ATTACHMENT B

ZERO EMISSIONS
TECHNICAL
ANALYSIS
prepared for: Metrolink
prepared by: Hatch LTK, STV Inc.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

JUNE 2023
 1. INTRODUCTION

2. PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK

•2
 .0 TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY AND POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

• 2.1 SYSTEM EFFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

• 2.2 GHG EMISSIONS (WELL-TO-WHEEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

• 2.3 RANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 2.4 CHARGE/REFUEL TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

• 2.5 REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

• 2.6 HARDWARE/CONTROL SOFTWARE COMPLEXITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

• 2.7 TECHNOLOGY MATURITY AND FUTURE POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

• 2.8 TECHNOLOGY COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

• 2.9 MEETING METROLINK’S OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

•2
 .10 POTENTIAL OF HYBRID IMPLEMENTATION WITH OTHER
PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

• 2.11 COMPLETED AND IN-PROCESS ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT

RAIL PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

• 2.12 SUMMARY, STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES, SWOT ANALYSIS,

AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

• 2.13 ALTERNATIVES TO BATTERY ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL BATTERY

HYBRID PROPULSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. V
 EHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT
• 3.1 REBUILT LOCOMOTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

• 3.2 NEW LOCOMOTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

• 3.3 RAIL MULTIPLE UNIT (RMU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

• 3.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

• 3.5 FINANCIAL BENCHMARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 4. FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT
• 4.1 PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

• 4.2 FINDINGS FOR ZERO EMISSIONS VEHICLE PILOT ON THE

ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

• 4.3 SUMMARY OF BENCHMARK RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5. ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT

• 5.1 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 5.2 ZERO EMISSIONS DEMONSTRATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

• 5.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

• 5.4 REQUIRED FACILITY MODIFICATIONS AND TIMELINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

• 5.5 REGULATORY PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

• 5.6 CONCERNS AND COMMENTS OF CLASS I RAILROADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

• 5.7 SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR PILOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES
 FIGURES
FIGURE 1: ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE ROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIGURE 2: THE PURPOSE OF THE ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. . . . . . 2
FIGURE 3: BATTERY ELECTRIC PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FIGURE 4: FUEL CELL BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FIGURE 5: SYSTEM EFFICIENCY (ENERGY SOURCE TO TRACTION MOTOR
INVERTER) COMPARISON OF BATTERY ELECTRIC PROPULSION AND
FUEL CELL BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FIGURE 6: AVERAGE CO2 EMISSIONS PER 100 KWH TRACTION
ENERGY CONSUMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FIGURE 7: WAYSIDE CHARGING STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FIGURE 8: HYDROGEN SUPPLY OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FIGURE 9: TYPICAL HYDROGEN DISPENSING UNIT (BUS EXAMPLE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FIGURE 10: HYDROGEN ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FIGURE 11: CONTAINERIZED POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE (PEM)
ELECTROLYZER SOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FIGURE 12: CONCEPT LAYOUT FOR A 10 MW PEM ELECTROLYZER PLANT
(RHEINE, GERMANY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FIGURE 13: WABTEC BATTERY ELECTRIC FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FIGURE 14: SBCTA STADLER ZERO EMISSIONS MULTIPLE UNIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FIGURE 15: ALSTOM CORADIA ILINT TRAINSET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FIGURE 16: BATTERY ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT ECV-E801 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FIGURE 17: POSSIBLE ZERO EMISSIONS FLEET SOLUTIONS WITH
UNKNOWN AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FIGURE 18: SEATING CAPACITY COMPARISON BETWEEN TRAIN TYPES . . . . . . . . 22
FIGURE 19: TRAIN WEIGHT PER PASSENGER FOR DIFFERENT
LOCOMOTIVE BASED CONSISTS AND RMUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FIGURE 20: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF SHUNTING ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FIGURE 21: EXAMPLE OF RAIL SCRUBBING EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FIGURE 22: MINI-HIGH PLATFORM DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
(METROLINK STANDARDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FIGURE 23: EXAMPLE OF MINI-HIGH RAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FIGURES

FIGURE 24: BOARDING LIFT MECHANISM FULLY DEPLOYED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

FIGURE 25: BOARDING LIFT MECHANISMS IN DOOR ENTRANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
FIGURE 26: GAUNTLET TRACK AT SMART AIRPORT STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
FIGURE 27: OVERVIEW OF CENTRAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
FIGURE 28: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP INTERIOR VIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FIGURE 29: TYPICAL HYDROGEN DETECTION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FIGURE 30: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP, WITH DROP TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
FIGURE 31: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP, WITH DROP TABLE
HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FIGURE 32: EMU RAISED ON SYNCHRONIZED JACKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FIGURE 33: CMF CAR SHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
FIGURE 34: CMF CAR SHOP LAYOUT WITH RMU LENGTH OVERLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FIGURE 35: CMF PROGRESSIVE TRACKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FIGURE 36: MILESTONE PROJECTIONS FROM METROLINK FLEET
MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 TABLES
TABLE 1: OPTIONS FOR THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
TABLE 2: ESTIMATED VEHICLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF RAIL VEHICLE PILOT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
TABLE 4: BENCHMARK BETWEEN BATTERY ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL
BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TABLE 5: SWOT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
TABLE 6: SWOT ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CELL PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLE 7: REBUILT LOCOMOTIVE WITH BATTERY AND FUEL CELL
PROPULSION PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TABLE 8: REBUILT LOCOMOTIVE FACILITY COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 9: LIFE CYCLE COST FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 10: NEW LOCOMOTIVE WITH BATTERY AND FUEL CELL
PROPULSIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 11: NEW LOCOMOTIVE FACILITY ESTIMATED COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
TABLE 12: ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST OF NEW LOCOMOTIVES FOR PILOT
IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
TABLE 13: RMU WITH BATTERY ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL BATTERY
HYBRID PROPULSIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
TABLE 14: FACILITY COST OF RMU (PILOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
TABLE 15: ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST OF RMUS FOR PILOT
IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
TABLE 16: RANGE COMPARISON OF LOCOMOTIVE-HAULED TRAINS
AND RMUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE 17: PREDICTED FREIGHT TRAFFIC 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TABLE 18: ESTIMATED SHUNTING MITIGATION PREVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TABLE 19: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS -
OPTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
TABLE 20: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS -
OPTION 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TABLE 21: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS -
OPTION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TABLE 22: FACILITY COST ESTIMATE FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS -
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TABLES

TABLE 23: ESTIMATED FINANCIAL BENCHMARK OF OPTIONS FOR

ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
TABLE 24: OPTIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLE 25: OPTIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION - SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
TABLE 26: TRANSITION TIMELINE FOR FLEET - EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
TABLE 27: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1 INTRODUCTION
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION
The Zero Emissions Technical Analysis (Analysis) evaluates and a preferred strategy that appropriately maximizes the
and rates the available zero emission propulsion systems, potential benefits to Metrolink while mitigating the risks.
vehicle types, operational and infrastructure impacts, project
cost, safety considerations, and regulatory considerations. The goal of a pilot will be to evaluate the chosen propulsion
This Analysis advances the Southern California Regional technology holistically by considering its performance,
Rail Authority’s (Metrolink) vision laid out in the Strategic reliability, maintainability, infrastructure requirements,
Business Plan (SBP) and Climate Action Plan. Metrolink’s constraints imposed on operations, and capital and operating
Strategic Business Plan approved in January 2021, envisions costs in revenue service-like operations. The knowledge and
further reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG), accelerated experience gained at the end of pilot implementation will
efforts to a zero emissions fleet between 2026 and 2030, and be used to develop the master plan for a zero emissions fleet
a transition to a full zero emissions fleet between 2030 and and attain the end goal of having a zero emissions fleet as
2050, in alignment with the State of California’s goals. In shown in Figure 2.
March 2021, Metrolink’s Board of Directors also approved the
Metrolink Climate Action Plan (CAP). CAP is the agency’s first, The project was conducted in two phases: The first phase
formal environmentally focused plan, which anchors to the consisted of a Gap Analysis, which identified areas where
commitments set forth in the SBP. Metrolink required additional information to support an
informed decision, along with associated action items (see
A key goal of this Analysis is to advance planning for the Appendix A) to address each gap. This created a concise
zero emissions pilot that included as part of the Transit and and defined method for selecting a path to completion
Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Metrolink Antelope of a zero emission pilot program and transition to a zero
Valley Line (AVL) Capital and Service Improvements Project emissions fleet. The second phase entailed development of
grant received in 2020. Metrolink, in partnership with its the Analysis, which includes findings for a technology and
member agency, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority vehicle type for pilot program execution using the TIRCP
(Metro), was awarded $10 million in Network Integration funding (see Appendix H for funding information). This
funding to assess the feasibility of a rail multiple unit (RMU) Analysis is supported by technical, financial, and strategic
and zero emissions propulsion service through a pilot project analyses to facilitate decision making.
on the Metrolink AVL.
Presently, the most promising propulsion technologies that
The AVL is the only line that runs in one county, Los Angeles offer potential for zero emissions are:
County, and connects riders along a 76-mile corridor from
Lancaster in North Los Angeles County to Los Angeles Union • Battery Electric
Station in Downtown Los Angeles, as shown in Figure 1. It • Hydrogen Fuel Cell - Battery Hybrid
crosses rural, suburban, and urban regions of the county • Overhead Catenary Electric
and offers opportunities for land use and transportation to
support sustainable communities. However, the terrain of the Among the zero emission propulsion technologies, full
AVL is challenging especially for zero emission equipment overhead catenary electric propulsion technology was not
with an elevation gain of nearly 3000 feet. examined for a pilot as it is already proven but has high
capital costs. However, in the strategic assessment sections
There are a few ZE alternatives that can be implemented on of the Plan, it is considered as an enabler technology that
the AVL. Other than full-scale electrification using overhead can complement battery propulsion technology. The Analysis
catenary, practical ZE rail rolling stock solutions are still in focuses on promising, but immature, battery electric and
early stages of development, and no “off the shelf” ZE solution fuel cell propulsion technologies that have the potential of
is available that would meet Metrolink’s needs. Metrolink is leading Metrolink to a zero emissions fleet and operations in
thus faced with a complex decision on how to best utilize the the long term.
available funding to advance its long-term goals as described
in CAP and Rail Fleet Management Plan Update. As a result
of these decisions and activities, Metrolink initiated an
Analysis to develop a rational approach to the ZE pilot

INTRODUCTION 1
FIGURE 1: ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE ROUTE

FIGURE 1: ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE ROUTE

FIGURE 2: THE PURPOSE OF ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

SBCTA Pilot Fuel Cell

Multiple Uni t
2023

Current Future
Zero-Emission P ilot
State State
6 - 8 years

Other Pilot Projects

Promising but Alternative ZE

immature ZE technologies are
technologies fully evaluated

In addition to propulsion technology, the Analysis provides f indings for the type of vehicle that should be utilized for the
pilot. For this purpose, the following vehicle types were evaluated:

• • Rebuilt Locomotive (Conversion)

• New Locomotive
• Rail Multiple Unit (RMU)

TABLE 1: OPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS

The Analysis benchmarks these technologies and selects one of the options shown in Table 1.

2
2 PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY
BENCHMARK
3
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2. PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK

During the evaluation of emerging propulsion technologies
with many technical and operating unknowns, deploying
such technologies for fleet-wide usage is a daunting and
risky process and requires a holistic evaluation.

FIGURE 3: BATTERY ELECTRIC PROPULSION

Within this Analysis, propulsion technologies are
benchmarked according to various criteria that will identify To meet the performance requirements, batteries can be
the advantages and challenges of each. charged flexibly at various locations:

The technology benchmark results are summarized below: • Passenger stations with pantograph type chargers
• Layover facilities with pantograph type chargers
• Battery electric propulsion is superior to fuel cell battery • Train yards with pantograph or plug-in type chargers
hybrid propulsion in terms of system efficiency, well-to-
wheels GHGs, technology maturity, hardware/software Battery electric propulsion can be designed in a modular
complexity, vehicle cost, and synergistic opportunity with structure to increase on-board energy storage capacity,
other propulsion technologies (diesel engine and overhead where battery tender cars complement the main propulsion
catenary). vehicle with on-board batteries.

• Fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion is superior to battery Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid Propulsion
electric propulsion in terms of range and refueling time. With fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion, the propulsion
system consists of fuel cells and batteries. Fuel cells convert
• Neither fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion nor battery hydrogen gas to DC electrical energy using oxygen available
electric propulsion matches the range and refueling time in air while batteries complement the fuel cell’s output
capabilities of diesel propulsion. power and capture regenerative braking energy. Due to
the availability of two energy sources, fuel cells and battery
• Neither fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion nor battery need to be isolated through a DC-DC converter as shown in
electric propulsion meets Metrolink’s current operational Figure 4.
requirements.

2.0 Technology Summary and Possible

Implementation Scenarios

Battery Electric Propulsion

With battery electric propulsion, batteries provide the energy FIGURE 4: FUEL CELL BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION
required to propel a train through a driver circuitry that Charging the batteries is generally handled by the fuel cell
controls traction motors as shown in Figure 3. As a result, the and DC-DC converter system. Therefore, wayside battery
interface components between traction motors and batteries charger and related infrastructure are not needed. However,
are minimal. Once depleted, the batteries need to be the inf rastructure to deliver the required hydrogen is
charged. Charging can be accomplished by different means needed in fuel cell applications.
such as a pantograph system or plug-in charger. Pantograph
systems charge the batteries by an external charger, and
plug-in systems use a charger plug connected to the vehicle.
In both cases, charger circuitry converts utility- supplied
alternating current power to the desired DC voltage level to
efficiently charge the batteries in a controlled fashion.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 4

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2.1 System Eff iciency 10 states in the U.S. in terms of highest renewable energy
generation. If Metrolink uses renewable electricity in its
future battery electric train operations, the “well-to-wheel”
GHG emissions would be close to zero.
System efficiency is defined as the ratio of the energy
delivered to the traction motor driver and the energy The energy source for fuel cell systems is hydrogen.
content of the fuel supplied to the vehicle (electricity and Presently, the most common method of generating
hydrogen). The losses in traction motor driver and traction hydrogen with zero emissions is through a water electrolysis
motor are not included in the system efficiency calculations process that uses renewable electricity. However, since
since these losses would be the same for both battery average conversion efficiency of the electrolysis process
electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion systems. is 70%, more electric energy is consumed in creating the
energy source for a fuel cell propulsion system. Moreover,
With battery electric propulsion, charger and battery to the tap water consumption of the electrolysis process (11-15
traction motor driver efficiencies are approximately 95% and liters of water per 1 kg of hydrogen produced) would have a
98%, respectively, which results in a system efficiency of 93%. negative impact on California’s water shortage problem.

With fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion, fuel cell and DC- If hydrogen is produced through steam methane reforming
DC converter efficiencies are approximately 45% and 95%, (SMR), which is the most widely used method for hydrogen
respectively, which results in a system efficiency of 43%. generation, 9 kg of CO2 is emitted for each kg of grey
hydrogen worth 33.3 kWh1.
Battery Electric Efficiency is more than
twice that of Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid
Efficiency If clean hydrogen is transported to Metrolink hydrogen
fueling stations instead of on-site hydrogen production,
As a result, battery electric propulsion is much more efficient GHG emissions of hydrogen delivery trucks would have a
than fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion in terms of overall negative impact on the environment and overall efficiencies
vehicle system efficiency as shown in Figure 5. of the system.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,

electric utilities in California emitted 0.177 kg CO2 per kWh
generated in 2020. Using this rate, CO2 emissions due to 100
kWh energy consumption by a traction electric motor driver
in a rail vehicle are calculated to benchmark the emissions
for a battery electric vehicle, fuel cell battery hybrid vehicle
using hydrogen generated on-site through electrolysis, and
steam methane reforming, as shown in Figure 6.

Moreover, fuel cell propulsion has the potential of having

FIGURE 5: SYSTEM EFFICIENCY (ENERGY SOURCE TO TRACTION a negative impact on global warming. The extremely
MOTOR INVERTER) COMPARISON OF BATTERY ELECTRIC
small molecular size of hydrogen results in significant
PROPULSION AND FUEL CELL BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION
leakage into the atmosphere throughout its lifecycle.
Recent research findings indicate its potency as an indirect
2.2 GHG Emissions (Well-to-Wheel) contributor to climate change by retarding the breakdown
of GHG methane in the atmosphere.

Well-to-Wheel emissions are def ined as all the emissions

emitted as the result of fuel or electricity production,
distribution, and use. According to the California Energy
¹ C
 riteria Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions f rom Hydrogen
Commission, 33% of California’s total power mix was
Production in U.S. Steam Methane Reforming Facilities,” Pingping Sun et
renewable energy in 2020, which places California in the top al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 12, 7103–7113.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 5

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

miscellaneous civil work such as concrete pads and bollards.

A pantograph-style charging station is becoming standard

for most electric transit buses and is recommended for
use in the pilot vehicle evaluation because of its compact
configuration that avoids the use of excessive cables.
The construction cost of a 1.5 MW pantograph charger at
Metrolink Central Maintenance Facility (CMF), including the
required civil work and grid capacity upgrades, is estimated
to be $4.24M. Construction cost for a second 1.5 MW charger
FIGURE 6: AVERAGE CO2 EMISSIONS PER 100 KWH at an outlying layover point (e.g., Lancaster) is estimated at
TRACTION ENERGY CONSUMED
$4.15M.

2.3 Range

In the “Metrolink Fleet Modernization Alternate Propulsion

Study” prepared by Hatch LTK and submitted to Metrolink
(Summarized in Appendix E), train simulations were
performed for both battery electric and fuel cell battery
FIGURE 7: WAYSIDE CHARGING STATION
hybrid propulsion systems on selected Metrolink routes
(See Appendix E). Based on the results f rom these analyses,
Upgrading CMF for five 1.5 MW pantograph charging
the range of a battery electric locomotive is estimated to
stations has an estimated total construction cost of $25
be between 50% and 60% of a comparable fuel cell battery
million, including owner costs and contingency. With
hybrid locomotive. Both are far shy of the existing 500+ mile
the use of charge management software and interim
range of Metrolink’s existing diesel electric fleet.
equipment moves, it should be feasible to charge two or
three battery locomotives or battery EMUs with one charging
2.4 Charge/Refuel Time
station (approximately 15 trains with five chargers) during
overnight layover. Five charging stations would also serve
approximately 30 trains during the revenue service time.
The “Metrolink Fleet Modernization Study” evaluated
Moreover, individual charging stations can continue to be
charging times for battery electric locomotives and
added over time as funding becomes available and more
hydrogen fueling times for fuel cell battery hybrid
battery units are phased in, provided that DWP is able to
locomotives. Battery electric locomotives can be fully
continue upgrading the utility feed and there is sufficient
charged between 60 and 90 minutes. Similarly, the
trackside space for the footprint of the charging stations.
hydrogen tanks of a fuel cell locomotive can be filled
between 55 and 90 minutes. However, hydrogen fueling
At the point of charging half or more of the locomotives at
time can be shortened via simultaneous use of multiple
CMF, it may be necessary to consider an overhead catenary
fueling nozzles or higher pressures with pre-cooling
system (OCS) for the yard (including substation), which
upstream of the dispensing point.
will maximize charging flexibility because a locomotive
can be charged anywhere underneath the wire. Another
2.5 Required Inf rastructure and Cost
consideration is that, with OCS, the locomotive (or RMU)
will need to be equipped with its own pantograph, whereas
a stand-alone charging station would be equipped with a
With battery electric propulsion, required inf rastructure
pantograph that lowers to the contact shoe on the vehicle
includes charging equipment and electric grid capacity
roof.
to support the total desired battery charge power. Typical
unit cost for a pantograph charging device is $1,000/kW,
Hydrogen fuel cell propulsion and fuel cell battery hybrid
equating to $700,000 for a 700kW charger and $1.5M for a
technologies require a reliable supply of hydrogen in either
1.5 MW charger. Additional work is required for new electric
gaseous or liquid form. The chart below shows the typical
utility service, new switchgear and transformer, and
‘break points’ for various supply options:

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 6

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Supply Options As an alternative to truck delivery, a small (1 MW)

electrolyzer system with storage tank, producing 450
kg of hydrogen per day (18.75 kg/hr.), could be used. The
estimated unit cost for a 1 MW unit is $1.5 million, plus
$1.15 million for storage tank and associated civil/electrical
upgrades and $1.58 million for soft costs soft costs (staff
time, contingency, design, DSDC and CM) with total
estimated construction cost of $4.23 million.⁴ For the
pilot project, it is recommended that construction costs
of permanent inf rastructure be minimized, and to rely
either on tanker deliveries with a leased dispenser, or a
leased electrolyzer station with leased dispenser.

FIGURE 8: HYDROGEN SUPPLY OPTIONS

For the pilot project with a single vehicle, it is feasible to rely

on bulk delivery by a gaseous tanker truck, with product
potentially sourced from Torrance, CA. To improve supply
stability, Metrolink can utilize a “trailer swap-out” program
in which one or more full trailers are left onsite and changed
out regularly as needed.² A standard 53-ft trailer holds 500
kg of H2 in gaseous form and can refuel at 5,000 psi (approx.
350 bar). The Stadler and Alstom Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid
Multiple Units are designed to fuel at the 5,000 psi (350 bar)
level, which eliminates the need for pre-cooling. Fueling
would be accomplished by connecting the trailer to an
adjacent package dispenser unit, which could be purchased
or leased. For the full 500 kg of hydrogen at 5,000 psi the
refueling time is approximately 2 hours (or about 70 minutes
for 300 kg), which is considerably longer than diesel fueling,³
but slightly less than typical battery recharging time.
Moreover, cooling can decrease the amount of time needed
for refueling but requires more inf rastructure.

