Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal (TOES) Barriers and Opportunities

Submitted to:

Transport Canada Place de Ville Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5 Contract No. T8080-200257

Attention:

The Innovation Centre

March 31, 2021

Prepared by:

Change Energy Services Inc. 2140 Winston Park Drive Suite 203 Oakville, ON L6H 5V5

File D20.031ene

This document contains information proprietary to Change Energy Services Inc. Any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Copyright © 2021 Change Energy Services Inc.

All rights reserved. The use of any part of this document, whether it is reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or means (including electronic, mechanical, photographic, photocopying or recording), without the prior written permission of Change Energy Services is an infringement of copyright law.

Change Energy Services is solely liable and responsible for the contents of this document. Inclusion of any names of external organizations is for acknowledgement purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of contents.

Transport Canada Disclaimer

This report reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily the official views or policies of the Innovation Centre of Transport Canada or the co-sponsoring organizations.

Transport Canada does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear in the report only because they are essential to its objectives.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 2 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2.0 REVIEW OF GLOBAL HYDRAIL ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED ..... 10 2.1 Survey of Hydrail Projects, Worldwide ...... 15

3.0 ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETE HYDRAIL SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL CHALLENGES ...... 30

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ...... 40 4.1 Methodology ...... 40 4.2 Operational impacts of hydrail transition scenario – discussion ...... 59 4.3 Regulatory aspects of the hydrail transition scenario – discussion ...... 67

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS ...... 76 5.1 Methodology ...... 76 5.2 Capital requirements assessment ...... 79 5.3 Operating expenses assessment ...... 81

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS ...... 84

7.0 DEVELOPING A HYDRAIL TRANSITION ROADMAP ...... 88

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 91

APPENDIX 1: RAILWAY NETWORK ACROSS CANADA ...... 95

APPENDIX 2: EXTRAPOLATION FROM PAST TRENDS ...... 100

APPENDIX 3: FLEET TURNOVER SCHEDULE ...... 102

APPENDIX 4: FUEL CONSUMPTION ...... 108

APPENDIX 5: ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS ...... 114

APPENDIX 6: CUMULATIVE GHG EMISSIONS ...... 120

APPENDIX 7: ANNUAL CAC EMISSIONS...... 126

APPENDIX 8: CUMULATIVE CAC EMISSIONS ...... 137

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 3 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an assessment of the technological, operational, economical and societal (TOES) barriers and opportunities of transitioning Canada’s railway sector from the current diesel-dominant energy system to a future state that is principally powered by hydrogen. The purpose of this study is to inform industry stakeholders of the scale of such an undertaking, and to provide an analytical basis on which to evaluate its feasibility.

To frame the assessment, a hypothetical transition model was constructed, consisting of a period of initial prototyping and testing of hydrail systems from present day to 2030, followed by a period of aggressive deployment to 2050, characterized as follows: ▪ 4,193 hydrogen fuel cell-electric locomotives in service, composed of: o 3,219 remanufactured (diesel-to-hydrogen conversions), and o 974 freshly manufactured (new to fleet) ▪ 445,560 tonnes of low-carbon hydrogen produced and used, annually; ▪ 78 megatonnes of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions avoided, 2030-2050; and ▪ 169 hydrogen refuelling facilities operating throughout the railway network.

The cost of this hydrail transition, relative to a business-as-usual projection to 2050, is estimated at $32 billion in locomotive and tender equipment, as well as infrastructure to support refuelling. Incremental to diesel, annual hydrogen fuel expenditures are estimated to range from no change to more than double. Other operating expenses are not expected to change significantly.

The technical feasibility of hydrail has already been demonstrated through roughly a dozen passenger trains currently in operation, globally. To develop the application for use in North American railways, pre-commercial development of hydrail system architectures is needed, especially in terms of locomotives and fuel tenders. A joint Canada-U.S. initiative involving government and industry would help advance commercialization, as most freight and passenger operations are continentally integrated. Opportunities to develop prototype vehicles and conduct trials should be prioritized and supported, to generate crucial knowledge and experience.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 4 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the methodology and findings of a study to assess the implications of a conceptual transition from diesel to hydrogen as the primary fuel to power Canada’s railway services, inclusive of freight and passenger modes. The implications considered include technical, operational, economic and societal (TOES) changes. The purpose of the report is not to predict the future of railway operations in Canada, nor to advocate for hydrail systems in general. Rather, the purpose is to explore the scale of such a transition and the impacts, and thus better understand the processes by which a decarbonization of railway operations in Canada could conceivably be achieved through the deployment of hydrail systems. This implies the use of hydrogen sourced through low-carbon intensity supply chains.

Railway sector activities and energy use currently accounts for approximately 4% of Canada’s transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or roughly 6.8 Mt. This share has been fairly steady, fluctuating only between 4% and 5% during 2005 through 2016. Growth in emissions that otherwise would have occurred have been mitigated in part through logistical and technological changes implemented by industry to reduce the carbon-intensity of rail transport. Indeed, GHG emissions intensity within the sector decreased by more than 40% between 1990 and 2017. Nonetheless, the absolute volume of emissions continues to grow as Canadian business and consumers rely increasingly on rail to transport goods to market. Nearly 70% of intercity ground freight (valued at $328 billion annually) is carried by railways, as is more that 88 million passenger trips in Canada. Since 1990, total gross tonne-km and revenue tonne-km have doubled. Yet, the locomotives that haul freight and passengers throughout Canada, which make possible these benefits, are nearly all dependent on diesel as fuel.

Hydrail systems are a promising alternative. Using hydrogen instead of diesel, and fuel cells instead of combustion engine-generators, electrical power can be delivered to the traction motors and auxiliary systems of a locomotive or self-propelled railcar. Full operational requirements can be met with no emissions, aside from water vapour. A small number of hydrail systems have already been introduced into passenger service in Europe and Asia, and demonstrated in a freight switcher locomotive in the U.S. However, the pathway to full-scale market adoption is only just begun. The content of this report begins with a review of available literature on the status of hydrail system deployments, globally, to help inform the analytical work that follows.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 5 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The approach taken in this study involves establishing a business-as-usual diesel reference case, in which the demand for diesel to satisfy freight and passenger movement in Canada is projected to 2030 and to 2050. It is hypothesized that a complete transition to hydrail would occur by the end of this period. To confirm, this is not a prediction – it is simply a thought experiment to generate insight into the dynamics of such a transition, and to inform policy development and decision-making.

A hydrogen-equivalence case is then developed, in which the amount of hydrogen and hydrail locomotive sets needed to reproduce the overall tractive effort of the diesel reference case is estimated. This methodology is repeated for each of the four categories of railway operations in Canada, as reported in Railway Association of Canada and Transport Canada publications: • Long Distance Trans-Canada Freight Service and Regional Service • Freight Service, restricted to locomotive switchers in railway/marshalling yards • Inter-City Passenger Rail Service • Commuter Passenger Rail

From this, conceptualizations of the input of the required volumes of hydrogen to the railway networks across Canada are generated, using infrastructure mapping to geographically characterize the systems of hydrogen supply. Based on these estimates, the prospective capital expenditures and operating expenses inherent in the system- wide transition to 2050 are assessed at a very high level. Associated operational changes will be explored and discussed, as well as reductions in emissions and potential, indirect benefits to Canadian society and industry competitiveness.

credit: VIA Rail Vacations; https://canadiantrainvacations.com/discover/via-rail

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 6 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The integrated North American freight railway industry

The integration and interoperability of railway system across the Canada-U.S. credit: Wikicommons. border deserves special consideration Self-published work by Kmusser) when imagining a hydrail transition. More than 30,000 locomotives operate within this system, many of which are leased to the railway companies, and any of which could be routinely operating on either side of the border. It is improbable that a complete technology transition could occur in Canada without a corresponding change in the U.S. This constraint will be addressed in this report in context of operational impacts, but for the sake of simplicity, the study disregards complex interactions with the U.S. share of the network when estimating energy and rolling stock for the hydrail system in Canada.

Historical precedence for rapid energy and technology transitions

A surprisingly short span of time – only about 15 years – separates the introduction of the first diesel locomotive in Canada and the retirement of the last coal-fired steam locomotive from service. The transition began in the U.S. in 1940, when General Motors’ Electro-Motive Division started delivering the first commercially produced line- haul freight locomotives. Due to World War II, diesel locomotive manufacturing was halted as production capacity was redeployed to military priorities (e.g., armoured vehicle and tank production). Upon resuming locomotive production in 1943-1944, GM- EMD established itself as the lead in diesel-electric locomotive design. By 1950, GM- EMD was the number-one locomotive manufacturer in the U.S. In 1949, it opened a subsidiary plant in London, Ontario to produce diesel locomotives for the Canadian market. Both CN and CP acquired their first line-haul diesel locomotives (i.e., not yard switchers) from GM-EMD, largely from London-built. The process of railway dieselization in Canada and the U.S. had largely concluded by 1960, having begun only 20 years earlier in the U.S.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 7 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

This transition in fuel and technology precipitated major changes in the movement of trains. Locomotives no longer needed coal and water to operate, so many of the supply depots, yards and service centres specializing in steam were eventually closed or relocated, profoundly impacting some communities along the railways. Labour within the railways also changed. For example, shoveling Examples of railway infrastructure rendered coal on steam locomotives was a obsolete by dieselization. task no longer needed, while diesel Above: CP coaling tower in McAdam, New Brunswick, locomotive operations required the refilling a fuel tender for a rapid development of new skills, steam locomotive in 1959. Side: CN water tower in training, practices, codes and Barry’s Bay, Ontario. standards. sources: RR Picture Archives .net Notwithstanding the level of http://www.rrpicturearchives.n et/showPicture.aspx?id=2553 disruption it caused within the 913# industry, the transition from coal to Canadian Science & Technology Museums diesel was driven by a number of https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/3 compelling benefits, including: 22640760781508558/

• Lower operating costs – diesel-electric locomotives were mechanically simpler to maintain, repair and operate. Consider that coal-fired steam locomotives consumed not only coal, but also water. • Lower manufacturing and procurement costs – diesel-electric locomotives were usually mass-produced, using common parts (from many different builders); by comparison, steam locomotives involved many hand-made parts and involved complicated boiler systems. • Divesting of fuel infrastructure – railways needed to maintain an extensive supply infrastructure for coal; the shift to diesel allowed them to divest of that burden. • Lower labour costs – fewer personnel are needed to operate and maintain a fleet of diesel locomotives compared to coal-fired steam units. • Inherent benefits of liquid fuel – diesel was more dense, easier to store and refuel, and is comparatively cleaner and less expensive to manage than coal.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 8 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Put simply, diesel enabled safer, cleaner more productive railway operations. A transition from diesel to hydrail systems would be expected to bring about a similar scale of disruption. Accordingly, it would need to be driven by a similarly compelling value proposition. This study begins to explore that proposition from both an industry and a broader societal perspective.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 9 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

2.0 REVIEW OF GLOBAL HYDRAIL ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED

To assess the state of activity in prospective markets for hydrail technologies, globally, the study team conducted a scan of available literature, including corporate communications (up to November 2020). A summary of the research is presented in the section that follows, and the key findings are shown below.

Profile of hydrail initiatives

Hydrail systems are still in a very early stage of commercialization. As of November 2020, there are an estimated twelve hydrail vehicles in operation on rails around the world. If the announced delivery schedules are fulfilled, then another three dozen units will enter service by 2022. Most of these trains are for passenger use, designed to carry approximately 50-150 people, seated and standing.

Alstom’s Coradia iLint dominates the current book of orders, but competitors’ designs are beginning to gain traction. The fuel cell stacks for announced products tend to be sized for 200-400 kW of output power, coupled with battery systems to support regenerative braking and to provide added boosts of power – up to another 400 kW or more – for acceleration. The hydrogen stored onboard is gaseous, usually pressurized to 350 bar.

So far, compliance with safety codes and standards does not appear to have been a barrier to operational deployments. Indeed, the Coradia iLint progressed from concept to service trials in only three years. The demonstrable success of the technology in light passenger applications NASA Technology Readiness Levels. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NASA- Technology-Readiness-Levels-Source-27_fig1_330508248 implies a technology readiness level (TRL) of 7-8. However, no current demonstrations of hydrail systems are currently underway in North America, which is dominated by freight service and

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 10 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

composed of heavier trains. Therefore, the study team estimates that TRL 5-6 is more appropriate to a Canadian context, with exceptions for some lighter, urban rail transit applications in which the higher TRL of European and Asian hydrail systems may apply.

In freight railway applications, the only real-world experience has been generated through switcher locomotive demonstration projects. The duty cycle of freight service differs significantly from passenger service, yet the two switcher demonstrations identified (one in California, one in Austria) do not appear to have revealed any technical barriers to further development or the potential for commercial use.

The number of studies about the prospect of hydrail vastly outnumbers the actual hydrail systems currently in use. This is further evidence that while there is substantive interest and support for the concept, hydrail remains in a pre-commercial phase of development. Strategic investments in hydrail development and deployment by industry and government are still relatively few, focused on demonstration and validation of the concept, as opposed to aggressive competition for sales, which would be an indicator of a maturing market.

Key drivers of hydrail initiatives

In virtually every deployment or planned deployment of a hydrail system, to-date, direct government funding and government-sponsored procurement has been key to overcoming market inertia. This is not surprising, as most passenger rail service is operated by government corporations or publicly supported in some way. The motivation for government to advance hydrail solutions seems to emerge from either of two principal interests (and sometimes both):

(i) climate change and decarbonization, or (ii) global industrial competitiveness.

In Germany, in the U.K. and in the U.S., for example, the self-imposed, legislative imperative to reduce emissions contributing to air pollution and to climate change, as part of a broader agenda of decarbonizing regional economies, is an unqualified driver of demand for hydrail systems. Were hydrail not an option in these jurisdictions, some other form of railway electrification would be pursued to displace diesel and reduce reliance on combustion of fossil fuels.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 11 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

In China and Austria, as contrasting examples, there appears to be a significant motivation to develop export opportunities in hydrogen technologies, in general, as well as hydrail solutions, in particular. Domestic investments in hydrail systems thus support an industrial competitiveness agenda. Action on climate change and air quality are also major drivers, of course, but these are integrated with an economic growth strategy.

In nearly all cases, the decision to build and deploy hydrail in a jurisdiction was precipitated by a procurement announcement. Whether it began as a competitive solicitation or a call for expressions-of-interest by a transportation authority, or some other directive, the opportunity to sell product was used by the public sector to motivate the private sector to commit resources to innovating a passenger hydrail solution.

Yet, here again, freight hydrail seems to eschew the trend. The switcher locomotive projects identified in the research seemed to have been led by private sector consortia, as opposed to government. Certainly, government funding was instrumental to project implementation, and the hydrail concept may have originally emerged from government laboratories, but public procurement or mandates don’t appear as key drivers. More likely, the private sector is motivated to proactively develop low-carbon solutions, such as hydrail, in anticipation of emissions regulation and in response to carbon risk.

Key roles – government, industry, investors

Around the world, passenger railway service is often a government enterprise. Public transit and intercity railway authorities are either creatures of government or are directly regulated by public agencies. Governments have used their leverage as the customer (on behalf of citizens) to stimulate hydrail development and fund it through procurement. Were governments to refrain from wielding the power of procurement, it is hard to see how rolling stock manufacturers would have justified the investment in hydrail innovation.

In the freight railway sector, however, government’s role is usually as an inspector and enforcer of safety rules and regulations. In this role, government could conceivably be a barrier to hydrail development, if their regulatory framework is highly prescriptive and not accommodating of technology change. However, this has not been the case in any hydrail deployments to-date. Freight hydrail systems have thus emerged as private sector-led initiatives, where government supports risk-taking through contributions of funding, knowledge and facilitating collaboration.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 12 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The role of investors is difficult to construe from the literature review. Many of the largest rolling stock manufactures and railway works companies, as well as the private sector freight railway companies, are privately owned with shares publicly traded. Accountability to shareholders – not the public – is a distinct feature of these organizations. The development and adoption of hydrail systems may therefore be viewed through the lens of business growth, profit and risk. Increasingly, large investment firms evaluate carbon risk before deciding large placements of capital. Carbon risk is tied to government action on climate change. Firms that are overly dependent on fossil fuels, or have limited alternatives to decarbonize their operations, may be considered higher-risk investment prospects, which could compromise the stability of the company and its perceived value over the long-term.

Therefore, in a speculative sense, investors may be a significant driver of hydrail system development in the freight sector even if, presently, a transition from diesel is difficult to practically envision.

Lessons for Canada

Generally (though not always), railways in Europe and Asia are centred around passenger transport, while in North America they are centred around the movement of freight. Passenger trains, whether in intercity regional or commuter service, tend to run on systems designed for freight. This means that hydrail in North America is likely to have operational implications for both passenger and freight service. However, there are some circumstances in which railways are dedicated to passenger service, at least for most of the time. Such separations of freight and passenger service, whether it is physical or temporal, may provide the conditions for early testing of existing models of hydrail passenger trains. For example, the Trillium Line in Ottawa, the Union Pearson Express and numerous tourist lines across Canada, could become hosts to pilots.

The power of procurement has been wielded to transformative effect in Europe – most demonstrably in Germany, although the U.K. is poised for significant deployments of hydrail systems, too. Canada’s federal and provincial governments could similarly lever their funding of regional and light rail transit to promote the development and adoption of first-of-a-kind hydrail solutions. A prime example is the GO commuter railway network. Although catenary electrification may occur on some lines in the future, there are others in the network that are obliged to remain powered by diesel, unless some alternative is developed. Moreover, if electrification does proceed, it will take years of construction work to complete. This constitutes a significant opportunity to commission

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 13 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

a hydrail pilot project through a competitive procurement process. Were a successful hydrail system developed for GO, it would immediately be transferrable to numerous other commuter rail authorities in the U.S., such as in Texas, Florida and California, that have adopted the locomotive and bi-level coach train solution innovated by GO.

