VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To get the kind of average speeds they are promising there is going to have to be a fair bit of overlap into HSR territory.

I don't see how you get that. They just need long stretches where they operate at closer to max speed. An average speed of 78 mph, does not mean in anyway they need to operate above 125 mph (very lowest end of HSR) to achieve that average. Remember that the goal here is to stay below requirements for expensive grade separation. If they can cobble together enough stretches at 110 mph and keep suburban running at a decent speed (> 50 mph), they should be able to pull this off. And if they achieve 3.5 hrs instead of 3.25 hrs as rumoured in the Globe article, I don't think too many people are going to be crying over it. Still much faster than driving.

Originally Posted by acottawa

They are promising a 25% reduction in Ottawa-Montreal, so I am not sure how they would get those sorts of improvements without significant investment. They also need to get through Montreal to the start of the Q-G, where there is no obvious route and as far as I know have not published a plan for doing that.

Urban Sky has already covered this in previous posts. They've come close to the proposed HFR trip times in existing services. All they need are a few improvements to ensure that can be done consistently in both directions.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The VIA owned track between Smith Falls and Coteau is not particularly fast, despite not having the freight conflicts that everyone keeps complaining about. They have not released any plans, but if they are cheap I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have implemented them already.

It's been my criticism that they should have spent the $90-100 million to do this already. Best that I can understand is that they don't want to build that infrastructure if the rest of the project isn't going to happen. A large chunk of the requirement is based on through service at Ottawa, creating specific meeting times that would drive requirements for passing tracks.

Originally Posted by acottawa

We don’t really know how much of the Agincourt-Glen Tay infrastructure is actually useable for the speeds Via needs. Agincourt to Havelock is class 1 track with a 10 mph speed limit. The last time via used the line it took hours. Is it just replacing the rails (or installing rails on the snowmobile track) or does all the ballast have to be replaced? Do the bridges have to be replaced? How are they getting across Peterborough? How are they crossing the Trent? (using the existing swing bridge?). If you have to grade separated he line through Peterborough and build a new bridge then the cost is not much different than HSR.

And then there are the curves. Much of the route looks like a sine wave because Victorian engineers avoided geographic features. Since they have non-tilting rolling stock many curves will probably have to go.

Yes, there's lots of details. And most of that is beyond the scope of random bulletin board discussions. That's for the owner's engineers VIA hired to sort out when they contract.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The cost of going through or over geographic obstacles is not much different if you’re building to HSR or HFR specs.

Disagree. HFR isn't a specific speed commitment. It's primary goal is frequency. Capacity and speed are corollary benefits achieved simply by building a dedicated corridor for high frequency. This is very different from HSR where speed is the goal and the entire corridor, track and rolling stock are designed to that goal.

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I have said before, this proposal is costed (about 5 million per km) as if relatively straightforward upgrade to an existing line. Yet the average speeds are estimated as if it were a greenfield project, engineered from the ground up to meet very ambitious targets.

Again, keep in mind their primary goal is frequency. With reliability a close second. Most of the speed gains they get are ancillary, coming from a dedicated corridor. So I really doubt there's an "ambitious target" for speed.

And the per km cost of the whole project is a bit deceiving. There's very little required to be spent on Ottawa-Montreal. And there's existing corridors for both Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec City, which at least removes a lot of the costs associated with assembling a corridor and expropriating land. Most of the money will actually be going to improve track itself. This is very different from a real greenfield project where you'd be spending millions per km buying up land.

In any event, until the JPO actually puts out all their work next year, all we have to go on is what the media got through FOIA. I think it's a reach to start slamming it as completely infeasible based on that info.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I think you forgot that we sold CN, so unlike when it was a Crown Corporation we have little control over it. Even Canadian shareholders of which I am one have little control over it. Only the federal government through its legislative means has limited control.

We should have kept the track and sold the rolling stock and the sales book.

We sold CN. We paid for the tracks for CP to own them. I know the legal standing of them.

There are 2 words everyone forgets. They are Expropriation, and Nationalization. If the government really wanted to force the issue, they could use those to bring the rails back under government control. Nationalization is the cheaper route as Expropriation requires the government to pay fair market value for it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Personally, I don't think shutting it down would be a big deal. But I have repeatedly said, if we are going to have services, they should be daily. But pushing a northern and southern route and more frequencies simply risks making VIA a bigger hole.