For gaseous tube-trailer delivery, the price varies based upon FIGURE 9: TYPICAL HYDROGEN DISPENSING UNIT (BUS EXAMPLE)

volume and distance but is estimated to be $9.50/kg and

$8/kg at 450 kg/day and 1,000 kg/day stations, respectively
(US DOE, 2020). Liquid tanker delivery is recommended for
delivery volume over 1,000 kg/day with a projected delivery
cost of $8/kg. One advantage of the liquid tanker is that ² T
 ypical hydrogen delivery package would consist of a monthly service
it can carry four times as much hydrogen as the gaseous charge (includes 24-hr remote monitoring), plus fuel cost and delivery
charges (includes disconnecting empty trailer f rom dispenser, re-
tanker. For the pilot project it is recommended that “gray”
connecting new trailer); start-up and employee training.
hydrogen be considered for cost savings unless “green”
hydrogen is a requirement of grant funding or provides a ³  1 5-20 minutes, assuming 80-100 gpm flow rate at the nozzle and a

non-tangible but important project benefit. 1,500-gallon locomotive tank.

⁴ T
 his cost is based on a PEM electrolyzer unit cost of $7,600 per standard
cubic meter of hydrogen produced in one hour. 1 kg H2 = 11.126 cubic
meters, thus the capital unit cost = $84,557/kg H2 produced per hour.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 7

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

For fleet growth beyond a single pilot vehicle, it is hydrogen produced. Given the natural gas supply
recommended to consider onsite production of hydrogen requirement, and production of CO2 associated with SMR,
due to the delivered cost of hydrogen, large number PEM electrolysis is the recommended method if onsite
of truck deliveries per day, and the carbon footprint hydrogen production is to be utilized.
associated with these truck deliveries. Of the various
methods of hydrogen production, the two most viable The critical inputs to the PEM process are electricity and
ones for onsite production are Steam Methane Reforming treated water. For the resulting hydrogen to be considered
(SMR) and Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) water “green hydrogen,” the electricity must be f rom a renewable
electrolysis. SMR is the most widely used process for source such as solar. Because the water supply at CMF is
generating hydrogen and has a slightly higher hydrogen fairly hard (high mineral content, typical for the Los Angeles
yield eff iciency (69% for small scale stations and up to 76% basin), demineralizing will be required. The electrolyzer
at large production facilities); however, it requires a large station will also require a storage tank for the hydrogen
supply of natural gas and produces CO2 as a byproduct. produced.

Hydrogen electrolyzer requires

electrical upgrades comparable to The production and storage capacities are determined by
those for battery charging stations the projected fueling requirements, which would entail
plus the cost of the electrolyzer unit
one level during a hypothetical transition phase (while
both zero emission rail multiple unit and conventional
PEM electrolysis produces hydrogen by means of an diesel locomotives are in use), and another level when a full
electrolyzer station that uses electricity to split water into transition to zero emission vehicles is complete.
hydrogen and oxygen, as shown in Figure 10. PEM electrolysis
is well-suited for fueling stations as it is relatively easy
to modularize and scale up for production. The primary
drawback of PEM electrolysis, especially in arid California,
is the large volume of treated water required. Estimated
electricity consumption is 54 kWh per kg of H2. Water
consumption can be derived from the chemical equations
shown below; however, this is based on using purified
water. The process of purification involves softening and
demineralization (e.g., reverse osmosis), which produces a
stream of higher mineral content “reject” water. Thus, the
overall water usage is in the range of 11-15 kg per kg of

FIGURE 10: HYDROGEN ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 8

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 11: CONTAINERIZED PEM ELECTROLYZER SOLUTION

For example, a 5 MW electrolyzer station during fleet per day and have a correspondingly larger storage tank.
growth/transition could produce 2,250 kg of hydrogen per To allow for faster refueling times (due to the larger
day and be scaled up as the fleet increases. The simulation number of fuel cell/hybrid vehicles), a Type 4 (plastic
results in the “Metrolink Fleet Modernization Alternate with composite wrap) tank with pre-cooling would be
Propulsion Study” demonstrated that 2,250 kg hydrogen required. Due to site constraints at CMF (both space
would be equivalent to the hydrogen consumption of 8 constraints, and surrounding neighborhood concerns
round trips on the San Gabriel Line. Such a system would about H2 production and storage), a large electrolyzer
have an associated 3,000 – 5,000 kg storage tank, which station and associated electrical substation would likely
would be a Type 3 (composite) tank with no pre-cooling need to be placed at an off-site location owned or leased
required. The capital cost of the electrolyzer station is by Metrolink, and the product brought to CMF by truck.
estimated at $7.5 million, plus $3.3 million for storage tanks One of the largest PEM Electrolyzer plants currently
and associated civil/electrical upgrades, and $6.4 million in design is a 10 MW plant in Germany (concept view
in soft costs, for a total estimated cost of $17.2 million. shown in Figure 12), which requires a f ive-year duration
Ongoing hydrogen production costs are estimated at $6/ for design, construction, and testing. This plant will
kg. This cost depends upon future costs for electricity and have a building size of approximately 80 ft x 80 ft,
water. with additional perimeter space required for exterior
chiller units, for a total footprint of about 8,000 SF, with
20-MW electrolyzer would meet the additional footprint required for electrical equipment
hydrogen demand of approximately and H2 storage tanks. The capital cost of the electrolyzer
50% of Metrolink’s daily operations.
station is estimated at $30 million, plus $11.7 million for
storage tanks, associated civil/electrical upgrades and
The electrolyzer station that meets the hydrogen demand of $24.8 million in soft costs, for a total estimated cost of
50% of Metrolink’s daily operations would require at least a $66.5 million. Ongoing hydrogen production costs are
20 MW capacity for production of 10,000 kg+ of hydrogen estimated at $5/kg - $6/kg, plus trucking costs if made
offsite f rom CMF.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 9

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 12: CONTAINERIZED PEM ELECTROLYZER SOLUTION

In both the above electrolyzer station scenarios, the electrolyzer unit itself could be provided under a leasing arrangement
with a supplier that would design, build, and install the electrolyzer unit, which Metrolink would pay a unit price for the
hydrogen plus a service charge. The supplier would also provide maintenance support of the system as part of the leasing
arrangement. This would signif icantly reduce capital costs and reduce the risk of technological advances making a purchased
electrolyzer unit prematurely obsolete.

2.6 Hardware/Control Software Complexity Progress Rail, Alstom, Stadler, and Siemens are developing
battery electric locomotives or multiple unit vehicles.
Moreover, the bus and rail industries are leveraging the
results of signif icant R&D investments made by automotive
The system architecture and controls are straight-forward Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers
with battery electric propulsion. However, fuel cell on battery technology developments. Past energy density
battery hybrid systems and their controls are much more improvements indicate that at least 3% energy capacity
complicated due to the sophisticated control software increases annually in Li-Ion battery technology can be
needed to make decisions about which independent energy expected.⁵ Moreover, solid state Li-Ion battery technology
source (fuel cell or battery) needs to be used and at what is a promising path that can result in up to 30-50% energy
capacity. As a result, the development efforts for a fuel cell density (Wh/kg) increases in the next 10 years.
propulsion system would be expected to be more than for a
battery electric propulsion system. Although there are some efforts in the bus and rail modes
of transportation, fuel cell propulsion is a newer emerging
2.7 Technology Maturity and Future Potential technology than battery electric and needs further
evaluation and improvements regarding operating life,
application history in transportation, hydrogen storage,
Except for the latest cutting-edge battery chemistry delivery, and technologies to mass-produce green
developments, battery electric propulsion has been a f ield hydrogen.
proven technology in the automotive industry. It has also
started spreading rapidly in the electric bus industry, and ⁵  “ Re-examining Rates of Lithium-Ion Battery Technology Improvement and

with certain limitations, in streetcar service. In rail, Wabtec, Cost Decline,” Micah S. Ziegler et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 1635.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 10

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2.8 Technology Cost technology, neither of the zero emission propulsion

technologies can meet the range capability of a standard
diesel electric locomotive. Therefore, the introduction of a
zero emissions fleet requires operational changes (more
According to the cost study performed for this overall f requent trips to the maintenance facilities for refueling/
project the cost of a new locomotive with battery electric recharging, longer wait times at f inal stations to allow for
propulsion would be 48% lower than a comparable fuel cell charging, etc.) and fleet size changes to meet Metrolink’s
battery hybrid locomotive. The overall usage cost of using
current operation plan. Moreover, supplementing the
fuel cell propulsion would increase signif icantly with the
current service with shorter trips may not actually lower
inclusion of hydrogen delivery or production and fueling
Metrolink’s overall impact on GHG emissions because
inf rastructure investments.
Metrolink would likely express through some stations that
are covered by these shorter trips and then service more of
In rough order of magnitude (ROM) terms, the capital
the corridor with its existing fleet. One possible technical
cost for a pantograph charging solution is $1,000 per kW,
solution to overcome the range issue of zero emission
while the capital cost for hydrogen production is $1,550 per
vehicles is to complement a battery electric locomotive
kW. These capital costs do not include soft costs such as
with a battery tender car, or a fuel cell locomotive with
contingency, Metrolink staff time, and construction support.
As described in section 2.5, hydrogen capital costs can be a hydrogen storage car to increase the overall range of a

mitigated by utilizing truck delivery or leasing of production consist.

equipment, although this will increase operational costs.

Neither Battery Electric nor
Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid
For a sample pilot project involving two round trips per Propulsion matches the
day, and hydrogen delivered by gaseous tanker truck, the range of a conventional
following are estimated fuel costs, with diesel included as a diesel electric propulsion.
‘baseline’ comparison:

2.10 Potential of Hybrid Implementation with Other

Two round trips per weekday, electricity
$3,201 $384,183 @ $.362 per kWh, 5 MW over 4-hr charge Propulsion Technologies
cycle = 4,422 kWh/trip, two charge cycles
Many of the limitations of zero emission propulsion
technologies can be addressed through the use of multiple
zero emission technologies simultaneously. Battery
TABLE 2: ESTIMATED VEHICLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION COSTS
electric propulsion can be operated as a complementary
Electricity cost is based on rates during mid-day low peak
technology to an overhead catenary system with a
rate as published by Los Angeles Department of Water and
pantograph on the vehicle. The segments of Metrolink’s
Power Electric Rate Summary.⁶
system, which cannot be converted economically to
use an OCS, may be covered through battery electric
2.9 Meeting Metrolink’s Operational Requirements
propulsion. While the train is traveling under OCS, the
consumed battery energy during “off-wire” operations
(non-OCS territory) can be replenished (batteries charged)
through excess available OCS energy. The optimal hybrid
According to Metrolink’s pre-COVID train assignment
operations of battery electric propulsion technology
information or cycle, each locomotive travels between 125
and 465 miles per day. In some consecutive trips layover coupled with OCS may eliminate the range issues, and a

duration does not exceed 30 minutes. According to the phased implementation of OCS could progressively extend

simulation results performed during the Metrolink Fleet the range of battery electric to cover more and more of

Modernization Study, the range of a fuel cell locomotive Metrolink’s needs.

varies between 120 and 175 miles, depending on the terrain
and speed prof ile, whereas a battery locomotive’s range is ⁶  h ttps://rates.ladwp.com/UserFiles/Rate%20Summaries/Electric%20Rate%20
between 72 and 93 miles. As a result, at the present state of Summary%20(effective%207-1-2019).pdf

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 11

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Another alternative is to facilitate “opportunity charging” The Wabtec Battery Electric locomotive has been tested by
of vehicle batteries for short durations at frequent intervals BNSF and now Class I railroads have placed several orders
through a pantograph system located at train passenger for the locomotive.

stations. This alternative would not result in a dramatic

improvement of the range of a battery electric train due to the
short wait times of a commuter train at passenger stations
minimizing charging time availability.

Based on current information, there is uncertainty in the

interoperability of fuel cell propulsion systems with OCS due
to safety concerns that arise from potential sparks generated
through the pantograph and OCS interface. Fuel-powered
FIGURE 13: WABTEC BATTERY ELECTRIC FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVE
trains (e.g. diesel or fuel cell if safe) could operate without *Photo Courtesy of Wabtec

burning their fuel while under OCS, but would not have the
recharging benefit that battery electric would, so the extension
of their range would be less.

2.11 Completed and In-Process Zero Emission Pilot Rail

Projects
During the last two decades, numerous rail vehicle pilot
programs have announced and in some cases tested
hydrogen and battery electric propulsion technologies. Table
FIGURE 14: SBCTA STADLER ZERO EMISSION MULTIPLE UNIT
3 summarizes these programs and detailed descriptions are *Photo Courtesy of SBCTA

provided in Appendix B.

FIGURE 15: ALSTOM CORADIA ILINT TRAINSET

*Photo Courtesy of Alstom

The Alstom vehicle has been successfully tested in several

countries in Europe and with orders being placed. The
battery electric two car MU vehicle in Japan on the JR East
is shown in figure 16 during testing.

FIGURE 16: BATTERY ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT ECV-E801

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF RAIL VEHICLE PILOT PROGRAMS

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 12

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2.12 Summary, Strategic Perspectives, SWOT

Analysis, and Conclusions
In the preceding sections, potential zero emission propulsion severity of its deficiency. A total of these rankings (a
technologies were benchmarked comprehensively single + representing 1, a double ++ representing 2, a
considering various categories. This information is single - representing -1, and a double - - representing -2)
summarized in this section, and strategic perspectives is included to generalize each technology, considering the
are defined that will be followed for the recommended overall combination of criteria. If a propulsion technology’s
technology for further pilot implementation. performance in a criterion is comparable to the diesel electric
propulsion, 0 is assigned for that criterion.
Table 4 summarizes the benchmark results of fuel cell and
battery propulsion technologies by providing “+” and “–“ According to this evaluation method, battery electric
symbols representing ratings to each provided category. propulsion has fewer negatives compared to fuel cell battery
For example, if a propulsion technology is deemed to be hybrid propulsion (-7 vs. -9). However, fuel cell battery hybrid
superior to diesel electric propulsion for a particular category, is superior to battery electric in two important criteria, which
it is noted by one or two + symbols, with two symbols are range and charge/refueling time. Having negative scores
representing a larger benefit. If a propulsion technology for zero emission propulsion technologies indicates the
is deemed to be inferior when compared to diesel electric inability of these technologies to match the performance of a
propulsion, one or two – symbols are used to signify the conventional diesel electric propulsion.

TABLE 4: BENCHMARK BETWEEN BATTERY ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 13

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2.12.1 Strategic Perspectives San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) has
All zero emission propulsion technologies have some already invested in the pilot testing of a fuel cell battery
disadvantages and challenges that need to be evaluated hybrid multiple unit and it is expected that some of the

and resolved in the field. None of these alternatives are unknowns and risks associated with fuel cell propulsion will
be uncovered during that project. If Metrolink leverages
definitively superior. Each transit agency or railroad is
the results and lessons learned f rom this pilot project
encouraged to not conf ront these challenges independently
and explores the viability of other alternative propulsion
but join efforts with vehicle builders and peer operators
technologies, the large number 1 and 2 red circles in Figure
to uncover and address as many unknowns as possible
17 would shrink and Metrolink could achieve the transition
about each potential technology instead of investing in the
to the fleet-wide zero emissions implementation whether
same or similar technology while not considering some battery, fuel cell or some combination with fewer unknowns
others. Figure 17 shows the potential solution map for a and risks.
zero emission fleet implementation with the unknown
areas identified that need to be evaluated and decoded
with pilot implementation programs. In this figure, the
diameter of each red circle represents the extent of the
unknowns about the respective technology, with a larger
diameter equating to more unknowns and risks. The fuel
cell technology without batteries (signified by diagonal blue
stripes) is not considered as an alternative technology in
the transportation industry due to its inability to capture
regenerative braking energy and poor transient response.

The unknowns for a fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion

system (represented by circle number 2) in Figure 17
recommended for evaluation during a pilot implementation
program are:

• Fuel cell power, battery capacity, and hydrogen carrying

capacity on the target vehicle for the target routes
• Range of the train on the target routes during actual
operating conditions FIGURE 17: POSSIBLE ZERO EMISSIONS FLEET SOLUTIONS WITH
UNKNOWN AREAS
• Facility and infrastructure related issues
•H
 ydrogen delivery and production issues and operating
The unknowns for a battery only propulsion system that
costs
need to be evaluated during any pilot implementation
•R
 eliability of the propulsion system and fueling system
program are:
•M
 aintenance practices and cost
•P
 erformance under different weather conditions • Battery capacity on the target vehicle for the target routes
• Range of the train on the target routes during actual
Fuel cell technology, especially when coupled with green operating conditions
hydrogen production, is a less mature technology compared
• Alternative battery charging methods
to battery and charging technologies. As stated in the U.S.
• Infrastructure limitations on the charging system
Department of Energy Hydrogen Program, a comprehensive
• Reliability of the propulsion system and charging system
set of R&D activities are required to solve technical problems
• Battery aging
on multiple fronts (hydrogen production including access
• Electricity cost
to sufficient clean water, delivery, storage, fuel cells, safety,
systems integration, etc.) for a sustainable hydrogen • Maintenance practices and cost

economy.⁷ Therefore, it would be beneficial for Metrolink • Performance under different weather conditions
to wait for the results of these separate and critical R&D
activities before making any substantial investments in fuel ⁷ h ttps://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-

cell technology. technologies-off ice

  h ttps://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-
technologies-off ice-multi-year-research-development

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 14

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Despite some limitations, battery only electric propulsion According to the latest available plan documents,
has considerable potential because of the intensive R&D California High Speed Rail will share some of Metrolink’s
efforts of the highway motor vehicle industry and the variety corridors (Lancaster - Palmdale, Burbank Airport - LA
of promising battery chemistries. Range limitations can Union Station, and LA Union Station to Anaheim). This
be mitigated with complementary solutions in commuter sharing of inf rastructure might lead to the possibility of
rail such as battery tender cars and dual mode operations electrifying some of Metrolink’s route segments more cost
with catenary systems. Transit agencies should study the effectively.
unknowns in battery-only electric propulsion under realistic,
real-world operational conditions before considering the Metrolink’s Climate Action Plan targets the use of
fleet-wide implementation of any zero emission technology.
locomotives with dual operation (diesel and catenary)
capabilities. The battery and catenary dual operations
Battery electric propulsion systems can have a useful
would be an extension to this target, and hence, a battery
synergy with a complementary OCS system. In combined
electric propulsion pilot would be the f irst crucial step. As
operations, while some track sections are electrified, battery
a result, a battery electric propulsion pilot implementation
energy is used on the remaining non-electrified route
program would help decoding and solving the unknowns
segments. An accurate technical and financial evaluation
in both number 1 and number 3 red circles in Figure 17.
cannot be performed without first assessing the technical
capabilities of a battery propulsion system in realistic
2.12.2 SWOT Analysis
operating conditions. The pilot implementation effort of a
A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
battery electric propulsion system, and the resulting lessons
learned, may lead to a feasible catenary-battery hybrid (SWOT) analysis has been performed to summarize

operations for fleet wide implementation. The viability of f indings of the battery electric and fuel cell propulsion

such a solution would be supported by the following two technologies. Table 5 shows the SWOT analysis performed
factors: for the battery electric propulsion.

1. California High Speed Rail Plan

2. Metrolink Climate Action Plan

Strengths Weaknesses
• The most efficient propulsion technology • Range (energy density): This issue can be minimized with novel train consist
concepts (one battery electric locomotive and one battery tender car) or
• Less complicated hardware/software
hybrid operations (catenary + battery electric). Battery energy densities have
• Direct use of grid electricity without any transportation losses and conversion increased consistently over the last 25 years (3% annually) and this trend is
losses projected to continue in the next 10 years with the advances in the battery
chemistry like solid state batteries, silicon anode and lithium metal batteries.
• Higher technical maturity level than fuel cell technology

• Less expensive than fuel cell technology • Charge Time: The power rating of chargers and the charge acceptance rate
of batteries keep increasing. Novel charging concepts like parallel charging
• Fewer safety concerns than fuel cell technology of each battery string in a battery pack are possible
• More R&D efforts and available funding than any other technology
• The environmental impact of the mining for battery minerals
• On-going investments by U.S. locomotive manufacturers

• Competitive battery supplier base

Opportunities Threats
• Technical progress in the battery technology (gradual energy density • Widespread adoption of hydrogen technology in the rail industry: Since
increases, solid-state battery developments, possible step changes in energy pilot battery electric train does not require high capital investments on the
density for the medium term)
infrastructure, hydrogen technology can be adopted at a later stage if this
• Possible cost reductions in the future due to the wide adoption of battery threat becomes true.
electric vehicle technologies
• The knowledge gained from battery electric can be transferred to hydrogen
• Transfer of know-how from the automotive light-duty and heavy-duty
industries to the rail industry trains as fuel cell trains would also use the same batteries in their system.
Electrical grid capacity increases due to the charger requirements can
• Transitional low emission propulsion technologies like diesel battery hybrid be utilized to power electrolyzers for on-site hydrogen production if that
and diesel electric + catenary would lead to the adoption of battery electric technology prevails. Fuel cell experience from the Redlands Branch would be
propulsion
easily transferred to Metrolink’s other lines for an aggressive rollout plan.
• Hybrid implementation with a partial catenary system (battery in the city,
catenary in the outskirts) • B attery supply shortages due to demand: Investments in battery technology
development and manufacturing continue to meet the demand.
• Leverage the catenary infrastructure that will be built for California High
Speed Rail System (shared corridors between Lancaster - Palmdale, Burbank
Airport - LA US, LA US - Anaheim) • N o progress in battery capacity and durability: Current battery technology
can be seamlessly integrated with a catenary and fuel cell system or battery
• Complementary to the prospective learnings from the pilot projects of other tender cars.
agencies (technology, infrastructure, maintenance, fuel/energy supply,
reliability)

TABLE 5: SWOT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC PROPULSION

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 15

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Strengths Weaknesses
• Longer range compared to battery electric propulsion • Range: Limited to the size and quantity of on-board hydrogen tanks compared
to diesel electric propulsion. This weakness can be eliminated through novel
• Shorter fueling time compared to battery electric propulsion train consist concepts like hydrogen tender cars. But this concept has not been
implemented yet.
• Green hydrogen can be produced via on-site electrolysis during periods
of low electricity rate and higher green power mix. • Hydrogen Availability: At present, there is no scalable green hydrogen technology
and virtually all U.S. hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Therefore, the lower
cost option for hydrogen supply is hydrogen produced from natural gas and
delivered by trucks. This option has negative environmental impact. The green
hydrogen solution is on-site hydrogen production through an electrolyzer. But it
is an energy-inefficient process with massive water consumption.