Importantly, the concentration and volumes of hydrogen production and use associated with major hydrail system build-outs, especially for commuter, return-to-base operations, makes possible a range of other hydrogen and fuel cell applications in the immediate area. These could include fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in light- and heavy-duty applications, materials handling equipment, or hydrogen for industrial processing.

Canada’s current climate change framework, which ascribes equal importance to decarbonizing the economy and to “clean growth,” can draw on the drivers of hydrail systems development and deployment in other countries, which include reducing GHG emissions and enhancing industry competitiveness. This opportunity seems especially apparent in the use of fuel cells built by Ballard Power Systems and by Hydrogenics (a Cummins company) in nearly all of the hydrogen-powered trains and locomotive in use around the world today.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 14 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

2.1 Survey of Hydrail Projects, Worldwide

U.S. – BNSF 1205 shunter locomotive

In 2007-2008, a consortium of private sector and U.S. defense agencies was formed to test the concept of a hydrogen fuel cell-powered switcher locomotive. Two key objectives motivated this government- industry collaboration:

1. to reduce air and noise pollution in urban rail applications, including yard-switching associated with seaports (to be demonstrated in the Los Angele Basin, noted for severe occurrences of photochemical smog); 2. to serve as a mobile backup power source (“power-to-grid”) for military bases and civilian disaster relief efforts (to be demonstrated at Hill Air Force Base, Utah)

The project was mainly funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the consortium members included: • Ballard Power Systems – fuel cell power modules • BNSF Railway Company – fabrication, vehicle integration, testing, host of switchyard demonstration • Defense Gen. & Rail Equipment Center – advising on military applications; power-to-grid demonstration • Dynetek Industries – hydrogen storage • RailPower Hybrid Technologies – manufacturer of the Green Goat locomotive platform • Transportation Technologies Center – railway safety regulations • University of Nevada – Reno refueling system design • U.S. Army – project oversight • Vehicle Projects LLC – engineering design, project management • Washington Safety Management Solutions – safety analysis

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 15 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Further contributions of funding support were reported from the following organizations: 1. US Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program 2. US Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies 3. Government of Canada, Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change 4. Natural Resources Canada, Emerging Technologies Program 5. US Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency 6. Government of Japan, Railway Technical Research Institute 7. BNSF Railway Company 8. Fuelcell Propulsion Institute

A model GG20B battery-dominant hybrid switcher locomotive previously built by RailPower was acquired by BNSF for the project and labelled unit 1205. This switcher was originally adapted from an EMD GP9 (which speaks to the longevity of freight rolling stock in North America). Vehicle Projects LLC executed the conversion of the locomotive, substituting its original diesel-battery hybrid propulsion system with hydrogen fuel cell-based prime mover for experimental testing. The existing battery system of the Green Goat was used, while the powerplant and onboard hydrogen storage was based on a Mercedes-Benz Citaro FuelCELL-Hydrid bus.

The vehicle was commissioned at the AAR-TTCI (American Association of Railroads Transportation Technology Centre test center near Pueblo, Colorado. It was then moved to the BNSF railyard in Commerce, California (near San Bernardino, within the Los Angeles Basin region – the largest “air quality non-attainment area” in the U.S.).

There the locomotive was demonstrated for approximately three months, beginning in 2009, until a minor mechanical failure, unrelated to the fuel cells, forced a shutdown. Based on informal reports, the failed component may have been a simple, common blower fan that, when operational, served to ventilate the area around the fuel cell stacks. In such a circumstance, the fuel cell sensors would have detected a rise in ambient temperature conditions after the fan ceased running, and would properly execute a shutdown to protect the stacks from overheating. Perhaps a lack of routine inspection of common locomotive systems (i.e., not those pertaining to the new hydrogen equipment) resulted in the failure condition. Usually, a blower fan malfunction would not significantly impact the normal operation of a diesel-powered switcher locomotive, which are rugged and resilient machines.

According to informal reports, when the demonstration switcher was suspended from service following the shutdown of the fuel cell power modules, the program from which funding had been sourced for the project had closed. As a result, repairs were not

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 16 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

implemented and the locomotive was removed from service and later dismantled. The fuel cells were returned to Ballard Power Systems and the remains of the components reside with BNSF at the Topeka, Kansas shops.

The project produced a U.S. Patent for its design and control system architecture.1 Technically, the project was considered successful. Towards the end of its initial three- month trial period, before the unanticipated shutdown of the fuel cell power modules, the locomotive had performed well enough that deployment into road switching service was being considered.

Germany – Regional passenger railway service

In late-2014, four German states – Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden- Württemberg and Hesse – announced their interest in purchasing 40 hydrogen fuel cell- powered trains for operation in regional passenger service. A call for expressions-of- interest was issued. Respondents were told that their prospective solution must conform to the existing diesel-powered, articulated railcar design already in use, but with the diesel powerpacks replaced by some combination of hydrogen storage, fuel cells and battery systems. As well, the vehicles must match or exceed the performance of electric multiple units that could otherwise be procured. Lastly, the new trains were to be ready for service on regional lines by 2020.

The Federal Ministry for Transport and Digital Infrastructure supported the initiative of the states with a financial commitment €8 million, through Germany’s National Innovation Programme (NIP) for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology.

Alstom – a multinational company headquartered in France and one of the world's largest manufacturers of trains, tramways and trackwork – Alstom Transport President Henri Poupart-Lafarge signed letters of intent with four German regional authorities to develop 'zero committed to meet the terms, and was emission trains' in September 2014. selected by the states to build and test Credit: House of Logistics & Mobility (HOLM) GmbH website

1 Miller et al. US 8,117,969 B1. Feb. 21, 2012.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 17 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

prototype units, as part of a larger commitment to purchase 40 hydrogen-powered trains. Alstom proposed to adapt its popular Coradia Lint 54 diesel-powered trains, to be designed and manufactured at the company’s competence centre for regional trains in Salzgitter, Germany. In early 2015, Alstom announced an agreement with Canada- based Hydrogenics to co-develop the hydrogen fuel cell power plant for the new trains.

By 2018, two pre-series units, called the Coradia iLint model, had been completed and had begun a battery of trials and testing. The vehicles received a certification against standards defined by DNV-GL, one of the world’s most prominent classification societies, as well as approval by the German Railway Office in July. In September 2018, the trains entered commercial passenger service, fulfilling the terms with the four state governments in Germany and validating readiness for market. Currently, the trains refuel at a mobile facility beside the tracks at Bremervörde station. They have a top speed of 140 km/h and capacity for 150 passengers.

Letters of intent were signed for the delivery of 60 Coradia iLints to the four German states (more than the original announcement of 40). Delivery and operation of these trains is expected to commence in 2021. Some of the terms include maintenance and hydrogen supply for 25-30 years. Additional orders of 41 and 27 units, respectively, for operation in the Bavaria and Taunus regions were placed in 2019, for delivery starting in 2022.

Approximately half of the regional passenger railways in Germany are electrified, with electric trains drawing energy directly from powerlines overhead, suspended by a system of catenaries. A tether rising from the train roof provides for a rolling contact with overhead lines. This system is commonplace in Europe and in some other parts of the world for passenger service. However, the remaining portion of Germany’s railway network is not electrified, with trains relying on diesel-powered propulsion. The nation is committed to decarbonizing its transportation system, but retrofitting the diesel corridors with a catenary system is exceptionally expensive and disruptive to ongoing service, compared to a prospective hydrogen alternative. By trialing a hydrogen fuel cell-electric solution, the potential to achieve zero-emission, zero-carbon railway operation, without the overhead infrastructure, was validated.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 18 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The advantage of hydrail is that it shifts the cost and risk associated with major infrastructure construction to that of technology deployment. As well, railway service can be progressively decarbonized with each hydrogen-powered train that enters operation. Whereas catenary electrification may require many years of new infrastructure construction to be completed before electric trains can begin operation.

Germany appears to be embracing hydrogen as the path toward zero-emission railway operation for the share of the network not already electrified.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 19 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

China – Local light rail vehicle (tramway) service

The federal state-owned China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC) has been actively developing, deploying and testing hydrogen-powered light rail vehicles (LRVs) in several locations throughout the country. Commonly called trams in parts of Europe and North America, these fuel cell-propelled vehicles usually serve in a local transit capacity. These LRVs are reported to operate at up to 70 km/h and carry 285-300 passengers.

CRRC launched a trial of seven hydrogen fuel cell powered tram models in 2016 in the coastal city of Qingdao, China, on an 8 km line with 12 stops. The trains were reported as operating at 70 km/h and carrying 285 – 380 passengers.

In 2017, the CRRC Tangshan Railway Vehicle Company commenced passenger service in one newly developed hydrogen fuel cell- powered, low-floor tram on the Chinese Railway Headstream Tour tram line in Tangshan City, Hebei Province, serving 4 stations on a 14 km line. The refuelling station is rated as having a 100-kg capacity.

CRRC is also deploying eight hydrogen fuel cell-powered trams to operate on the Gaoming line on the west bank of the Xijiang river in Foshan, China. The entire line, when completed, will have 20 stops along 17 km. The trams being tested are three- section, low floor vehicles. The first of the trams entered official service in December 2019.

China has developed and implemented several plans aimed at improving urban air quality, reducing GHG emissions and advancing technological competitiveness in various modes of transportation. Considering the alignment of corporate strategy with

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 20 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

state policy, as well as the prioritization of enabling infrastructure in China, such as railways and public transit, it is reasonable to perceive the investment in hydrail systems as means of developing capacity in hydrogen technologies. Train operation offers a living laboratory for fuel cell operation, which can help China develop its potential as a manufacturer and exporter of fuel cell systems – not only for the global railway market, but for the many other applications of hydrogen technology, as well.

Ballard fuel cell power module products are used in all the deployments described herein.

United Kingdom – Conversion of Electric Multiple Units to hydrogen

In 2009, Network Rail – the U.K. government corporation that operates most of the rail network in England, Scotland and Wales – outlined its business case for electrification of several of its regional passenger lines as part of a larger program of works to increase service levels, considered by the government a “strategic priority” for transportation. £3 billion was allocated by the Department for Transportation for the proposed electrification schemes, which were to be delivered in the 2014-2019 period. Slated for electrification were several railway lines: from Cardiff to Swansea, the Midland Main Line north of Kettering, and Oxenholme to Windermere.

However, in 2017 these three electrification projects were cancelled in a controversial announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling. The National

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 21 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Audit Office was then tasked with investigating the reasons for the cancellation.2 Their report was publicly released in 2018; put simply, their assessment was that electrification became unaffordable. The Audit report mentioned that electrification using overhead power line equipment “requires enabling infrastructure works including rebuilding of bridges and tunnels, clear lineside vegetation and ground piling to hold supporting masts that carry overhead lines.” All of these corridor and wayside works involve uncertainties that are difficult predict until construction gets underway. Cost increases and scheduling delays were apparent before construction work even began. As early as 2015, costs exceed available funding by £2.5 billion. The Audit Office also reported that by cancelling the three electrification projects, £1.4 billion of spending to complete the plan would be averted over the 2019-2024 period.

Shortly thereafter, Network Rail announced that a program of converting old electric passenger trains to hydrogen fuel cell powertrains would commence in the U.K. The vehicles to be converted are Class 321 four-car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) built approximately 30 years ago and are currently operated by Eversholt Rail Group for Network Rail. Alstom has been selected to execute the conversion. Approximately 100 trains are contemplated in the conversion program, with the first entering operation as early as 2021, according to preliminary reports. Additionally, it was announced in 2020 that the program would be funded with a further £1 million to include the development of a entirely new class of dedicated hydrogen train – referred to as the 600 series. A top speed of 140 km/h and a range of 1,000 km between refueling events is expected of the new designs.

As in Germany, it appears that Network Rail and the U.K. Government look to hydrail to fulfill at least some of the objectives for which the electrification of regional lines was originally intended.

HydroFLEX proof-of-concept project

In parallel to the developments described above, the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Railway Research and Education, working with rolling stock solutions

2 https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-into-the-department-for-transports-decision-to-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 22 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

provider Porterbrook, converted a Class 319 EMU passenger train to hydrogen fuel cell-power in 2019. In 2020, the “HydroFLEX” was granted approval to operate in mainline railway tests on the Cotswold line in England and the Alloa line in Scotland. The HydroFLEX is also operable via power supplied from a 750 VDC third rail or a 25 kV overhead line, transitioning between onboard hydrogen power and external power supply. Originally built as a dual voltage AC/DC train, the HydroFLEX converted vehicle is now considered a “tri-mode” variant. The intent of this academic initiative is to contribute to the decarbonization of railway transport. Funding sources include the Department for Transport.

For more information, consult the University of Birmingham Centre of Excellence in Rail Decarbonisation at: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/spotlights/rail- decarbonisation.aspx

Ballard Power Systems fuel cell power modules are used in the HydroFLEX.

U.S. – San Bernardino County Transportation Authority FLIRT H2

In November 2019, Stadler received a contract to supply one hydrogen-powered train, based on its Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) FLIRT model (Fast Light Intercity Regional Train), to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). The contract includes an option for the SBCTA to order four more in the future, pending evaluation in-

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 23 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

service. Passenger service is scheduled to commence in 2024 as part of the Redlands Passenger Rail Project: a 14 km connector line between Redlands and San Bernardino’s Metrolink station.

The configuration is expected to comprise two cars with a power back in between, containing the fuel cells and hydrogen tanks. The trains will have a top speed of 130 km/h and capacity for 108 passengers.

California is by far the State with the most prolific deployment of hydrogen fuel cell- powered vehicles in the world. For example, the population of private FCEV passenger cars is approaching 9,000 units, which are served by approximately 40 hydrogen refueling stations at retail forecourts. For many decades, the State Legislature, the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission have worked together to advance numerous low- and zero-emission transportation systems in various stages of demonstration and commercial deployment. The State has some of the most severe conditions for air pollution in the country, and some of the most aggressive emissions reduction programs and regulatory frameworks. The FLIRT H2 procurement is an example of this commitment to levering new technology platforms to make progress to air quality and decarbonization goals, and it represents the first move to introduce hydrail passenger service in North America.

Austria – Zillertalbahn HyTrain

Zillertalbahn, a railway operating in a rural part of Austria, awarded a contract to Stadler in 2018 for the supply of five hydrogen fuel cell-powered passenger trains. Each trainset is roughly 75 m long with four-cars with an expected capacity of 452 passengers. The line of operation is 32 km, serving an important tourism function in the region, and is expected to be the world’s first narrow-gauge hydrogen-powered train. Delivery is expected in 2022.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 24 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

In 2020, The Ministry of Climate Protection allocated €3.1 million in support of this deployment, branded the “HyTrain” lighthouse project. These funds are drawn from the country’s Climate and Energy Fund. This fund also launched the “Flagship Region Energy” initiative in 2017, of which HyTrain is considered an integral part, to develop and apply internationally competitive and innovation energy technologies in Austria with the aim of increasing technology exports.

Austria – ÖBB hydrogen shunter

In 2016, Austrian Federal Railways presented an ÖBB Class 1063 shunter locomotive retrofitted to operate via onboard fuel cells or power from a catenary overhead. Trials were conducted through 2017, to inform longer-term decisions on retrofitting the railway’s fleet of 47 class 1063 locomotives.

Austria – Linsinger, hydrogen milling locomotive

Linsinger is an industrial company based in Austria that specializes in cutting and milling equipment. In 2020, they announced a new hydrogen fuel cell- powered rail milling machine, named the “MG11 H2.” Such machines are used to resurface damaged rails as part of routine railway maintenance.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 25 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Vivarail

English rolling stock manufacturer, Vivarail, announced a hydrail passenger train development initiative in partnership with Arcola Energy, an engineering services firm specializing in hydrogen supply and fuel cell systems. The announced concept will be based on Vivarail’s Class 230 model and consist of four cars: two battery- driving motor cars and two intermediate cars housing the fuel cells and hydrogen tanks. Development work was scheduled to begin in 2020.

Italy – Hydrail regional trains

In 2020, Ferrovie Nord Milano (FNM, the main transport and mobility group in the Italian region of Lombardy) ordered six hydrogen- powered trains from Alstom, to be based on the Coradia Stream model, but with fuel cells as the core powerplant. The order value is €160 million and the first train is to be delivered with 36 months, and will draw on the experience and learnings of the iLint deployment.

Notably, Alstom currently manufactures the Coradia Stream model in Savigliano, Italy.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 26 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Aruba – tourist streetcars

Four hydrogen fuel cell-powered streetcars operate on a tramway loop in the capital city of Aruba, Oranjestad: 2 single decker and 2 open-top double decker “heritage style” cars. The tram operator is Arubus and the streetcars were built by TIG/m LLC. The powertrain includes Li-Ion batteries for acceleration power and for recuperating braking energy. The streetcars consume 4 kg of hydrogen per day.

Russian Federation – Tram testing

In St. Petersburg, a single-section LM-68M2 tram was retrofitted with hydrogen fuel cells for propulsion and tested in 2019 by operator Gorelektrotrans and the Central Research Institute of Electrical & Marine Technology. The fuel cell stacks, the hydrogen tanks and eight seats for operators comprise the interior. The tram’s top speed was set at 10 km/h. Following the test, the tram was to be restored to conventional operation and placed back in regular service.

Siemens Mireo Plus H

Siemens and Ballard Power Systems are collaborating on a new variant to the established series of Mireo EMU passenger train models. It is expected to use HD 8 “next gen” fuel cells with Type IV hydrogen storage cylinders onboard. Two configurations have been described: 2-car trainset with 120 seats and 800 km range, and a 3-car trainset with 165 seats and 800 – 1,000 km range (between refills).

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 27 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Hyundai Rotem & Hyundai Motor

In 2019 Hyundai Motor and its locomotive division, Hyundai Rotem, announced the co- development of hydrogen fuel cell-powered passenger train, with an expected range of 200 km and a top speed of 70 km/h. There are reports of prototype testing to commence in 2020.

