 

Walsh, Bryan. “Can High Speed Rail Succeed in America?” Time. 6 Apr. 2012. 

http://time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1957575,00.html 

Walton, Rod. “Dynamic Fuel Signs on Norfolk Southern.” February 15, 2012. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20120215_49_

E1_Tulsab667660

“Wayside and On-board Storage Can Capture More Regenerated Energy.” Railway Gazette 

International. 02 July 2007. http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/singleview/view/wayside-and-on-board-storage-can-capture-more-regeneratedenergy/browse/1.html 
86

“Welcome to the FastLane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.” DOT 

Awards $2.4 Billion to Continue Developing 21st Century High-speed Passenger Rail 

Corridors. U.S. Department of Transportation, 28 Oct. 2010. 11 Feb. 2010.

“While Car MPG Stagnated, Freight Train Fuel Efficiency Went Up 104% Since 1980!”

TreeHugger. 10 Apr. 2012. http://www.treehugger.com/cars/while-car-mpg-stagnatedfreight-train-fuel-efficiency-went-up-104-since-1980.html 

Wiebe, Enno. “The HyRail Project.” www.tecrec-rail.org
87

Appendix 1: List of Rail Contacts

Amtrak 

Ray Verhelle, Director of Electric Traction

Office: 215-349-1907

Cell: 215-240-5428

verrelr@amtrak.com

William Fuller, Director of Conversion Facilities

Office: 215-349-3114

Cell: 267-228-7764

fullerw@amtrak.com

James Candlish, Deputy Division Engineer

Cell: 401-265-9188

candlij@amtrak.com

Peter Finch, Project Director – Bridges – Northeast Division

Cell: 860-234-9209

finchp@amtrak.com

Roy Deitchman, VP Environmental Health & Safety

Office: 202-906-3278

deitchr@amtrak.com

Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS)

Gibson Barbee, Environmental Protection Department

Office: 540-981-5185

gvbarbee@nscorp.com

Blair Wimbush, Corporate Sustainability Officer

Office: 757-629-2656

blair.wimbush@nscorp.com

BNSF Railway Company

Patrick Whelan, Director of Mechanical Engineering

Office: 817-352-1469

Patrick.Whelan@bnsf.com

David Seep

Office: 817-352-1907
88

Cell: 785-213-1704

David.Seep@bnsf.com

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)

Mike Iden

Office: 708-649-5899

Cell: 708-860-0786

Meiden@up.com

Caltrain

April Maguigad, Manager – Commuter Rail

Office: 650-508-7701

Cell: 650-339-1908

maguigada@samtrans.com

Long Island Railroad

Rod Brooks, Chief Transportation Officer

Office: 718-558-8255

Cell: 516-779-5556

jrbrooks@lirr.org

Maryland Area Rail Commuter

John Hovatter, Director of MARC Trains & Commuter Bus

Office: 410-454-7265

Cell: 410-245-8212

jhovatter1@mta.maryland.gov

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Steve Mudge, Director of Railroad Operations

Office: 617-222-3440

Cell: 617-293-9238

smudge@mbta.com
89

METRA

Don Orseno, Chief Transportation Officer

Office: 312-322-2810

Cell: 312-907-5260

dorseno@metrarr.com

Metrolink

Dennis Marzec, Chief Operating Officer

Office: 909-392-8401

Cell: 213-718-0124

marzecd@scraa.net

Metro-North

Robert Lieblong, Senior Vice President Operations

Office: 212-499-4300

Cell: 914-282-6000

lieblong@mnr.org

New Jersey Transit

Kevin O’Connor, Vice President and GM of Rail Operations

Office: 973-491-7912

Cell: 973-224-0084

koconnor@njtransit.com

SEPTA

Jim Foley, Chief Rail Transportation Officer

Office: 215-580-7655

Cell: 215-964-4560

jfoley@septa.org

Jim Fox, Director of System Safety and Risk Management

1234 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215-580-7064

jfox@septa.org
90

California Short Line Railroad Association

Ken Beard, President

PO Box 3106

Modesto, CA 95353

209-524-4631

Green Trade Associations and Partnerships

Patrick Kerr, Director Government Affairs – RailAmerica

4462 Calumet Way

Eugene, OR 97404

541-525-2087

Patrick.kerr@railamerica.com

GE Ecoimagination Hybrid Locomotive Project

Lembit Salasoo, Project Manager 

Paul Houpt, Principal Investigator

Robert D. King P.E., Principal Investigator

GE Global Research

Todd Alhart, Communications and Public Relations

Niskayuna, NY

518-387-7914

alhart@research.ge.com 

SwRI Locomotive Testing Center and Emissions Database

Dustin Osborne

(210) 522-4243 

dustin.osborne@swri.org

Chris Sharp

(210) 522-2661

chris.sharp@swri.org
91

Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Informational Calls to Subject Matter 

Experts (SMEs)

I. General and Background Information

• Introduce ourselves (name, Volpe Center) and our FRA study objectives: to obtain 

information from RR experts and program managers on BPs, success stories and 

initiatives underway to improve Railroad E3 performance

• Ask the SME for his/her name, affiliation and role: ask if the SME is willing to spare 15 

minutes and share insights? (if now is not a good time, when?)