• Cost: Vehicle cost is higher than battery electric propulsion.

• Low well to wheels conversion efficiency

• Complicated hardware and software

• Unknowns in the U.S. hydrogen strategy and future developments in the

hydrogen economy and technologies

• Uncertainty in the interoperability of fuel cell propulsion with catenary system

due to safety concerns

• Limited fuel cell supplier base

Opportunities Threats
• Leverage lessons learned from fuel cell heavy duty vehicle operators • Regulatory agencies may determine additional safety requirements after
prototype or hydrogen production related technology advancements may
• Technology advancements from clean hydrogen R&D activities make the pilot infrastructure investments obsolete.

• California can be one of the regional clean hydrogen hubs that help solve • Easy-to-leak and flammable gas
supply and cost issues of clean hydrogen
• B attery developments may surpass the pace of improvements in fuel
cell and green hydrogen production and make the pilot infrastructure
investments obsolete.

TABLE 6: SWOT ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CELL PROPULSION

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 16

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2.13 Alternatives to Battery Electric and Fuel Cell

Battery Hybrid Propulsions
Neither battery electric nor fuel cell battery hybrid
propulsion technologies have been developed sufficiently to
allow for a direct replacement of diesel electric propulsion
for use in either a locomotive or RMU. Furthermore, the
emerging zero emissions rolling stock will be more costly
than a comparable vehicle using diesel electric power. If
Metrolink could consider the evaluation of low emission
instead of zero emission propulsion technologies in the pilot
implementation project under a modest budget, the most
viable option would be diesel battery hybrid propulsion
that does not require wayside battery charger equipment.
According to the results of the simulation completed in
Metrolink’s Fleet Modernization Project, 20% fuel savings can
be achieved with diesel battery hybrid propulsion and the
battery can propel the train and provide hotel electric power
(HEP), which is used to provide climate control, lighting
and communications for the rail cars, for a limited time and
distance without the necessity to use the diesel engine (see
Appendix G).

2.13.1 Reducing Fuel Consumption with Alternative

Propulsion
Multiple units are smaller, lighter vehicles which consume
less fuel in comparison with locomotives and bi-level cars.
Another alternative to reduce diesel fuel consumption is
to operate diesel battery hybrid locomotive trainsets can
help to reduce diesel fuel consumption by operating with
a battery locomotive in the trainset. An existing diesel
locomotive could be run in conjunction with the full battery
electric locomotive reducing fuel consumption per trip.

Fuel savings of diesel battery hybrid equipment as well

as other new and legacy equipment can be increased by
a few more percentage points by implementing a trip
optimization algorithm that identifies upcoming speed
limits, train stations, and terrain, and then optimizes the
acceleration, deceleration, and auxiliary power consumption
of the train for lower fuel consumption. Not all are available
for a passenger operation, but some could be implemented
to train the operators how to use less fuel by modeling a
train route.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY BENCHMARK 17

3 VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE
ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT
18
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

3. VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT

Based on a detailed review of the industry and evaluation To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the
of feasible emerging technologies, there are three viable unit cost, a separate study has been also conducted for
candidates for the zero emission pilot vehicle: fifteen (15) rebuilt zero emissions locomotives . For the
fleet implementation, it is assumed that Metrolink would
• Rebuilt Locomotive rehabilitate the aged trailer coaches and cab cars to use
• New Locomotive with the zero emission locomotives. Therefore, the fleet cost

• Rail Multiple Unit (RMU) includes both locomotive related items and rehabilitation
cost of trailer and cab cars. According to this analysis,
unit cost drops to $15,300,000 and $15,920,000 for a 4-car
3.1 Rebuilt Locomotive
consist with a rebuilt battery locomotive and a 4-car consist
If this option is utilized, one of Metrolink’s retired Tier 0
with a rebuilt fuel cell locomotive, respectively. In the fleet
locomotives will be converted to a zero emission locomotive.
implementation case, the unit price difference between
The conversion process will include the removal of the
rebuilt battery locomotive and rebuilt fuel cell locomotive
already decommissioned diesel electric propulsion system,
narrows down since higher NRE cost of fuel cell locomotive
replacement of DC traction motors with AC traction motors,
is spread out in the fleet implementation.
installation of selected zero emission propulsion systems
with the required cooling system, electrification of auxiliary
subsystems that are originally driven by the diesel engine,
and other items.

According to the Metrolink Rail Fleet Management Plan

Update for FY2020-FY2040, one of the retired F59PHI
TABLE 7: REBUILT LOCOMOTIVE WITH BATTERY AND FUEL CELL
locomotives built in 2001 will be the best candidate PROPULSION PILOT IMPLEMENTATION

vehicle for the conversion. An alternative candidate for the

3.1.2 Facilities Cost
conversion is one of the MP36PH-3C Tier 2 locomotives that
The CMF locomotive shop is already equipped to service
are due for mid-life overhaul in 2023. The advantage of using
conventional diesel-electric locomotives with equipment
an MP36PH-3C over the F59PHI is its length (9.5 feet longer)
such as a 30-ton bridge crane, drop table, and roof-level
that would enable more battery energy and hydrogen
platforms for roof access. Required shop facility upgrades
carrying capacity to use. The disadvantage, however, is that
are expected to be minimal to accommodate a locomotive
the MP36PH-3C’s are currently needed for planned service
rebuilt using battery, and slightly higher for fuel cell
growth and could not be spared for this purpose unless they
battery hybrid propulsion. Primary cost impacts will be
can be replaced with new Tier 4 locomotives.
due to hydrogen gas leak detection upgrades for a fuel cell
battery hybrid locomotive. The yard facility requirements
3.1.1 Vehicle Cost for Pilot
are related to battery charging or hydrogen refueling,
and Table 8 shows the estimated facility capital costs for

Pilot rebuilt battery electric locomotive Pilot Implementation for a rebuilt locomotive (does not
has lower acquisition cost than fuel cell include operating costs for electricity or delivered/produced
locomotive diesel electric propulsion. hydrogen).

For the pilot project, it is assumed that Metrolink would use

existing spare trailer coaches and a cab car. Therefore, the
pilot vehicle cost includes only the locomotive related items.

Table 7 shows the estimated unit price of a rebuilt locomotive

with battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion TABLE 8: REBUILT LOCOMOTIVE FACILITY COSTS

systems for a pilot project. The table also includes non-

recurring engineering (NRE) expenses and contingency.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 19

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

3.1.3 Life Cycle Cost for Pilot 3.2.1 Financial Evaluation

Pilot rebuilt battery electric 3.2.1.1 Vehicle Cost for Pilot

locomotive has lower life cycle cost
than fuel cell locomotive.
Pilot new battery electric locomotive
has lower acquisition cost than new
Table 9 shows the estimated life cycle cost of one rebuilt
fuel cell locomotive.
locomotive with battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid
propulsion systems in a pilot project for a 5-year operating For the pilot project, it is assumed that Metrolink would use
period. The life cycle cost includes NRE cost, contingency, existing spare trailer coaches and a cab car. Therefore, the
non-vehicle and vehicle capital cost, fuel/electricity, and pilot vehicle cost includes only the locomotive related items.
maintenance cost of both locomotive and trailer and cab cars. Table 10 shows the estimated unit price of a new locomotive
with battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion
To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the life cycle systems for a pilot project. The table also includes recurring
cost, a separate life cycle cost study has also been conducted and non-recurring engineering expenses and contingency
for 15 rebuilt zero emission locomotives for a period of 20 years. amount.
According to this analysis, the life cycle cost ratio of rebuilt
battery locomotive over rebuilt fuel cell locomotive increases To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the
from 52% for the pilot implementation to 70% for the fleet unit cost, a separate study has been also conducted for
implementation. fifteen (15) new zero emission locomotives. For the fleet
implementation, it is assumed that Metrolink would
rehabilitate the aged trailer coaches and cab cars to use
$30,680,000
with the zero emission locomotives. Therefore, the fleet cost
$58,470,000
includes both locomotive related items and rehabilitation
TABLE 9: LIFE CYCLE COST FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION cost of trailer and cab cars. According to this analysis,
unit cost drops to $16,580,000 and $17,280,000 for a 4-car
consist with a new battery locomotive and a 4-car consist
3.1.4 Summary
with a new fuel cell locomotive, respectively. In the fleet
Based on estimated vehicle cost and life cycle cost analyses for
implementation case, the unit price difference between
the pilot implementation, the following conclusions are noted:
new battery locomotive and new fuel cell locomotive
narrows down since higher NRE cost of fuel cell locomotive
• The vehicle procurement cost of one pilot battery locomotive
is spread out in the fleet implementation.
would be 55% of a fuel cell battery hybrid locomotive.
• The major cost driver for a fuel cell battery hybrid locomotive
relative to a battery electric locomotive would be non-
recurring engineering expenses.
• 5-year life cycle cost of a rebuilt battery locomotive would be
about 52% of a rebuilt fuel cell battery hybrid locomotive.
TABLE 10: NEW LOCOMOTIVE WITH BATTERY AND
FUEL CELL PROPULSIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION
3.2 New Locomotive
For this option, Metrolink would prepare technical 3.2.1.2 Facilities Cost
specifications for the zero emission locomotive and potential Table 11 shows the estimated facility capital costs for Pilot
builders would bid based on their own locomotive and Implementation of a new battery or fuel cell locomotive
propulsion system designs. (does not include operating costs for electricity or delivered/
produced hydrogen). They are estimated to be the same as
for a rebuilt locomotive in terms of shop equipment needs,
and charging/hydrogen fueling equipment needs.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 20

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

rail multiple unit (RMU). Metrolink currently operates with

locomotives and coaches and will begin operating RMUs
later this year on a limited segment of its network. The
evaluation of RMUs requires detailed analysis that would
involve technical, financial, and strategic evaluations.

TABLE 11: NEW LOCOMOTIVE FACILITY ESTIMATED COSTS 3.3 Rail Multiple Unit (RMU)

3.2.1.3 Life Cycle Cost for Pilot 3.3.1 Vehicle Cost for Pilot Implementation

Pilot new battery electric locomotive Pilot battery electric RMU has
has lower life cycle cost than fuel cell lower acquisition cost than
locomotive. fuel cell RMU.
Table 12 shows the estimated life cycle cost of one new
locomotive with battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid Table 13 shows the estimated unit price of an RMU with
propulsion systems in a pilot project for a 5-year operating battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion
period. The life cycle cost includes NRE cost, contingency, systems for a pilot project. The table also includes non-
non-vehicle and vehicle capital cost, fuel/electricity, and recurring engineering expenses and contingency amount.
maintenance cost of both locomotive and trailer and cab cars.
To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the unit
To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the life cycle cost, a separate study has been also conducted for 30 zero
cost, a separate life cycle cost study has also been conducted emission RMUs. Since the seating capacity of a 4-car RMU
for 15 new zero emission locomotives for a period of 20 years. trainset is approximately half that of the trains Metrolink
According to this analysis, the life cycle cost ratio of new currently operates, it is assumed that the number of RMUs
battery locomotive over new fuel cell locomotive increases in the fleet would be twice the number of zero emission
from 48% for the pilot implementation to 74% for the fleet locomotives. According to this analysis, unit cost drops to
implementation. $15,230,000 and $16,330,000 for a battery RMU and a fuel cell
RMU, respectively.

$30,720,000

$64,310,000

TABLE 12: ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST OF NEW

LOCOMOTIVES FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 13: RMU WITH BATTERY ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL
BATTERY HYBRID PROPULSIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION
3.2.1.4 Summary
Conclusions from the vehicle cost and life cycle cost analyses 3.3.2 Facilities Cost
for the pilot implementation are: Table 14 shows the estimated facility capital costs for Pilot
Implementation of a new battery or fuel cell RMU (does not
• The estimated vehicle procurement cost of one pilot new include operating costs for electricity or delivered/produced
battery locomotive would be 49% of a fuel cell battery hybrid hydrogen). The primary driver for the shop costs is a set
locomotive. of synchronized jacks for truck replacements, plus new
• The major cost driver for a new fuel cell battery hybrid concrete pads in the Progressive Maintenance (PM) Track
locomotive relative to a battery electric locomotive would be area, as described in Section 3.4.8. A scaffold system will be
non-recurring engineering expenses. required for roof access to the RMU. Based on Stadler and
• 5-year estimated life cycle cost of a new battery locomotive Alstom RMUs on the market, the power car components are
would be about 48% of a new fuel cell battery hybrid modularized and can be removed via forklift. Yard/layover
locomotive. costs for charging or H2 fueling are the same as for a battery
or fuel cell locomotive. One significant factor is the shop
3.3 Rail Multiple Unit (RMU) was built to maintain locomotives and cars. The cars can be
Zero emission propulsion technology can be evaluated on a uncoupled from each other and the locomotive and repaired
in shop or outside. The shop is nearly at capacity with the
existing fleet size.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 21

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

coaches, whereas 33% of the cycles are operated with

six multilevel coaches. The remaining cycles (22%) are
performed with five multilevel coaches. The seating capacity
of four-coach and six-coach trains are approximately 532
and 810, respectively. RMU maximum seating capacity is
TABLE 14: FACILITY COST OF RMU (PILOT) approximately 510 if two extended units are coupled to
make an eight-car set. Higher capacity RMUs to rival five-
3.3.3 Life Cycle Cost for Pilot car locomotive sets would require even longer consists or
multiple-level MUs – technically possible but generally not
Pilot battery electric RMU has lower
life cycle cost than fuel cell RMU. economical except in places that are fully electrified with
OCS.
Table 15 shows the estimated life cycle cost of one RMU
with battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion An extended eight-car RMU can match the seating capacity
systems in a pilot project for a 5-year operating period. The of a four-coach train. However, empty weight (AW0) per
life cycle cost includes NRE cost, contingency, non-vehicle one seated passenger (AW0 weight/seating capacity) is
and vehicle capital cost, fuel/electricity, and maintenance 768 kg/passenger for an RMU and 683 kg/passenger for a
cost. locomotive driven four-coach train. As a result, a four-coach
train is more efficient in terms of the required weight to
To analyze how the fleet implementation affects the life carry one passenger. Figure 19 shows how the train weight
cycle cost, a separate life cycle cost study has been also per passenger varies according to the seating capacities of
conducted for 30 zero emission RMUs for a period of 20 different locomotive hauled train consists and RMUs.
years. According to this analysis, the life cycle cost ratio of
battery RMUs over fuel cell RMUs decreases f rom 95% for the
pilot implementation to 68% for the fleet implementation.

=
$45,750,000

$47,930,000
A train with two bi-level coaches is equivalent
TABLE 15: ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST OF RMUS FOR PILOT to a 4-car RMU in terms of seating capacity.
IMPLEMENTATION

FIGURE 18: SEATING CAPACITY COMPARISON BETWEEN TRAIN TYPES

3.3.4 Summary
Conclusions from the vehicle cost and life cycle cost analyses
for the pilot implementation are:

• The estimated procurement cost of one pilot fuel cell

battery hybrid RMU would be 98% of a battery RMU.

• The estimated life cycle cost of a battery RMU would be

95% of a fuel cell battery hybrid RMU.

3.4 Technical Evaluation

In this section RMUs are benchmarked against locomotives
in terms of seating capacity, shunting performance, platform
length, and height criteria.
FIGURE 19: TRAIN WEIGHT PER PASSENGER FOR DIFFERENT
LOCOMOTIVE BASED CONSISTS AND RMUS

3.4.1 Seating Capacity

According to Metrolink’s pre-COVID train cycles, 45% of
Metrolink’s cycles are operated with four multilevel

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 22

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Five-car RMU units (4 passenger cars and one non-passenger control train permissions and activate crossing warning
power car) that are currently manufactured and certified in systems in a manner that results in safe and efficient
the U.S. may not have the capability of being coupled with railroad operation. The locomotives on Metrolink provide
another four-five car unit due to the lack of crashworthiness a path (shunt) for a low voltage circuit and low current
certification. Under this constraint, an RMU can consist of a through the wheels of the locomotive. The weight of the
maximum four cars, have the seating capacity of a two-coach locomotive and number of axles throughout the entire
train. RMUs in the U.S. market cannot match the seating train are key factors to ensure that the desired wheel-to-
capacities of Metrolink’s current locomotive push-pull trains, rail contact condition is provided. Historically, Metrolink
based on possible RMU configurations. locomotive hauled coaches have experienced occasional
shunting issues. To mitigate this risk, Metrolink has a
3.4.2 Zero Emissions Range scheduled rail brushing program that scrubs sections of
As explained in the previous section, RMUs are lighter than the San Gabriel, Shortway, Perris, and Orange Subdivisions
locomotive hauled trains for the seating capacity less than to provide a clean running rail surface. This rail brushing
350 passengers. Therefore, it can be expected that RMUs have program, in conjunction with monitoring and periodic
a longer range than locomotives for low seating capacities. signal equipment upgrades, has proven successful at
The validation of this hypothesis has been explored in the mitigating shunting issues related to Metrolink locomotive
Metrolink Fleet Modernization Alternate Propulsion Study. In hauled coaches.
that study, the range of a locomotive hauled train has been
benchmarked to the range of an RMU with a comparable Several other railroads which operate RMU type trains
seating capacity on the Antelope Valley Line. According have observed periodic issues with consistent and reliable
to that study, a locomotive hauled train has longer range shunting. RMU operators have reported intermittent erratic
than an RMU for both battery and fuel cell battery hybrid shunting performance with certain types of track circuits.
propulsion systems as shown in Table 16 despite a locomotive To mitigate this risk, systems designed for RMU operation
hauled train’s higher weight because locomotives have more must be configured differently than those systems currently
volume and weight capacity for the placement of batteries used throughout the Metrolink system. Additionally, the
and hydrogen tanks. As shown in that table, a fuel cell battery wide variety of causes and influencing factors means that
hybrid locomotive with two bi-level cars has the highest the shunting performance of a new RMU operated on
range whereas a battery RMU with four single level cars has Metrolink will not be known until the pilot/test vehicle
the lowest range. This report also provides the feasible battery has been operated and monitored on the specific tracks
energy capacity, fuel cell power, and hydrogen storage under examination. This testing and monitoring must be
capacity that can be fit into a locomotive and an RMU (shown conducted after known system changes to accommodate
in Appendix F). In conclusion, locomotive hauled trains are RMU operation have occurred.
more advantageous than RMUs in terms of zero emission
range. 3.4.4 Risks Associated with Erratic Shunting
The ability of a train to shunt track circuits reliably and
continuously is a fundamental requirement for the safe and
reliable operation of the existing Positive Train Control (PTC),
signaling and grade crossing warning systems.

TABLE 16: RANGE COMPARISON OF

LOCOMOTIVE-HAULED TRAINS AND RMUS

3.4.3 Shunting Issue

The current railway signal systems used by Metrolink use
track circuits to detect the presence of a train or other track
occupancy. Track circuits interpret the condition wherein
electrical current is being directed away from the relay/
receiver as the presence of a train, or a track occupancy. This
track occupancy information allows the signal system to

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 23

 ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 20: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF SHUNTING ISSUE

Inconsistent or erratic shunting performance can have failure or a late activation, wherein the gates are not down
several negative impacts to the signal system such as: for an appropriate amount of time prior to train arrival.

• Erratic train tracking or loss of display in the CAD/dispatch 3.4.5 Causes of Poor Shunting
system The potential poor shunting performance associated with
RMUs is based on a wide array of contributing factors, none
• Flashing of signal aspects if approach lighting is used of which are singularly responsible for the observed issues.