East Japan Railway Company

The East Japan Railway Co. has announced a plan to test new hydrogen-powered passenger trains, beginning in 2021. Expected as a two-car EMU setup for test runs, the stated goal is to commercialize the design by 2024. The system is to have a top speed of 100 km/h and are range of 140 km for each tank of hydrogen onboard.

In late-2020, the East Japan Railway Company entered into a collaborative agreement with Hitachi, Ltd. and Toyota Motor Corporation to develop and test railway vehicles equipped with hybrid systems that use hydrogen powered fuel cells and storage batteries as their source of electricity.

Canada – Metrolinx Hydrail Feasibility Study

Metrolinx, a transportation agency of the Government of Ontario, undertook a comprehensive study of the technological and economic feasibility of hydrail systems to support the expansion of GO regional commuter rail services in the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area from 1,500 to 6,000 daily trips by 2025. The findings were published in 350-page report produced by Jacobs Engineering Group and Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance.3 The study concluded that a complete conversion of the existing GO railway network from diesel to hydrail, using electrolytic hydrogen from Ontario grid- supplied power, provide a similar benefits-to-costs ratio to that reported a 2014 business case assessment for electrification of the same network using overhead catenaries (approximate BCR of 3). It was recommended by the report authors, however, that the earlier electrification study should be revised and updated to facilitate a more accurate comparison of the two alternatives.

3 Metrolinx. Regional Express Rail Program Hydrail Feasibility Study Report. 2018. http://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/announcements/hydrail-resources/CPG-PGM-RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_R1.pdf

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 28 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

While this recommendation was not implemented, Metrolinx declared in 2018 that bidding consortia would be welcome to propose either catenary electrification or hydrail solutions for the GO Expansion program. Currently, the status of the GO Expansion program, which was to include some form of electrification, appears to have been restructured to include a series of smaller, contracted works on railways and stations. A decision on electrification seems to have been deferred.

Notably, according to the feasibility study authors, the amount of hydrogen expected to be consumed daily by a fully hydrail-enabled GO system serving 6,000 trips in the future is between 40 and 50 tonnes.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 29 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

3.0 ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETE HYDRAIL SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL CHALLENGES

Elements of the complete hydrail system

Taking a holistic ecosystem perspective, the physical elements comprising a complete hydrail system include: ▪ hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production; ▪ storage and distribution; ▪ dispensing facilities; and ▪ locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime movers, in which the following subcomponents are integrated: o fuel cells power modules sized to the average, mid-range demand for tractive and auxiliary power; o battery packs (or possibly ultracapacitors, or both) sized to respond to peak and transient demands for power (e.g., during acceleration) as well as to recuperate braking energy; o control systems to manage the distribution of power and state-of-charge among subcomponents, and integration with enunciation and operator interface; o onboard hydrogen storage tanks and/or separate hydrogen tenders; and o onboard thermal management system to maintain operable temperature ranges for the locomotive system subcomponents

As a helpful reference, some of the elements listed above are visually represented in the Metrolinx Regional Express Rail Program Hydrail Feasibility Study Report of 2018 (page 9) as the “Hydrail System Structure,”4 shown on the following page.

4 Ibid.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 30 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Technical requirements for commercial readiness of hydrail systems

A qualitative assessment of each of the hydrail system elements identified above is presented below, focusing on the technical challenges that must be addressed to catalyze sustained commercial adoption into railway applications in Canada.

• Hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production

Hydrogen production using steam methane reforming (SMR) and electrolysis of water are both mature processes. Both involve proven technologies and have been ongoing at an industrial scale for nearly a century. In Canada, the volume of hydrogen produced and used is estimated at three million tonnes, according to Natural Resources Canada,5 the largest share of which is in the petrochemical upgrading and refining sector.

Innovations in technology and process continue, the main thrust of which is to generate hydrogen that is effectively low, zero, or negative in carbon-intensity. Although there are many new processes in development, ranging from waste- based hydrogen production to artificial photosynthesis (i.e., photocatalytic processes), the dominant methods are currently: ▪ electrolysis powered by low-carbon or renewable energy sources, and ▪ SMR coupled with carbon capture-and-sequestration or utilization.

5 Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. 2020. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen-Strategy-Canada-na-en-v3.pdf

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 31 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Hydrogen from “green” power generating sources, such as hydroelectric, nuclear, wind and solar, is likewise considered green hydrogen. This hydrogen scores top marks in sustainability and low climate impact. The challenge is that green hydrogen is necessarily more expensive than the electricity used in its production. To minimize the cost of the input electricity, it is best to tap the power at the source or on the primary, high-voltage transmission lines, wherever practical, as this helps to avoid paying the local uplift charges on the lower- voltage distribution grid.

In contrast to electrolysis, the SMR process releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the hydrogen is stripped away from the carbon in the methane molecule, CH4. However, if the CO2 is captured and stored, or if its is upcycled into an inert, commercial product like carbon black, then the hydrogen produced can be considered a net-zero carbon fuel. Such hydrogen is branded as “blue” hydrogen. The advantage of this production process is that blue hydrogen can potentially be less costly to produce than green hydrogen. The more of the CO2 that is permanently sequestered in the process of blue hydrogen production, the closer its lifecycle carbon-intensity approaches zero.

The analyses presented in this report assume green hydrogen as the fuel in most hydrail systems. This makes the scenarios studied more straightforward and the cost estimates more conservative, but the study team acknowledges that the future very likely involves a diverse range of hydrogen production feedstocks, each with distinct environmental and economic attributes.

• Storage and distribution

Under normal pressure and temperature, hydrogen rapidly evaporates and disperses. Once produced it must, therefore, be stored or shipped immediately. At the production facility, hydrogen may be stored as compressed gas in pressure vessels, or it may be chilled to a liquid state and kept in insulated, double-walled tanks, called dewars. The hydrogen can then be transferred to a tanker for transport over-the-road by truck or by railway as cargo, often in tube trailers (in some cases, the storage and transport container could be one and the same unit). The other possibility is that the hydrogen transferred to a pipeline for transport to a local distribution node.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 32 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The technologies of hydrogen storage and Source: Fiba Canning. http://primary.fibacanning.com/ transport are quite mature. Hydrogen delivered by tube trailer is common, regulated practice. Hydrogen pipelines currently operate in industrial clusters near Edmonton and Sarnia, and several thousand kilometers run throughout the U.S.

Further research is focusing on the prospect of solid-state hydrogen storage, in which hydrogen is absorbed into various materials (e.g., hydride materials) that promise the density of compressed gas but under normal pressure. This draws on advanced materials science and chemistry and is generally in the pre-commercial phase of development. The prospect of storing large volumes of hydrogen without high compression or refrigeration is compelling, as it would avoid some of the most significant costs currently associated with storage and distribution.

• Dispensing facilities

Codes and standards exist for the design and operation of equipment and installations used in the dispensing of hydrogen, both as a compressed gas or as a cryogenic liquid. Thus, the technology can be considered mature. However, in Canada, there are some gaps in measurement standards that are limiting the sale of hydrogen at retail forecourts by mass (e.g., $12/kg at the local gas station). However, this transaction issue is expected to be resolved soon. This is not expected to interfere with bulk fuel purchases by railway operators, which do not necessarily require metered dispensing.

Technically, refuelling of locomotives and fuel tenders with hydrogen at dedicated facilities within railyards or along railways, as well as by transfer from a tanker at roadside (e.g., using direct-to-locomotive, DTL, services), are all possible using current technology. However, the practice is not common and standard procedures are undeveloped.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 33 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

• Locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime movers

o Fuel cell power modules

Fuel cell power modules are commercially available from several established, international manufacturers, some of which are headquartered in Canada. Fuel cells have logged years’ worth of duty- hours in transit bus applications, for which they have proven reliable and durable. For railway applications, however, there may yet be significant room for performance optimization. But this won’t be known until they are deployed into robust and regular railway service, from which the required learnings will be generated.

Fuel cell power modules are composed of “stacks” of proton exchange layers – the more layers the greater the voltage generated, generally speaking – plus a “balance-of-plant,” which regulates the flow of air and hydrogen gas, among other services. As with any energy conversion device, the modules generate waste heat when operating, which must be transferred away from the stack to keep temperatures within the proper range. However, the temperature of the waste heat in such a fuel cell can be quite low compared to, say, a diesel engine. As a result (and perhaps counter-intuitively) a larger radiator may be needed to achieve the required rate of heat transfer, since the difference in stack and ambient temperatures can be so low. It is these kinds of factors that may result in innovative redesigns of the stack and balance-of-plant to enable optimally efficient thermal management solutions for locomotive applications.

Fuel cells are not expected to take up much room in a locomotive. They occupy a modest volume, compared to the space that may be needed for the battery packs, thermal management systems and hydrogen storage. Nonetheless, power modules are expected to become incrementally more compact and “power-dense” over time. By pairing fuel cells with batteries, the respective size and cost of each can be minimized. Fuel cells can be sized to produce the power needed by the locomotive systems on average, while the battery pack can discharge rapidly to meet transient demands for peak power. With this hybrid approach, the hydrogen and fuel cells do what they are best at: delivering energy at low cost. Concurrently, the batteries do what they are best at: producing power at low cost.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 34 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

To sum up, fuel cell power modules are high in technical readiness but perhaps at mid-level commercial readiness for locomotive applications, with the expectation of design improvements and system integration optimizations to come. This is analogous to the consistent improvements occurring in diesel engine performance since its introduction to the railways 60 years ago. By contrast, light-duty FCEVs manufacturers are currently deploying their second or third generation of fuel cell power plant designs in consumer products (e.g., Toyota Mirai, Hyundai NEXO).

o Battery packs

Similar to fuel cell power modules, battery packs are a proven technology that continues to undergo rapid improvements, as commercial adoption expands into new markets and applications. Li-ion battery chemistry is significantly favoured for vehicle applications, due to its high energy- density and rapid charge-discharge characteristics, and this is true of early hydrail deployments, as detailed in the previous section of this report.

The battery pack(s) serves two important functions: first, meeting the transient demand for power, primarily in the traction motors; second (and related), storing energy from dynamic braking (i.e., regenerative braking). In switching duty where speeds are low, there is little opportunity to capture and store braking energy, and mechanical brakes are used. In higher-speed uses, such as linehaul and commuter duty, dynamic braking is a critical function. Ideally, battery packs are capable of storing a large portion of the breaking energy. Thus, switcher locomotives may be well- served with relatively smaller battery packs, while linehaul locomotives require more substantive energy storage solutions.

Some combination of battery packs and ultracapacitors may also develop in the future. Ultracapacitors can store a terrific charge in a relatively small volume. For frequent start-and-stop duty-cycles, such as in commuter rail, ultracapacitors may work synergistically with batteries to manage regenerative braking better, which could significantly improve overall locomotive energy use efficiency. The combination of hydrogen fuel cells, batteries and ultracapacitor technology, as shown in the image below, spans the spectrum form high energy density to high power density, possibly facilitating an optimal mix of locomotive drivetrain performance attributes.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 35 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Energy density Power density hydrogen battery ultracapacitor

Although battery systems have proven to be robust and reliable in many vehicle applications, commercial readiness in railway applications is yet to be demonstrated. Vibration, shock and impulse, as well as weather extremes, characterize locomotive working environments. How best to keep battery packs within their proper operating conditions in real-world locomotive service will be learned through operational trials.

o Controller

Programmable logic controller (PLC) units execute an algorithm that responds to the locomotive operator’s input and to the needs of the component subsystems to direct power where its needed, such as traction motors and auxiliaries. Replacing the diesel with hydrogen components requires a new algorithm and controller that can manage the distribution of power from the fuel cells and battery packs through a connector bus to the various loads within the locomotive. It must also manage the state-of- charge of the battery pack and the thermal system, and feedback status to the locomotive operator panel.

Suitable controller hardware is available off-the-shelf, but the algorithms need to be defined, based on early-stage simulation, and then refined as practical experience with locomotive operation builds over time. Developing controller systems that better optimize the use of energy and the durability of the locomotive subsystems is important innovation that can happen quickly, the product of which is valuable IP.

o Onboard hydrogen storage tanks and liquefied hydrogen tenders

The equipment to store hydrogen as a compressed gas and as a cryogenic liquid currently exists, but its practical use in North American railway systems is very limited and likely requires significant adaptation. Gaseous hydrogen stored in tanks onboard a locomotive (e.g., at 350 or

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 36 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

700 bar) seems a practical way to start and has been used in switcher and regional rail applications, where the locomotives can return to base each night for refuelling. Commercially available tanks and valve systems can be adapted to locomotives immediately for testing a trials, but refinements in design to better serve railways would be expected over time.

In longer-range operations applications, a more energy-dense form of hydrogen storage may be necessary. One option is to store liquefied hydrogen in vacuum-insulated dewars, either onboard the locomotive or on tender cars adjacent to the locomotive. The latter is the more obvious solution for linehaul locomotives in freight service, as the full tenders could be swapped with empties or multiple tenders could be hauled in the train. Railway standards exist for the transport of cryogenic liquids as cargo, and these may provide a starting point for development of a liquefied hydrogen (LH2) tender concept, as would CN’s testing of cryogenic liquid natural gas as a fuel. However, as with compressed gas storage, the solutions would evolve with experience gained in Source: Globe & Mail. CN tries out liquefied real-world operation and involve natural gas to power locomotives. 2013 significant, new engineering.

Hydrogen released from a tank, due to a leak or rupture, will evaporate into the air rapidly. Precautions must be taken to ensure that a detonable mix of hydrogen and oxygen does not form in a contained area. Venting hydrogen directly to atmosphere is usually the desired means of rendering a hydrogen leak “safe”; that is, mitigating the risk of detonation. The safe storage of hydrogen will be an overriding factor in the ongoing the development of containment solutions.

Note that compressed hydrogen gas can be stored indefinitely, while LH2 cannot. LH2 begins to boil at −253 °C. As heat enters through tank insulation the hydrogen will slowly phase-change to gas, and this “boil-off” must be vented. Cryogenics storage is, therefore, temporary. The more quickly the hydrogen can be used, the less will be lost to evaporation. The

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 37 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

boil-off can be captured and stored as gas but, again, this should be used as part of a fuel consumption activity as opposed to a fuel storage activity.

Solid-state hydrogen storage technologies are also under development but are considered at a pre-commercial stage. Such technologies may eventually provide significantly greater freedoms in the geometry of onboard storage designs, compared to gas or liquid tanks, making better use of space and subsystem configuration. Traditionally, the density and weight of solid-state storage is seen as a detriment in on-road vehicle applications, but this may be an attractive quality in locomotives, where the extra mass can improve traction at the wheel-rail interface.

o Thermal management and temperature control

Fuel cell power modules are usually air-cooled but many heat-transfer approaches can be used, relying on commercially available systems and components (e.g., blower fans, radiators, heat exchangers, temperature sensors). Like a combustion engine, there are optimal temperature ranges in which the energy conversion efficiency of fuel cells is optimized. In addition to the fuel cells, heat from other locomotive subsystems must be managed. Through simulations, testing and trials, synergies may emerge that drive the development of more elegant thermal management solutions. For example, perhaps heat from the fuel cells can be used to condition the battery pack temperature in cold weather.

To summarize, all of the requisite elements of a hydrail system are commercially available and can be integrated into a functional system. So, initial tests and trials of the equipment in railway environment can proceed, from a technical perspective. However, many of the system elements can be expected to undergo successive cycles of incremental development over time, such that the technologies become better-adapted to the practical operations of railways.

In this sense, technological readiness is high while commercial readiness is probably low- to mid-range. Beginning with a working prototype, several design iterations are likely needed before full commercial readiness is achieved, and the core value proposition of zero-emission, low-carbon railway vehicles begins to drive market adoption. The particulars of different railway usage cases are estimated as follows:

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 38 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Commuter passenger – Composed of locomotives and (potentially) self-propelled coaches, these vehicles tend to run on defined, daily routes. Due to the limited range and pre-determined refuelling opportunities, compressed hydrogen gas or LH2 stored onboard is the likely fuel mode. Hydrogen can be delivered over-the- road to refuelling stations, or produced on-site via electrolysis or SMR. High acceleration rates and regenerative braking will require robust battery and/or ultracapacitor subsystems. Commercial readiness thus requires a priority on adapting the optimal battery chemistry, battery pack and ultracapacitor system design, as well as robust PLC.

Inter-city passenger – Passenger coaches hauled by locomotives are the standard configuration, but the operating range between refuelling events is longer than with commuter service. Thus, fuel tenders are anticipated for the initial generations of this hydrail system, most likely carrying LH2. However, the power demand for acceleration may be less than in commuter trains, and this would alter the design parameters of the regenerative braking components. The priority for technology development should, therefore, be on cryogenic fuel tender design for safety, function (refuelling, connecting, disconnecting) and interoperability with various locomotives and coaches.

Switcher locomotives – Due to their low-speed operation, regenerative braking is a low priority. Switchers endure a punishing duty-cycle with ongoing shock and vibration throughout the day – excellent for proving the durability of hydrogen- electric locomotive components. Importantly, they do not travel far from home base and usually return daily. This makes the refuelling solution and supply chain challenges relatively simple, addressable with on-site gaseous dispensing using common equipment. Switchers are, therefore, the railway application that is perhaps closest to commercial viability. However, trials, testing and further development are needed to validate these expectations.

Long-distance freight – In terms of value to the economy, energy use and GHG emissions, the success of hydrail in this application is the most critical. All hydrail system elements, including locomotive subsystem components will be put to the most strenuous test, with the possible exception of impact forces endured by switchers. It would be reasonable to orient all hydrail innovation efforts to the series of challenges inherent in linehaul freight service because they help advance critical milestones in the other usage case. Similarly, the other railway services can be supported to some extent by the hydrogen infrastructure built to serve freight service.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 39 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

In the previous section, the key elements of a hydrail system were explored, focusing on the technological challenges to commercialization. In this section, the prospect of a comprehensive adoption of hydrail systems, resulting in a complete transition from diesel to hydrogen as the predominant fuel input to Canada’s railways, is visualized. This is to establish a scale by which to assess the potential impacts of an industry-wide hydrail transition at an operational level, as opposed to the level of a discrete project or sector of activity. This will also provide a baseline against which to assess costs and benefits to Canadian society, at a high level, addressed in the following sections of this report.