So, you are contradicting yourself. That may be my confusion.

I have said that first they need to move at least the Canadian and Ocean to dailies, and it seemed you said no to it. I have added that they shouldd bring back the southern route, and even break them up at the major cities. I am not suggesting it all happen at the same time.

Let's say that 2022, they will make the existing Canadian and Ocean routes dailies. I would hope that by 2032, the southern route is brought back as a daily. This keeps the hole from getting too big too quickly.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The fact is irrelevant and there's no legal mess. It's not a crown corporation. It's an exchange listed public corporation now. So there is nothing the government can do to impose on it without ponying up substantial sums.

See above. They can do that, and during a pandemic, they would have more capability to do it. I know they won't.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I share milo's view on this. Do it right or don't do it at all. Doing it wrong just risks creating another money pit for VIA. Any service offered has to be:

1) Competitive with driving on trip times from downtown to downtown.
2) Price competitive (not cheaper than) single-occupancy driving.

Incidentally, this is exactly the approach VIA is taking HFR in the Corridor. The advantage in relatively shorter distances is that competitive with driving also ends up being somewhat competitive with flying.

Actually, what they are taking is what I have suggested.They used an existing route (Lakeshore). They built up demand, and now they are looking at getting HFR. This is exactly what I am suggesting.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't see how you get that. They just need long stretches where they operate at closer to max speed. An average speed of 78 mph, does not mean in anyway they need to operate above 125 mph (very lowest end of HSR) to achieve that average. Remember that the goal here is to stay below requirements for expensive grade separation. If they can cobble together enough stretches at 110 mph and keep suburban running at a decent speed (> 50 mph), they should be able to pull this off. And if they achieve 3.5 hrs instead of 3.25 hrs as rumoured in the Globe article, I don't think too many people are going to be crying over it. Still much faster than driving.



Urban Sky has already covered this in previous posts. They've come close to the proposed HFR trip times in existing services. All they need are a few improvements to ensure that can be done consistently in both directions.



It's been my criticism that they should have spent the $90-100 million to do this already. Best that I can understand is that they don't want to build that infrastructure if the rest of the project isn't going to happen. A large chunk of the requirement is based on through service at Ottawa, creating specific meeting times that would drive requirements for passing tracks.



Yes, there's lots of details. And most of that is beyond the scope of random bulletin board discussions. That's for the owner's engineers VIA hired to sort out when they contract.



Disagree. HFR isn't a specific speed commitment. It's primary goal is frequency. Capacity and speed are corollary benefits achieved simply by building a dedicated corridor for high frequency. This is very different from HSR where speed is the goal and the entire corridor, track and rolling stock are designed to that goal.



Again, keep in mind their primary goal is frequency. With reliability a close second. Most of the speed gains they get are ancillary, coming from a dedicated corridor. So I really doubt there's an "ambitious target" for speed.

And the per km cost of the whole project is a bit deceiving. There's very little required to be spent on Ottawa-Montreal. And there's existing corridors for both Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec City, which at least removes a lot of the costs associated with assembling a corridor and expropriating land. Most of the money will actually be going to improve track itself. This is very different from a real greenfield project where you'd be spending millions per km buying up land.

In any event, until the JPO actually puts out all their work next year, all we have to go on is what the media got through FOIA. I think it's a reach to start slamming it as completely infeasible based on that info.

If Ottawa-Montreal needs “a few improvements” to cut its trip times by 25% and 100million will cut travel times on existing Via tracks, it does not give me a lot of confidence that this hasn’t been done already. The feds have been desperate to push infrastructure funding out the door for years.

I take your point that frequency is the main goal. But Via has made some substantial claims about average speeds, and it is dependent on those claims because of plans to route Toronto-Montreal traffic through Ottawa (at a significant increase in distance).

The cost scales for these improvements are not particularly gradual in many cases. Either they use the existing Peterborough infrastructure (and whatever speed limits and swing bridge delays are associated with that infrastructure and its 20 level crossings) or they are into something quite expensive (building a bypass around the city or a big Weston-style grade separation project). Same situation in Toronto, same situation with the dozen or so lakes the line crosses.