While not reported by the other RMU operators, a sustained The main factor causing poor shunting is higher
loss of shunt would have much more severe impacts: electrical resistance between the rail and wheel, typically
due to contamination of the running rail surface. This
• Upgraded speed commands to a following train (violation of contamination is usually oxidation/rusting of the running
safe braking distance requirements) rail, which can, even when very thin, act as an insulating
layer. Heavy, frequent train traffic with numerous axles will
• Unlocking of switches under a train break down this layer and keep the railhead clean. RMUs
are typically lighter (overall and per-axle) than locomotive
Crossing Warning systems, particularly predictor or constant- hauled coach-sets and have fewer axles within a trainset.
warning-time type systems, which are used throughout This can reduce the ability of the wheels to “break through”
the Metrolink system, are particularly sensitive to erratic any railhead contaminants and reduces the number of
shunting, including: contact points for conduction of the track signals from rail-
to-rail. RMUs may also impart a different wheel tread to rail
• On approach to a crossing, an intermittent shunt could head contact patch when compared to other trains which
cause long (early) warning or pre-emption activation, run on the same track. In this case, while part of the railhead
lowering gates and stopping traffic signals considerably may have a good, clean surface, the RMU contact patch
earlier than intended, particularly for slower moving trains may be through a less used part of the running rail. This
increases the likelihood of a loss of shunt occurring.
• As a train is passing a crossing, intermittent shunt could
cause long (late) release of the warning or pre-emption While rail condition and vehicle weight are drivers for
signals, holding the crossing down for an extended period shunt performance, certain track side equipment and track
after the train clears circuits are more susceptible. Shunt reliability becomes
worse as the carrier frequency of the track circuit is lowered.
• An intermittent failure to shunt could lead to an activation A high audio-f requency track circuit (e.g., 3,240 Hz overlay,

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 24

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

as applied on the Redlands Passenger Rail Project) will 3.4.6 Potential Mitigations
more effectively shunt under the same conditions than a Metrolink will require baseline system changes to
low frequency predictor (e.g., XP4 operating at 86 Hz) since accommodate RMU operations. These baseline changes
it has been noted that higher frequencies can more readily will include grade crossing system frequency modifications
penetrate contamination between the wheel and rail. In this and reconfiguration of signal block track circuits. Included
sense, the rail contamination can be considered a dielectric within these baseline system changes, Metrolink will likely
material, similar to a capacitor. DC coded track circuits, have to expand its current rail brushing program to include
such as E-Code or ElectroCode, may also be susceptible due areas of the system not currently being scrubbed. If, after the
to their slow shunting reaction time and lower operating baseline system changes have occurred, Metrolink observes
frequency. However, non-coded DC track circuits can be more shunting concerns when testing the new RMU vehicle, there
reliable since they can be set up with a higher sensitivity and are several mitigating actions that can be pursued, tested,
react faster to train occupancy. and evaluated. Other railroads have shown that there is no
one-size-fits-all solution to RMU erratic shunting and typically
Erratic shunting performance can be further influenced have applied multiple control methods.
by environmental factors or other dynamic factors. Rail
head oxidation can be expected to worsen immediately Vehicle centric mitigations include modifications to wheel
following rainfall or during particularly humid weather and profiles, wheel tread scrubbers, wheel shunts, and onboard
can be affected by the nearby presence of bodies of water, shunt enhancers, such as:
especially saltwater. The buildup of contamination on the rail
can be affected by the amount of train traffic on the tracks • Onboard shunt enhancers are electrical devices mounted
in question. Frequent, heavy freight train traffic is likely to to the car or bogie, which (through various means) induce
keep the running rail surface cleaner than in areas with very a high frequency AC voltage difference across the rails. This
limited train activity. Metrolink’s estimation of mixed freight induced signal is effectively a “whetting” or “biasing” signal
rail traffic in 2025 is shown in Table 17. This freight traffic may which helps to initiate a conducting path for the track
not all be through trains. Some freight trains depart from a circuit signal. This can be understood similarly to biasing a
yard (e.g., BNSF San Bernardino) and operate on a particular transistor or modulating a signal on a carrier wave. These
subdivision, such as the San Gabriel, while switching industry enhancers should be considered highly experimental
sites along the line and return in the same direction back to and have no service proven history in the US. Many of the
the yard. non-US demonstrations have little direct information and
evidence that they resolve shunting performance concerns.

• Wheel profiles can be adjusted to match other trains

running on the same trackage which can improve the
likelihood that the RMU wheel contact patch is on the
same portion of the rail head as other passenger or freights
cars. This allows its shunt performance to benefit from the
“cleaning” effect of other rail traffic.

• On-board vehicle wheel tread scrubbers are routinely used

with RMUs to keep wheel treads clean to maximize the
wheel-to-rail interface.

Wayside signal equipment modifications can also be

performed primarily focused on making the signal system
more tolerant of erratic shunting. The last bullet in this
section applies to grade crossings, while the remainder are
applicable for signals only:
TABLE 17: PREDICTED FREIGHT TRAFFIC 2025

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 25

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

• Track circuits can be changed to use uncoded-DC track is used to scrub the railhead on a regular basis (daily,
circuits in place of ElectroCode. DC tracks may shunt more weekly, depending upon the needed f requency).
reliably. Elimination of the coded circuits would necessitate
the addition of vital fiber optic line circuits between ▶ Texas DMU operators have established a set scrubbing
interlockings. schedule
▶ This was done on the Redlands Passenger Rail Project.
▶ SMART has established a routine scrubbing schedule
▶ A vital line was installed for the signal system for Sonoma
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) ▶ Metrolink performs scrubbing on an as-needed basis on
certain lines
▶ A vital line was installed for the signal systems for North
County Transit District Sprinter service • Top-of-Rail Friction Modif iers, which are primarily for
reducing wear on the rails, have been shown to be
• Overlay track circuits can be used alongside the existing successful at improving shunting performance as well. The
coded track circuits. These overlays can provide a redundant lubricant seems to serve as a protective layer on the rail
method of detecting trains. head, preventing the build-up of rust/oxidation. However,
detailed studies are warranted to ensure that braking
• Loss-of-shunt timers can be applied to track circuits, which performance is not adversely affected.
exhibit shunting issues. A loss-of-shunt timer is traditionally
used only in interlocking/over-switch track circuits to
maintain locking; however, the same concept could be
applied to block track circuits. This timer would require a
track to detect unoccupied condition for a pre-determined
time period, prior to indicating unoccupancy.

• Predictor track circuits can be changed to higher

frequencies. Higher frequency AC tracks have been shown
to improve shunting performance. However, predictor
track circuits at higher frequencies have shorter maximum
lengths. Crossing systems will need to be assessed as
baseline improvement to understand where frequencies can
be changed without negatively impacting the operation of
FIGURE 21: EXAMPLE OF RAIL SCRUBBING EQUIPMENT
the crossing.
Due to the unknown performance of any new RMU on
• Wireless Crossing Activation System technology can be Metrolink tracks, signif icant time and f inancial resources
pursued and deployed. This system has been recently during the pilot project should be allocated, after baseline
deployed by the Denver Regional Transportation District. system changes have occurred, to identify outstanding
This system eliminates the need for track circuit-based train problematic track circuit segments. The planning and
detection systems used at grade crossings by leveraging the conducting of vehicle tests, collecting data recorder logs
existing Positive Train Control (PTC) system. By eliminating f rom grade crossing predictors, and testing alternate
the track circuit-based train detection systems, the concern solutions, will require much staff time f rom Metrolink. Staff
with erratic shunting for grade crossings is mitigated. will be coordinating all these activities without disrupting
their passenger operations before starting any zero emission
Infrastructure or maintenance improvements that can be vehicle test.
used to help improve shunt performance:
3.4.7 Cost of Mitigating Shunting Issue
• Rail Scrubbing is used by several U.S. RMU operators, as It is diff icult to estimate the costs related to the mitigation
well as by Metrolink. Scrubbing or brushing of the railhead of shunting. The problem can be either determined through
is a mitigation factor to improve its surface by removing testing on each subdivision or by testing at known problem
corrosion and improving conductivity A high-rail or work locations. The severity of shunting issues detected would
train, equipped with powered brush equipment, (Figure 21), determine what would be needed to mitigate it.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 26

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The expectation is that a crew would have to run the As a result, the estimation for baseline upgrades for track
locomotive or RMU over a series of weeks to test and circuit for the AVL was calculated as:
capture the event or collect data. For example, a crew
$315,000/1.4 Miles = $225,000/Mile
would be operating a train for a few months with flagmen
at the crossings. The estimated cost to Metrolink would be $225,000/Mile x 76 Miles = $17.1 Million
approximately $3.5M-$8.2M, which reflects operating crew $150,000/Crossing (CWD) x 55 CWD = $8.25 Million
and flagging crew costs since a majority of the investigation
is by testing. Additionally, the cost to upgrade wayside Scrubbing the railhead requires the scrubbing vehicle to
equipment is estimated at $25.6M, but could be more. operate on the rails at a speed of 5 mph and sometimes
The table shown below is a rough order estimate of test requires brush replacement while in operation. The cost
and implementation costs to mitigate shunting issues. in Table 18 is listed as a weekly activity that includes
The sweeping activity could be required through the pilot the maintenance vehicle, the operator, fuel, and brush
and possibly after wayside systems are installed. The track replacement cost. This may go on continually until crossing
sweeping/scrubbing activity is a very low speed activity, warning and signal systems are improved. The shunting
requiring frequent brush changes and dedicated track time mitigation may eventually be reduced and limited to certain
to complete. segments, reducing the needed time to dispatch brushing
maintenance.
Level Subdivision Activity Description Time Period Total

Valley Testing Pilot Testing - 16 weeks $152,000 3.4.8 Platform Length

Operating Crew
The approximate length of an extended RMU that will have
Test Crews and
Testing Subject Matter the equivalent seating capacity of a four-coach train would
Valley 16 weeks $3,635,200
Expert Evaluation
(5) persons be approximately 565 feet (depending on manufacturer),
Testing
Flagging crossing comparable to the length of a 6-coach train. The lengths
Valley Flagging 8 weeks $4,480,000
as needed
(10) persons of station platforms on the Antelope Valley Line, where
the pilot train will operate, vary between 1,000 feet and
Test Cleaning rail
Valley A/R from
Scrubbing
head - Vehicle and
testing 495 feet. Three stations (Sylmar/San Fernando, Newhall,
Operator
and Palmdale) are shorter than an RMU’s length and three
Regular Cleaning rail
Valley 2 days/ $7000/
Scrubbing
Scrubbing head - Vehicle and
Week Week
stations slightly exceed an RMU’s length. Therefore, if a zero
Operator
Subdivision Activity Description Distance Total emission RMU operates on the target route, some of the
Baseline Frequency Overlay cars will not be able to open their doors and the passengers
Wayside Valley Track - Signal Block Track 76 miles $17.1M*
Upgrades Circuit Circuits would have to walk through to the adjacent cars to exit. This

Subdivision Activity Description Crossings Total

is a problem experienced by some longer trainsets today.

Baseline Constant Crossing Warning

Crossing Valley Systems 55 $8.25M*
Modifications
Warning
Modification 3.4.9 Platform Height
Systems
The current Metrolink standard for station platform height is
TABLE 18: ESTIMATED SHUNTING MITIGATION PREVENTION 8 inches above the top of the adjacent rail, and the platform
Note * - Estimate to be further revised after findings from testing
edge must be 5 feet 4 inches from the centerline of the
track, to meet f reight minimum clearance requirements per
Metrolink recently completed a section upgrade on the San California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order
Gabriel Subdivision that included a simple overlay circuit for 26-D. To meet ADA requirements, each platform is also
the signal block track circuits of the 1.4 miles to the Redlands equipped with a Mini-High platform that is 1’-9” above Top
branch to mitigate the shunting issue. The cost for that of Rail (TOR), and set back 2’-7” f rom the edge of platform,
section upgrade was approximately $315,000. per below excerpt f rom Metrolink standard drawing ES3101-
01, Section A. The mini-high platform is centered 60 feet
Crossing modifications are also needed to mitigate the f rom the station end for stations with a single mini-high. For
shunting issue. These modifications include frequency stations with a mini-high at both ends, they shall be placed
changes and upgrades to account for new track circuit at opposing ends of the platform per Metrolink design
repeater locations and are estimated as $150,000 per crossing. standards.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 27

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 22: MINI-HIGH PLATFORM DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (METROLINK STANDARDS)

The mini-high platform is primarily intended for passengers in wheelchairs, and typically has two ramps, though at some
stations there is only one ramp due to space constraints. The floor height of the Bombardier and Rotem bi-level coaches is 25”
above TOR, and each coach is equipped with a bridge plate that is manually deployed by the conductor if needed. The bridge
plate accommodates the height difference between the mini-high platform (21”) and coach floor (25”), while meeting the 1:12
slope requirement of ADA.

The station platform shown below has a mini-high platform with dual ramps, with its leading edge set back from the track to
the right. The top of the ramp is indicated by the blue arrow.

For a pilot program, the existing Metrolink mini-high

platform set-up could be compatible with an RMU such as
the Stadler Flirt utilized on the new San Bernardino ARROW
service. The RMU must be configured in a manner that allows
correct positioning of the accessible car with the mini-high
platforms. The Stadler vehicle has a floor height of 24“ above
TOR, and can be equipped with a manually-deployed bridge
plate. Also, it can be equipped with a step just below the
threshold to board the car from Metrolink standard height
platform (Note that the platforms for the ARROW service are
higher at 23.5”, to allow for level boarding at all train doors.)
This would allow use of existing platforms on the Antelope
Valley line by both existing bi-level coaches as well as a pilot
program zero emission RMU.

FIGURE 23: EXAMPLE OF MINI-HIGH RAMP

Whether the existing platform design will be suitable for

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 28

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

a pilot program without adaptation to allow all-door level Area Rail Transit (SMART). Retractable station platform
boarding may be subject to review and approval f rom edges have been utilized by New Jersey Transit (NJT).
the FRA or FTA (see excerpt below f rom code of federal
regulations). Portable station lifts are utilized by Amtrak, and avoid the
re-spotting issue, but are not recommended for Metrolink

CFR 49 § 38.91 General (c) 1, “Commuter rail cars shall comply due to numerous problems associated with their use,

with §§ 38.93(d) and 38.109 of this part for level boarding including mechanical failures, risk of theft or vandalism,

unless structurally or operationally impracticable.” and a variety of human errors in their use as reported by
the National Disability Rights Network.

The meaning of “operationally impracticable” is vague;

Another potential solution considered was the use of
however, given the short-time nature of a pilot it is
multiple mini-high platforms (e.g., four of them for a
reasonable to argue that all-door boarding would be
standard 4-door ZEMU). This would avoid the re-spotting
impractical and thus not required.
issue, while allowing regular boarding with legacy bi-level
cars. However, this approach was not approved for the
Following completion of the pilot program, the long-
Caltrain system, and it is assumed that it would not be
term introduction of a new vehicle type may trigger
approved for the Metrolink system.
a requirement f rom FRA or FTA for level boarding
at every door of the vehicle, and thus may require
If the current Bombardier or Rotem bi-level passenger
an level board alternate compliance through FTA as
coaches f rom the Metrolink fleet are used with a pilot zero
stated in the Metrolink Design Criteria Manual (Section emission locomotive, no station platform changes would be
7.7).⁸ This request was done successfully for the Perris required.⁹
Valley Line (PVL) extension in 2012. Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) submitted a “Request
for Determination of Alternate Method of Compliance 8 “ For new or altered stations serving local communities, commuter,

regarding Level-Boarding for the Perris Valley Line intercity, or high-speed rail lines or systems, in which track passing
through the station and adjacent to platforms is shared with existing
Commuter Rail Extension Project” to FTA in October 2010,
f reight rail operations and the railroad proposes to use a means other
which included analysis in a Level Boarding Report. An than level-entry boarding, the railroad is required to meet the following
RCTC follow-up was sent in March 2011, and FTA f inally requirements:

granted approval in Feb 2012.

 P
 erform a comparison of the costs (capital, operating, and life-cycle
costs) of car-borne lifts and the means chosen by the railroad operator,
There are two key issues with use of the mini-high as well as a comparison of the relative ability of each of these alternatives
platforms: to provide service to individuals with disabilities in an integrated, safe,
timely, and reliable manner.

•T
 hey often put a person with a disability out of the general
 S ubmit a plan to FRA and/or FTA, describing its proposed means to meet
public way, at the far end of the platform, sometimes out the performance standard at that station. The plan shall demonstrate

in the rain how boarding equipment or platforms would be deployed, maintained,

and operated; and how personnel would be trained and deployed to
ensure that service to individuals with disabilities is provided in an
•B
 ecause the ADA requires that all cars be accessible, they
integrated, safe, timely, and reliable manner.
can require the use of “re-spotting” the train one or more
times. Each re-spotting can take several minutes with the   O btain approval or a waiver f rom the FTA (for commuter rail systems)
or the FRA (for intercity rail systems). The agencies will evaluate the
boarding/deboarding and can have a serious operational
proposed plan and may approve, disapprove, or modify it. The FTA and
impact on the timetable. the FRA may make this determination jointly in any situation in which
both a commuter rail system and intercity or high-speed rail system use
the tracks serving the platform.” Metrolink Design Criteria Manual, 7.7
The primary justif ications for the use of mini-high platforms
are the incompatibility of high platforms with f reight 9 F
 or a more extensive and/or longer-term implementation of RMUs or
traff ic, and the high cost of alternative solutions such as acquisition of any new rail cars, Metrolink will need to address the issue

movable platform edges or gauntlet tracks. Gauntlet tracks of level boarding access f rom all doors in a consist. With the range of
platform and vehicle entry heights currently being used in mainline
at station platforms are utilized, for example, by Northern
rail service in California, effectively addressing this issue transcends
Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) which Metrolink’s operation, and may best be dealt with on a more systematic
operates the South Shore Line and by Sonoma–Marin statewide basis.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 29

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

3.4.9 Platform Height model and calculations, depending upon how much
For any Metrolink lines that might be selected for future the carbody structure has to be modif ied. Moreover,
conversion to zero emission RMUs, there are various options powered lifts, whether car-or platform-based, tend to
to consider for modification of station platforms: increase boarding times, and are subject to mechanical
failures. The lift mechanism must be designed with the
Option 1 – Status Quo (Single Mini-High Platform): utmost simplicity and reliability, as a lift failure in the
No further changes to the platforms, and passengers open position can signif icantly delay the train. In U.S.
would continue to step up into the RMU vehicle from the 8” rail operations, an in-door wheelchair lift mechanism is
platform, as is currently done with the bi-level coaches. This utilized in train cars for Amtrak’s San Joaquin service (see
assumes that the existing single mini-high platform would Figure 24).
serve both the bi-level coach fleet and RMUs in meeting
minimum ADA requirements. However, the introduction Vehicle-borne lifts are not a recommended solution,
of a new vehicle could trigger an FTA requirement for level particularly for a pilot vehicle, for the following reasons:
boarding at all vehicle doors, which is the preferred ADA
scenario. Again, a request for determination of alternate • Complexity and cost of retrof itting a mechanism to each
compliance regarding level-boarding to FTA would be the door of a standard RMU
best option. Case studies for the Metrolink Perris Valley Line
(PVL) extension and peer Authorities (Caltrain) have been • I ncreased maintenance cost due to repair and testing of
successful in this approach. In the case of PVL, the request lift mechanisms
was granted in 2012 on the basis of preserving compatibility
with freight traffic, and because PVL had to be compatible • I ncreased time for pre-departure checks, due to need to
with the existing service using existing vehicles; in the case verify proper operation of all lifts
of Caltrain, it is more appropriate example as it was a new
vehicle in mixed consists on existing line/stations. Study • R isk of train delay due to failure of a lift mechanism in
references are included in Appendix I. If the request were to the open position
be denied by the FTA, Metrolink would be required to move to
an alternate approach with the associated costs.

A variation on this approach is to utilize a mini-high platform

but deploy the ramp from the vehicle. This adds more cost to
the vehicle design and could be slower to deploy. A powered
mechanism improves ergonomics for the conductor but adds
the risk of a mechanical failure and train delay.

FIGURE 24: BOARDING LIFT MECHANISM FULLY DEPLOYED

Option 2 – Vehicle-Borne Lift:
Provide a boarding lift mechanism at all vehicle doors. This
will require the use of a swing-out lift deployed from the
vehicle, and such a requirement will need to be included in
the RMU vehicle specification. Without the need to link up
with a mini-high platform location, this will simplify spotting
the vehicle on the platform and will not require “re-spotting.”

The lift mechanism would be located in a pocket at the door

FIGURE 25: BOARDING LIFT MECHANISMS IN DOOR ENTRANCE
entrance. The lift would be deployed to Metrolink’s current
platform height, and a disabled passenger can board.
The lift would typically be power-operated and would add
approximately $25-$30K per door location to the vehicle cost
for the lift itself, plus potential re-design work to a standard
vehicle without such lift mechanisms. Retrofitting a powered
lift could require significant design work for the structural

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 30

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Option 3 – Full-Height Platforms with Gauntlet Track EMF for a San Bernardino route) or layover track (e.g., Lancaster
Using a phased approach over several years, convert platforms for an Antelope Valley route). The challenge for battery
to full-height and, where feasible, build new platforms with charging is the need for additional utility service, which at CMF
a full-height level boarding option (e.g., one side of a center would likely be brought in from San Fernando Road and have
platform, or partial length). Where required to accommodate to cross below several tracks. Charging several locomotives
freight traffic, install a gauntlet track (an offset track parallel to would require a new substation, along with OCS in the yard, to
the main track that allows a train to pass a fixed object, such provide maximum flexibility for charging at any storage spot.
as a high-level boarding platform). This approach assumes the
gradual retirement of the bi-level coach fleet, or modification
of the bi-level door entrances with steel plates to eliminate the
steps. This is the most expensive option to implement, because
it requires a turnout at each end of the station, as well as
signal system modifications and installation of new rails (and
possibly new crossties). In addition, if the end of the station is
close to a grade crossing, the grade crossing would also require
modification to include the gauntlet track. Increasing the
height of the platform will also require modifications to stairs
and ADA ramps, as well as relocation of amenities such as
lighting, canopies, benches, and sign boards.

A variation on the phasing approach is to lengthen station

platforms, with the new portion being at full height for level
boarding with RMUs, while the original platform services the
FIGURE 27: OVERVIEW OF CENTRAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY
bi-level coaches. This is only feasible at station locations with
sufficient space that is already owned by Metrolink or available Based on simulations, a hydrogen fuel cell locomotive or RMU
for purchase. This approach could slightly reduce the cost will have sufficient capacity to make one round trip. Thus,
of gauntlet track, but the main benefit is avoiding much of H2 refueling will need to be provided at the CMF only, on a
the disruption of modifying the platform while in active use. single dedicated track. The primary challenge for hydrogen
Metrolink could also elect to temporarily take the station out of refueling during the Pilot program is the requirement to locate
service and provide a bus bridge. storage and dispensing that is near a track as well a paved
roadway for deliveries. If a small PEM electrolyzer unit is to be
utilized instead of delivery/trailer swap, then there is also the
need to locate the electrolyzer unit itself, as well as providing
the necessary 480 VAC power and water supplies. The power
requirement for a 1.5 MW electrolyzer is comparable to that of
a battery charging station, which thus means an additional
utility feed from San Fernando Road.