4.1 Methodology

Extrapolation from Past Trends

To develop a scenario of future railway energy use and locomotive composition in Canada for 2030, 2040 and 2050, the historical data reported in the RAC Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Report, 2017, were considered. Ratios of key data series that were considered meaningful to the type of railway activity (i.e., mainline freight, intercity/tourist, commuter) were calculated for 1990, 2009 and 2017 to establish historical trends. For example, the trends for mainline freight included locomotive fleet population-to-gross tonne kilometer, and diesel consumption-to-revenue tonne kilometer; for commuter, diesel consumption-to-locomotive fleet population was used. These trends, which indicate the pace of change and growth in railway activity over time, were then extrapolated into the future to create a baseline scenario of locomotive population and diesel use in 2030, 2040 and 2050.

The results of these extrapolations were then judged critically by the study team. Parameters were incorporated into the extrapolations to moderate any trendlines that skewed unrealistically. Factors to account for modest improvements in operational efficiency and locomotive fuel efficiency were also added. The result is a set of scenarios that project a plausible level of railway activity, locomotive population, and diesel use, in the opinion of the study team, for each of the following groupings.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 40 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Mainline Freight (Class I and Regional and Short Line), Road/Yard Switching and Work Trains

Historical data trends for gross tonne kilometre (GTK), revenue tonne kilometre (RTK), diesel consumption and locomotive population data for 1990, 2009, and 2017 were examined. It was noted that as GTK increased, improvements to overall system operational efficiency resulted in fewer locomotives required per unit of GTK generated by the railways. This was assumed to reflect the impacts of operational and logistical changes, including the transformative scheduling protocols instituted by Hunter Harrison for the Class 1 railways in the 1990s and 2000s. With no basis to assume a repeat of that level of change to the GTK-to-locomotive ratio, that ratio was made to decline gradually in the future. Combined with the projected increase in GTK, the projections arrive at reasonable estimates (to the eyes of the study team) of the future locomotive population in freight revenue service. Similarly, diesel use was projected as a function of locomotives in service.

From these data – number of locomotives and their respective diesel consumption – a hydrogen equivalency was determined. The assumption was each diesel locomotive is displaced, over time, by one hydrogen-fueled unit of roughly equivalent functionality, and the demand for tractive energy is provided by hydrogen and fuel cells instead of an onboard diesel genset. This involved a corrective factor to account for the better powertrain efficiency of the hydrogen-electric over the diesel-electric platform.

An excerpt from the study team’s spreadsheets is presented below, representing the evolution of the projections based on existing, historical data. Note that the data tables are more fully and legibly presented in appendices 2 through 8 of this report.

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 1990 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 Gross Tonne-Kilometres (GTK) 433 580 815 88.22% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1,054 1,285 1,567 Revenue Tonne-Kilometres (RTK) 233 310 430 84.55% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 556 678 827 Diesel Litres (x 106) 1,960.85 1,763.18 2,036.64 3.87% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 2,076.25 2,107.24 2,138.70 No. of Locomotives 2,742 2,925 6.67% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 3,081 3,206 3,337 Locomotive per GTK 4.73 3.59 -24.08% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 2.85 2.58 2.45 Locomotive per RTK 8.85 6.80 -23.10% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 5.41 4.89 4.65 Diesel Litres per GTK 4.529 3.040 2.499 -17.80% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 1.922 1.570 1.283 Diesel Litres per RTK 8.416 5.688 4.736 -16.73% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 3.642 2.976 2.432 No. of Locomotives (based on GTK, RTK) 3,008 3,316 3,844 Total Diesel Litres (based on GTK, RTK) 2,026,074,852 2,017,985,125 2,009,927,698 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 5,605,874,086 5,689,553,548 5,774,482,102 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 11,211,748,172 11,379,107,096 11,548,964,205 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 333,682,981 338,663,902 343,719,173

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 41 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Intercity/Tourist

Based on data in the 2017 LEM report for 2006, 2009 and 2017, a ratio for diesel consumption-to-locomotive population was calculated. However, the trend in diesel consumption is sharply negative in the 2006 to 2017 period, presumably due to changes in service operations and locomotive efficiency. Yet, locomotive population increased from 2009 to 2017. So, the rates of change were moderated and held constant for the 2030 to 2050 period, resulting in an estimated 106 locomotives in 2050 (based on a 1- for-1 conversion) consuming 4,161 tonnes of hydrogen, annually.

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 2006 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 Projection to 2050 Based on Historical Trend from 2006 to 2017 Diesel Litres (x 106) 64.30 63.50 51.00 -20.68% -2.08% -2.08% -2.08% 38.78 31.42 25.45 No. of Locomotives 77 82 6.49% 0.79% 0.79% 0.79% 91 98 106 Diesel Litres per Locomotive 824,675 621,951 -24.58% -2.53% -2.53% -2.53% 445,607 344,798 266,794 Total Diesel Litres 63,500,000 51,000,000 40,473,057 33,879,113 28,359,466 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 104,711,605 84,820,960 68,708,671 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 209,423,210 169,641,920 137,417,342 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 6,232,834 5,048,867 4,089,802

Commuter

The 2017 LEM report shows a consistent growth trend in commuter rail service. Locomotive population increases, as well, but diesel use increases at an even higher rate. This could be the result of a movement within the industry toward higher-powered locomotives, which consume more fuel but also move more passengers. Thus, a simple 2% annual growth rate was applied to locomotive population and to diesel use, resulting in 242 locomotives in 2050 consuming 34,927 tonnes of hydrogen, annually.

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 2006 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 2% Annual Growth Projection (from 2018 onwards) Diesel Litres (x 106) 34.20 42.70 64.50 88.60% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 83.44 101.71 123.98 No. of Locomotives 102 126 23.53% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 163 199 242 Diesel Litres per Locomotive 335,294 511,905 52.67% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 662,203 807,222 983,999 Total Diesel Litres 34,200,000 64,500,000 107,935,468 160,386,428 238,325,795 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 225,281,595 274,617,007 334,756,599 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 450,563,189 549,234,014 669,513,198 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 13,409,619 16,346,250 19,925,988

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 42 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Fleet Turnover Schedule

The study team also modeled a hypothetical rate of hydrail transition, composed of conversions of existing locomotives (i.e., remanufactured) as well as introductions of freshly manufactured, hydrogen-fuelled locomotives to meet the incremental growth in the overall fleet. In the future scenario, conversions begin in 2030, at a pace of approximately 165 units annually. Freshly manufactured units also enter service beginning in 2030, ranging between 30 and 65 units, annually. At these rates, the entire locomotive fleet in Canada can be turned over, from diesel to hydrogen operation, by 2050, as shown in the tables and charts that follow.

The following assumptions were made to simplify the schedule: ▪ Hydrogen fuel cell-electric locomotives begin entering normal service in 2031 (ten years from now). ▪ Locomotives in-service in 2030 enter an aggressive program of remanufacture to convert from diesel to hydrogen. ▪ Incremental growth in the fleet population is met by freshly manufactured locomotives, originally designed as hydrogen-powered. ▪ No freshly manufactured switcher locomotives are forecasted; the assumption is that the current fleet is sufficient to serve growth in service until 2050 and will undergo conversion (see Note below). ▪ Some data series show no additions or conversion for several years, and then suddenly jump by an increment. This reflects an assumption that prototype work on several locomotive units has being ongoing, including a period of trials and testing. The units then enter the fleet all at once. This is an artifact of the study team’s choice to defer transition within the fleet for as long as possible, and to keep the pace of transition reasonably low thereafter. This attempt at balance produces some discontinuities in the turnover schedule, but the effects are negligible to the overall scale of the impacts inherent in transition hypothesized.

Note: To develop the turnover schedule for mainline freight activity, the future projections of the locomotive population was further broken down by service classification. The result is that in 2050 there are 2,872 locomotives in Class 1 linehaul service, 397 in regional and short line work, and 576 in road and yard switching and work, for a total of 3,845 (a difference of +1 from the initial projection to eliminate any fraction of a whole locomotive). Respectively, these fleets are estimated to consume 375,313 tonnes, 22,438 tonnes, and 8,721 tonnes of hydrogen, annually. The service distinctions are relevant to the fleet turnover scenarios that follow.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 43 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Locomotive growth profile – 2031 through 2050

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 2,163 2,189 2,215 2,242 2,269 2,296 2,323 2,351 2,379 2,407 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 299 302 306 310 313 317 321 325 329 332 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist 92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98 Commuter Rail 166 170 173 176 180 184 187 191 195 199 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 2,451 2,495 2,540 2,585 2,631 2,678 2,725 2,773 2,822 2,872 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 338 345 351 357 363 370 376 383 390 397 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist 99 100 101 101 102 103 104 105 105 106 Commuter Rail 203 207 211 215 219 224 228 233 237 242

Freshly manufactured hydrogen locomotives (incremental growth from 2030)

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Commuter Rail 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 43 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commuter Rail 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5

Remanufactured locomotive, converted to hydrogen (applied to existing fleet in 2030)

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 26 25 25 59 59 58 75 75 75 174 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4 4 4 8 7 8 11 9 11 23 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 7 7 6 16 15 15 20 20 20 47 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 2 2 1 5 4 5 5 6 6 12 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 175 175 167 167 167 141 142 141 100 100 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 23 23 22 22 22 19 19 19 13 14 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 46 47 45 43 45 38 38 38 27 27 Intercity & Tourist 4 4 4 8 8 8 11 11 21 10 Commuter Rail 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 9 7 8

Total hydrogen locomotives (increasing over time)

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 62 113 164 249 335 420 523 626 729 931 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 17 24 31 43 54 66 80 94 108 135 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 17 24 30 46 62 77 97 117 137 184 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Commuter Rail 16 21 26 34 41 49 58 67 77 92 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,150 1,369 1,581 1,794 2,007 2,195 2,384 2,574 2,723 2,872 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 165 194 223 251 280 305 331 356 376 397 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 230 277 321 365 409 447 484 522 549 576 Intercity & Tourist 15 19 24 32 41 49 61 74 96 106 Commuter Rail 109 126 142 158 174 189 204 218 229 242

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 44 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total diesel locomotives (declining to zero by 2050)

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 2,101 2,076 2,051 1,993 1,934 1,876 1,801 1,726 1,650 1,476 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 282 278 274 266 259 251 240 231 221 197 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 559 552 546 530 514 499 479 459 439 392 Intercity & Tourist 92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 88 Commuter Rail 151 148 147 142 139 134 130 124 118 106 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,301 1,126 959 792 624 483 341 200 100 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 174 150 128 106 83 65 46 27 14 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 346 299 255 211 167 129 92 54 27 0 Intercity & Tourist 84 81 77 69 61 54 42 31 10 0 Commuter Rail 93 81 69 57 46 35 25 15 8 0

Prior to 2031: It is assumed that significant prototyping and demonstration work is underway in the years leading up to 2030, producing approximately 10 initial hydrogen locomotives that are ready to enter service in each of the identified service classifications. In the charts above, this initial 10-unit deployment appears in the total hydrogen locomotive row in 2031, except for the Intercity & Tourist service, in which it appears later in 2040 (since the smaller fleet requires less time to turnover). In the visualization that follow, these initial units are included in the Hydrogen OEMs data plot. Furthermore, these units are considered freshly manufactured for the purposes of estimating costs (later addressed in section 5 this report).

Turnover schedule by locomotive service, visualized

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 45 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 46 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Note that the practicality of the scenario depicted in the foregoing matter is not debated or defended by the study team. This work should be viewed as a thought-experiment, intended to help assess the scale of the transition hypothesized in terms of technology, infrastructure and operational change. The rate of manufacturing was chosen to produce a complete transition of the locomotive fleet by 2050, while attempting to keep the rate of production to within levels that are not wholly unprecedented within industry. The more pressing question is how fast can hydrail commercialization occur and industry-wide adoption take place? That issue is addressed later in this section.

Fuel Consumption – transition from diesel to hydrogen

The changes in fuel consumption associated with locomotive fleet turnover in the hydrail transition scenario were based on past trends in sector-wide diesel consumption in relation to locomotive population. These trends show changes in the ratios of locomotives-to-diesel use over time, reflecting efficiency improvements in railway logistics and operations, as well as locomotive powertrains. The study team’s future projections of these trends incorporated continued improvement in operational and powertrain efficiency at modest levels.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 47 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

However, unlike in the initial projection of diesel use, which was based on fleetwide consumption data, the study team’s approach to developing the transition scenario uses a per-locomotive average fuel consumption rate for each locomotive class (based on locomotive data from the RAC LEM report, 2017). This consumption rate was then applied to the number of diesel locomotives in each class to develop annual fuel consumption estimates from 2030 to 2050 for two cases: • business-as-usual, in which all locomotives continue to operate on diesel; and • hydrail transition, in which all incremental growth in the locomotive population from 2030 onward are freshly manufactured as dedicated hydrogen-powered locomotives, and diesel-powered locomotives existing by the end of 2030 are subject to a rate of remanufacture until the entire fleet is converted to hydrogen by 2050.

Note that the sum of individual locomotives and their respective annual fuel consumptions produces an estimate that is higher than the initial, fleetwide projection, the effect of which is to make the transition scenario somewhat more conservative.

The volume of hydrogen that displaces diesel must deliver the same tractive effort. Hydrogen is converted into tractive effort more efficiently than diesel, so the total energy content needed in the business-as-usual case (i.e., all-diesel) is more than that needed in the hydrail transition scenario. The following factors are used to account for the differences in energy content and effective energy use between diesel and hydrogen in locomotives with electric traction motors.

Hydrail transition scenario energy parameters Diesel 10 kWh/litre Energy content Hydrogen 33.6 kWh/kg Diesel engine 30% Conversion efficiency Alternator 90% Fuel cell 50%

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 48 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual diesel use per locomotive (in litres) – business-as-usual

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 898,465 898,107 897,748 897,390 897,031 896,673 896,315 895,957 895,600 895,242 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 389,082 388,926 388,771 388,616 388,461 388,306 388,151 387,996 387,841 387,686 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 104,104 104,062 104,021 103,979 103,938 103,896 103,855 103,813 103,772 103,730 Intercity & Tourist 434,323 423,326 412,606 402,158 391,975 382,049 372,375 362,946 353,755 344,798 Commuter Rail 675,447 688,956 702,736 716,790 731,126 745,749 760,664 775,877 791,394 807,222 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 894,885 894,527 894,170 893,813 893,456 893,099 892,743 892,386 892,030 891,674 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 387,531 387,376 387,222 387,067 386,912 386,758 386,603 386,449 386,295 386,141 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 103,689 103,647 103,606 103,565 103,523 103,482 103,441 103,399 103,358 103,317 Intercity & Tourist 336,067 327,557 319,262 311,178 303,298 295,618 288,133 280,837 273,725 266,794 Commuter Rail 823,367 839,834 856,631 873,763 891,239 909,063 927,245 945,790 964,705 983,999 Note: Diesel use per locomotive increases over time in commuter rail, unlike in other classes of railway activity. This reflects an increase in locomotive power rating over time, as the fleet migrates to higher- traction, faster-accelerating units.

Total annual diesel use (in litres, entire fleet) – business-as-usual

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 1,943,083,417 1,965,796,739 1,988,721,715 2,011,860,334 2,035,214,606 2,058,786,556 2,082,578,232 2,106,591,699 2,130,829,041 2,155,292,363 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 116,189,268 117,547,441 118,918,271 120,301,875 121,698,375 123,107,891 124,530,546 125,966,464 127,415,768 128,878,585 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 59,963,801 59,939,858 59,915,925 59,892,002 59,868,088 59,844,184 59,820,290 59,796,404 59,772,529 59,748,663 Intercity & Tourist 39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 33,879,113 Commuter Rail 112,296,061 116,832,822 121,552,868 126,463,604 131,572,734 136,888,272 142,418,558 148,172,268 154,158,428 160,386,428 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 2,193,281,255 2,231,818,092 2,270,910,819 2,310,567,494 2,350,796,291 2,391,605,506 2,433,003,551 2,474,998,964 2,517,600,403 2,560,816,655 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 131,150,181 133,454,543 135,792,145 138,163,469 140,569,003 143,009,245 145,484,696 147,995,868 150,543,278 153,127,451 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 59,724,806 59,700,959 59,677,122 59,653,294 59,629,476 59,605,667 59,581,867 59,558,077 59,534,297 59,510,526 Intercity & Tourist 33,281,940 32,695,293 32,118,986 31,552,838 30,996,670 30,450,304 29,913,570 29,386,296 28,868,316 28,359,466 Commuter Rail 166,866,040 173,607,428 180,621,168 187,918,263 195,510,161 203,408,771 211,626,486 220,176,196 229,071,314 238,325,795

Total diesel use increases by 34% during this period, as total locomotive population increases by 27%.