They still have to acquire the land. The existence of a corridor means they are acquiring land from fewer owners.

[Truenorth00]

At this point we're discussing a lot of theoreticals. We'll know more in a few months. I am just going to wait for that.

[ssiguy]

This whole conversation about Mon-Ott-Tor HSR is also indicative of how political VIA is. The reality is that the line with the lowest subsidies due to it's high ridership combined with a smaller distance is the Toronto-London-Windsor Corridor. Of course they don't have as much political power so the entire conversation has to revolve around MOT.

[ssiguy]

There is another issue that VIA is going to have to contend with in the next 20 years which it basically has no money {or even realistic plans} to do............decarbonizing the network. VIA must get off it's diesel addiction and especially in the Corridor where 95% it's traffic is centered.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This whole conversation about Mon-Ott-Tor HSR is also indicative of how political VIA is. The reality is that line with the lowest subsidies due to it's high ridership combined with a smaller distance is the Toronto-London-Windsor Corridor. Of course they don't have as much political power so the entire conversation has to revolve around MOT.

I just look up the Annual Report.

You're correct that subsidy is lower on Corridor West.

https://media.viarail.ca/sites/defau...AR_ENGLISH.pdf

But I don't see how this justifies lower investment when the bulk of ridership is Corridor East. The higher subsidy of Corridor East also implies that there's plenty of room for cost reduction there.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There is another issue that VIA is going to have to contend with in the next 20 years which it basically has no money {or even realistic plans} to do............decarbonizing the network. VIA must get off it's diesel addiction and especially in the Corridor where 95% it's traffic is centered.

Tough to do, but if they are planning on dedicated trackage in the corridor, it would make sense to electrify it from day one.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There is another issue that VIA is going to have to contend with in the next 20 years which it basically has no money {or even realistic plans} to do............decarbonizing the network. VIA must get off it's diesel addiction and especially in the Corridor where 95% it's traffic is centered.

Hence the offered up add-on for electrification that they had said would cost about $2B. One of the challenges with electrification is that the suburban rail networks that VIA will use need to be compatible. So until Metrolinx gets moving on electrification, it's not worthwhile to electrify HFR. They just need to make sure that the line is designed with electrification in mind.

[Nouvellecosse]

Now that there are battery trains being offered by major rolling stock producers it might not even need to be electrified in its entirety. If there were gaps of 50-100km here and there in places where it is more difficult to electrify, it could run on battery for those stretches and recharge once back on the grid.

However, I wonder if electrification would even be a net benefit to the decarbonization process? The train would already have low carbon emissions per person if it's running fairly full, so it might be better to spend any money saved by not electrifying on other improvements that could attract even more customers and take even more car trips off the road.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Now that there are battery trains being offered by major rolling stock producers it might not even need to be electrified in its entirety. If there were gaps of 50-100km here and there in places where it is more difficult to electrify, it could run on battery for those stretches and recharge once back on the grid.

50-100 km won't really be enough here. Since the only tracks that would be electrified by their operators are the suburban rail networks in Toronto and Montreal.

The other issue is that the battery trains tend to run slower when operating on battery. That of course would result in loss of ridership, which would defeat the purpose of investing in intercity rail.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

However, I wonder if electrification would even be a net benefit to the decarbonization process? The train would already have low carbon emissions per person if it's running fairly full, so it might be better to spend any money saved by not electrifying on other improvements that could attract even more customers and take even more car trips off the road.

At $2B there's definitely questions on value. But keep in mind it's not just about decarbonization. Electrification gives trains smoother acceleration, makes them run quieter, reduces the cost of operation, and allows for longer service lives. So there's definitely economic value in electrification beyond just support for decarbonization.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

An average speed of 62% of max speed is on the high side. On the track it already owns Via currently operates at 50% of max speed, which is about what the Acela operates at.

There are only three Corridor segments which VIA owns:

In the case of Coteau-Ottawa, the fastest travel time between these two stations translates currently to 70% of the top speed, which is down from 77% in 2005, but still above the 66% HFR aims for between Montreal and Ottawa.