Maintenance of Locomotives:
Hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric locomotives will
dimensionally be very similar to diesel-electric units in the
FIGURE 26: GAUNTLET TRACK AT SMART AIRPORT STATION current fleet, and have similar axle-loading, given that they
will have to meet clearance and loading requirements over
3.4.10 Facility Issues Metrolink routes. Thus, no upgrades to shop pedestal track or
Charging/Fueling: platforms should be necessary. Inside the maintenance shop
It is assumed that a battery locomotive or RMU will be charged at the CMF, which is already at capacity, special components
during overnight and mid-day layovers. Further upgrades such as batteries, tanks, and fuel cells, will be modularized
may include other points along the route to permit OCS for and removed vertically by means of the existing bridge crane,
opportunity charging. The pilot project will require charging or from the side via forklift. Trucks can be removed using the
infrastructure at both the CMF and an outlying facility (e.g., the existing drop table.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 31

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 28: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP INTERIOR VIEW

A hydrogen fuel cell hybrid locomotive will require a leak detection system at the CMF. Because hydrogen is lighter than air
(like CNG), this necessitates the addition of ceiling level detectors and a wall-mounted alarm indication panel. This system
will interface with the exhaust fans to turn them on automatically in the event of detection of hydrogen above a certain
threshold. Exhaust fans may need to be upgraded to non-sparking type.

FIGURE 29: TYPICAL HYDROGEN DETECTION SYSTEM

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 32

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Maintenance of RMUs: The CMF drop table is located on a stub-end track in the
Zero Emission RMU vehicles (ZEMUs) with battery and Locomotive Shop f rom the centerline of the drop table to
hydrogen fuel cell variants are currently in production by the end of the stub track is 73 feet. This does not provide
Stadler and Alstom. Both are semi-permanently coupled suff icient room, as explained below, to allow placement
consists with a ‘power car’ in the middle of the consist of every truck over the drop table service top, even if the
(though Alstom also offers a variant with distributed battery RMU were to be turned. A secondary consideration is that,
power). The battery RMU can be equipped with a roof- due to the shared truck conf iguration, each car end needs
mounted pantograph for opportunity charging under OCS to be supported (two sets of body supports are required);
to extend the vehicle’s range. however, the CMF drop table has only one set of supports.

Many of the required maintenance activities are similar to

those needed for Metrolink’s existing fleet, e.g., couplers,
brakes, HVAC, windows and windshield wipers, doors,
signage, etc., and can be accommodated in existing CMF
shop areas with pit tracks, small work platforms/scissor
lifts on flat floor areas, and a bridge crane, as found in the
Car Shop (flat floor / center pit with bridge crane) and
Progressive Tracks (pedestal track pit, no crane).

Power Car:
Like the DMU currently planned for the Arrow Service in
San Bernardino, component removal is f rom the side of the
power car and can be performed f rom either side. However,
unlike the DMU, the battery and hydrogen fuel cell systems
are modularized, which simplifies removal because the FIGURE 30: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP, WITH DROP TABLE

modular components are much smaller and lighter than

for the DMU’s diesel engine. On the Stadler vehicle, for Because the RMU is a semi-permanently coupled consist,
example, the modular components weigh no more than 250 with shared trucks, the process of uncoupling a particular
kg (550 lbs.), which allows for removal by a typical forklift car segment is complex and is best accomplished inside
in any flat floor area (or even outdoor track) with sufficient a shop with an overhead crane and dummy trucks to
maneuvering room for the forklift. support the end of the car segment. As a result, it would
not be feasible to routinely uncouple the consist for truck
The primary issues with maintaining a ZEMU at CMF are as replacements over the existing CMF drop table.
follows:

•C
 MF is already operating at capacity, and a ZEMU - due
to its considerably greater length as compared to a
locomotive - creates greater space constraint issues inside
the shop and in the Yard

•W
 ill require the purchase of specialized vehicle lift
equipment to enable truck removals f rom the vehicle.

Trucks:
The 4-car RMU consist f rom Stadler, for example, has an
overall length of 272 ft. and utilizes a shared truck between
car segments. In a typical locomotive shop, truck removals
can be accomplished using either a drop table or a set of
synchronized jacks.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 33

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 31: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP,

WITH DROP TABLE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW

The second method for truck removal is to utilize a set of synchronized column lifts (mechanical screw jacks) to raise the
entire consist, as shown in Figure 31. For a 4-car RMU consist, this would require a set of 20 jacks, with 10 on each side. The
4-car RMU f rom Stadler, for example, has an empty weight of approximately 380,000 lbs. Thus, the capacity for each jack
must be at least 20 tons.

For removal of a particular truck, it is disconnected f rom the car body (including all power, signal, and air lines) before the
consist is raised. Then the consist is raised and the truck is rolled out to one end of the consist. On a flat floor with embedded
track, intermediate turntables can be used to redirect the truck without having to go all the way to the end. An overhead
crane is utilized to place the truck on a flatbed for transport off-site for repair or overhaul. The process is reversed for the
replacement truck.

FIGURE 32: EMU RAISED ON SYNCHRONIZED JACKS

*Photo Courtesy of Stadler

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 34

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Synchronization of the jacks can be done via a daisy-chain tangent track. The track typically would be embedded
of shielded cables, or wirelessly. Each jack requires a 480 rail in a flat floor, or have a center (gauge) pit, with a
VAC connection for power. At a new facility, these outlet thickened slab to accommodate the point load f rom each
boxes can be set into the floor with conduit under the jack.
slab. At an existing facility such as the CMF, power cables
would run to wall outlets. To protect the cables, heavy- At the CMF, there are three possible locations for lifting an
duty rubber cable protectors could be utilized, or trenches RMU consist on jacks, and each has some challenges:
could be sawcut in the slab, and provided with steel cover
plates. • C ar shop track

• Progressive track
With the length of the 4-car RMU consist at 272 ft, the
lifting process requires an equivalent length of level • O utside track

FIGURE 33: CMF CAR SHOP

Option 1:
In the CMF Car Shop, the entire bay is 220 ft long, and the be passing through the train door opening, overhead
gauge pit portion is 180 ft long, as compared to a consist clearance is an issue. The door opening is 18’-0” per
length of 272 ft. Therefore, a portion of the consist would the original design drawings. The RMU height is
be outside the building on the concrete apron. This would approximately 14’-1”, leaving less than 4 ft of lifting room
require positioning at least two jacks outside on the apron. at the doorway.
The Car Shop is equipped with a bridge crane, which
facilitates handling of trucks. Because the consist would Required upgrades for RMU would include the following:

TABLE 19: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS – OPTION 1

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 35

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 34: CMF CAR SHOP LAYOUT WITH RMU LENGTH OVERLAY

FIGURE 28: CMF LOCOMOTIVE SHOP INTERIOR VIEW

Option 2:
The Progressive Tracks have suff icient length and 3. A
 dd reinforced concrete plinths in the side pit, to
overhead clearance to accommodate the RMU but have enable positioning the jacks closer to the consist. The
two disadvantages: (1) pedestal track with side pits, and top of the plinth would match the top of rail/f inish
(2) lack of an overhead crane. Due to the presence of side floor. This would likely be the least expensive option
pits, one of three modif ications would need to be made but would create permanent obstacles in the side pits.
to allow the use of jacks:
Option 2 is recommended for the facility upgrades in
1. J
 acks could be customized with longer support arms, the Technical Analysis. But it should be noted that the
which increases the overturning moment and would proposed area may be impacted by the California High
necessitate a much larger base and/or a restraining Speed Rail alignment between Burbank and Los Angeles.
device at the back of the lifting jack.
Required upgrades for RMU maintenance under Option
2. I t may be possible to locate the jacks in the side pit, 2 would include the following costs for battery and fuel
which would mean a customized jack with a longer cell battery hybrid vehicles, as well as a low-cost scenario
screw jack. However, the pit floor thickness would need that does not include synchronized jacks (requires truck
to be suff icient to accommodate the load of a jack replacement offsite):
while it is supporting a vehicle.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 36

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 20: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS – OPTION 2

Option 3:
Utilize an outside track for truck removals. This option weather such as high winds or rain would be challenging or
would be the lowest cost but is not recommended. The not feasible. Another drawback would be the requirement
jacks could be weatherized for an exterior location, and to rent a truck crane to load a removed RMU truck, and
perhaps provided with covers when not in use; however, it unload replacement one. The estimated $5,000/day crane
is likely that their service life would be degraded. 480 VAC rental would be a recurring operating expense.
outlets and conduit would need to be added to this track
area. The location must also ensure that the jacks do not Required upgrades for battery RMU would include the
foul an adjacent track. Truck replacements in adverse following:

TABLE 21: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS – OPTION 3

Because it assumes use of an outdoor track location, RMU signif icantly less cost for constructing facility upgrades as
option 3 would not require hydrogen leak detection and compared to an RMU. The locomotive would remain as a
ventilation upgrades for a hydrogen fuel cell battery hybrid push-pull operation identical to existing operating train sets.
RMU. Of the locomotive options, a battery electric locomotive
would have the lowest cost impact on shop facilities. CMF
Summary: upgrade construction costs are summarized in the table
Due to the cost and conf iguration challenges at the CMF, a below:
battery or fuel cell hybrid locomotive would require

TABLE 22: ESTIMATED FACILITY COST FOR SHOP MODIFICATIONS – SUMMARY

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 37

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

3.5 Financial Benchmark

Rebuilt locomotives, new items. Fuel cell battery hybrid RMU option is estimated to be
Rebuilt and new battery
locomotives have the lowest locomotives, and RMUs for less expensive than battery RMU and fuel cell battery hybrid
total cost in a pilot pilot implementation are locomotive options due to the SBCTA vehicle procurement of
implementation.
financially benchmarked by European fuel cell battery hybrid MU designs that are already
considering all related cost in development. Moreover, as described in the previous
Rebuilt and new battery
locomotives have the lowest items as shown in Table sections, rebuilt and new battery locomotives have the lowest
life cycle costs in a pilot
implementation. 24. According to this table, life cycle cost.
rebuilt and new battery
locomotives have the lowest overall cost while rebuilt and In the cost projections, it is assumed that Metrolink would
new fuel cell battery hybrid locomotives have the highest use existing spare trailer and cab cars for the locomotive
cost. Moreover, in the financial analyses - except the one pilot implementation in a consist with one trailer car and one
for a fuel cell battery hybrid RMU - it was assumed that all cab car. If Metrolink cannot accommodate these cars for the
non-recurring engineering costs are reflected in the cost of a pilot due to the full utilization of the existing fleet, it may be
single pilot vehicle. It should be noted that recent prospective required to acquire one trailer car and one cab car by leasing
battery locomotive and RMU procurements by Metra and or purchasing them. If the cost of these cars is included in the
MBTA may result in reduced NRE costs for battery propulsion cost projections, the total cost of the pilot locomotive options
options. Although battery propulsion has the highest yard would increase by approximately $8,400,000 and the total
and layover cost mainly due to the required grid upgrades for cost of rebuilt and new battery locomotive options would be
high power charging, it is advantageous in the other cost closer to the cost of the fuel cell battery hybrid RMU option.

$30,890,000 $45,590,000 $56,390,000 $62,760,000 $44,800,000

$130,000 $130,000 $140,000 $140,000

$690,000 $690,000 $1,280,000 $1,110,000 $1,110,000

$8,416,000 $8,416,000 $4,425,000 $4,425,000 $6,350,000

TABLE 23:
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL
BENCHMARK OF $25,350,000
OPTIONS FOR PILOT
ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE
IMPLEMENTATION
$40,016,000 $39,996,000 $61,925,000 $68,295,000 $86,470,000

One of the main goals of the Analysis is to take a holistic overhead chargers for the pilot propulsion, on-site hydrogen
approach and evaluate all aspects of the chosen zero emissions production for the fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion and
technology during the pilot phase. If this goal is traded off for a synchronized jacks (and associated upgrades) for RMU can be
lower pilot cost, one of two high power removed from the Analysis.

VEHICLE TYPE FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 38

4 FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT

39
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

4. FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT IMPLEMENTATION

TABLE 24: OPTIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 Propulsion Technology and Vehicle Type The approach is consistent with this Analysis' technical
In this section, the findings for the pilot vehicle type and findings on compatibility, financial effectiveness, and
propulsion technology will be made using the information strategic alignment with the Metrolink program and mission.
presented in the previous sections. Both battery and
hydrogen technologies are promising and both may play Any testing arrangement would need to meet Metrolink’s
a role in Metrolink's long term transition strategy. For the operational, financial, safety and regulatory requirements.
sake of completeness, all the available options for the pilot Depending on the vehicle type selected by Caltrans, the
project are redisplayed in Table 24. required funding for the testing and infrastructure upgrades
may exceed the $10 million available from the Transit and
All zero emission propulsion technologies have some Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funded Metrolink
disadvantages and challenges that need to be evaluated Antelope Valley Line (AVL) Capital and Service Improvements
and resolved in the field. Each transit agency or railroad Project and additional grant funds would need to be
should not confront these challenges independently but identified to support the test. The findings from the Pilot
join efforts with peer operators to uncover and address project, along with the projects lead by SBCTA and other
as many unknowns as possible about each potential passenger rail agencies, will help advance the eventual
technology instead of investing in the same or similar transition of Metrolink’s core fleet to zero emissions.
technology while not considering some others. With this
vision, Metrolink is advised to work on advancing a different • This Analysis concludes that testing battery electric
type of zero emission technology f rom SBCTA’s fuel cell technology will be less costly and technologically complex
battery hybrid RMU and minimize the unknowns about zero to integrate into Metrolink's existing fleet and facilities for
emission technologies before committing to any fleet-wide a single vehicle demonstration. Battery electric propulsion
decision. has great potential because of the intensive research and
development (R&D) efforts of the light-duty vehicle industry
For the propulsion technology findings, funding availability and the variety of promising battery chemistries. This
is the most critical parameter because zero emissions Analysis recommends that Caltrans, as part of their Zero
vehicle implementation at pilot and fleet level would have Emission Research and Development Program (Caltrans
significant cost implications for Metrolink. Transit and ZE R&D Program) highly consider testing battery electric
Intercity Rail Capital Program’s (TIRCP) funding of $10 million propulsion technology as part of the Caltrans ZE R&D
is currently available to advance a zero emissions pilot on Program.
the Antelope Valley Line.
▶ Battery electric propulsion systems offer a useful synergy
4.2 Findings for Zero Emissions Vehicle Pilot on the with a complementary overhead catenary system. In
Antelope Valley Line combined operations, while some track sections are
This Analysis recommends that Metrolink continue to electrified, battery energy is used on the remaining
explore partnership opportunities with Caltrans for a non-electrified route segments. Overhead catenary
comprehensive research and development program and use systems are costly. The level of investments depends
the funding from the TIRCP to support additional study and on the restricted clearances on overpasses, right-of-way
zero emissions pilot vehicle testing. This approach will allow clearances.
Metrolink to test at least one zero emissions vehicle, without
bearing the procurement risk of purchasing untested
technology.

FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT 40

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

▶ A battery electric locomotive will use existing coaches ▶ At InnoTrans in September 2022, CalSTA and Caltrans
and cab cars in a push-pull operation identical to the signed an MOU with Stadler, a vehicle manufacturer,
train consist currently in use. The train consist can be for four zero emissions FLIRT trains to be deployed in
interchanged with a diesel electric locomotive or coupled California. These vehicles will be a longer version of the
directly to the pilot battery electric. The zero emissions vehicle than SBCTA is procuring and there are purchase
locomotive is less of a burden to CMF activity and space options expected.
constraints.
• This Analysis also concludes that testing a locomotive is less
▶ The range disadvantage may be overcome with novel capital intensive and technologically complex. There are
train consist concepts such as battery tender car and additional complexities with integrating rail multiple units
dual mode operation with an overhead catenary system. into Metrolink’s system. The complexities are highlighted
Moreover, Li-Ion battery technology has the potential of below. As part of the TIRCP grant, it is recommended that
30-40% energy density increase in the next 5-10 years that funding be set aside to develop a plan to delve more deeply
would close the range gap with the fuel cell technology. into the costs and activities required to operate multiple
units on the AVL.
▶ To limit the project budget, the battery could be charged
with the existing 480 VAC capacity at CMF and layover ▶ Significant capital costs are required to mitigate the
stations. Such a solution would meet 60% of the initial signal system shunting issues anticipated with a smaller,
goals set for a pilot battery electric locomotive. lighter rail vehicle. A loss of shunt could result in delay
or no activation of crossing gates or a loss of track
• Fuel cell technology provides attractive range advantages. occupancy detection in dispatch. Increased operational
Ideally if funding is available over the next decade, costs are also expected for mitigation measures such as
Metrolink will ultimately test a variety of zero emissions frequent track brushing.
vehicle types and technologies.
▶ RMUs have lower seating capacity (approximately half
▶ Fuel cell technology has a greater level of technical that of a comparable length bi-level consist).
complexity in comparison with batteries and has not
been service proven to the same extent. Maintenance ▶ A locomotive could utilize existing coach cars, potentially
facilities would need to be modified for hydrogen gas avoiding the need to procure additional passenger-
leak detection and enhanced ventilation systems and carrying cars. Any new car (locomotive-hauled or
possible rail tunnel ventilation improvement costs may multiple unit) would need to be compatible with
also be required. Fuel cell technology, especially coupled existing platforms. This is currently understood to involve
with green hydrogen production and supply, is a less steps and the use of mini-highs for ADA purposes,
mature technology compared to battery and charging but changes in ADA regulation or enforcement may
technologies. occur. If platforms needed to be upgraded, this would
represent a significant expense. Project timeline may be
▶ San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA), one of accelerated to make significant platform improvements
Metrolink’s member agencies, is already procuring a fuel to address level boarding requirement triggered by the
cell battery hybrid multiple unit with delivery expected procurement of a new vehicle type like an RMU. These
in 2023, which will be the first of its kind operating in the platform modifications are a significant cost for which
United States. It is expected that some of the unknowns Metrolink does not yet have funding.
and risks associated with fuel cell propulsion will be
addressed during the deployment. Metrolink can take ▶ Significant maintenance facility upgrade costs would
advantage of lessons learned. be required, primarily due to the need for synchronized
lifting jacks to perform maintenance such as truck
replacements.

FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT 41

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

▶ The space constraint issues at CMF (which is already • Battery technology improves in terms of cost and energy
at capacity) would have a greater impact on the RMU density and novel train architectures are validated
implementation due to longer length of the RMU. successfully in the rail industry.

▶ RMU related knowledge base will be expanded through In this scenario, reverting the decision f rom fuel cell
maturity of the Arrow service. Since RMU issues are battery hybrid to battery electric would be costly because
independent from the propulsion technology, the scope hydrogen storage and fueling related investments would
of collaboration can be flexible and may be performed have been made. Yard modif ications for hydrogen fuel
with diesel electric RMUs as well. would have been completed. Moreover, the pilot fuel cell
battery hybrid vehicle would not be integrated into the
▶Ultimately, these issues could represent a significant existing revenue service and would be disposed after the
portion of the pilot implementation project budget and end of the pilot project.
effort and would introduce additional time, money, and
risk to the project. Since none of these issues are related to Metrolink would then have to initiate another pilot
the evaluation of a zero emission propulsion technology, project for the evaluation of battery electric propulsion
the efforts performed to resolve these issues would not and possibly a dual mode operation with an overhead
contribute to the elimination of the unknowns in zero catenary system.
emission propulsion technologies.
Scenario 2:
RMU pilot would necessitate the allocation Metrolink acquires and deploys a battery electric vehicle
of a significant portion of the pilot project
budget to exploring and solving RMU for the pilot implementation and invests in the charging
issues unrelated to zero emission inf rastructure.
propulsion technologies.
• B attery technology does not improve in terms of cost
Worst-case Scenario Analysis: and energy density and battery electric propulsion does
In any strategy development, a what-if analysis needs to be not become the mainstream zero emission technology
conducted. In the best-case scenario, the propulsion system in the rail industry.
Metrolink will evaluate in the pilot project becomes the
mainstream propulsion technology in the U.S. commuter • T he technologies related to fuel cell modules, green
train sector. Again, this is simply the best case; risk analysis hydrogen volume production, storage, and supply
assessment is not needed. improve and become widely available in the rail industry.
Green hydrogen cost decreases as well.
However, in the worst-case scenario, the propulsion system
Metrolink has chosen for the pilot implementation may not In this scenario, reverting the decision f rom battery
achieve the expected technical progress and adoption in the electric propulsion to fuel cell battery hybrid would not be
industry. These worst-case scenarios will be evaluated for as costly as the Scenario 1 for the following reasons:
both battery electric and fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion
systems. • B attery electric propulsion does not require signif icant
yard or inf rastructure changes.
Scenario 1:
Metrolink acquires and deploys a fuel cell battery hybrid • I nvestments in electric grid capacity would be leveraged
vehicle for the pilot implementation and invests in the green to power the green hydrogen production facility.
hydrogen production or delivery and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure. • B attery electric propulsion can still be feasible with the
dual mode operation with a partial overhead catenary
•T
 he technologies related to fuel cell modules, high volume system especially after California High Speed Rail Plan is
green hydrogen, storage, and supply and hydrogen cost do completed to a certain degree.
not improve as projected.

FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT 42

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

•T
 ransition to a fuel cell battery hybrid fleet would be 4.3 Summary of Benchmark Results
seamless by leveraging the lessons learned in the SBCTA’s Table 25 summarizes all the f indings in a condensed
Redlands line about fuel cell technology and hydrogen fuel form to compare the available options according to
supply. various criteria categorized under Technical, Financial,
and Strategic groups. The evaluations are performed
•T
 he pilot battery electric vehicle can be still used in revenue according to the color codes. Green, yellow, orange, and
service after the pilot project is completed as a tandem to red show sequentially the degree of the advantage,
a diesel electric locomotive to provide fuel savings through where green and yellow colors mean superior to the
capturing regenerative braking energy and zero emissions diesel electric propulsion and red and orange colors
operation in certain segments of a route. mean inferior to the diesel electric propulsion.