Total annual diesel use (in litres, entire fleet) – declining to zero under hydrail transition

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 1,887,574,516 1,864,632,938 1,841,709,379 1,788,187,851 1,734,708,770 1,682,326,991 1,614,169,875 1,546,066,920 1,478,018,091 1,321,554,833 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 109,537,970 108,125,789 106,714,718 103,481,621 100,706,691 97,478,540 93,342,474 89,664,753 85,535,078 76,407,062 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 58,189,284 57,432,865 56,799,189 55,067,110 53,458,456 51,851,078 49,757,160 47,664,906 45,574,314 40,683,805 Intercity & Tourist 39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 30,431,137 Commuter Rail 101,761,940 102,187,861 103,410,866 102,130,415 101,611,291 100,159,562 98,609,119 96,050,417 93,349,924 85,789,060 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,164,163,508 1,006,897,659 857,120,761 707,463,309 557,925,230 431,621,328 304,367,943 178,265,945 88,994,231 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 67,286,322 58,172,854 49,520,801 40,875,647 32,237,390 24,966,839 17,702,089 10,443,136 5,455,287 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 35,918,954 31,036,190 26,400,644 21,890,407 17,262,204 13,366,791 9,474,485 5,585,286 2,791,528 0 Intercity & Tourist 28,374,743 26,402,980 24,512,881 21,510,979 18,645,388 15,911,128 12,200,965 8,668,496 2,700,760 0 Commuter Rail 76,926,779 67,675,691 59,024,282 49,999,745 40,590,618 31,846,856 22,737,107 14,354,854 7,881,650 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 49 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total annual hydrogen use (in kilograms) – hydrail transition

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 8,633,297 15,683,410 22,718,252 34,454,342 46,142,275 57,621,362 71,468,273 85,253,318 98,977,401 126,012,726 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,034,476 1,460,637 1,885,851 2,590,979 3,223,245 3,922,860 4,758,578 5,521,328 6,349,835 7,930,649 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 275,990 388,659 481,639 743,223 984,191 1,223,435 1,535,401 1,845,147 2,152,694 2,881,500 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521,134 Commuter Rail 1,638,371 2,270,406 2,803,537 3,748,266 4,600,540 5,621,741 6,684,306 7,927,501 9,219,618 11,274,793 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 155,056,803 183,983,376 211,692,167 239,295,737 266,796,289 290,766,883 314,817,931 338,640,190 356,992,414 375,312,732 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 9,622,345 11,307,330 12,917,737 14,522,176 16,120,776 17,511,785 18,898,611 20,281,366 21,327,176 22,437,802 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,586,819 4,305,456 4,982,614 5,636,875 6,304,654 6,859,613 7,410,711 7,957,980 8,340,890 8,721,147 Intercity & Tourist 739,366 945,107 1,138,891 1,498,951 1,837,988 2,156,911 2,619,634 3,054,721 3,846,494 4,161,235 Commuter Rail 13,551,116 15,910,975 18,207,165 20,587,129 23,053,503 25,451,493 27,936,093 30,347,183 32,513,725 34,926,967

Annual hydrogen use per locomotive (in kilograms) – hydrail transition

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 139,738 139,233 138,732 138,233 137,738 137,246 136,757 136,271 135,788 135,309 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 60,514 60,295 60,078 59,862 59,648 59,435 59,223 59,012 58,803 58,596 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 16,191 16,133 16,075 16,017 15,959 15,902 15,846 15,790 15,734 15,678 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52,113 Commuter Rail 105,052 106,809 108,596 110,414 112,263 114,145 116,060 118,007 119,989 122,005 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 134,832 134,358 133,887 133,420 132,955 132,493 132,034 131,577 131,124 130,673 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 58,389 58,184 57,980 57,778 57,576 57,376 57,177 56,980 56,783 56,588 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 15,623 15,568 15,513 15,459 15,405 15,352 15,299 15,246 15,193 15,141 Intercity & Tourist 50,635 49,199 47,804 46,450 45,134 43,855 42,614 41,408 40,236 39,098 Commuter Rail 124,056 126,143 128,267 130,427 132,625 134,861 137,136 139,451 141,807 144,203

Total diesel displaced by hydrogen use (in litres) – hydrail transition

Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 55,508,902 101,163,801 147,012,336 223,672,483 300,505,836 376,459,566 468,408,357 560,524,779 652,810,950 833,737,530 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 6,651,298 9,421,652 12,203,553 16,820,254 20,991,684 25,629,351 31,188,072 36,301,711 41,880,690 52,471,522 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1,774,517 2,506,994 3,116,737 4,824,892 6,409,632 7,993,106 10,063,130 12,131,499 14,198,215 19,064,858 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,447,976 Commuter Rail 10,534,121 14,644,961 18,142,002 24,333,190 29,961,443 36,728,710 43,809,440 52,121,851 60,808,503 74,597,368 Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,029,117,747 1,224,920,433 1,413,790,058 1,603,104,185 1,792,871,061 1,959,984,177 2,128,635,609 2,296,733,019 2,428,606,172 2,561,022,877 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 63,863,859 75,281,689 86,271,344 97,287,821 108,331,613 118,042,406 127,782,607 137,552,732 145,087,991 153,108,914 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 23,805,853 28,664,770 33,276,478 37,762,887 42,367,272 46,238,876 50,107,382 53,972,792 56,742,769 59,510,526 Intercity & Tourist 4,907,197 6,292,313 7,606,106 10,041,859 12,351,282 14,539,177 17,712,605 20,717,799 26,167,555 28,395,035 Commuter Rail 89,939,261 105,931,737 121,596,886 137,918,518 154,919,543 171,561,916 188,889,379 205,821,342 221,189,664 238,331,271

The tables above frame the scale of energy system transition required under the hypothetical hydrail scenario. Namely, that a system capable of supplying roughly 3 billion litres of diesel in 2050 is replaced by a new hydrogen supply chain, capable of producing, distributing and dispensing roughly 450,000 tonnes of hydrogen to more than 4,000 locomotives across Canada.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 50 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Fuel consumption by locomotive service, visualized

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 51 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 52 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The foregoing descriptions of the methodologies and the resulting figures provide a high-level characterization of the hypothetical hydrail transition scenario used in this study, in terms of locomotive population and hydrogen use by classification of railway activity in Canada. These gross values, in the following subsection, are translated into more tangible expressions of the transition scenario, including how the locomotive refuelling system might evolve.

Scenario assumptions – locomotives and refuelling infrastructure

To estimate the operational impacts and implications for infrastructure, as well as capital expenses and operating cost impacts, of the envisioned hydrail transition scenario, assumptions about locomotive design and hydrogen fuel supply are needed. The object of these assumptions is not to predict future designs or engineered solutions; rather, it is to roll-up high-level estimates of total costs associated with the transition. Order-of- magnitude accuracy is considered sufficient in this exercise and, within these bounds, any number of diverse solutions could develop. For example, liquefied hydrogen carried in fuel tenders may currently appear necessary to meet the range and flexibility requirements of mainline locomotive operations, but in due course, practical experience may prove that compressed gaseous hydrogen is more appropriate. Or perhaps solid- state hydrogen storage solutions will emerge. Much will depend on how future technology will adapt to evolving railway needs. Regardless of the alternatives assumed, the overall cost of the transition scenario is unlikely to vary much.

In the pages that follow, a discrete solution is presented for each of the four sectors of railway activity. These solutions describe the hydrogen locomotive and refuelling parameters that will be assumed for the analysis of infrastructure requirements. Each solution represents an ‘average’ of possible designs for the application, recognizing that in practice many different locomotive designs and refuelling solutions could be deployed into use simultaneously. These concepts will be used as common factors in the scenario arithmetic to sum up the volumes of fuel throughput, CapEx, OpEx, emissions, and so on.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 53 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Mainline Freight – Class 1, and Regional and Short Line Long Distance Trans-Canada Freight Service and Regional Service

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations: ▪ AAR wheel arrangement C-C, 2 trucks x 3 powered axles each ▪ [750-hp traction motor] x [6 axles] = 4,500 hp, approximately 3,350 kW ▪ Fuel tender for cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2) o Based on available fuel consumption data, the range between refuelling events for the reference locomotive, operating consistently at notch-8 (an extreme case), was conservatively estimated at approximately 1,200 km. To achieve comparable range, LH2 is required at roughly 4,500 kg per the calculation given below: ▪ Calculating engine operating duration: Fuel tank volume = 35,650 lb Fuel consumption at Notch 8 = 1,503 lb/hour Adjustment factor = 90% (35,650 lb ÷ 1,503 lb/hour) x 90% = 21.35 hours available ▪ Calculating consumption rate: At-the-rail efficiency = 47% Energy content = 33.3 kWh/kg 3,350 kW ÷ (33.3 kWh/kg x 47%) = 214 kg/hour ▪ Calculating LH2 requirement: 21.35 hours x 214 kg/hour = 4,568 kg o Conceptually, it is assumed that this mass is stored and transported in a cryogenic storage dewar within the dimensions of a 50-foot standard boxcar, similar to the configuration shown in the image below, carrying up to approximately 7,700 kg at 25 psi with a boil-off rate 0.3-0.6% per day. Demonstrations involving the transport of liquefied natural gas offer some inspiration but designing an LH2 tender is an entirely new undertaking.

Model GE ES44AC – similar to Locomotive supplied with LNG from reference locomotive characteristics tender car – similar to reference locomotive concept

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 54 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Hydrogen dispensing solution: ▪ A combination of refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer, and Direct-to- Locomotive (DTL) refuelling, in which LH2 tankers are hauled to locomotives over the road by truck or by rail, is considered for this scenario. ▪ The map below imagines a distribution of LH2 facilities throughout the network of Class 1, regional and short lines in Canada. Each is conservatively assumed to service a straight-line range from destination of approximately 800 km, which appears to provide extensive coverage of the network. ▪ The red markers represent the prospective localities of LH2 facilities near major cities and assume 3 stations per locality. The green markers represent inter- urban facility sites that uphold refuelling services in the stretches between major centres. 2 stations are assumed for each. Red (14 x 3) + green (12 x 2) = 66 LH2 facilities serving the network.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 55 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Note: For the above analysis, a detailed mapping of Canada’s railway network was created (see appendix 1). This tool informs the selection of sites based on evidence of enabling infrastructure, such as railway sidings and spurs, where tankers might be queued, and convergence with roadways, where DTL services could occur. However, a detailed siting analysis is beyond the scope of this study, requiring predictions about technology and logistics that may be impractical to make at this early stage of hydrail system development.

Road Switching, Yard Switching and Work Train Freight Service, restricted to locomotive switchers in railway/marshalling yards

The current population of switcher locomotives across Canada (i.e., 576 units) was kept constant throughout the scenario evolution to 2050, reflecting a judgement that a fleet of this size is capable of serving the growth in GTK and RTK, assuming ongoing refurbishment and replacement. Energy use characteristics for a switcher locomotive have been estimated, based on an industry-standard duty-cycle, and adjusted to reconcile with per-locomotive averages in the fleet: ▪ Diesel use –103,317 L annually ▪ Hydrogen use –15,141 kg annually

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for freight switcher activity: ▪ AAR wheel arrangement B-B, 2 trucks x 2 powered axles each ▪ [500-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] = 2,000 hp, approximately 1,500 kW ▪ Onboard hydrogen storage, 100 kg at 350 bar, refuelling no more frequently than once daily

Model EMD GP38-2 – similar to reference locomotive characteristics

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 56 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Hydrogen dispensing solution: ▪ Refuelling with pressurized hydrogen gas at 350 bar at hydrogen stations or within railyards equipped with refuelling systems, or at other dispensing stations nearby. ▪ Based on the map of Canada’s freight railways, an estimated 110 switchyards of significant size and activity exist. However, there are nearly 600 switchers. If a compressed hydrogen dispensing station can serve a fleet of 10 switchers, then 60 such stations would be required, at least. By choosing the mid-point of these options, 85 compressed hydrogen dispensing stations is assumed to be satisfactory to service the switcher fleet in this scenario.

Intercity / Tourist Locomotives Inter-City Passenger Rail Service

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for intercity passenger activity: ▪ AAR wheel arrangement B-B, 2 trucks x 2 powered axles each ▪ [1,000-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] = 4,000 hp, approximately 3,000 kW ▪ As with mainline freight locomotives, a fuel tender with LH2 is considered for the scenario calculations, but an onboard LH2 storage solution may also be possible.

Siemens Charger model – similar to reference locomotive characteristics

Hydrogen dispensing solution: ▪ Combination of refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer, and Direct-to- Locomotive (DTL) refuelling, in which LH2 tankers are hauled to locomotives over the road by truck or by rail according to a pre-arranged schedules. ▪ It is assumed that intercity locomotives could rely on access to mainline and commuter refuelling facilities under appropriate commercial terms, or can be served by DTL services. Under this reasoning, no dedicated refuelling facilities are assumed in the transition scenario.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 57 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Commuter Rail Locomotives Commuter Passenger Rail

Reference locomotive parameters for use in scenario calculations for regional commuter activity: ▪ AAR wheel arrangement B-B, 2 trucks x 2 powered axles each ▪ [1,150-hp traction motor] x [4 axles] + (800-hp head-end) = 5,400 hp, approximately 4,000 kW ▪ Onboard storage of LH2 is considered a feasible and flexible solution, and this will be assumed in the scenario calculations. o Note that commuter locomotives of this reference type may well be designed with 700-bar compressed hydrogen gas storage onboard instead of LH2. Accordingly, this would require compressed gas dispensing 700- bar. In the judgement of the study team, the cost differences between the high-pressure and cryogenic hydrogen options at-scale may be negligible, and liquefied hydrogen was chosen for the sake of logistical simplicity.

MP54AC model – similar to reference locomotive characteristics

Hydrogen dispensing solution: ▪ Refuelling at stations equipped for LH2 transfer on a regular schedule within the commuter railway network. ▪ Based on a review of the commuter railways – GO in Ontario, AMT in Quebec, WCE in BC – a total 18 LH2 facilities is considered an appropriate estimate to serve the future fuel demands of these operations, per the scenario projections. This assumes refuelling at the outer termination points of the lines comprising the networks, plus provision for some supplemental stations near network hubs.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 58 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

o The study team recognizes that there are plans to convert GO service to a catenary-electrified system composed of locomotives and self-propelled coaches drawing power directly from overhead lines. It is further acknowledged that should hydrail systems be deployed along some of the GO lines, 700-bar gaseous hydrogen may be chosen over LH2 as the onboard fuel. This makes the transition scenario all the more conservative in its hypothetical projections.

4.2 Operational impacts of hydrail transition scenario – discussion

Imagining hydrail systems from a day-to-day operations perspective, it is possible to see how a transition from diesel to hydrogen could be less disruptive than the transition from coal to diesel had been. Steam locomotives needed tremendous volumes of coal and water to operate, and traction was mechanically-powered. In contrast, both diesel and hydrogen locomotives operate on a single fuel and are electrically-driven. Aside from changes to the knowledge infrastructure, such as training, certification and regulation, the operational logistics are fairly analogous. Both diesel and hydrogen locomotives deliver tractive effort to haul trains and are refuelled as needed. If more tractive power is needed, then more locomotives can be added to the train. Ideally, each diesel locomotive can be replaced by one hydrogen locomotive, as similar power output ratings can be achieved.

There is one fundamental aspect of hydrail systems, however, that will require significant, physical change. That is, the volumetric energy density of hydrogen is a fraction of diesel. LH2 has less than a quarter the energy content per unit volume as diesel. Therefore, larger fuel storage volumes will be required. On the other hand, a hydrogen powertrain composed of fuel cells and batteries is expected to be roughly twice as efficient in producing tractive power than a diesel genset. That means a locomotive powered by LH2 might only travel half as far as an equivalent diesel locomotive, assuming the same volume of fuel has been provided in each case. The gap is even wider with compressed hydrogen gas.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 59 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

This chart from the U.S. Energy Information Agency compares fuels by their energy content specific to volume and mass. Gasoline is the reference fuel. Compressed and liquefied hydrogen are highlighted. https://www.eia.gov/t odayinenergy/detail. php?id=9991

The logical conclusion is that hydrail systems will necessarily involve more frequent refuelling events or be equipped with greater volumes of fuel. That is why LH2 tenders were assumed in the reference case locomotives described in the previous section of this report. By this means, hydrogen-powered locomotives may be provided with a range comparable to diesel-powered locomotives, or at least with a range sufficient to travel comfortably between refuelling facilities.

Hydrogen supply chain

A robust system of diesel supply to Canada’s freight railways is the established reference case against which an emerging hydrogen supply chain would be evaluated. Most of Canada’s refining capacity is concentrated in northern Alberta, southern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.6 By contrast, the energy infrastructure needed to produce “green” hydrogen is more widely distributed across the country. A study produced by Change Energy for Natural Resources Canada in 20197 included the following findings: ▪ Six provinces have enough green power production capacity to spare for clean hydrogen production via industrial-scale electrolysis without compromising other critical uses of electricity: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland & Labrador. ▪ Combined, the annual hydrogen production potential in these jurisdictions is nearly four (4) megatonnes. This is a sufficient volume of energy to satisfy

6 Canada’s Refining Sector. Canadian Fuels Association. https://www.canadianfuels.ca/our-industry/fuel-production/ 7 Production Potential for Clean Hydrogen Within Canada. Produced for the Transportation and Alternative Fuels Division of Natural Resources Canada. 2019, Change Energy Services Inc.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 60 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

approximately half of current transportation energy demand in Canada, represented by gasoline and diesel consumption. ▪ The estimated hydrogen production potential could be fulfilled by 2,555 electrolysis plants rated at 10 MW each, 257 at 100 MW or 89 at 300 MW. Respectively, the costs of delivering this volume of hydrogen to points of export are $12.26, $10.81 and $10.76 per kilogram assuming electricity priced at 14 cents/kWh, or $6.55, $5.09 and $5.05 per kilogram is electricity if supplied at 3 cents/kWh. For comparison, note that the cost of diesel at $1.00/litre is roughly equal to hydrogen at $7.57 per kilogram.

Moreover, a geospatial analysis of the requisite energy and transportation infrastructure to produce and mobilize hydrogen identified a “strong convergence” of power, water, pipeline, road and rail, which made siting of electrolysis plants a fairly simple prospect with a great flexibility of options. The following image taken from the report illustrates the functional alignment of high-voltage transmission lines and electrical substations, highways, natural gas pipelines and railways, in Ontario. Maps of the other provinces studied show similar coincidence of enabling infrastructure.