• Pledge to:

o Protect full confidentiality for the SME’s inputs 

o Ask for preference for oral or email inputs

o Promise no identification by name of the company/person if so desired

o Promise to share study findings when completed 

II. Tailored questions regarding E2 improvement initiatives

• Ask the SME to share specific initiatives, with associated cost, timetable, metrics and 

success, focusing on:

o Engine and Equipment technology selected and implemented, e.g.:

 Repowering of existing switcher and long-haul locomotive fleet

 New acquisitions, fleet renewal rate, number, compliance with EPA Tier 

II or higher

 If new, which type was the greenest and most cost-effective locomotive? 

How well did it perform?

o Alt fuels (biodiesel? Blends? Other: fuel cells? LNG/LPG? Electricity for 

commuter and passenger RRs?)

o Software Tools for optimal operations and logistics/route and fuel burning 

savings?

o Staff training programs needed (depot maintenance and cab engineers)

o Open ended: any other E2 or E3 topics and insights the SME would like to share, 

any news item or article he/she would like to email us?
92

Appendix 3: Energy Unit Conversions 

= 778.2 ft-lb = 3412 Btua

= 107.6 kg-m = 2.655 x 106

 ft-lb

= 1055 J = 3.671 x 105

 kg-m

= 39.30 x 10-5 hp-h = 3.600 x 106 J

= 39.85 x 10-5 metric hp-h = 1.341 hp-h

= 29.31 x 10-5 kWhr = 1.360 metric hp-h

= 92.95 x 10-4 Btu = 94.78 x 10-5 Btu

= 7.233 ft-lb = 0.7376 ft-lb

= 9.806 J = 0.1020 kg-m

= 36.53 x 10-7 hp-h = 37.25 x 10-8 hp-h

= 37.04 x 10-7 metric hp-h = 37.77 x 10-8 metric hp-h

= 27.24 x 10-7 kWhr = 27.78 x 10-8 kWhr

= 2544 Btu = 2510 Btu

= 1.98 x 106 ft-lb = 1.953 x 106 ft-lb

= 2.738 x 106 kgm = 27.00 x 104 kg-m

= 2.685 x 106 J = 2.648 x 106 J

= 1.014 metric hp-h = 0.9863 hp-h

= 0.7475 kWhr = 0.7355 kWhr

a

This figure does not take into account the fact that electricity generation and distribution efficiency is 

approximately 33%. If generation and distribution efficiency are taken into account, 1 kWhr = 10,339 

Btu.

1 Btu 1 kWhr

1 kg-m 1 Joule

1 hp-h 1 metric hp-h
93

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AAR Association of American Railroads

AESS Automatic Engine Stop Start

APTA American Public Transportation Association

APU Auxiliary Power Unit

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation

ASLRRA American Short Line Regional Railroads Association

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BP Best Practice

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics, part of the DOT Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

CARB California Air Resources Board

CEM Crash Energy Management

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CP Canadian Pacific Railway Company

CSLRA California Short Line Railroad Association

CSR Coalition for Sustainable Rail

CTA Chicago Transit Authority

DCTA Denton County Transportation Authority

DMU Diesel Multiple Units

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalysts

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter

DWS Diesel Warming System

E2 Energy Efficiency

E3 Energy, Environment, and Engine FRA research program
94

ECP Electronically Controlled Pneumatic

EDF Environmental Defense Fund

EDLC Electric Double Layer Capacitors

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

EJR East Japan Railway

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EMD Electro Motive Diesel

EMS Environmental Management System

EMU Electric Multiple Units

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ERAD Event Recorder Automated Download

ESD Energy Storage Devices

EU European Union

FE Fuel Efficiency

FESS Flywheel Energy Storage System 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

GE General Electric

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

GS Generator Set

HEP Head End Power

HPDI High Pressure Direct Injection

HrSR Higher Speed Rail

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR High-Speed Rail

HVAC Heat, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IRP Idle Reduction Program
95

KESS Kinetic Energy Storage System

LEADER Locomotive Engineer Assist Display and Event Recorder

LED Light Emitting Diodes

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LIRR Long Island Railroad

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LPDI Low Pressure Direct Injection

LRV Light Rail Vehicle

MARC Maryland Area Regional Commuter 

MBCR Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

METC Modesto & Empire Traction Company

MNR Metro-North Railroad

NEC Northeast Corridor

NJT New Jersey Transit

NREC National Railway Equipment Company

NRP National Rail Plan

NS Norfolk Southern

NYPA New York Power Authority 

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

OCS Overhead Catenary System

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P3 Public-Private Partnership

PEDA Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority

PIT Process Improvement Team 

PM Particulate Matter

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

PRS Progress Rail Services

PTC Positive Train Control

RESS Rechargeable Energy Storage System

ROW Right-of-Way
96

RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board

RTRI Rail Technology Research Institute

SCR Silicon-Controlled Rectifier

SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority

SCS Shore Connection Systems

SEPTA South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

SME Subject Matter Expert

SRI Sustainable Rail International 

SWRI Southwest Research Institute

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

TERP Texas Emissions Reduction Plan

TIGGER Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction 

TOR Top-of-Rail

TPA Tons-per-equivalent-Powered Axle

TPSS Traction Power Substation

TRB Transportation Review Board

UCDL Ultra Clean Diesel Locomotive

UIC International Union of Railways

ULEL Ultra-Low Emissions Locomotive

UNIFE Association of the European Rail Industry

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

VRE Virginia Railway Express

WERIS Wireless Event Recorder Information Systems

WESS Wayside Energy Storage System