TABLE 25: OPTIONS FOR PILOT IMPLEMENTATION - SUMMARY

FINDINGS FOR THE PILOT 43

5 ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT

44
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

5. ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT

5.1 Procurement Strategy align service to facilitate transfers and improve service
As outlined in the Metrolink Fleet Management Plan, reliability. The SCORE program will occur in three phases
Section 10 - Planning for Future Fleet and Facility Needs, starting in 2023 and extending through 2035.
fleet expansion is defined by the Southern California
Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) program. The goals of the In the initial phases (milestones 1A and 1B) an increase
SCORE program are to increase train f requency at regular in trainsets from 40 to 50 of 4- to 6-car trainsets will be
service intervals, provide balanced bi-directional service, required to meet anticipated passenger growth by 2028.

FIGURE 36: MILESTONE PROJECTIONS FROM METROLINK FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN

To meet the long-term growth goals of increased service minimum. As recently determined, the 15 locomotive
through 2035 (milestone 2), up to 92 4- to 6-car trainsets are MP36PH Tier 2 fleet will likely be partially replaced in the next
forecast, a 130% increase f rom today’s baseline. few years with new Tier 4 locomotives , subject to funding
availability. The remaining few would extend their useful
Part of this growth may result in new routes or sub-routes life 25 to 30 years beyond their procurement. Thus, it would
(i.e., LAUS to Burbank Airport shuttle) as LAUS will become a be expected that this fleet of 55 diesel locomotive would
major regional transit connector. Other routes may include serve Metrolink through all phases of the SCORE programv.
LAUS to Santa Clarita on the AVL line, and LAUS to Moorpark Metrolink’s current fleet of passenger rail cars, with proper
on the Ventura Line. maintenance and rehabilitation, should maintain near-term
fleet needs of 40 to 50 4- to 6-car consists through 2028 and
Metrolink’s current fleet of 40 F-125 Tier 4 locomotives beyond.
will serve though 2042 (assumes a useful life of 25 years), at a

ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 45

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

However, the third phase of the SCORE program requires (IDOT). Metrolink strongly desires to supplement the
an increase of number of trainsets to 92 4- to 6-car diesel fleet with zero emission vehicles in keeping with
trainsets f rom 2028 through 2035. the Climate Action Plan goals.

In the Fleet Management Plan, Metrolink def ines several Development of strong relationships with car builders
strategies to support this procurement, such as teaming of promising alternative propulsion technologies was
with other agencies to develop common specif ications also included as a strategy in the Fleet Management
and share procurements for the next generation Plan. In this regard, Metrolink has been reaching out
commuter rail vehicles, developing state cooperative to those builders, who are either developing and/or
purchasing contracts, and risk-sharing. Metrolink has conceptualizing next generation battery or fuel cell
been actively sharing procurement strategies with the battery hybrid locomotives and RMUs as discussed in
California Department of Transportation, and other state Section 2.11.
agencies such as Illinois Department of Transportation

TABLE 26: TRANSITION TIMELINE FOR FLEET - EXAMPLE

5.2 Zero Emissions Demonstration Plan

5.2.1 Near-Term (1-3 years) 5.2.2 Mid-Term (4-5 years)

Metrolink will continue to collaborate with Caltrans on a The fourth and fifth years will pass through the design and
possible demonstration. Caltrans will lead the procurement construction of the pilot vehicle and the completion of the
which may take as long as 18 months and the design and required infrastructure work. The delivery of the vehicle is
build of the pilot vehicle are expected to take between 36 expected to happen at the end of the fifth year or in the
and 48 months upon notice to proceed issuance. Therefore, middle of the sixth year. It is also planned to complete
the last year of the 3-year period is planned to pass with the the infrastructure updates at the end of the fifth year to
design reviews of the pilot vehicle. synchronize it with the pilot vehicle delivery.

The infrastructure RFP will follow the vehicle RFP to allow the 5.2.3 Long-Term (6+ years)
vehicle design to progress sufficiently to accurately foresee In the sixth year, first the acceptance tests of the pilot vehicle
the required infrastructure updates. As a result, at the end of and infrastructure updates will be conducted. Next, the
the second year, it is planned to prepare and issue an RFP for pilot vehicle will operate on the applicable routes within
the development and installation of required infrastructure the state. The pilot tests may last for at least two years to
for the target vehicle. At the end of the third year, it is assess vehicle and infrastructure performance, reliability, and
expected to issue NTP to the selected consultant and builder system integration issues in real-world conditions of revenue
of the infrastructure updates. service. Lessons learned in the pilot implementation will
be compiled and shared with other transit agencies in
California, and nationally, to close the knowledge gaps.

ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 46

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

With the operational experience gained during two years to develop the fleet-wide zero emissions implementation
of pilot testing and the lessons learned f rom other transit plan in the middle of the eighth year, which is shown as
agencies with different vehicle types and zero emission the future state in Table 27.
propulsion technologies, Metrolink will be in a position

TABLE 27: DRAFT PILOT SCHEDULE

5.3 Implementation Strategy

The success of the pilot program depends greatly on the The pilot vehicle must be able to operate the line
success of the propulsion system and integration of new designated in the contract as def ined by Metrolink. The
electronics. Since many builders have expressed concepts pilot locomotive, if such is selected, will operate with a
or built off existing platforms, the propulsion system maximum set of four coaches/cars and must operate for
reliability and duty cycle will be proven. During this phase a short period with an extra off-line locomotive in the
it is important that Metrolink have spare, service ready, consist in case of the locomotive fails in route or runs out
locomotives or train sets. of energy before f inishing the trip. The battery locomotive
can also operate in tandem with a diesel locomotive
5.3.1 Pilot Program Performance Measures and Tests sharing the load. This double head locomotive hybrid
Pilot performance is measured by several methods consist will test out in-line charging of the Head End
including reliability metrics such as: Power (HEP), and further evaluate the following:

• Train Consist Compatibility

• M ean Miles Between Failures (mechanical reliability over • Trainline Compatibility
vehicle miles traveled)
• Propulsion Test

• Schedule Adherence
• M ean Time Between Failures (measure of availability
over a period of time) • C harging - Stationary and HEP 480 VAC Trainline

• Electrical Load Shed

Since the pilot car is new and includes new propulsion • Regenerative Braking Test (800 kW minimum)
systems, the key items to measure are:

• R ange

• Fault and data collection

• B attery or Fuel Cell degradation

• Temperature limits

• Routes with peak traction loads

• Hydrogen ref ill/battery charge time

• Regenerative braking test

• Software Management

ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 47

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

5.3.2 Pilot Train Consist Conf igurations As the FRA is still studying battery and hydrogen
and Test Cycles technologies there may be objections to using the vehicles in
The zero emissions vehicle will not equal the duty cycle tunnels or other circumstances where a safety case has not
performance of Metrolink’s existing diesel electric fleet unless yet been established. Specifically, the presence of tunnels
refuel and re-charge activities are implemented along each on the AVL may cause delays in the commissioning of a pilot
route. It is recommended that the zero emissions vehicle service as the FRA considers their safety-related impacts.
initially operate in revenue service within close proximity of The AVL has three tunnels along the route, with the longest
Metrolink’s Central Maintenance Facility, located north of tunnel located between Sylmar and Newhall having a length
downtown Los Angeles. The cycles that would be preferred of approximately 1.3 miles.
are:
The FRA’s Rolling Stock Research Division issued a request in
Antelope Valley Line
April 2022 seeking information from contractors interested in,
Possible Options: and capable of, supporting FRA to investigate the safety and
•S
 huttle service to Burbank Airport North – as a new service performance of advanced energy propulsion technologies for
railroad applications. Research will seek to gain knowledge
•S
 huttle service to Santa Clarita
on the fire safety, crashworthiness performance and
•T
 rain 205 and 210 if new simulation results suggest multiple
durability of hydrogen storage media, fuel cells and ancillary
round trips components used in hydrogen fuel cell locomotives and
multiple units (MU) under extreme loads and environmental
▶ LAUS - Lancaster as a non–revenue test for trials
conditions observed on railroads.

Simulations of these lines can be further modeled for

In addition to meeting FRA requirements, the vehicle itself,
changing scenarios and funding on behalf of Metrolink in
and any associated infrastructure such as charging stations,
support of a zero emissions demonstration pilot vehicle on
must comply with the clearance requirements of the
the Antelope Valley Line. The initial test runs of any pilot
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order
service should also include an additional complete train and
26D, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific
crew in the event of problems.
Railroad (UPRR) on applicable shared track, and Metrolink
track standards. Furthermore, hydrogen leak detection
5.4 Required Facility Modif ications and Timeline
systems will require coordination with the City of Los Angeles
FRA may not immediately allow Fire Department, and possibly with Metrolink’s insurer.
operation in tunnels with battery or
hydrogen Various stakeholder groups are currently active in developing
standards and recommended practices for these new
technologies. This includes the following organizations:
Battery charging at CMF will require a new service feed
from San Fernando Road, along with new transformer
• American Public Transportation Association (APTA), has
and switchgear, which are long-lead procurement items.
embarked on a process of creating a Recommended
This also requires early coordination with Los Angeles
Practice for a Battery and Hydrogen Safety Standard. This
Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for the necessary
action will attempt to try and consolidate all the safety issues
service connection. Estimated duration is 30-36 months for
of each of the fuels from production through consumption
coordination, design, construction, and testing.
and disposal. FRA may cite or adopt the language of the
APTA standard and create a regulation.
5.5 Regulatory Process
At a minimum, the selected vehicle must conform to the
• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 working
regulations included in 49 CFR 229, 236 and 238. These are
groups are considering new codes for battery storage
considered the minimum requirements for any new rail
systems, which may be created before the pilot vehicle is
vehicle operating on a US FRA-regulated railroad. A rail
introduced.
vehicle must meet the crashworthiness standards of 238.
Although the selected vehicle is part of a pilot program, the
• I nternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is
FRA may require a pre-revenue test plan to demonstrate all
safety requirements have been met. This pre-revenue service currently developing a European Standard for Fuel Cell

plan is a basic requirement needed from all rail passenger applications for propulsion.

vehicles regardless of propulsion type.

ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 48

ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

5.6 Concerns and Comments of Class I Railroads

The Class I railroads have safety considerations and shared
use agreements in place to provide for quality operations
of the f reight railroad. The agreement allows the f reight
carrier to operate in a competitive manner over the
railroad. Metrolink must operate their trains reliably and
timely so there is not a disruption to the f reight rail traff ic.
This will not be an exception as a host or tenant on the
railroad. The zero emissions vehicle would need to be FRA
complaint for safety considerations.

5.7 Success Criteria for Pilot Implementation

Success of any new locomotive or car is that the vehicle
operates reliably. In the commissioning of a new
locomotive the performance must meet the criteria set
forth in a Technical Specif ication and must meet that
reliably. For a pilot vehicle, the measure of success beyond
safe operations would be:

• T he locomotive operates successfully in revenue and

non-revenue service testing without unscheduled
maintenance

• T he locomotive meets the range expectations for

designated two-to four-car train.

• T he cooling and charging operate without failure to

maintain battery state of charge

• T he locomotive completes a burn-in period

• T he locomotive does not require an excess of f ield

modif ications

• E ase of maintenance

These bulleted items represent a high bar for any new vehicle.
As with any new locomotive there are periods where reliability
is low. In a practical sense, the new zero emissions vehicle will
exhibit reliability issues. The ease of maintenance personnel
to execute repairs and obtain replacement parts is highly
important during the pilot implementation. The expectation
is the locomotive builder will monitor faults in the diagnostics
and quickly characterize type and provide solutions. Success
will also come from the improvement in reliability and
completion of the daily mission of transporting passengers.

ZERO EMISSIONS PILOT 49

6 CONCLUSIONS

50
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

6. CONCLUSIONS
Metrolink has rigorously evaluated battery electric and
fuel cell battery hybrid propulsion systems on new and
rebuilt locomotives and rail multiple units f rom technical,
f inancial, and strategic perspectives for a zero emissions
pilot implementation. It concluded that undertaking
an in-depth multiple unit implementation planning
effort for the Antelope Valley Line as well as exploring
a partnership with Caltrans on their Zero Emissions
Research and Development Program best serves the
interests of Metrolink. This is the optimal option available
to Metrolink which meets the agency’s strategic goals
while also providing a f inancial and operationally
sustainable zero emissions pilot solution.

CONCLUSIONS 51
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX A

Action Item List from Gap Analysis

Gap
Item
Action Plan Listed in Gap Analysis
1.1 Availability of Zero Emissions Rail Vehicles
Metrolink and consultant team will interview OEM locomotive manufacturers to discuss
1 the development and maturity of the market.
Metrolink and consultant team will interview RMU builders to discuss the potential
2 RMUs which would be compatible on Metrolink System.
Metrolink and consultant team will evaluate performance of current and completed
3 zero emissions pilot projects.

1.2 Uncertain Path to Commercialization and Long-Term Support

Metrolink and consultant team will develop performance measures that can be
1 evaluated and used for success of the pilot. Outcomes of the pilot will help scalability
for the broader system.
2 Metrolink long term actions
Explore collaboration with other agencies to have a common and standardized vehicle
a design which all agencies could share.
Carefully evaluate the ZEV pilot proposals from candidate builders and their long-term
b commitments

c Evaluate training and maintenance of the ZEV from the builder if available.

1.3 Regulatory Compliance

1 Project team will continue to monitor regulatory updates within duration of the project.

Project team will continue to explore regulatory requirements. This may include inquiry
2 with the FRA for disposition as a waiver for testing from the FRA
3 Metrolink long term actions
Update the PTC plan to the FRA and run the vehicles in test, in the worst-case
a condition, for stopping distance performance.
Present the design of the ZEV if new with test results and safety analysis to the FRA
b for approval prior to placement in revenue service.
Monitor developments with SBCTA and FRA approvals or concurrence during
c development of pilot technical analysis relative to the SBCTA test vehicle

1.4 Slow Fleet Turnover and Fleet Planning Alignment

Metrolink and consultant team will review the Fleet Management Plan and try to align
1 key dates for zero emissions vehicle transition to retirement of vehicles and into the
technical analysis.

1
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Metrolink and consultant team will identify in pilot plan for a zero emissions locomotive
2 demonstration on Metrolink’s existing line.
Metrolink may have to reconsider the timing and scope of mid-life overhauls of
3 equipment during transition to zero emissions vehicles.
4 Metrolink long term actions

a Operate a pilot locomotive in multiple demonstrations varying in scale and scope.

1.5 Scaling Zero Emissions Solutions to the Metrolink Fleet

Metrolink and consultant team will develop a technical analysis based a propulsion
1 technology which would close most of the gaps and can be implemented in a cost-
effective manner.

Metrolink and consultant team will meet with OEM and suppliers to determine a
2 manufacturer’s broad schedule for delivery of a zero emissions vehicle.

2.1 Duty Cycle

Metrolink and consultant team will simulate routes with 4 coach cars to replicate
1 current duty cycle. This will provide a better picture of where the ZEV can operate.

Metrolink and consultant team will develop information about equipment cycles to
2 show where and times of day a pilot can be deployed.
Metrolink and consultant team can give suggestions for data to measure performance
3 to help gauge the outcomes of the pilot program as it relates to duty cycle.
4 Metrolink long term actions
Create a new operating plan for these zero emissions trains to accommodate different
a performance characteristics in terms of capacity and dwell time requirements for
refueling or charging.

2.2 Signal Systems Track Shunting

Metrolink and consultant team will discuss operations with Texas agencies which
1 currently operate DMU vehicles.

2 Metrolink will continue to engage with IDOT/Amtrak test campaign to leverage findings.

If an RMU is deployed, Metrolink will need to investigate the shunting issue through
the collection of field data. Consultant team can suggest instrumentation to evaluate
3 occupancy of track of Electrocode and Overlay track circuits to confirm if one is more
consistent than the other.
4 Metrolink long term actions
Metrolink can learn lessons from deployment of Arrow service DMU vehicles on
a Redlands line

2.3 Vehicle Reliability

Metrolink and consultant team can give performance measures to help gauge the
1 outcomes of the pilot program as it relates to vehicle reliability.

2 Metrolink long term actions

2
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Carefully evaluate the ZEV pilot proposals from candidate builders and their long-term
a commitments
Carefully evaluate training and maintenance needs and procedures of the ZEV from
b the builder.
Metrolink will need monitor performance measurements and provide data points in
c contract language for availability and reliability.

2.4 Interoperability
Metrolink and consultant team will explore deployment with the host and tenant class I
1 railroads.
Metrolink and consultant team will discuss deployment of a pilot vehicle on a selected
2 line.
3 Metrolink long term actions
Consider commissioning the vehicle on an isolated line during a period of no freight
a activity and build a reliability case.

2.5 Operational Characteristics

Metrolink and consultant team will provide suggestions for a specification that requires
1 any new vehicle builder to meet current and prospective maximum speeds.

Metrolink and consultant team to determine what, if any future plans exist for speed
2 increases on the Metrolink system.

2.6 Operational Characteristics - Speed

Metrolink and Consultant team will investigate ridership of peak versus non-peak
1 service.
Metrolink and consultant team will investigate seating capacity and luggage capacity of
2 RMUs versus Rotem cars.

3.1 Battery Charging and/or Hydrogen Fueling

Metrolink and consultant team will develop, with energy/fuel supplier input, a rough
1 order magnitude of cost and complexity for each re-fueling and/or recharging system.

Metrolink and consultant team will need to determine the most viable alternative
2 propulsion for a pilot project.
Metrolink and consultant team will identify issues such as noise and vehicle traffic in
3 CMF that may affect the community.
Metrolink and consultant team will identify potential fueling and or recharging location
4 for CMF.

3.2 Facilities Modifications

Metrolink and consultant team will need to determine feasibility of modifying existing
1 facilities to support a pilot project.
Metrolink and consultant team will meet with hydrogen suppliers to discuss potential
2 delivery and storage options.

Metrolink and consultant team will meet with Los Angeles area utility agencies to
3 determine upgrade and viability of new electrical service at specific sites.

3
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Metrolink and consultant team will identify possible charging location for the
4 locomotive(s) at yard locations
Metrolink and consultant team must determine CPUC clearance requirements to
5 charging infrastructure.
6 Metrolink long term actions
a Determine if additional ventilation is required for hydrogen.
Provide safety awareness training for all staff, whether high-voltage electric or
b hydrogen equipment.
Determine whether existing fans need to be upgraded to non-sparking materials if
c hydrogen is used.

Determine if the Fire Dept (or SCRRA’s insurer) will require any upgrades to the fire
d protection systems due to the presence of hydrogen.

Determine new safety measures will be required to work on the hydrogen fuel cell
e locomotives.
Determine availability of existing spare conduits to bring in the new copper lines for
f electrical power.
g Determine storage for unique spare parts.

h Explore existing Light Rail Vehicle facilities as a potential for RMU maintenance.

3.3 Station Platforms

No action required if Metrolink pilot is a locomotive with current coach and cab cars
1 using a bridge plate on the high platform.
Metrolink and consultant need to examine the complexity of requiring the pilot vehicle
2 compatibility with current platform height.
3 Metrolink long term actions

a Assess the options of building up a platform if other non-compatible cars are procured.

b Assess potential standard floor height for joint procurement of vehicles.

4.1 Zero Emission Rail Vehicle Costs

Consultant team will refine estimates for new and conversion locomotives for each
1 propulsion type.
Consultant team will meet with Metrolink subject matter experts to review the vehicle
2 costs.
Metrolink and consultant team will gain understanding of OEM development and rough
3 order magnitude vehicle costs.
Metrolink and consultant team will consider cost of any vehicle-based platform station
4 interface for level boarding.

Metrolink and consultant team will consider cost of other recent projects and closely
5 monitor the Metra BEL retrofit kit award for cost data if available.

4.2 Facilities Modifications Cost

1 Consultant team will develop a rough order magnitude of costs for modifications.

Consultant team will meet with Metrolink subject matter experts to review the facility
2 costs.

4
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Metrolink and consultant team will gain understanding of hydrogen vendor and utility
3 ROM costs.
Metrolink and consultant team will determine if there are additional costs to provide
4 sufficient power for charging.

4.3 Signal Systems (Track Shunting) Costs

Metrolink and consultant team will develop a list of possible capital and operating cost
1 scenarios to address the shunting issue for the track system. These include testing a
change in signal frequency based on the pricing from RPRP DMU related investments.

Discuss supporting costs for rail brushing and additional wear parts for Texas
2 operators which currently operate DMU vehicles.
3 Metrolink long term actions
Consider a time duration for testing such as 1 month with person hours for test crews
a for an RMU as required.

4.4 Lifecycle Costs

1 Consultant team will develop rough order magnitude lifecycle cost for the Pilot ZEV.

Metrolink and consultant team will monitor developments of each emerging technology
2 cost during duration of task.

Metrolink and consultant team to explore whether use of different propulsion systems
3 or vehicle types will impact insurance policies held by the agency.

5
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX B

Completed Zero Emissions Rail Projects

Multiple Units

East Japan Railway Company (JR East)

NE Train KuMoYa E995 Fuel Cell MU

In 2006 JR East retrofitted a single MU car with a hydrogen fuel cell. This was the first hybrid fuel cell vehicle
ever produced. The vehicle had six hydrogen tanks with a total capacity of 71 gallons and 19kWh of lithium
ion batteries. The vehicle was tested as part of a pilot in the area during 2007 at speeds of up to 100 km/h.
NE Train KuMoYa E995 Battery MU
In 2009 JR East replaced the fuel cell in the NE train with four lithium battery units located beneath the
passenger seats. The battery sets provided enough power to move the vehicle 30 miles at speeds up to 60
mph. According to JR East a charge of 10 minutes provided a range of approximately 12 mi. The vehicle
was operated over various lines within the system including Ōmiya Works in 2009, on the Utsunomiya
Line in 2010 and Karasuyama Line in 2012.