Alberta and Saskatchewan were not reviewed, as the study focused on regions with low-carbon generating assets only. Yet the Prairie Provinces are poised to become large producers of “blue” hydrogen, which only adds to the range of hydrogen supply options, increasing the volumes significantly from the estimated 4 megatonnes of green hydrogen production potential. Therefore, in the most pessimistic case, the total demand for low-carbon hydrogen from Canada’s railway operations in 2050 would represent less than a tenth of the country’s production potential.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 61 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Given that the feedstocks for low-carbon hydrogen production are primarily water, electricity and natural gas, and given that the estimated supply potential vastly exceeds the total demand of the railways forecasted in the hydrail transition herein, no physical barriers to access are identified. Furthermore, no substantive amounts of new energy or transportation infrastructure would need to be built to facilitate production. Short runs of power lines and new grid interconnections, or short spurs off existing rights-of-way, ought to suffice.

Ready access to all the required feedstocks may exist at some railway facilities. In these cases, the operator may choose to produce hydrogen on-site (as described earlier, in Section 3). In other cases, delivery of hydrogen may be the more practical option. In both cases, storage of hydrogen on-site may be required. If dispensing of compressed hydrogen is needed, as may be the case for switcher locomotives, then a system of pressure tanks and compressors may be part of the equipment installed. Transfer of compressed gas can take time – a “fast fill” may take as long as 30 minutes

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 62 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

if the onboard storage capacity is large. Slower fill facilities cost less and may work well within a schedule where switchers are out-of-service for several hours each day, during which they can refuel on a predictable schedule.

Transfer of LH2 has the advantage of speed. As a liquid, hydrogen is decanted into dewars for storage; conceptually, a similar system might be adapted for locomotive or tender refueling, thereby enabling a faster transfer of hydrogen. As with compressed hydrogen, LH2 can be produced at a facility on-site using compressor-refrigeration equipment. Alternatively, it can produced elsewhere – say, at a large, centralized facility – and Source: California Fuel Cell Partnership. then delivered by truck (or by rail). An LH2 https://h2stationmaps.com/hydrogen-stations facility could be sized to refuel locomotives only, or it could serve as a node in a larger network of hydrogen distribution and dispensing services. The image below, sourced from a U.S. Department of Energy report, Liquid Hydrogen Production and Delivery from a Dedicated Wind Power Plant,8 illustrates the movement of hydrogen by rail from production sites to terminals. This identifies the role of a railway as a hydrogen distribution channel in and of itself.

Where railways are operating their own hydrogen production, storage and dispensing equipment, training for personnel will be required to attain certifications for operations and maintenance. Local regulatory and safety authorities, including safety agencies, fire chiefs and other first responders, should also be engaged to understand how to handle emergencies. A regulatory framework for hydrogen equipment and installations already

8 Argonne National Laboratory. Liquid Hydrogen Production and Delivery from a Dedicated Wind Power Plant. 2012. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/downloads/liquid-hydrogen-production-and-delivery-dedicated-wind-power-plant

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 63 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

exists in Canada and the U.S., discussed later in this section, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides the relevant training programs.

As procedurally analogous to diesel systems as on-site hydrogen storage and refuelling of locomotives may appear, it nonetheless represents a distinct, parallel energy system to manage within the railyard. During a period of hydrail transition, it is likely that personnel will need to maintain two systems – diesel and hydrogen. This creates three, distinct operational regimes: all diesel → both diesel and hydrail → all hydrail. Moreover, while the handling of hydrogen in compressed gas and cryogenic liquid form may be routine in other industries, it is entirely novel to North American railway operations. The challenges of adapting hydrogen systems should not be considered easy or trivial.

Locomotive operations and maintenance

Training in the operation of locomotives is not expected to change substantially, except in the areas of the operator input and the dynamic response of the hydrail powertrain. Just as hybrid-electric automobiles “feel” different from conventional cars during acceleration and braking, locomotive operators should expect some differences – during a hydrail transition, there will be a period of overlap, in which operators must be prepared to manage both diesel and hydrogen powertrains, interchangeably and alongside each other, requiring development of safety procedures and training.

The sound of a hydrogen locomotive may require some operational adaptation. The high-amplitude, low-frequency of the diesel engine and generator sets will be substituted by the low-amplitude, higher-frequency sounds of the blowers and gas plumbing systems. The locomotive will not be silent, but the operating sounds will be at a much lower decibel rating and dissipate over a shorter distance. Personnel may need to rely on additional audible signals (i.e., horn, bell) for added safety.

Locomotive start up procedures are expected to be similar. As with a diesel engine, the fuel cells will run at idle when there is no external demand for power. Fuel cells must generate minimal power to maintain proper internal conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) for the immediate ramp up of current. Batteries, too, must be kept under certain conditions for operational efficiency. So, both diesel and fuel cell-powered locomotives will run at a stand-by power level when operationally available.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 64 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Some of these procedures may vary seasonally, requiring special cold-weather management. Some commercial fuel cell power modules, for example, are capable of cold storage at -40 degrees Celsius, and start up from a cold-soak below -30 degrees Celsius, so cold-weather operation is not expected to be a barrier. However, if the converted locomotive has been shut down for an extended period of time, there may be some special procedures to follow for storage and start-up. In very warm ambient conditions, the performance of the radiator cooling system is crucial. If thermal management is not optimal, the fuel cell power modules may shut down to protect themselves from damage.

A program of regular locomotive inspection is advised to prevent critical system failures. Although fuel cells and battery packs tend to be relatively rugged pieces of equipment, the failure of some supporting part of the overall system – say, a blower fan or a fluid hose – may precipitate a larger problem. In some cases, visual inspection and testing can identify these problems; in others, self-diagnostic capabilities may be built into certain subsystems (especially for fuel cell power modules and battery packs).

Scheduled servicing is also part of the hydrogen locomotive regime. Fuel cell stacks, which are part of the power module assembly, need periodic overhauling like diesel engines. As explained in Section 3, fuel cell stack assemblies are composed of layers of plates that direct the inlet flow of air and hydrogen gas, and the outlet flow of water. Sandwiched between each plate is a polymer membrane-electrode assembly. Over time, the membranes degrade and this eventually reduces the output power capacity of the stack. To restore optimal performance, the stack should be opened and the membranes replaced. The schedule for this servicing will vary by power module manufacturer and locomotive use, but once every several thousands of hours would be expected (i.e., perhaps once every two to four years).

Note that the fuel cell power modules, when the time comes for an overhaul, could be swapped with new replacement units. Unlike overhauling a diesel engine, in which the entire locomotive is taken out-of-service for the work, older fuel cell power modules could be changed out and new ones installed in a matter of a few hours, without removing the locomotive from service for a significant period of time. It could be that hydrogen locomotives will require less servicing than diesel locomotives, resulting in more vehicle up-time and overall productivity, although this is a speculation based on isolated experience reports from bus transit pilot programs. Fluid changes and refills should also be reduced in the converted locomotive, as there are no moving engine parts to be lubricated.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 65 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Battery cells also degrade over time. The cells comprising a battery pack (or the entire pack itself) will eventually be retired from service and replaced with a new pack. The timing of this replacement is uncertain as it will depend on the cycling of cell charge and discharge, as well as the conditions in which they operate. If the battery chemistry and design is well-matched to the duty cycle, the battery pack would be expected to last a decade or longer. There is no specific end-point for battery life – just a gradual decline in energy storage capacity. A battery pack should have residual value and continue to be used in other, less demanding services upon be being retired from the locomotive.

Locomotive maintenance structures

If a hydrogen-powered locomotive is to be brought into an enclosed building for servicing or repair, the accidental venting of hydrogen could pose a safety risk. Hydrogen is not toxic, but it can easily ignite if trapped within a confined space and mixed with air (specifically, oxygen). Hydrogen rises and disperses quickly in atmosphere – a quality that can make it inherently safe, provided the pathway to the atmosphere is not obstructed. If hydrogen accumulates in the roof of a structure, mixes with oxygen and is then exposed to a source of ignition (e.g., a spark or flame), it can explode. If there is a risk of hydrogen escaping from the locomotive into the building, then the structure must be examined and modified as necessary to comply with building codes for this purpose. Codes detailing these requirements have been developed by a range of standards-writing authorities, including the CSA and the NFPA.

Many buildings meet the requirements of these codes already. Examples include warehouses in which fuel cell-powered forklifts are operated and refuelled with hydrogen, and maintenance bays for natural gas-powered transit buses and trucks. Indeed, the use of liquefied natural gas-powered locomotives has led to standards and procedures for safe servicing and storing these vehicles indoors. In addition to modifications made to an existing railyard structure to align it with code, procedures to prepare a hydrogen-fueled locomotive for moving indoors may be developed (e.g., purging of piping and vessels to evacuate hydrogen to safe levels). Consulting with the local fire chief and other authorities having jurisdiction (e.g., municipal government, building inspectors) will be required.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 66 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

4.3 Regulatory aspects of the hydrail transition scenario – discussion

In the preceding matter on operational impacts to railways of the hydrail transition scenario conceptualized, references have been made to regulatory frameworks, including standards and certifications. These are not static sets of rules; rather, they are living, evolving procedures and applications of best practice that adapt to developments in science and technology. It is considered helpful and instructive to incorporate into this report an overview of the framework as it applies to railway operations, so that the impacts of a hydrail transition can be explored.

The federal railway safety legislative and regulatory framework

Transport Canada is responsible for developing, administering and overseeing policy, legislative and regulatory requirements for the safety of the rail transportation system in Canada. The Railway Safety Act (RSA)9 formalizes the relationship between government and railway companies on matters of safety to personnel, the public, property and the environment. This relationship is collaborative – not “command and control” – and is intended to “facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the continuing enhancement of railway safety and security.” [see Section 3 of Act]

The RSA provides authorities to make regulations, rules and engineering standards that each have equal force of law, and under which compliance is mandatory.

Regulations are statutory instruments approved by an appointed Governor in Council and apply to all federally regulated railway companies.

Rules are developed by railway companies and approved by the Minister of Transport. A rule can be submitted for approval by an association representing several railway companies, or a company can independently submit its own, company-specific rules. Compared to regulations, rules have the advantage of being efficient and flexible, as they can be approved in less time.

Engineering Standards are developed by railway companies and approved by the Minister of Transport.10 The same criteria relating to rules applies to standards.

9 Railway Safety Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.)). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.2/ 10 Note that Transport Canada has not approved equipment standards in the past, which is a category that could include hydrogen equipment and equipment retrofitted with hydrogen technology.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 67 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Railway Safety Act

Engineering Regulations Rules mandatory compliance standards

voluntary compliance Guidelines

Parties subject to the RSA are: Railway Companies; Local Railway Companies; Railway company employees, Road Authorities (which can include provincial and municipal authorities); and Adjacent Land Owners and the general public.

A Railway Company operates or maintains a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament, meaning that it meets one of the following criteria: ▪ operates across provincial/territorial or international boundaries; ▪ is owned, controlled, operated or leased by a federal railway; ▪ has been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada; or ▪ is an integral part of an existing federal undertaking.

The term “railway” includes tracks, branches, extensions, sidings, railway bridges, tunnels, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock, equipment, stores or other things connected with the railway. It also includes communications or signaling systems and related facilities and equipment used for railway purposes.

To operate, a Railway Company requires: ▪ a Certificate of Fitness, issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency, authorized under Sections 90-94 of the Canada Transportation Act (based on satisfactory third-party liability insurance coverage for a proposed construction or operation of a railway), ▪ a Railway Operating Certificate, ▪ approved Rules, and ▪ a Safety Management System.

A Local Railway Company is either a provincially-regulated short line, a light rail transit or a tourist train that operates equipment on federally regulated tracks. It requires only a Railway Operating Certificate, approved Rules, and a Safety Management System, but not a Certificate of Fitness.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 68 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Railway Operating Certificates are issued by Transport Canada to federal regulated railway companies provided the Minister is satisfied with the company’s safety management system. The Railway Safety Management System Regulations, promulgated under the Act, outline the characteristics of a satisfactory system, such as accountabilities, reporting and the need for appropriate risk assessment methodologies. This regulation formalizes a process of assessment and continuous improvement, but it does not specify minimum technical standards to be achieved.

However, some technical standards are referenced in certain regulations established under the RSA for commonplace equipment (e.g., diesel storage tanks). As previously described, references to technical specifications and practices can exist as Rules that have been proposed by railway companies and accepted by the Minister. Such rules may reference industry standards published, for example, by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). This is intended to facilitate safe operations but not impede the introduction of new technology, such as hydrogen equipment.

A submission from a hydrogen system proponent railway company to the Rail Safety Group at Transport Canada would involve an explanation of the alternate motive power and fuel system, where and how it will be operated and kept safe, the integrity of fuel reservoirs and connections, and how the monitoring and inspection will occur. The foundational element of the submission is the risk assessment. Based on its review of the risk assessment (i.e., consistent with the safety management systems regulations) the Rail Safety Group could accept the use of the proposed hydrogen system on a temporary basis (such as for testing and demonstration) or consider it clear for regular operation. Transport Canada would base its assessment of a new technology through an exemption request by the proponent. The exemption request would be supported by a demonstration of equivalence of safety, such that the new technology is shown to be as safe or safer than the currently regulated, conventional technology or process.

Confidence in the risk assessment is enhanced where applicable codes, standards and guidelines already exist and can be referenced or adapted. For example, the Canadian Hydrogen Installation Code (CHIC), establishes the requirements for any newly proposed hydrogen refuelling facility that would be associated with a hydrogen-powered locomotive project. Furthermore, the CHIC includes a lengthy list of “Normative References”; i.e., mandatory specifications that must be fulfilled in the design, construction and operation of the facility. By demonstrating an alignment with such standards and equivalencies with prevailing rules, the process of review can be facilitated.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 69 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The rail safety legislative and regulatory regime is expected to include the elements listed below. From the perspective of integrating new hydrogen systems, including hydrogen-powered locomotives and refuelling systems, into federal regulated railway operations, the identified legislation, regulations and rules are considered directly relevant.

Legislation ▪ Railway Safety Act (1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.))

Regulations (Pursuant to the Act) ▪ Railway Operating Certificate Regulations (SOR/2014-258) ▪ Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015 (SOR/2015-26) ▪ Notice of Railway Works Regulations (SOR/91-103) ▪ Grade Crossings Regulations (SOR/2014-275) ▪ Locomotive Emissions Regulations (SOR/2017-121) ▪ Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (SOR/2014- 233)

Other Regulations ▪ Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations (1987-3 Rail) (SOR/87-150)

Rules ▪ Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules ▪ Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) with Rules for the Protection of Track Units and Track Work

Other Related Acts and Regulations (Pursuant to the Act) ▪ Canada Transportation Act ▪ Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act ▪ Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act ▪ Canada Labour Code o On Board Trains Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (SOR/87-184)

In summary, approval for new railway technology at the federal level follows a bottom- up approach. The railway company follows an established procedure to prepare a proposal that has been built on risk assessment-informed decision-making. This typically involves detailed analyses where all the hazards associated with the proposed

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 70 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

new technology have been identified and the related risks have been assessed. The following formula applies.

Risk = Probability × Consequence

Calculating the risk requires both qualitative and quantitative analyses and, where required, adding safety barriers until the risk is managed to an acceptable level of risk. In this process, it is important to understand that no use of technology can produce a zero-risk condition. The stakeholders have set an appropriate standard for the risk that is considered acceptable. Railway stakeholders in Canada (indeed, throughout the North American rail sector) have used this approach to introduce innovative systems, technologies and procedures. A recent Canadian example of alternative fuel and powertrain deployment is the introduction and testing of prototype liquefied natural gas- powered locomotives by CN in Alberta in 2013.11

Other Authorities Having Jurisdiction, standards organizations and codes

The introduction and use of hydrail systems would represent a technology change within a railway, and thus would trigger a change to the safety management system, which would need to be reviewed by the Rail Safety Group at Transport Canada. This submission should demonstrate that local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) have been engaged in the risk assessment and revision to the safety management system, and that they do not object to the proposed operation. Such AHJs could include provincial inspection and certification agencies (e.g., Technical Safety BC, Technical Standards and Safety Authority (in Ontario) and the Electrical Safety Authority, as well as first responder organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. Furthermore, it is expected that AHJs would consider it within their purview to inspect and certify hydrogen system installations and supply chains within (and external to) a proponent railway company.

Certification of hydrogen systems by AHJs is assessed against relevant codes, which reference standards produced by accredited standards development organizations. Those organizations involved in hydrogen systems in North America are:

11 Railway Age (W. Vantuono). Locomotives: Is LNG the next generation? 2014. https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/locomotives-is-lng-the-next-generation/

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 71 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

▪ SAE – Society of Automotive Engineers ▪ AGA – American Gas Association ▪ CSA – Canadian Standards Association ▪ ASTM – American Society for Testing and ▪ ASME – American Society of Mechanical Materials International Engineers ▪ IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics ▪ BNQ – Bureau de normalisation du Québec Engineers ▪ NFPA – National Fire Protection Association ▪ CGA – Compressed Gas Association ▪ API – American Petroleum Institute ▪ IEC – International Electrotechnical ▪ UL – Underwriters Laboratories Commission ▪ ANSI – American National Standards Institute ▪ ISO – International Organization for ▪ ICC – International Code Council Standardization

The following table summarizes the types of standards currently in use in North America, identifies the custodian of the standards and, where applicable, the authorizing organization (note TC – Transport Canada, ECCC – Environment & Climate Change Canada).12

Vehicles Compression, Dispensing Storage Infrastructure Controlling Authorities: Controlling Authorities: Controlling Authorities: Controlling Authorities: US-DOT, TC (on crash State, provincial and local US-DOT, TC (over-road TC worthiness) government (zoning, transport, pipeline safety) Measurement Canada US-EPA, ECCC (on building permits) emissions) General fuel cell vehicle Storage tanks: Composite containers: Fuel specifications: safety: ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA, ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA SAE, ASTM, API SAE API Pipelines: Weights/Measures: Fuel cell vehicle systems: Piping: ASME, API, BNQ, AGA ASME, API, NIST SAE ASME, CSA, BNQ, NFPA Equipment: Fuelling: Fuel system components: Dispensers: ASME, API, BNQ, AGA SAE, CSA CSA UL, CSA, NFPA Fuel transfer: Sensors/Detectors: Containers: On-site H2 production: NPFA, API SAE, UL, CSA, NFPA SAE UL, CSA, BNQ, API Connectors: Batteries: Codes for the SAE, CSA SAE Environment: Communications: Emissions: ICC, NFPA, ECCC SAE, UL, CSA, API, IEEE SAE Building and Fire Code Recycling: Requirements: SAE CSA (building code, fine Service/Repair: code, vehicle SAE maintenance facilities code) ICC, NFPA

12 This information was adapted from a CSA Group presentation at the North American Codes and Standards Forum convened in Ottawa in March 2017).