In the case of Ottawa-Brockville, the fastest travel time between these two stations translates currently to 57% of the top speed, which is down from 62% in 1987. Admitedly, HFR aims at 70% between Ottawa and Toronto, but that's only marginally higher than where VIA stands currently (68%) and actually lower than where it stood in 2014 (74%).

Finally, there is Chatham-Windsor, which has basically the same percentages as Ottawa-Brockville.

In short, the ratio between targeted average speed and maximum speed is in line with what has been already achieved in the past and present on the Corridor:


Compiled from: private VIA Rail Timetable archive and travel times released for HFR by the Globe and Mail

In Europe it is common for routes to operate at 45% of max speed.

https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/spec...il-19-2018/en/

Again, not a technical problem but probably a cost one.

It really speaks volumes about your level of expertise on the subject that even after all the years we've been arguing here, you still don't grasp the difference between High Speed Rail on one hand and conventional intercity rail like HFR on the other.

I'll try to explain this to you without sounding like I'm explaining it to someone who has just joined the discussion, but the more you increase the design speed, the smaller will be the proportion of total distance covered which can actually be upgraded to that speed (because beyond a certain speed, you can no longer have level crossings, share tracks with freight, use legacy signaling systems or fit the minimum radii you require in-between existing buildings and infrastructure). Furthermore, the higher speeds you reach, the more distance you need to cover for a given speed increment. Add to that the fact that you will rarely be able in Europe to link two mass population centers 400 km apart with hitting only one population center of 100k+ and that every stop means that you have to accelerate again from zero, and you might finally start to understand why the percentage of average vs. maximum speed is so low for many HSR systems in Europe - and why it has so little relevance for conventional intercity rail proposals in Canada. Because whatever HFR tries to achieve has already been done before - in Europe and even in Canada:


Compiled from: private VIA Rail Timetable archive, travel times released for HFR by the Globe and Mail and the European Rail Timetable (Winter 2019/20 Edition, i.e. pre-CoVid)

Originally Posted by milomilo

An average speed for HFR of 85mph does sound high. For interest, I compared it to a route I know well - London (UK) to Newcastle, which while not HSR, is 125mph trains on high quality, fast, electrified track with only a few stops (perhaps only 1 - 3). It does the 270ish miles in about 3 hours 10 minutes - 85mph. Sometimes they can go a little faster, and slower also.

Happy to be corrected, but I cannot see a Siemens Charger on Canadian track spending anywhere close to as much time at a top speed of 125mph as they would on the East Coast Main Line in the UK, where it's basically full speed the whole trip.

Indeed, if you exaggerate simultaneously the average speed promised for HFR (85 vs. 76 mph) and the travel time normally achieved between Newcastle and London (3:10h instead of the 2:35h Express and hourly 2:50h Semi-Express trains), the promises made for HFR might very well appear to be hard-to-believe:


Source: European Rail Timetable (Winter 2019/20 Edition, i.e. pre-CoVid)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

50-100 km won't really be enough here. Since the only tracks that would be electrified by their operators are the suburban rail networks in Toronto and Montreal.

The other issue is that the battery trains tend to run slower when operating on battery. That of course would result in loss of ridership, which would defeat the purpose of investing in intercity rail.

I thought we were talking about whether or not the full via HFR route should be electrified? In that context I'm talking about the difference between electrifying the whole thing vs just doing large portions of it but leaving gaps of up to 50-100km in places where electrification would be costlier as a savings measure. In other words, using bi-mode trains that could run on catenary or on battery

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At $2B there's definitely questions on value. But keep in mind it's not just about decarbonization. Electrification gives trains smoother acceleration, makes them run quieter, reduces the cost of operation, and allows for longer service lives. So there's definitely economic value in electrification beyond just support for decarbonization.

Long distance intercity rail doesn't see much benefit in terms of acceleration since there is such a low density of stops. Electric trains are quieter, but that has the greatest effect when comparing EMU vs DMU. If VIA doesn't electrify it would probably be using diesel locomotives such as the new Chargers which keeps the NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) mostly away from passengers. The overall economics tends to be determined by just how busy the rail corridor actually is. There is a point at which the cost of maintaining the electric infrastructure becomes greater than the savings in terms of fuel and rolling stock lifespan so it isn't automatically guaranteed that electrification makes economic sense. There would need to be a careful CBA done.