EV-E301 Series
The research and insights gained from the KuMoya E995 battery MU were used to develop a
production vehicle termed the EV-E301. In 2014 JR East began operating the two-car battery
electric multiple unit on the 12 mi Karasuyama Line. The vehicles have 190 kWh lithium-ion battery
capacity which is used to provide traction power in unelectrified sections. The pilot program has
been a success according to JR East and as of 2017 all vehicles on the line are equipped with
battery systems.

EV-E801 Series
In 2017 JR East began operating a two car MU referred to as the EV-E801. The vehicles operate
on battery power over 16.5 miles of non-electrified Oga Line tracks between Oiwake and Oga. The
vehicles remain in service and no major issues have been reported.

FV 991
In 2019 JR East, Hitachi and Toyota began designing a fuel cell powered MU referred to as the
FV-E991. The vehicles will have a hybrid fuel cell system. The vehicles will operate as two car
trains, with the power car housing 180kW fuel cell stacks which supply electricity for two 25kWh li-
ion electric batteries. The trailer car housing the hydrogen storage tanks. The tanks can store up
to 1020 liters of hydrogen at 690 atm. The vehicles will have a maximum speed of 62 mph and a
range of 87 miles on a tank of compressed hydrogen. The vehicles are scheduled to commence
testing on the Tsurumi and Nambu lines in Spring 2022. To date no results or further information
have been made available.

JR Kyushu
BEC819 series
In 2016 JR Kyusha began a pilot study with a two-car battery MU on the Chikuhō Main Line. The
vehicles have 360 kWh battery capacity. Subsequently 17 additional trains were introduces as part
of a revenue service demonstration which eventually replaced diesel service the Fukuhoku Yutaka
Line, Chikuhō Main Line, and the Kashii Line. No issues have been reported, and the increase in

6
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

vehicles deployed over time demonstrate that JR Kyushu is satisfied with the vehicle’s
performance.

Class 379 Electrostar

In 2015 Network Rail finished retrofitting a Bombardier MU with battery packs for operation on the
Mayflower Line in Essex of the UK. The batteries provide sufficient capacity for the train to travel
up to 60 miles on a charge. No major issues have been reported from this pilot.

Class 777

In 2021 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) completed a pilot study on its
Merseyrail line with a battery MU produced by Stadler. The pilot confirmed that the vehicle type
was capable of traveling up to 20 miles on a charge. No major issues were reported from the pilot
study.

Class 230

In 2017 Vivarail completed the conversion of a D-stock train to a two-car battery powered MU. As
part of the project a fast charger was developed which reportedly provided 100 miles of range in
10 minutes. The vehicles have a 106-kWh lithium-ion battery capacity, which Vivarail estimates will
need to be replaced every 7 years. The vehicles are planned for a pilot on the Valley Lines in South
Wales, UK, but no details on the pilot have been published to date.

Alstom Hydrogen Fuel Cell Coradia iLint MU

In 2013 Alstom began production of hydrogen fuel cell powered iLint MU’s. Since that time
demonstration studies have been completed with iLint’s in Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and
France. In 2019 Alstom released minor details on the study conducted in the Netherlands. The pilot
was conducted on a 40 mile section of track between Groningen and Leeuwarden traveling at
speeds of up to 87 mph. The service was repeated over the course of 10 days. Following the study,
Alstom reported that the trainsets have an approximate range of 620 miles. In 2018 the first
commercial service with iLint vehicles began in Germany, and since then 41 trainsets have been
purchased.

Stadler Flirt

In 2018 San Bernadino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) used a $30 million grant to
procure a Zero Emission Multiple Unit from Stadler. The vehicles will be 2-car, 3 module trains with
hydrogen tanks and fuel cells installed in the center module. The vehicles have not been delivered
yet, so no information is currently available on the performance of the vehicles.

In 2020 Stadler began pilot testing of a Flirt Akku prototype which uses battery propulsion in
Denmark. The vehicle will be tested over a 9 mile track section between Helsingør and Hillerød line
in North Zealand, and a 11 mile section of the Lemvig line in northern West Jutland. The results of
this pilot have not yet been made public. Similar trains are also contracted to be delivered for
service on Schleswig-Holstein rail authority system starting in 2022.

Bombardier AGC

In January 2021, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) signed a contract with
Bombardier to retrofit five Autorail à Grande Capacité (AGC) MUs with battery propulsion. The
vehicles will be delivered by 2023. The pilot program is meant to serve as a proof of concept. No
further details on the pilots or the vehicle design have been revealed at this time.

7
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Alstom BEMU

In April 2021 Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and Alstom announced plans to conduct the first battery
MU pilot in the US. The program will retrofit a two-car Bombardier M7 married pair batteries to
service the 13-mile track section between East Williston and Oyster Bay which currently does not
have third rail. The agency plans to recharge batteries at station stops with small sections of third
rail. Part of the pilot program will involve determining the appropriate sizing batteries for future
fleets. No other technical details have been revealed at this point. The current pilot is budgeted to
cost $850,000 to complete.

Siemens Desiro ML Cityjet Eco

In 2015 a prototype conversion of a Siemens Desiro ML to battery electric propulsion was

completed for use on the Vienna S-Bahn in Austria. In 2019 the Austrian Federal Railways began
a pilot program with the train on the Kamp Valley line between Horn and St. Pölten. The prototype
is capable of operating off of overhead wires, or in battery only mode for up to 50 miles. The vehicles
have 528 kWh of battery capacity. The vehicles have a maximum speed of 62 mph. The results of
the pilot study have not been published to date.

Siemens has also contracted to deliver the Mireo Plus H and Mireo Plus B that are meant to serve
as the successors to the Desiro MU series vehicles. The Plus H model will operate with a fuel cell
hybrid system, while the Plus B will use battery propulsion to provide up to 50 miles of range. In
2019 NV Baden-Württemberg in Germany ordered 20 of the Mireo Plus B trains for their
unelectrified Rench Valley Railway, Harmersbach Valley Railway and Acher Valley Railway. None
of the Mireo vehicles have entered service yet.

STREETCARS AND LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES

Brookville Liberty

Although no commuter trains in the US currently operate with battery propulsion, several streetcars
operating in the US currently do.

In 2015 Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) commissioned a fleet of Liberty Streetcars manufactured
by Brookville Equipment Corporation. The vehicles have 750 V lithium-ion batteries that enable
the vehicle to operate off-wire for 1.6 miles. Since the initial DART order, these vehicles have also
been procured for operation in Detroit, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Portland, Tacoma and Tempe.
Although early integration and performance issues were reported, the majority of issues have been
resolved and the vehicles have been operating in service successfully for several years.

CAF Urbos 3

New Castle Light Rail in New South Whales Australia currently operates a fleet of CAF Urbos 3
supercapacitor trams. The vehicles operate within a 1.7-mile system, where the vehicles are powered in
sections from overhead wire, and in other sections by charging the supercapacitors at stations. The vehicles
were delivered in 2018, and no major issues have been reported.

CRRC TRC Tram

In 2017 CRRC conducted pilot testing on the world’s first hydrogen powered Light Rail Vehicle (tram). The
trams operate as three car trains with a top speed of 44 mph and a range of 25 miles. The vehicles have a
12 kg hydrogen storage capacity which is refueled at 4 fueling stations along the route.

8
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

LOCOMOTIVES

BNSF Pilots

Fuel Cell Locomotives

Between 2008 and 2009 BNSF conducted a pilot program on a Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel
Cell (PEMFC) switcher locomotive. The PEMFC used hydrogen as a fuel as part of a hybrid battery
system to perform switching operations at a BNSF yard in Topeka Kansas. The locomotive was
built in a cooperative effort between Vehicle Projects, LLC, BNSF and the US Army. The locomotive
had roughly 2 MW of power and used lead acid batteries due to cost constraints. No other results
or information on this pilot are publicly available.

In December 2021 Progress Rail, Chevron and BNSF announced that they will be conduct a
hydrogen locomotive pilot program which will be conducted on BNSF freight lines. Further details
on the vehicle design and the pilot study scope have not been made available at this time.
Battery Electric Locomotive
Between January and March 2021 BNSF conducted a pilot study in cooperation with the California
Air Resource Board (CARB), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and Wabtec. The
study was funded through a $22.6 million grant from CARB to demonstrate potential emission
reductions possible for the pilot three locomotive consist compared with standard diesel only
consists.

The pilot study used a consist composed of the battery powered locomotive coupled between two
Tier 4 diesel locomotives, where all three locomotives provided tractive effort to the consist. The
battery locomotive used for the pilot was a Wabtec FLXdrive which was equipped with 18,000
lithium-ion battery cells with a combined 2,400 kwh of energy capacity. The locomotive weighs
approximately 215 tons, roughly 3 tons heavier than a typical diesel locomotive.

The consist operated repeatedly over a roughly 350-mile route from Barstow to Stockton, CA during
the pilot. The total milage logged during the 3-month pilot study was 13,320 miles. The battery
locomotive was charged through a wayside charging station at BNSF’s railyard in Stockton, CA.
During operation batteries were recharged through regenerative braking.

Detailed results from the study have not been published, but Wabtec has reported that the pilot
was successful in reducing the GHG’s produced by the consist by 11% compared to a typical diesel
consist. No reliability or other performance information has been released at this time.

Union Pacific Pilots

Battery Electric Locomotive

In January 2022 Union Pacific (UP) announced the purchase of 20 battery electric locomotives
from Progress Rail and Wabtec for use in yard operation in California and Nebraska. To date this
is the largest carrier owned battery electric fleet ordered. UP has set the goal of net zero emissions
for its fleet by 2050. UP estimates that the vehicle procurement and yard and infrastructure
upgrades will exceed $100 million in capital.

Ten (10) of the locomotives will be the previously described Wabtec FLXdrive locomotives and the
other ten (10) will be Progress Rail EMD Joule locomotives. The Progress rail locomotives are
118.1-ton switchers with 2.4 MWh batteries. The locomotives have power of up to 3,000 HP, and
an advertised operating time of up to 24 hours on a charge. The units are expected to begin
operation in 2023. Part of the intent of the pilot program is to test the performance of the locomotives
in hot and cold climates and to inform the whether the technology is feasible for long haul operations
in the near future.
9
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Canadian Pacific Pilots

Fuel Cell Locomotives

In January 2022 Canadian Pacific announced that it was converting three SD40 diesel locomotives
to hydrogen power. The project is being funded through a $15 million grant from Alberta which is
being matched by CP, for a total project cost of $30 million. The project will also include the
development of an electrolysis plant in Calgary and the construction of a reformation plant in
Edmonton to generate hydrogen for the locomotives.
Battery Electric Locomotive
In November 2021 CP announced the purchase of a Wabtec FLXdrive battery electric locomotive.
Details on how the railroad will use the locomotive of the pilot study parameters have not yet been
released.

Austrian Federal Railways (OBB)

Battery Electric Locomotive

In 2020 CRRC delivered four battery locomotives to OBB. Two of the locomotives were designed
for shunting while the other was procured for mainline operation between Hungary and Croatia.
The vehicle reportedly weighs 90 tons with top speed of 74 mph. No further information on the pilot
has been released at this time.

METRA (Chicago)

Battery Electric Locomotive

In August 2022 METRA announced Progress Rail Services will provide a kit, convert three existing
F40’s to Battery Electric. Included is an option for three more.

10
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX C

Predicted Rail Freight Traffic on Metrolink Routes

11
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX D

Zero Emissions Technology Adoption in Transportation

The purpose of this appendix is to discuss the adoption of zero emissions vehicles in other transportation
modes to help inform of potential similarities and differences to zero emission adoption in passenger rail.
Adoption, as defined herein, includes the current state of the practice for these modes, as well as the
anticipated timing for when zero emissions vehicles may become the dominant transport for that mode. The
three modes of transportation examined include road-based vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, buses, and
trucks), maritime (i.e., container ships), and commercial aviation. Considerable research has been
conducted on the feasibility and timing of zero emission vehicles in each of these modes, which may offer
perspective and experience that can directly apply to passenger rail.

The entire transportation sector currently relies on traditional fossil fuels as their primary fuel source,
meaning that the vast majority or all vehicles use those fuels when serving that mode. Highway, marine
and air have examined the potential use of battery-electric vehicles (BEV) or hydrogen electric vehicles
(HEV), as well as other renewable carbon-neutral fuel options like biofuels (i.e., biomass-derived fuels that
use organic matter, such as plant or animal waste) or increased engine efficiencies to reduce current fossil
fuel consumption. All three modes have found similar challenges with transitioning from fossil fuels to a
zero emission alternative: 1.) BEV options have a substantially lower energy density than their fossil fuel
equivalent 1, 2.) HEV options (i.e., fuel cell options) have more challenging storage, production, and
distribution requirements both on the transportation network and on-board the vehicle, and 3.) biofuel
options themselves are considered carbon-neutral by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2, but the
land use impacts (i.e., forests cut down for biofuel farms) are widely cited to increase the carbon footprint.

With this, differences between the three modes can delve into a few key categories:

Technology Readiness and Applicability – Zero emissions vehicles have been heavily researched by
the industry as a whole and examined for feasibility in all three modes; thus, the technology is considered
“ready” for application, even with annual improvements to these technologies offering better efficiencies in
the future than those today. That said, because each mode has differing operational requirements (e.g.,
mechanics of flight, extremely long-distance transport, etc.) the applicability of this technology may not be
relevant to a particular mode because it cannot serve the use cases of today. For example, a shipping
company that moves containers across an ocean will not be interested in a zero emission vessel that can
only travel 100 miles.

Governance and Industry Motivation – Climate change initiatives have been in the public forefront for
decades, but has accelerated as the result of recent events (e.g., increase in severe storms and flooding,
greater media coverage of polar ice cap reduction, better data visualization of rising temperatures, etc.).
Many governments across the world are seeking ways to reduce carbon footprint and operate a sustainable,

1
Energy density (approximate): automotive gasoline is 47.5 MJ/kg; diesel is 45.5 MJ/kg; aviation fuel is between 43
and 48 MJ/kg. Hydrogen is 120 MJ/kg; Lithium ion battery has 0.3 – 1 MJ/kg. Biodiesel is 37.8 MJ/kg.
2
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) cites biofuels as carbon-neutral because emissions are offset by
the plant itself that absorbs carbon dioxide.
12
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

net-zero transportation system. Many industries have recognized that their consumer base is seeking
practices that align with these policies, incentivizing them to set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Levels of interest range from establishing future-year goals (e.g., net-zero by 2030) to deploying operations-
ready vehicles.

Fleet Transformation Rate – All modes use vehicles with a scheduled service life, and have varying levels
of users that are willing and/or able to upgrade to newer vehicles. Individuals can upgrade their personal
transport based on their household incomes, whereas larger corporations with big balance sheets have
different financial cushions available to upgrade vehicles on a more predictable basis. Similarly, some
modes have such a high upfront cost component that they must take on a long service life in order to be
financially viable.

This appendix focuses only on vehicles in each mode that are operated by an on-board engine and an on-
board fuel source. Externally-powered vehicles, such as buses that receive electricity from catenary wires,
are not included in this because Metrolink’s comparative use cases does not utilize external power sources.
Roadway, maritime, and aviation modes are highlighted; their current and forecasted use of BEV, HEV,
and others; and then ties relevance of a particular mode to Metrolink’s operations and vision for zero
emission vehicles.

Roadway Industry (passenger vehicle, buses, trucking)

The road transportation system carries passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and other users (e.g., bike and
pedestrian). It succeeds as a transport mode for many reasons, mostly centered around its versatility. It
provides the access to destinations that most users seek, often creating the last-mile link that is not
economical to be served by other modes. Its footprint is wide and vast, providing both advantages for
accessibility as well as challenges for service coverage. Fueling is not centralized; currently, fueling stations
are scattered anywhere that is permitted by local land use, and free market economics encourages how
stations are positioned and how long they survive as a business. Trips along the road network can range
widely; many household trips by car (76.7 percent in 2017 3) are fewer than 10 miles, whereas trucking can
travel hundreds of miles. The road network also is used by vehicles that have a relatively short service life
than other modes, resulting in a vehicle fleet turnover rate that is quicker to adopt new technologies—road-
based vehicles still have an average turnover period in the 10- to 15-year range 4, as opposed to multiple
decades for rail, maritime, and aviation.

Road-based vehicle transport is probably the most advanced in terms of zero emission adoption, motivated
primarily by strong regulatory agencies and the quicker fleet turnover period. In the United States, many
roads are funded primarily through federal funds, providing greater influence of federal policies focusing on
emissions reductions. Federal incentives for zero emission vehicles are being actively pushed in the United
States through legislation, with similar pushes in the European Union due to pro-environment regulations.
Federal tax incentives existed for many years to subsidize purchase of energy-efficient vehicles, and many
states and local governments have offered similar incentives. Most recently, the Infrastructure Investment

3
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. FOTW #1042, August 13, 2018: In 2017 Nearly 60% of All
Vehicle Trips Were Less than Six Miles. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-
2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six-miles
4
The Fuse. America’s Aging Vehicles Delay Rate Of Fleet Turnover. January 23, 2018.
http://energyfuse.org/americas-aging-vehicles-delay-rate-fleet-turnover/
13
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

and Jobs Act 5 (IIJA) looks to support a variety of alternative fuel vehicle technologies through grant
programs, standards, loans, studies, research, fleet funding, and other measures. IIJA is cited to include
provisions that increases investment in light-, medium-, and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles. As a result,
many auto manufacturers have brought technology to market that aims to get away from traditional fossil
fuels. Additionally, several states have adopted ZEV program policies, where signatories commit to
increasing sales of ZEVs over the next decade, helping spur the market for these vehicles.

Among passenger vehicles, most automakers pushed toward BEV technologies, noting specifically that
most household trips were local and that electricity was available at owner’s homes to charge. Several car
manufacturers 6 (Ford, Chevy, Volkswagen, Nissan, Audi, Porsche, and Tesla) are offering electric vehicles
in their current model year. The range for these vehicles varies, with 149 miles (Nissan Leaf) on the lower
end and 402 miles (Tesla Model S) on the higher end. Consumer resistance often cites the lower range
and charging wait time as major detractors, but this has led to an expanded rollout of EV charging stations
at certain key destinations, such as shopping centers where an owner’s trip there may exceed the time
required to recharge a vehicle. While BEV still represent less than 1 percent of the total global car stock 7,
this business model seems to offer initial promise, and the rollout in states with strong ZEV programs is
trending very positively toward wider adoption.

Buses have been pushing the zero emissions envelope for several decades, being closely tied to
environmental initiatives that are pushed by its owner city. When discounting catenary systems, zero
emission bus options include both the battery-electric and hydrogen-fuel cell buses; other buses aim to
reduce emissions through cleaner fuels (but not zero emission), including compressed natural gas. Transit
agencies often have added these buses to their fleets in small percentages, tied to a pilot demonstration
project or federal grant opportunity. The power choice often comes down to political motivations and
specific use cases – for example, electric buses tend to be used along short-range urban routes, whereas
hydrogen fuel cell options appear on routes that have longer distances 8. Most transit agencies strategically
deploy their charging or fueling infrastructure at key route termini, such as turnaround sites or depots, which
limits the investment of fueling infrastructure to a few strategic locations.

The trucking industry has attempted to add BEV and HEV to their fleet; however, their operational
requirements are different than passenger vehicles or buses. “Range” is often the metric used to gauge
feasibility of operation for a passenger vehicle or bus. In trucking, the term “load capacity” is the more
appropriate metric that applies, as it ties into the amount of cargo that a truck can transport. In the United
States, federal law controls the maximum gross vehicle weights and axle loads on the Interstate Highway
System to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; some states have routes that are exceptions, but often still
align maximum axle weights to the 20,000-pound (single axle) and 34,000-pound (tandem axle) federal
requirements. This gross vehicle weight includes the truck and trailer, as well as their fuel source. With
batteries having a lower energy density than traditional fuels, the additional weight required to provide the

5
U.S. Department of Energy. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/infrastructure-investment-jobs-act
6
Car and Driver. 12 Bestselling Electric Vehicles of 2021. January 19, 2022.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g36278968/best-selling-evs-of-2021/
7
International Energy Agency. Electric Vehicles Tracking Report – November 2021.
https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles
8
Government Technology. Batteries or Hydrogen? Cities Weigh Making Buses Electric . June 11, 2019.
https://www.govtech.com/products/batteries-or-hydrogen-cities-weigh-the-best-way-for-buses-to-go-electric.html
14
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

same energy output as traditional fuels consumes a significant amount of the remaining weight allowance,
leaving less load capacity for cargo. Logistics companies have cited this as a prevalent concern, as it will—
in theory—take more BEV trucks to move the same cargo than a single traditional-fuel truck. While some
battery manufacturers claim that they will be able to increase the energy density, it is not currently
forecasted to be competitive.

As a result, most truck manufacturers are focused on HEV over BEV. Several began operation in Europe
in 2021 at a relatively small scale. The Hyundai Xcient 9, considered the world’s first mass-produced fuel
cell truck, provides 400 kilometers of range using a combination 190 kW hydrogen fuel cell system, and an
average refueling time of 15 minutes. Hyzon Motors operated a fuel cell truck, with a commitment to supply
1,000 vehicles and 25 refueling stations by 2025. In comparison, BEV trucks are a bit less developed. Tesla
claims to offer an all-electric battery-powered Class 8 truck concept claiming up to 500 miles of range, but
mass production is not scheduled until 2023 at the earliest. A competitor, Nikola Motors, started production
of a battery-powered semi truck, designed for shorter hauls of 350 miles or less. Given these limitations
and the lack of hydrogen infrastructure, the push in the trucking industry has been more toward use of
biofuels, specifically biodiesel which is capable of being used in most vehicles. While a biodiesel mix often
is more expensive than traditional diesel, it is relatively easy to roll out to fueling stations around the country,
similar to how ethanol mixes were rolled out to many passenger vehicles. Biodiesel offers comparable
energy densities to regular diesel, overcoming the load capacity constraint without requiring a major change
to the vehicle design.