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 72 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Although not specific to railway systems, the following international standards are often referenced for safety and design certification, and may be relevant to the assessment of proposed hydrail systems: ▪ For fuel cell module design and installation, including mobile applications: o IEC 62282-2, IEC 62282-3 ▪ For on-board storage subsystems: o CSA America HGV2 for compressed hydrogen gas storage o ISO 13985 for liquid hydrogen storage ▪ For system level, including mobile applications: o ISO 23273 for safety elements in vehicles fuelled by compressed hydrogen o ISO 6469 for electrical safety elements of hybrid electric vehicles o IEC 60079-10 for classification of system environments and protective measures ▪ For the production, transport and delivery of hydrogen: o SAE J2719 and ISO 14687-2, describing hydrogen fuel purity requirements for fuel cell vehicles o CAN/BNQ 1784, used to guide the installation of hydrogen generating equipment o NFPA 55, covering the safe storage of hydrogen in compressed hydrogen containers and cryogenic containers (for liquefied hydrogen) o NFPA 2, general coverage of hydrogen systems o ISO TC/197, covering design, operation and maintenance characteristics of stand-alone outdoor public and non-public, and indoor warehouse fuelling stations that dispense gaseous hydrogen

For further information on codes and standards, often referenced in regulation, the following online resources should be consulted: ▪ Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Codes & Standards website: http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/home.html ▪ Bureau de normalisation du Québec. Canadian Hydrogen Installation Code: https://www.bnq.qc.ca/en/standardization/hydrogen/canadian-hydrogen- installation-code.html ▪ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Safety, Codes and Standards – Basics (website): https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safety-codes-and-standards-basics ▪ International Standards Organization, Technical Committee 197. Corporate website: https://www.iso.org/committee/54560/x/catalogue/

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 73 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Understanding which of the various authorities to engage and the process of receiving approval for a project or proposed operation requires some navigation. Often there are multiple tiers of government from which approval must be received (or assurance of clearance to operate). Frequently there are multiple AHJs within a given tier, as the chart below shows.

Authority Having Jurisdiction Aspect Federal Provincial Municipal

✓ Bulk H2 fuel delivery, if applicable TC ✓ On-site H2 fuel production, if applicable ✓ ✓ TC (RSG)

On-site H2 fuel storage / compression / ✓ ✓ ✓ dispensing TC (RSG) On-site vehicle repair structure (i.e., ✓ ? ✓ maintenance shed, garage) TC (RSG) ✓ On-vehicle powertrain ? TC (RSG) TC – Transport Canada; RSG – Rail Safety Group

While the standards identified above provide a reference from which safety management systems for hydrogen equipment can be developed in the early stages of a hydrail transition, it should be recognized that due to the mass of the railcars and trains involved, collision forces in railway applications can be of much greater magnitude than in on-highway, rubber-tire conditions. The AAR, of which many Canadian railway companies are members, establishes standards and recommended practices. These are published in manuals often under the direction of various AAR committees, and should be considered in the assessment of new technology deployed into rail service. Given the integrated nature of the North American railway system and the movement of rolling stock across the Canada-U.S. border, a system of new rulemaking for hydrail systems would practically involve collaboration between Transport Canada and the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) – the regulatory agency with authority for rail safety under the U.S. Department of Transportation.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 74 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The AAR and FRA have been actively assessing the emergence of alternative technologies and fuels, such as batteries, compressed and liquefied natural gas, and hydrogen, and may develop standards and practices that could be referenced in regulation. For example, the focus of an AAR working group on liquefied natural gas tenders led to the development of specification (M-1004) for “interoperable fuel tenders” that are applicable to any fuel carried in a tender. A 2019 report by AAR, Crashworthiness and Puncture Protection Analyses of LNG Tenders,13 is representative of the detailed work that industry can undertake to inform technical standards to enhance the safety of early hydrail systems and subsystem components. This report focuses on train-to- train collision scenarios and those involving a broadside collision with a heavy-duty road Source: AAR. Crashworthiness and Puncture vehicle. The inset image is taken from the report Protection Analyses of LNG Tenders. 2019 to illustrate one of the numerous scenarios examined.

To summarize, a transition to hydrail will certainly involve the development of new rules and standards referenced in regulation. However, no need to amend the regulatory framework itself, or the Railway Safety Act, is apparent. The legislation is not technology-specific and appears to provide sufficient flexibility for a transition to hydrail to proceed. Moreover, there is a wide range of codes and standards against which to design hydrail systems, and numerous AHJs with which to consult and acquire certifications needed to initiate deployment and operations.

13 American Association of Railroads. Crashworthiness and Puncture Protection Analyses of LNG Tenders – Final Report. 2019. https://aar.com/standards/pdfs/LNG_report_cummulative_revised_07Mar2019.pdf

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 75 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS

The operational impacts and implications of a complete hydrail transition in Canada were addressed at a high level in the previous section of this report. A hypothetical transition scenario was enumerated with estimates of locomotive turnover and supporting hydrogen infrastructure and systems of supply. Concept-level locomotives for each of the four categories of railway activity – freight, switcher, inter-city passenger and commuter service – were identified, along with a concept hydrogen fuel tender. These are not predictive designs; rather, these are simply compositing of the kind of specifications evident in recent procurement trends.

Such guesswork is needed for this section, in which capital costs and operating expenditures are estimated and modeled. The intent is to produce a rough approximation of the scale of the financial commitment represented in the envisioned hydrail transition. Order-of-magnitude levels of accuracy are all that can be expected of this exercise. Nevertheless, there is value in the attempt, as it provides context to the discussion on benefits to Canadian society of a hydrail transition in the section that follows.

5.1 Methodology

To develop estimates of the capital requirements associated with the hydrail transition scenario, some high-level assumptions about the costs of locomotive conversions, locomotive manufacture and hydrogen facility construction needed to be made. Hydrogen rolling stock (i.e., locomotives and tenders) cost estimates are based partly on extrapolations from limited accounts in the published literature referencing existing equipment, but mostly on the experience and reasoned judgement of the study team. The commercial unit costs are summarized in the following table (in Canadian dollars).

Mainline Freight Yard Switching Commuter Parameter & Inter-City & Work Train Rail Passenger

Fuel Type LH2 H2 (~350 bar) LH2 Liquefied hydrogen tender* $3,500,000 N/A $3,500,000 Freshly manufactured locomotive $6,500,000 $5,100,000 $6,500,000 Remanufactured locomotive $3,750,000 $3,150,000 $3,750,000 No. of hydrogen facilities (by 2050) 66 85 18 * One tender is assumed per locomotive.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 76 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Note that estimates of the number of hydrogen facilities, including refuelling stations, were made in Section 4 under Scenario assumptions – locomotives and refuelling infrastructure. For simplicity, all LH2 facilities were considered to be equally sized and costed. In reality, different sizes would emerge to serve the varying needs of mainline, inter-city and commuter rail activities across the country, but a consistent, average size is needed for this analysis.

These conceptual facilities are essentially fuel transfer stations, in which LH2 is received by truck (or rail), stored on-site and then dispensed. Off-site production is assumed, as LH2 plants tend to be sized up to 30 tonnes/day, which exceeds the needs and throughput capacity of a single station. The cost of hydrogen delivered reflects the investments made upstream in the supply chain and are thus captured in the analysis herein. The facilities are composed of a cryogenic LH2 dewar, transfer pumps, dispensers and safety and control systems, as well as various standard components, such as low temperature piping and connection hoses. These systems are located in a fenced-in, outdoor compound that includes all necessary safety barriers, containment berms and boil off venting systems.

The compressed hydrogen facilities in switchyards are similarly assumed equal, for the purposes of this fleetwide costing exercise. As described in Section 4, the switchyard facilities assume hydrogen produced on-site via electrolysis, sized to meet the demands of a fleet of 10 switcher locomotives; that is, a captive fleet that returns to refuel on a regular basis (perhaps refuelling once every one-to-two days).

The capital outlay can be deferred by staging the build-out of LH2 facilities to align with the growth in hydrogen-powered locomotive population and activity. It is assumed that each refuelling facility will initially be built at one-quarter of its full design capacity, with three equal expansions occurring as required to keep pace with hydrogen demand. The initial build-out of an individual station will cost half of the total, with each expansion adding another one-sixth to the summed cost (e.g., 50% + 17% + 17% +16% = 100%). This does not affect the total capital invested over the transition period from 2030 to 2050; it simply provides a schedule for the investments over time. This approach de- risks the capital spending by reducing the upfront commitment.

The capital schedule is also constrained by the need to functionally serve a growing number of LH2-fuelled locomotives operating throughout the railway network. Even if the absolute volumes of hydrogen required do not necessitate a certain amount of LH2 infrastructure build-out, the logistical need to refuel locomotives operating over a large area may require a minimum number of hydrogen facilities to be operating. So, while it

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 77 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

is reasonable to assume that initial growth in hydrail activity will likely occur around several hubs in Canada, the total number of LH2 facilities forecasted will need to be built and operating well before the hydrogen-powered locomotive population (for mainline and inter-city service) reaches its target in 2050. This threshold is chosen to be 15% of the total 2050 population, which is 3,375 locomotive units. Put simply, when roughly 500 of these locomotives are in service, all the LH2 facilities need to be at least partly built- out. For example, mainline freight service reaches this threshold at around 2036 in the hydrail transition scenario.

For switcher and commuter locomotives, no staging of facility build-out is assumed. Instead, the facilities are built to their full size when hydrogen-powered locomotives are first adopted in the locality. There are two reasons for this. First, switcher and commuter service can be considered operationally separated from the other railways from a refuelling perspective. This means that, for the purpose of the model, facility construction follows the population growth curve. Second, since these stations will each serve a contained and relatively small population of locomotives, the benefits of staging capital investments become negligible in the model.

Change Energy Services’ proprietary technoeconomic assessment model was used to produce specifications and comprehensive cost estimates of hydrogen systems and installations, as well as operating costs. The model is calibrated to real-world cost data for high-fidelity simulation. The results are tabulated as follows.

Mainline Freight, Yard Commuter Parameter (also serving Inter- Switching & Rail City Passenger) Work Train

Fuel Type LH2 H2 (~350 bar) LH2 Cost of fully built-out hydrogen facilities $9,956,995 $5,853,202 $7,110,532 Hydrogen facility throughput (kg/day) 16,684 291 5,316

The rolling stock and infrastructure cost estimates presented above are used in a year- over-year capital cost requirement assessment, summarized in the following subsection.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 78 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

5.2 Capital requirements assessment

The table below presents the total capital spend needed to support the hydrail transition scenario, inlcusive of locomotives and tenders, as well as hydrogen facilities refuelling, year-over-year. The calculations are based on the estimated values presented and disussed in the previous subsection. Note that these estimates are not incremental to business-as-usual projections for diesel-powered railway operations.

Hydrail Transition Scenario – CapEx schedule – 2030 – 2050 Parameter 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Mainline Freight & Intercity Passenger Hydrogen facilities $14,935,492 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $52,274,223 $88,783,205 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $0 $36,508,981 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $200,000,000 $294,766,040 $297,654,747 $300,571,763 $303,517,367 $306,491,837 $309,495,457 $312,528,512 $315,591,292 $318,684,087 $421,807,191 Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $213,151,129 $204,621,953 $204,621,953 $485,980,399 $477,477,313 $477,451,223 $622,395,034 $613,891,948 $622,395,034 $1,432,379,759 TOTAL $214,935,492 $560,191,392 $554,550,923 $557,467,940 $841,771,989 $836,243,373 $875,729,885 $971,432,528 $965,992,221 $941,079,121 $1,890,695,931 Road/Yard Switching & Work Hydrogen facilities $11,706,404 $5,853,202 $5,853,202 $5,853,202 $11,706,404 $17,559,606 $11,706,404 $17,559,606 $17,559,606 $17,559,606 $40,972,414 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $51,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $22,193,776 $22,193,776 $18,494,813 $51,785,477 $48,086,515 $48,086,515 $62,882,365 $62,882,365 $62,882,365 $147,958,506 TOTAL $62,706,404 $28,046,978 $28,046,978 $24,348,015 $63,491,881 $65,646,120 $59,792,919 $80,441,971 $80,441,971 $80,441,971 $188,930,920 Commuter Rail Hydrogen facilities $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $0 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $7,110,532 $0 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $100,000,000 $32,598,887 $33,250,865 $33,915,882 $34,594,200 $35,286,084 $35,991,805 $36,711,642 $37,445,874 $38,194,792 $38,958,688 Locomotive - remanufactured $0 $16,935,115 $16,935,115 $8,467,557 $33,870,229 $25,402,672 $33,870,229 $33,870,229 $42,337,786 $42,337,786 $84,675,573 TOTAL $107,110,532 $56,644,534 $50,185,979 $42,383,439 $75,574,961 $67,799,288 $69,862,034 $77,692,403 $79,783,661 $87,643,110 $130,744,792 Parameter 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 TOTAL Mainline Freight & Intercity Passenger Hydrogen facilities $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $36,508,981 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $657,161,665 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $501,830,903 $509,253,842 $516,786,955 $524,431,878 $532,190,275 $540,063,833 $548,054,263 $556,163,306 $564,392,723 $572,744,305 $8,747,020,574 Locomotive - remanufactured $1,468,648,066 $1,468,648,066 $1,400,440,748 $1,428,179,879 $1,428,179,879 $1,215,028,750 $1,251,297,056 $1,242,767,880 $970,763,901 $899,516,987 $18,127,836,957 TOTAL $2,006,987,950 $2,014,410,889 $1,953,736,684 $1,989,120,738 $1,996,879,135 $1,755,092,582 $1,799,351,320 $1,798,931,186 $1,535,156,624 $1,472,261,292 $27,532,019,196 Road/Yard Switching & Work Hydrogen facilities $35,119,212 $40,972,414 $40,972,414 $35,119,212 $40,972,414 $29,266,010 $35,119,212 $35,119,212 $23,412,808 $17,559,606 $497,522,169 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000,000 Locomotive - remanufactured $144,259,544 $147,958,506 $140,560,581 $136,861,618 $140,560,581 $118,366,805 $118,366,805 $118,366,805 $85,076,141 $85,076,141 $1,782,900,000 TOTAL $179,378,756 $188,930,920 $181,532,995 $171,980,830 $181,532,995 $147,632,815 $153,486,017 $153,486,017 $108,488,949 $102,635,747 $2,331,422,169 Commuter Rail Hydrogen facilities $14,221,064 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $14,221,064 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $7,110,532 $0 $127,989,576 Locomotive - freshly manufactured $39,737,861 $40,532,619 $41,343,271 $42,170,136 $43,013,539 $43,873,810 $44,751,286 $45,646,312 $46,559,238 $47,490,423 $892,067,215 Locomotive - remanufactured $93,143,130 $93,143,130 $84,675,573 $84,675,573 $84,675,573 $76,208,015 $76,208,015 $67,740,458 $50,805,344 $59,272,901 $1,109,250,000 TOTAL $147,102,055 $140,786,280 $133,129,376 $133,956,241 $134,799,644 $134,302,889 $128,069,833 $120,497,302 $104,475,114 $106,763,324 $2,129,306,790

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 79 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The final column shows the cumulative sums for each row. Overall, the capital expenditures from 2030 through 2050 approach $32 billion.

The chart below visualizes the schedule of the deployment of CapEx. Midway through the 2030-2040 transition period, the scale of investment doubles. This is primarily the result of the growth rate curve used in the model. The growth rate is assumed to be “moderate”. A moderate growth curve has three key regions. First, there is an initial period of slow growth as the technology is introduced and achieves a level of acceptance. This is followed by a period of relatively rapid adoption, followed by a tapering off period as the hydrail transition reaches its conclusion. The result is a cost curve that reflects greater locomotive conversion activity in the mid-point of the transition period, accompanied by a concomitant need for refuelling infrastructure deployment. These two effects result in the sharp increase in rate of capital expenditures projected in the mid-point of the timeframe hypothesized.

Note: The estimate of capital spending required for the hypothetical hydrail transition explored herein does not in any way reflect the financial capacity of the railway industry to finance the undertaking. No attempt was made by the study team to assess the wherewithal of the companies and stakeholders comprising the Canadian railway sector to allocate the capital considered in this exercise.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 80 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

5.3 Operating expenses assessment

Attempting to predict the annual operating expenditures for a hydrail system over a period of decades involves much guesswork. Since it relies on commodity pricing to a large extent, the exercise may offer little guidance of value to stakeholders. The more practical question is whether OpEx will differ much between diesel and hydrail systems in the future? As discussed earlier in Section 4.2, the personnel, training and maintenance burden are not expected to deviate much from the current requirements. Hydrail systems involve different activities and procedures, but the knowledge and skills involved are not so specialized that personnel cannot be trained in safe, efficient operations. Changes in operating expenditures will most likely be determined by the price of hydrogen relative to diesel.