[ssiguy]

Apparently Siemens & Alstom are developing high speed hydrogen trains but that will take a while. There are, however, relatively high speed catenary-battery trains already deployed. They do not have the distance to ply Tor-Ott-Mon but certainly do for Lon-Tor.

No matter what they decide upon, the reality is that VIA is going to have to start dealing with the reality that they are going to have to decarbonize it's entire fleet by 2050 at the latest and CN & CP are going to have to do the same. This could be one of the very few instances where all 3 could work together in their mutual interests.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Apparently Siemens & Alstom are developing high speed hydrogen trains but that will take a while. There are, however, relatively high speed catenary-battery trains already deployed. They do not have the distance to ply Tor-Ott-Mon but certainly do for Lon-Tor.

No matter what they decide upon, the reality is that VIA is going to have to start dealing with the reality that they are going to have to decarbonize it's entire fleet by 2050 at the latest and CN & CP are going to have to do the same. This could be one of the very few instances where all 3 could work together in their mutual interests.

Provisions for the eventual transition towards electrification of the Corridor have already been made during the ongoing fleet renewal process, as outlined in the RFQ document:

(5) VIA Rail’s current Corridor services are provided on non-electrified infrastructure. However, over the thirty year life cycle of the trainsets, VIA Rail intends to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Therefore, VIA Rail is working on a long term plan to build its own dedicated infrastructure for passenger service in the Corridor that could be electrified to reduce the use of fossil fuels and allow operation at up to 125 mph. This long term plan has been presented by VIA Rail to its shareholder, the Government of Canada, and has yet to be approved. It should be noted that portions of the new routes on this infrastructure would remain non-electrified. Communities located in the current Corridor would also continue to be served by VIA Rail on the current non-electrified infrastructure.

(6) Options to acquire additional trainsets will be principally predicated on the Government of Canada's decision regarding VIA Rail's long term plan to build its own dedicated infrastructure. In the event that VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure in the Corridor but such infrastructure is not electrified, then additional diesel only trainsets will be required to enable increased service frequencies. If VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure and electrification is required, then the additional trainsets must be capable of both diesel and electric operation (dual-mode) at up to 125 mph, with seamless transition, and bi-directional operation. If the decision on VIA Rail's long term plan and the timeframe to implement this decision is not yet established at the time of the order for the additional trainsets, then the delivery of the additional trainsets could be deferred until the decision and schedule is available.

Also, the beauty of operating locomotive-hauled trains rather than DMUs is that you can achieve electrification by simply replacing the Diesel locomotive through an electric counterpart, which would allow to continue operating the new fleet in the Corridor for the remainder of their useful life while cascading the Diesel locomotives to other parts of the network...

[GoTrans]

It is time the federal government seriously addressed electrification on the main lines of both CN and CP in addition to Via owned ROWs. The government is going to have to give CN and CP some tax breaks or subsidies to do serious electrification. Besides having fewer moving parts and hence lower maintenance costs than diesels they can also pull above their design limits more than diesels before damaging the traction motors.

The first locations to electrify should in the GTA where both Via and GO run. The federal government should contribute funds to GO's electrification proposals all tracks used by Via and GO on a route be electrified.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is time the federal government seriously addressed electrification on the main lines of both CN and CP in addition to Via owned ROWs. The government is going to have to give CN and CP some tax breaks or subsidies to do serious electrification. Besides having fewer moving parts and hence lower maintenance costs than diesels they can also pull above their design limits more than diesels before damaging the traction motors.

The first locations to electrify should in the GTA where both Via and GO run. The federal government should contribute funds to GO's electrification proposals all tracks used by Via and GO on a route be electrified.

Why? CN and CP are not idiots, they know how to make money and if it would save them money long term to electrify their tracks they would do it.

In terms of CO2, freight transport by rail is not going to be low hanging fruit. It's already far more efficient to transport goods by train than by truck, so we don't want to needlessly mess around with rail freight operation and make it more expensive. The only thing the government should do is ensure the carbon price is universal, and at an appropriate level.