Maritime Shipping Industry

The maritime transportation system utilizes shipping vessels to move primarily large volumes of freight over
the ocean, although a significant portion utilizes smaller vessels (e.g., barges) to move cargo on inland
waterways or regional coastal areas. Cargo is its primary commodity; passenger transport waned away in
the 20th century due to competition from other modes. Accessibility is limited to the available waterways
that can be serviced by that vessel, and the number of destinations is significantly smaller than those served
by road; as such, fueling tends to be located at port facilities. Maritime moves nearly 80 percent of all trade
with projected future growth, but also represents 3 percent 10 of total CO2 emissions that is forecasted to
rise by as much as half by 2050 if no corrective action is taken.

Unlike the road network, maritime routes are more likely to span international boundaries, resulting in a mix
of policies and interests that are not easy to influence. That said, interested stakeholders in this industry
have cited goals to help facilitate a reduction in vessel emissions. The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) has mandated emission reductions of 50 percent for all vessels by 2050, with a number of heavy
trade countries declaring a target for net-zero shipping emissions in the same time frame. In parallel to this,
a call to action was developed by a multi-stakeholder task force, convened by the Getting to Zero Coalition
and its membership that makes up the entire maritime ecosystem, including shipping, chartering, finance,
ports, and fuel production; this call to action aims to deploy commercially-viable zero emission vessels by
2030 as an immediate urgent action, sets a target for zero emission shipping by 2050, and acknowledges
a need for private sector action to go hand-in-hand with government action. However, unlike the ease of

9
Fuel Cell Works. The First Hydrogen Trucks Are Rolling In Europe. December 27, 2021.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/the-first-hydrogen-trucks-are-rolling-in-europe/
10
European Commission. Reducing emissions from the shipping sector. Accessed on March 29, 2022.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en
15
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

fleet turnover found in road transportation, maritime vessels often have a 25-year service life and require
advance forethought.

Concepts for zero emission cargo ships have been proposed over the years, varying widely in fuel type
from liquid hydrogen to electric (solar panels, batteries, and wind) to liquid natural gas. The most prevalent
prototype in operation is the 120 TEU Yara Birkeland 11 in Norway, which is a cargo ship that operates using
only electricity. Its range is fairly limited—12 nautical miles—but the owner, Yara International, had a
specific commercial use case to move fertilizer between two ports that are a short distance apart and thus
provided a good demonstration. This vessel move is claimed to reduce an estimated 40,000 truckloads per
year from the roads by doing so. The Yara Birkeland also is touted to include autonomous features, with a
goal to demonstrate these in practice in 2022 after clearing local regulations. Unfortunately, it is the only
vessel of its kind in operation; all other zero emission cargo ships are concept-only, usually with a target
goal to be operational in 2025 or 2030, but almost always for a short-distance or very-low-speed application.
For over a decade, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics conceptualized the E/S Orcelle, a vessel that is claimed
to operate using wind, sun, and wave energy alone to transport cars and goods, but this has not been
deployed. Another firm, NYK, created a different concept called the Super Eco Ship, envisioned to use solar
power and liquified natural gas, but this remains only a concept. Similarly, the GL Group offered a concept
for a container ship that operates on liquid hydrogen, primarily for 15-knot operation in northern European
waters; it too remains in development 12. The key takeaway here is that the use cases served by zero
emission vehicles are limited and do not include the long-distance transport options that many container
ships do.

When seeking a means to reduce carbon footprint, interest in maritime has been on biofuels as a means
to transport. One proposal in the industry is to establish “green corridors” 13, which include key strategic
shipping routes that allow policy makers to establish regulatory measures, financial incentives, and safety
regulations that facilitate operation of a zero emission shipping lane. For example, with zero emission fuels
costing significantly more than conventional fuels, policies could be established on either end of the
shipping lane to help subsidize those costs. Success of these corridors requires committed stakeholders,
viable fuel accessibility, customer demand for green shipping, and policies/regulations to narrow cost gaps
to help facilitate adoption. This proposal is silent on the proposed fuel type (suggesting both liquid hydrogen
and green ammonia), citing instead the need to work collaboratively as an industry when establishing these
corridors to find the right fit.

Aviation Industry

The aviation transportation system moves both passengers and freight over long distances in a short period
of time, relative to the speed of either road-based or maritime transportation. Aviation loses that advantage
in certain markets—namely short-distance trips or regional links also served by high-speed rail—but it
retains the distinct advantage of time under most other circumstances. Accessibility is limited to airports

11
Offshore Energy. Yara Birkeland, world’s 1st zero emission containership, completes maiden voyage. November
19, 2021. https://www.offshore-energy.biz/worlds-first-zero-emission-containership-completes-maiden-voyage/
12
Marine Insight. Top 5 Zero Emission Ship Concepts of the Shipping World. December 21, 2021.
https://www.marineinsight.com/green-shipping/top-5-zero-emission-ship-concepts/
13
McKinsey and Company. Green corridors: A lane for zero carbon shipping . December 21, 2021.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/green-corridors-a-lane-for-zero-carbon-
shipping
16
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

that can serve a particular aircraft type, and the number of destinations is significantly smaller than those
served by road; as such, fueling is almost exclusively done at airports. The complex mechanics of flight
require extensive fuel use, which has placed the aviation industry as a heavy emitter, roughly 2.5 percent
of total CO2 emissions in 2018 14 despite being a smaller fraction of all emitters (including power industry,
personal vehicles, etc.). Some proposed supersonic airliners are anticipated to consume five to seven times
as much fuel as a subsonic aircraft 15.

While aviation does span international boundaries, its operations are governed closely by national aviation
agencies, thus providing some degree of influence on zero emission goals. The U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration 16 (FAA) published the United States Aviation Climate Action Plan in November 2021, which
outlines an approach to put the sector on a path toward net-zero emissions by 2050. A month prior, the
International Air Transport Association 17 (IATA) passed a similar resolution to commit member airlines to
achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 as well, given policies being developed in local and overseas
markets. Both groups acknowledged that a coordinated effort was required across the industry for this to
be successful, including contributions from airlines, airports, air navigation service providers,
manufacturers, and government. However, rather than look toward electrification or hydrogen, these
initiatives focus more toward changing to sustainable aviation fuels, produced from renewable and waste
feedstocks (residues, biomass, sugar, oils, and gaseous sources of carbon). Similar to biodiesel for semi
trucks, many aircraft in operation are able to use these sustainable aviation fuels, citing that it is a lack of
production capacity for biofuels that forces use of traditional fuels. In addition to sustainable fuel use, the
aviation industry anticipates development of new aircraft technologies, operational efficiencies (i.e., using
national airspace more efficiently), and infrastructure improvements at airports to also support this goal.

The power requirements necessary to sustain flight and the current use case for long-distance flights make
the aviation mode less likely to veer away from traditional fuels without incentive. Prototype aircraft have
aimed to demonstrate battery-power (often through solar) and fuel cell operation on aircraft for decades;
however, similar to maritime, many concepts are proposed (for either BEV or HEV), but only a limited
number of prototypes have actually flown. Most BEV aircraft prototypes are usually two- to four-seat aircraft
with limited flight range (e.g., up to 90 miles). Several aerospace companies have focused on electricity-
powered commercial aircraft development, with a goal to be certified in the 2026 or later; these aircraft
generally carry up to 19 passengers, and have ranges of under 250 nautical miles 18. Hydrogen-powered
aircraft have been demonstrated in isolated contexts, but have remained exclusively as concept ideas.

14
Our World in Data. Climate change and flying: what share of global CO2 emissions come from aviation? October
22, 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
15
The International Council on Clean Transportation. The Environmental and Health Impacts of a New Generation of
Supersonic Aircraft could be immense. January 30, 2019. https://theicct.org/the-environmental-and-health-impacts-
of-a-new-generation-of-supersonic-aircraft-could-be-immense/
16
Federal Aviation Administration. U.S. Releases First-Ever Comprehensive Aviation Climate Action Plan to Achieve
Net-Zero Emissions by 2050. November 9, 2021. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/us-releases-first-ever-
comprehensive-aviation-climate-action-plan-achieve-net-zero
17
International Air Transport Association. Our Commitment to Fly Net Zero by 2050. Accessed on March 29, 2022.
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/flynetzero/
18
FlightGlobal. Sweden’s Heart Aerospace presents all-electric regional aircraft. September 24, 2020.
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/swedens-heart-aerospace-presents-all-electric-regional-
aircraft/140307.article
17
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Relevance to Metrolink

The three transport modes presented in this appendix show general industry progress for that mode in
moving toward a zero emission vehicle. Without surprise, no single mode has identified a clear winner
between BEV or HEV, and despite target-year goals, no single mode is “running” toward a zero emissions
vehicle, but rather cautiously maneuvering. Road-based vehicles are furthest along due to government
incentives and public policy, but over 99 percent of vehicles on the road still use traditional fuels and the
“preferred” fuel type still varies based on need (e.g., passenger cars may only need BEV for their typical
short trips, but long-haul trucking may need HEV to support a financially-viable load capacity). Other modes
seem more aligned with transitioning toward a net-zero biofuel option, citing either their complex use cases
or operational requirements necessitating something closer to traditional fuels. As such, when trying to
index a given mode to a commuter rail service that is of design similar to Metrolink, it comes as no surprise
that no one mode is entirely comparable. However, each provides relative benchmarks that can help
provide backing for or against certain initiatives.

The closest comparable mode to Metrolink’s operations is likely the maritime mode. When doing a side-by-
side comparison, some similarities emerge:

• Commuter rail locomotives and maritime vessels have a relatively long service life, which impacts
their rate of fleet turnover. Road-based vehicles—where most aggressive investment in BEV and
HEV is being explored—have much shorter service lives and are easier to substitute in.

• Commuter rail locomotives and maritime vessels both tend to have a limited number of serviceable
destinations. Specifically, commuter rail is access-controlled and has defined stations or yards,
whereas maritime—abet not access-controlled—only has a limited number of ports to access. This
helps allow fueling stations to be strategically placed and consistently applied (i.e., HEV fueling
stations only). Road-based vehicles have greater access to destinations and a greater spectrum of
user needs between trucks and passenger vehicles, and thus requires a more complex, more
extensive rollout of fueling stations for a given type.

• Commuter rail and maritime vehicles are less constrained by certain operational challenges that
necessitate fuels with higher energy densities. Aviation, on the other hand, requires fuels with high
energy densities, meaning that BEV will likely never be a viable option for long-range flights.

Despite this comparison, some notable differences exist. With the exception of the Yara Birkeland, most
maritime zero emission vehicles are concepts. Rail, on the other hand, has zero emission vehicles in
demonstration today 19, which is more similar to the road-based mode and the various demonstration and
consumer-ready vehicles on the market. Commuter rail bears more similarities to passenger vehicles in
terms of making many local trips (“local” being within region) and could potentially utilize battery-electric
options, whereas most maritime applications require trips that are longer distance and lean more toward a

19
The Guardian. ‘Dramatically more powerful’: world’s first battery-electric freight train unveiled. Accessed on March
29, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/16/battery-electric-freight-train-wabtec-rail-transport-
emissions;
Railway Age. CP’s Hydrogen Locomotive Powers Up. January 25, 2022.
https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/cps-hydrogen-locomotive-powers-up/;
Railway Technology. East Japan Railway unveils hydrogen-powered train. February 18, 2022. https://www.railway-
technology.com/news/japan-railway-hydrogen-train/
18
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

higher-energy-density fuel. Maritime also services many international ports and is less likely to be
influenced by a single country’s policies on zero emissions, whereas commuter rail is wholly contained to
a given country and state and subject to political preferences in that locale.

Still, while maritime is not a perfect one-to-one-match, many of the proposed approaches in that industry
apply to commuter rail, and commuter rail can take advantage of advances both there and in the road-
based vehicle space to help expedite a deployment. A proposed concept of green corridors, offered by
McKinsey and Company for the maritime industry, is a model that could be replicated on a commuter rail
system because a commuter rail system is essentially a corridor. This model identified the building blocks
for success, regardless of fuel type—committed stakeholders, a viable fuel pathway, customer demand for
reduced emissions, and policy/regulation that could narrow costs. Scaling down for Metrolink’s applications,
establishing internal and external stakeholders, as well as identifying fuel pathways, is an effort that is
already ongoing as part of this study. Metrolink may not be able to set policy beyond its operations, but
establishing a procurement policy—such as procuring a zero emission vehicle investment only when
several vendors exist in the marketplace—is one step toward a zero emissions goal that reduces risk of a
failed prototype. It is important to recognize that most other modes are only at a goal-setting point, aiming
toward a target year 2050 goal to dramatically reduce emissions , but falling short of staking a claim to HEV,
BEV, or others. While some trends are apparent among road-based vehicles to use BEV for passenger
cars and likely HEV for trucking, this represents less than 1 percent of all vehicles on the road and is hardly
a trend.

While this continues to be an ongoing discussion, many modes are leaning toward biofuels, despite the
controversy, because biofuels are the easiest to retrofit into an operation. While the land use impacts of
biofuels cannot be ignored, it must also be considered that alternative production methods may arise in the
future that many alleviate the cited land use challenges. The only known is that the future is uncertain, but
even with relatively limited progress in these other modes, Metrolink may best be positioned by watching
closely how the road-based vehicles and maritime industry evolve over the next decade, and pursue
incremental improvements based on the best practices in either industry to help advance it toward its own
zero emission concept.

19
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX E

Simulation Assumptions and Results

Battery Electric Locomotive Simulation

San Bernardino Antelope Valley

Criteria
Line Line

Number of Cars in the Consist 4 2

Trip Length (miles) 58 75
Max Speed (mph) 77 77
Consumed Energy (kWh) 1987 (one-way) 2725 (round-trip)
Number of Trips without 1 one-way 1 round-trip
Required Battery Capacity 3320 4260

20
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Hydrogen Battery Hybrid

Antelope Valley
Criteria San Bernardino Line
Line

Number of Cars in the Consist 4 2

Trip Length (miles) 58 75

Max Speed (mph) 77 77

Fuel Cell Power (kW) 900 800

Battery Capacity (kWh) 825 800
Qty of H2 Required 271 312
Number of Trips without H2 Refill 1 round-trip 1.5 round-trips

Grade on Antelope Valley Line

21
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX F
In the “Metrolink Fleet Modernization Alternate Propulsion Study”, the feasibility of battery electric and fuel
cell battery hybrid locomotives and RMUs is analyzed on some of the Metrolink’s routes. In this analysis,
first battery capacity, fuel cell power, and hydrogen tanks a locomotive and an RMU can accommodate are
estimated and then the energy consumption of each vehicle type with a zero emission propulsion system
is simulated on Antelope Valley Line and San Bernardino Line. For the battery electric propulsion, the
battery capacities an F-59 PHI locomotive and a 4-car RMU can accommodate are calculated as 4,250
kWh and 2,610 kWh, respectively. For the fuel cell battery hybrid locomotive, on-board hydrogen storage
capacity of an F-59 PHI locomotive and a 4-car RMU are estimated as 330 kg and 200 kg, respectively.

Battery Placement on an F-59 PHI Locomotive

22
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Battery Placement on an RMU

Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid System Placement on an F-59 PHI

Locomotive

23
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Fuel Cell Battery Hybrid System Placement on an RMU

24
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX G

Low Emission Vehicle Alternative to Zero Emission Locomotive

If Metrolink would not be able to invest in a costly pilot zero emission vehicle. In this scenario, Metrolink
can plan to pursue the acquisition of a pilot vehicle with diesel battery hybrid propulsion shown in the figure
below. The technical specifications of this type of vehicle will be as follows:

Smaller diesel engine than the engine of a conventional diesel electric propulsion
High power Li-Ion battery pack to provide additional traction power and store regenerative braking
energy
High power Li-Ion battery pack to propel the train without the support of diesel engine (turned off
diesel engine)
Approximately 15-mile zero emission range (the range would depend on the route profile and train
configuration)
When the battery charge level drops below a certain threshold, diesel engine turns on and the
propulsion switches from zero emission mode to diesel battery hybrid mode.
The vehicle can be charged by the diesel engine and wayside 480 VAC voltage source.

Pilot Propulsion Technology for Low-Funding Case: Diesel Battery Hybrid

To limit the project budget, a high-power overhead charging system will not be installed, electricity grid
capacity at CMF will not be upgraded and the battery will be charged with the existing 480 VAC capacity at
CMF and layover stations.

The initial goals set for a pilot battery electric vehicle can be achieved with the proposed low-cost diesel
battery hybrid vehicle. According to the initial evaluation, it is expected that 60% of initial goals set for a
battery electric vehicle can be achieved with a diesel battery hybrid vehicle. However, the advantages of
this type of vehicle would be its comparable range to a diesel electric locomotive and hence the feasibility
of operating the pilot diesel battery hybrid vehicle in revenue service for many years even after the end of
the pilot project. Moreover, if the diesel engine in this vehicle consumes renewable diesel, the net emissions
would be close to zero and the vehicle can operate quietly with zero local emissions in battery only mode
at CMF or heavily populated residential areas.

25
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Pilot Goal Evaluation Capability Explanation

Since the diesel battery hybrid vehicle can
Range of the train on the target run in battery mode, the range of the train
routes during actual operating with the on-board battery capacity can be
conditions evaluated.
Since the vehicle will have limited range
due to small battery capacity, the testing
time will be longer than a battery electric
Battery capacity determination vehicle because a route would need to be
on the target vehicle for the divided into small segments and the
target routes vehicle needs to run each small segment
in battery mode in a separate test to
evaluate the required battery capacity for
a target route.

Alternative battery charging High power charging through a

methods pantograph could not be evaluated.
Since high power charging will not occur,
Infrastructure limitations on the the resiliency and power capacity of the
charging system grid infrastructure will not be assessed.
Although the reliability of a battery electric
propulsion system will be evaluated
Reliability of the propulsion successfully, the reliability of a high-power
system and charging system overhead charging system could not be
assessed due to its unavailability.
Since high power Li-Ion battery pack is
needed for hybrid applications and a
battery electric vehicle uses high energy
Li-Ion battery pack, the battery aging
information obtained from a diesel battery
Battery aging hybrid vehicle cannot fully represent the
battery aging in a battery electric vehicle.
Moreover, since there will not be high-
power charging, its effect on battery life
cannot be assessed.
Electricity cost due to wayside 480 VAC
charging will be evaluated. But the effect
Electricity cost of high-power charging on demand
charges by the electric utility will not be
assessed.
Maintenance practices and related cost
Maintenance practices and cost items about a battery electric propulsion
can be evaluated.
The performance of the propulsion in
Performance under different terms of discharge/charge power and
weather conditions battery mode range in different climate
conditions can be evaluated.

26
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX H

CalSTA TIRCP Selected Grant - Project Detail Summary

27
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

Excerpt from LA Metro TIRCP Grant Application

Metro is applying for Network Integration funding in the amount of $10 million to advance clean
vehicle technology and test rail service delivery options. The proposed Zero Emissions Rail Multiple
Unit Pilot Project (ZEMU Pilot) would begin with nearly two years of study, collaboration with the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), operator of Metrolink, and regional
partnering to create a robust evaluation framework and plan for data sharing with state
stakeholders. and then the actual procurement and, first, three years of revenue service testing of
conventional (market-ready) diesel multiple units (which allows the ZEMU Pilot to move forward
following an opportunity to test the DMU equipment type in revenue service) and then a final year
of revenue service testing with hydrogen fuel cell, or other zero-emissions technology multiple units
(ZEMUs), which is more in alignment with the sustainable goals of both Metro and Metrolink. The
2020 TIRCP request for $10 million funds the conversion of the rail multiple unit from diesel to
hydrogen fuel cell, or other zero-emission propulsion technology, as determined through a
proposed Regional Collaborative Planning Process.

28
 Metrolink Zero Emissions Technical Analysis

APPENDIX I

Platform Studies and Waivers

The purpose of this appendix is to discuss the requirements for platform and vehicle height regarding
whether level boarding is required. Requirements for Commuter Rail Vehicles are covered in 49 CFR
38.91 General and requirements for vehicles that are not level boarding due to it being structurally or
operationally impracticable are in 49 CFR 38.95 Mobility aid accessibility. Station/platform requirements
are covered in 49CFR 37.42 Service in an Integrated Setting to Passengers at Intercity, Commuter, and
High-Speed Rail Station Platforms Constructed or Altered After February 1, 2012.

FRA and Peer studies have identified the justifications for using min-high platforms when stations are
operating in mixed service, including freight and passenger service where trains may pass stations at
speed.
Study of Methods to Improve or Correct Station Platform Gaps, dated October 2010, was an FRA
sponsored document provided as a Report to the House and Senate Authorizing Committee. This study
examined current conditions and looked at the possible mitigation measures and the relative costs of
those strategies. Mini-high platforms where full length level boarding were not available or practicable
were an acceptable mitigation strategy.

Level Boarding Challenges for Commuter Rail Systems, dated 2010 was an APTA paper presented
when the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking regarding level boarding was proposed. It examined the
specific challenges faced by the railroads and transit agencies.

Peer Services have been through the review process with the FRA and gotten approval to proceed with
the non level boarding approach using mini-high platforms to provide Mobility accessibility.

For the Perris Valley Line, a paper was provided recommending (and getting approval) for operation with
mini-high platforms. The document was Accessibility Compliance with USDOT Level Boarding Guidance,
dated October 25, 2010. The study went through the various steps required to demonstrate that level
boarding was not practicable for this line and the vehicles that would be operating on it. It is assumed a
similar study would be required for operation of an RMU vehicle on Metrolink’s existing system with mini-
high platforms.

If Level boarding should be required, the mini-high platform approach is an option, but will require detail
placement. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has taken the use of multiple types of mini-high
platforms to manage their intermodal stations where multiple types of vehicles from various operators will
be used on the new Valley Rail Stations. They have developed Valley Rail Station Design Guidelines,
approved November 12, 2021, which describes and illustrate the approach they intend to take.

29