UNITED States president Donald Trump’s pledge to “drill, baby, drill” in his inaugural address on January 20, and the immediate withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement during his first day in office, was another setback to global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and limit catastrophic climate change.
Trump’s abdication of US leadership on this essential issue is hardly surprising. The president is inherently driven by short-term domestic political and economic gain. Indeed, the US Class 1 railways could be among the immediate beneficiaries of a surge in oil and natural gas production in the continental United States, as they were during the fracking boom of the early 2010s.
Those same railways were also buoyed by the announcement by the California Air Resources Board (Carb) in January that it has halted the process to seek approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its controversial In-Use Locomotive Regulation. The regulation would have banned the operation of any diesel locomotive that is 23 years or older in California from 2030, potentially limiting the use of a fleet of more than 25,000 units, a prospect the rail sector lobbied hard against.
The proposed regulation was also applicable to passenger locomotives. As we reported last summer, the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has embraced the challenge of finding alternatives to diesel, including by developing one of the world’s most ambitious hydrogen rolling stock strategies.
Caltrans appears to be staying the course. The agency told me that Carb’s decision will “have no impact” on zero-emission rolling stock procurement or its zero-emissions strategy for inter-city rail. It adds that its recently updated State Rail Plan includes a stronger commitment to reaching its goal. “We will continue to pursue hydrogen and battery technologies to achieve zero emissions in the near term and in corridors where catenary electrification isn’t economically justified,” Caltrans says.
While Trump’s stance is undoubtedly a setback, the issue of climate change will outlive the next four years, meaning that something resembling Carb’s policy is very likely to return. Governments around the world are also expected to pursue similar regulations to limit the use of diesel and other fossil fuels in the coming years. After all, the longer they fail to adequately address climate change, the more drastic, and desperate, the required response will become.
While Trump’s stance is undoubtedly a setback, the issue of climate change will outlive the next four years.
Rail is only responsible for a fraction of global emissions, but is unlikely to be exempt from such regulations. The pursuit of long-term sustainability and decarbonisation strategies by agencies like Carb and the 40 signatories of the International Union of Railways’ (UIC) Railway Climate Responsibility Pledge is therefore entirely justified. Yet, the path to achieving net-zero emissions from operations is far from clear.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR), which represents the Class 1s, along with the American Shortline and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), did not base its opposition to Carb’s proposed regulation solely on short to medium-term economics. They argued that the current technological limitations of alternative traction technology mean that their members, while committed to reducing emissions, are unable to adopt it at the scale required by the deadlines of the proposed regulation. And they do have a point. No alternative traction technology, whether it is hydrogen or battery, or a combination of the two, has yet been proven to offer comparable power output and fuel efficiency with diesel.
The limitations of current hydrogen fuel cell technology became strikingly apparent with the recent withdrawal of the fleet of 18 Coradia iLint multiple-units built by Alstom for regional operation in Germany. Rhine-Main Transport Authority (RMV), which manages the Taunus network in Hesse, cited “repeated technical issues” with the hydrogen fuel cells fitted to the iLints, which have been replaced with a fleet of DMUs.
Setbacks like this are inevitable for first adopters of such a revolutionary technology as hydrogen traction. The competitiveness of hydrogen as an alternative to diesel for rail is also currently hampered by cost and the lack of sufficient infrastructure to deliver and store fuel, as the FCH2Rail research project clearly demonstrates. However, rather than making the case for abandoning hydrogen, these issues should serve as motivation to improve cost-effectiveness. A study published by PwC in 2024 says that demand for green hydrogen produced using renewables is likely to surge after 2035 when the technology has matured.
The rail industry should continue to position itself to be part of this development, rather than having to play catch-up when the pressure to meet strict sustainability regulations intensifies.
Encouragingly, rail appears to be embracing the challenge. The hydrogen internal combustion engine developed by Deutz of Germany and fitted to the RS Zero hydrogen-battery train built by Stadler is one of the more interesting recent developments, offering an alternative to the fuel cell.
Alstom for its part says it is working with its fuel cell supplier Cummins to develop a second-generation fuel cell for its passenger trains. Batteries are likewise very much on the agenda, with the range and power output continuing to improve viability, as ABB reveals. The Class 1s are also participating in ambitious alternative traction trials. As well as hydrogen and battery-powered locomotives, they are also experimenting with synthetic fuels as an alternative to diesel.
The variety of these projects shows that rail remains in the early stages of its journey to introduce alternative traction
at the expense of diesel. Electrification will always be the preferred solution. But in circumstances where it is not viable, hydrogen, batteries and other forms of alternative traction are, and will remain, very much part of the industry’s long-term future.