I'm not sure OHLE will be easily compatible with both VIA and freight either, so the first step would be getting a dedicated ROW anyway, and at that point the electrification issue is out of CN and CP's hands.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is time the federal government seriously addressed electrification on the main lines of both CN and CP in addition to Via owned ROWs. The government is going to have to give CN and CP some tax breaks or subsidies to do serious electrification. Besides having fewer moving parts and hence lower maintenance costs than diesels they can also pull above their design limits more than diesels before damaging the traction motors.

The first locations to electrify should in the GTA where both Via and GO run. The federal government should contribute funds to GO's electrification proposals all tracks used by Via and GO on a route be electrified.

Since "currently, Metrolinx owns 69% of the GO Train corridor network" (I believe it was higher, but presumably extensions to the service lowered the percentage), that would be the easiest and most productive place to start (shortest distances with most frequent service) along with any non-electrified track owned by Exo. After that I would electrify any track owned by VIA Rail (including HFR).

While electrifying freight corridors could have some benefits (assuming the local grid is green enough*), incentives to encourage more freight to be transferred from truck to rail (even with diesel powered freight) would do far more for carbon reductions. As I said in the Rail Transit (Passenger and Freight) in Ontario thread:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Trains (even diesel ones) emit significantly less carbon than trucks when transporting the same amount of cargo. As this Popular Science article says, in the USA "trucks move 29 percent of the freight ton-miles, but are responsible for 77 percent of the sector’s emissions" and "rail moves 40 percent of freight as measured in ton-miles but is responsible for only 8 percent of freight transportation carbon emissions." That is 2.6 times as much cargo for about a tenth of the carbon emissions.

Here are a couple interesting articles about electrifying freight trains in the USA. Like everything online, you need to do a bit of fact checking to see how accurate the figures are (there is some obsolete information and arguments that aren't applicable to Canada), but they do have some valid points.

• Electrification of US Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal?
• Electrifying freight trains in the U.S. is a really bad idea

* Some provinces don't have a green grid, including Alberta (Coal and coke: 47.0%, Natural gas: 40.0%), Saskatchewan (Coal and coke: 49.0%, Natural gas: 34.0%), Nova Scotia (Coal and coke: 64.0%, Natural gas: 13.0%, Petroleum: 3.0%), and to a lesser extent New Brunswick (Coal and coke: 21.0%, Natural gas: 15.0%, Petroleum: 4.0%). In Ontario it is 6.2% Natural gas, but a significant increase in demand would likely cause that percentage to rise. ref

[Nouvellecosse]

Honestly I don't know that it'll necessarily ever be worth trying to electrify freight rail in the context of Canada. It already produces such low levels of Co2 per ton of cargo transported that you could potentially create more lifetime energy emissions by trying to produce the billions of $$ of economic value that would be needed to pay for it. Not to mention the embedded energy to create the actual infrastructure (poles, cables, transformer stations, etc) needed to electrify rail lines that stretch thousands of km and carry a few trains per day per direction. Once the rest of the economy is decarbonized, the best way to address freight rail emissions is probably to either do some sort of carbon offset program or to use biodiesel which can potentially be carbon neutral.

The same probably goes for shipping industry.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Honestly I don't know that it'll necessarily ever be worth trying to electrify freight rail in the context of Canada. It already produces such low levels of Co2 per ton of cargo transported that you could potentially create more lifetime energy emissions by trying to produce the billions of $$ of economic value that would be needed to pay for it. Not to mention the embedded energy to create the actual infrastructure (poles, cables, transformer stations, etc) needed to electrify rail lines that stretch thousands of km and carry a few trains per day per direction. Once the rest of the economy is decarbonized, the best way to address freight rail emissions is probably to either do some sort of carbon offset program or to use biodiesel which can potentially be carbon neutral.

The same probably goes for shipping industry.

H2 seems like a good option - adding a car or two of H2 tanks to the train would be trivial. Would just depend if the cost is worth it vs electrifying, batteries or biofuel.

As you say though, this is not low lying fruit. There's a ton of things to clean up before we look at the railways.