A comparison of the annual fuelling expenses for diesel and for hydrogen-powered locomotives within the hydrail transition scenario is presented in the table below. The values are taken from the business-as-usual and hydrail scenarios for the year 2050, simply to ensure the average fuel consumption rates are reflective of a mature, fully utilized set of assets (i.e., this should not be taken as a prediction of costs in 2050). A cost of $1.00/litre is assumed. This cost is compared to the costs of liquefied and gaseous hydrogen. As referenced earlier in Section 4.2, the cost of producing gaseous hydrogen from renewable power in Canada has been previously estimated at $5 – $12.25/kg, ranging according to the input costs of electricity. This cost is adjusted upward here to $6.25 – $15.30/kg for the switchyard facilities, reflecting a more conservative outlook on power pricing across the country. The incremental costs of liquefaction and transportation associated with LH2 facilities further increases its cost to $7.50 – $17.80/kg.

Recall that switchyard hydrogen is produced on-site, and so the cost can be considered as already paid. Thus, the unit cost in this table can be considered to reflect the cost of on-site production.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 81 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Mainline Freight Road/Yard Intercity Commuter Parameter Units Regional & Switching & Class I Passenger Rail Short Line Work Diesel use L / locomotive / year 891,674 386,141 103,317 266,794 983,999 $/L $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Diesel cost $/year $891,674 $386,141 $103,317 $266,794 $983,999 Hydrogen use kg / locomotive / year 130,673 56,588 15,141 39,098 144,203 Hydrogen cost $/kg $7.50 $7.50 $6.25 $7.50 $7.50 (low estimate) $/year $980,048 $424,411 $94,631 $293,236 $1,081,523 Hydrogen cost $/kg $17.80 $17.80 $15.30 $17.80 $17.80 (high estimate) $/year $2,325,979 $1,007,269 $231,655 $695,947 $2,566,816

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 82 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The value in the table above shows that fuelling expenses range from comparable to more than double. Should future diesel prices increase (due to carbon pricing or carbon- intensity fuel regulations, for example), and should the hydrogen production and delivery costs decline as scales of economy improve, a circumstance could arise in which a reduction in overall OpEx begins to lift the return on capital invested in the equipment. A more detailed and narrowly-scoped analysis would be needed to better identify the circumstances in which this could be expected. Nevertheless, the possibility cannot be dismissed. As noted earlier in this report, less maintenance and more productive up-time is already being reported with fuel cell-electric transit buses.

Advancing hydrogen-powered locomotives into real-world service will generate the operational cost data and experience needed to assess the economic potential of hydrail systems in the longer-term. Also, it should be noted that the assumptions of unit costs in this study are conservative. As hydrogen systems develop, there is certainly room for costs to decline in the coming years.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 83 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS

The benefits to Canadian society arising from a hydrail transition scenario as hypothesized in this study cut across the domains of environment and climate change, public health, employment and quality of life, and competitiveness through innovation.

Environment & climate change

A complete transition to hydrail can deliver a net reduction in GHG emissions. In the scenario described herein, between 2030 and 2050, virtually all diesel use is replaced by hydrogen use. In terms of combustion emissions, this effectively eliminates GHG emissions from the sector, as shown in the chart below. By 2050, an estimated 9 megatonnes of CO2e that would otherwise be emitted are eliminated, annually.

Note that this assessment does not consider lifecycle emissions of diesel and hydrogen. Emissions generated in the production and delivery of fuel to the railways can be significant. However, if low-carbon sources of energy are used to synthesize, compress or liquefy the hydrogen, such as renewable power, hydroelectricity and nuclear power, then the “upstream” emissions for hydrogen tend toward zero. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.0, hydrogen produced via SMR+CCUS may emerge as low- carbon, low-cost option.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 84 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Based on these assumptions, the estimated cumulative GHG emissions reductions avoided through the hydrail transition is roughly 78 megatonnes. Recall from the previous section that $32B in capital spending is needed to achieve these reductions. Therefore, the abatement cost can be coarsely estimated at approximately $385/tonne. This does not incorporate any increases to operating expenses. It also disregards the ongoing accumulation of avoided emissions beyond 2050.

The scale of hydrogen system deployment contemplated in this hydrail transition scenario would also contribute to substantive volumes of hydrogen, as well as experience and expertise, that could advance its application in other sectors. These could include a variety of low-carbon heat, power and mobility applications, including fuel cell-electric heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., commercial trucks, transit buses) and portable power generators. Wherever diesel or natural gas is currently used, hydrogen is a potential alternative.

Public health

In addition to GHG emissions, the combustion of diesel produces criteria air contaminants (CACs), which contribute to human health impacts, including respiratory disease. Some CACs are directly hazardous to human health, while some play a direct role in the formation of photochemical smog, which subsequently impacts human health. The railway industry monitors, reports and manages downward key CAC emissions, including oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Fleetwide CAC emissions are usually estimated as a function of diesel combustion in locomotives. Using the emissions factors presented in the 2017 RAC LEM Report, Table 8 – CAC Emissions Factors for Diesel Locomotives (g/L), the totals were calculated and summed in the following chart. As shown, the hydrail transition progressively eliminates these emissions. It is important to note, however, that through advancements in emissions control systems, fuels and fuel efficiency, CAC emissions could be reduced notwithstanding continued reliance on combustion engines for locomotive power.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 85 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Employment and Quality of Life

A hydrail transition involves the adoption of new training opportunities and employee experiences that may increase in market value as hydrogen systems are adopted more broadly. As part of a clean technology and clean energy transition, there are potentially many advantages to those involved, but these are difficult express quantitatively. As a coarse attempt to assess the job creation potential, an average, fully-loaded labour cost of $75/hour could be applied to the capital costs contemplated in this scenario. This results in approximately 53,260 person-years over a 20-year period, or 2,663 full time- equivalent jobs. This ignores the secondary and tertiary job opportunities arising from related economic activities; nonetheless, it indicates the potential for positive job growth.

Quality of life improvements might include a reduction in engine noise or vibration from locomotive operations. Sound from the movement of rolling stock in switchyards would not be affected, but the diesel genset noise direct from the locomotive would be eliminated. The only significant noise expected from a fuel cell-electric powertrain would be that of the blower fans exhaust heat from the interior.

Competitiveness through innovation

As the transition to hydrail proceeds, it builds hands-on experience in advancing hydrogen system innovation. This knowledge can translate to other sectors of the economy. As well, the distribution of railway activity across Canada necessitates an

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 86 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

equally distributed hydrogen infrastructure, which effectively multiplies the hydrogen production opportunities along the railways. This network also interconnects nearly every major city and centre of economic activity across Canada, which is important to mobilizing the country’s hydrogen potential – as a user and as an exporter. Indeed, just as the railways are significant carriers of oil products, the network could also support the distribution of hydrogen as a cargo. Such as approach could enable Canada to establish a competitive position, internationally, in the export of low-carbon hydrogen overseas (and into the U.S.).

Were Canada to take the lead in supporting the advancement of hydrail systems, it is conceivable that a centre of global competence in the application of hydrogen technologies to freight rail applications could be established. Should the transition to hydrail begin across North America, then Canada could become the destination for design expertise in hydrogen-powered locomotive, as well as for locomotive conversion work that would continue for several decades.

By focusing on the development of hydrail systems, Canada may be able to more rapidly build out a domestic market to complement and support its established leadership in fuel cell and electrolysis system development.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 87 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

7.0 DEVELOPING A HYDRAIL TRANSITION ROADMAP

The last major energy system transition, as described in the introduction, was driven by a strong commercial value proposition. Compared to coal-fired steam locomotives, diesel was a compelling alternative because it cost less to build, operate and maintain. Diesel was a cleaner, more energy-dense fuel and it could be used much more efficiently than coal. As a stable liquid, diesel was logistically easier to manage and it eliminated boiler water as a paired input with coal. In contrast, the value proposition of hydrail, to the extent it is explored in this study, relies more on a societal valuation. This means that a roadmap to a hydrail transition in Canada will likely rely on government leadership, especially in the early stages of technology trials and validation.

Premise: The cost of reducing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and decarbonizing the global economy is much less than costs imposed by climate change on society if nothing is done to mitigate the effects.

Accepting this premise provides stakeholders with a sense of permission to tackle the prospect of a hydrail transition from a perspective in which change is imminent and unavoidable. Put simply, if combustion of diesel were not permitted by 2050, what alternatives should be rapidly developed? There are numerous fuel and powertrain candidates, including hydrocarbon fuels synthesized from low-carbon and renewable feedstocks, catenary electrification, rechargeable batteries, and so on. However, as shown in the global scan of hydrail initiatives earlier in this report, hydrail is gaining traction with railways in both the passenger and freight sectors.

Generally, the interest of governments in promoting technologies that enable decarbonization, and that support regional commercial opportunities, drives adoption in passenger applications, predominantly in Europe and Asia. As passenger railway service is often publicly supported, government procurement provides needed leverage to underwrite adoption. Further, hydrail is usually just one aspect of a broader hydrogen strategy in such jurisdictions. This contrasts with freight applications, in which hydrail has been trialed nominally by private companies only, and which have been exclusively focused on switcher locomotives (to date). For any hydrail transition in Canada to achieve substantive progress in the freight sector, which represents the overwhelming majority of energy use in the railway industry, commercial viability will need to be confidently defined.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 88 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

The roadmap for hydrail transition in Canada, therefore, should be two-pronged, in which government-funded procurement can strategically support and motivate development and deployment in passenger systems, while commercialization should be the goal for freight applications. Forcing the advancement of hydrogen systems into commercial use without a sound business case sets up the technology for disappointment and failure. What, then, are the conditions for success? Speculatively, these would include:

▪ Technological efficacy, in which overall performance is similar to (or better than) diesel, inclusive of locomotives and supporting hydrogen supply systems; ▪ Economical practicability, in which use of hydrail systems can generate positive returns on invested capital, competitive with other freight transport services; and ▪ Safe operability, in which comprehensive testing, simulation and analysis informs risk assessment and mitigation strategies that work within the regulatory frameworks of Canada and the U.S.

The less disruptive a hydrail transition can be to established railway operating procedures and business models, the better (at least in the early stages of commercialization). The analysis within this report identifies no insurmountable barriers to the success conditions listed above. Yet the challenges remain daunting. Technology does not turnover quickly in the railway sector. Locomotive service life is measured in decades. Thus, innovation is often incremental and incorporated through retrofits. At present, new locomotive procurement in North America is at negligible levels. The number of manufacturers serving the market is low and dwindling. Increasingly, railway companies appear to be taking the lead in developing and trailing new technologies, instead of the traditional OEMs, but this may not be ideal for driving innovation. Regarding safety, railways must perpetually earn the public’s trust. Railway accidents can be catastrophic, and operators are invested with tremendous liability. The adoption of hydrail systems need not undermine this responsibility, but the process of developing new rules, standards and guidelines takes time.

Overriding these challenges is the integrated nature of the North American Class 1 freight railways. Locomotives and rolling stock flow across the Canada-U.S. border daily. Canada’s Class 1 railways, CN and CP, extend deeply into the U.S. Common standards are referenced in both country’s railway legislations. Therefore, a hydrail transition roadmap would best be developed and implemented as a joint Canada-U.S. initiative, co-led by government agencies and industry, at least so far as Class 1 operations are concerned. For geographically constrained railway operations (e.g., switcher, regional freight, commuter services), a hydrail transition occurring in Canada

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 89 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

alone is conceivable, although it would still make more sense for both countries to share resources in addressing a shared challenge. Combining intellectual and financial assets would surely accelerate the roadmap process and its intended outcomes.

Notwithstanding the benefits of a binational approach to developing and implementing a hydrail transitions roadmap, actions to develop Canada’s technical capacities can begin immediately. Pilot demonstrations of hydrail systems can advance with the intent of building a base of knowledge and experience. In freight applications, conversions of a handful of switcher locomotives from diesel to hydrogen powertrains could be undertaken, with willing switchyard operators as potential host sites. A commuter rail application could also be readily deployed as a trial program. This could involve the conversion of an existing vehicle, or a new unit could be competitively procured from existing suppliers, of which many are identified in this report (see Section 2). In both cases, systems of hydrogen supply can also be designed, installed and tested. With government support, such pilots could generate valuable information that can inform and enhance forward-looking hydrail roadmaps.

In the past, commercially successful locomotive products have emerged from many years of painstaking development. The benefits of a hydrail transition are very compelling but are unlikely to be broadly realized in North America without a concerted, long-term effort by wide array of dedicated stakeholders working cooperatively. The hypothetical scenario modeled in this report assumes a decade of aggressive product and supply chain systems development, followed by two decades of commercial adoption. Even when compared to the rapid transition from coal to diesel locomotives, the envisioned pace of change is ambitious to say the least. Yet, such ambition is needed to confront the challenge of decarbonizing our society’s systems of energy production, distribution and use. Indeed, according to the premise presented at the start of this discussion, the cost of delay in addressing climate change is higher than the cost of getting started.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 90 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

The key findings of the study are summarized below, according to the relevant sections and in the sequence occurring in the body of the report.

Section 2 – Regarding the state of hydrail developments, globally ▪ There are approximately a dozen hydrail locomotives and self-propelled railcars currently in some level of operation today, ranging from pilots and demonstrations to full commercial service. ▪ Hydrail systems are currently composed of mature hydrogen technologies, inclusive of fuel cell power modules, batteries and storage systems, that are commercially available. However, their integration and adaptation to railway applications is at a very early stage of development. Hydrail systems are most advanced in regional passenger and in light commuter railways, mainly in Europe and Asia. The study team estimates technology readiness levels of 7-8 in light passenger systems, and 5-6 in North American freight systems. Commercial readiness is at much lower level, reflecting the extensive design, testing and deployment efforts that would need to be undertaken.

Section 3 – Hydrail system elements and assessment of commercial potential ▪ The definition of a hydrail system extends beyond the locomotive, encompassing the elements of the hydrogen supply chain. In this report, the hydrail system is considered to comprise the following elements. o hydrogen feedstock sourcing and production; o storage and distribution; o dispensing facilities; and o locomotives or self-propelled rail vehicles with hydrogen-powered prime movers, in which the following subcomponents are integrated: ▪ fuel cells power modules; ▪ battery packs and/or ultracapacitors; ▪ control systems to manage power distribution; ▪ onboard hydrogen storage tanks and hydrogen tenders; and ▪ onboard thermal management systems. ▪ Mature, commercially available technologies exist in each of the above categories, but further development is needed in certain areas of technology. Identified priorities for achieving commercialization, by railway service, include: o Commuter passenger – Adaptation and optimization of battery and ultracapacitor system design, as well as robust controller design to

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 91 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

optimally manage acceleration rates and shorter-range characteristics of the duty-cycle, from which arise opportunities for regenerative braking. o Inter-city passenger – Development of cryogenic fuel tender designs for safety, function and interoperability with locomotives and coaches comprising the train. Liquefied hydrogen fuel may be needed to meet the longer-range characteristics of this service. o Switcher locomotives –Switchers are considered the railway application nearest to commercial viability. However, further trials and testing are needed to validate such expectations. o Long-distance freight – As the most technically demanding sector of the railway industry, solving the innovation challenges of hydrogen-powered linehaul freight service would probably resolve most barriers facing the other sectors, listed above. This makes commercialization of hydrail in long-distance freight a more ambitious and comprehensive objective.

Section 4 – Assessing the operational impacts ▪ To speculate about the practical impacts to railway operations resulting from a transition to hydrail in Canada by 2050, a scenario of locomotive fleet population, energy use and fleet turnover is needed. The following chart summarizes the energy use and locomotive populations prior to the hydrail transition, based on actual fleet data, and at the conclusion of hypothetical scenario in 2050. The annual diesel consumption that would have occurred in 2050 is displaced by the hydrogen-equivalent amount of fuel. Put simply, in 2050, there are 4,193 locomotives operating across Canada using nearly half-a-million tonnes of hydrogen (which effectively displaces more than 3 billion litres of diesel).

Railway service 2017 (actual) 2050 (projection) H2-equivalent Freight 815 GTK 1,567 GTK (Class 1, Regional & 430 RTK 827 RTK Short Line, Road & 2,037 million litres 2,773 million litres 406,472 tonnes Yard Switching) 2,925 locomotives 3,845 locomotives 51 million litres 28 million litres 4,161 tonnes Intercity & Tourism 82 locomotives 106 locomotives 65 million litres 238 million litres 34,927 tonnes Commuter 126 locomotives 242 locomotives

▪ The scale of these operations can be supported by a network of hydrogen refueling stations: 84 dispensing liquid H2 and 85 dispensing gaseous H2 at 350- bar, in this hypothetical scenario.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 92 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

▪ New training for personnel will be needed regarding the safe operation and maintenance of hydrogen equipment, and new rules and standards must be developed in the transition to hydrail. However, no fundamental technical or regulatory impediments to hydrail system deployments are evident, nor any change to railway staffing requirements. Nonetheless, the envisioned undertaking is not trivial, and substantive engineering work over many years will be needed to realize commercially practical deployments of hydrail systems. ▪ The total hydrogen required to fuel the hydrail scenario in 2050 is one-sixth of Canada’s current hydrogen production levels, and it is conservatively estimated to represent less than a tenth of its low-carbon hydrogen production potential.

Section 5 – Capital and operating expenditures ▪ The estimates used to assess the overall CapEx and OpEx associated with the hydrail transition scenario are summarized in the following table.

Mainline Freight & Yard Switching & Parameter Commuter Inter-City Passenger Work Train

Fuel Type LH2 H2 (~350 bar) LH2

LH2 tender (one per locomotive) $3,500,000 N/A $3,500,000 Freshly manufactured locomotive $6,500,000 $5,100,000 $6,500,000 Remanufactured locomotive $3,750,000 $3,150,000 $3,750,000

No. of H2 facilities (by 2050) 66 85 18

Fully built-out H2 facilities $9,956,995 $5,853,202 $7,110,532

H2 facility throughput (kg/day) 16,684 291 5,316

▪ Total capital expenditures from 2030 through 2050 approach $32 billion, with the majority of the spending occurring from 2040 onward. ▪ OpEx associated with hydrail systems are expected range from comparable to current levels (i.e., diesel) to more than double. ▪ The source of the financing to implement the hypothetical transition is not considered by the study team, and it is not assumed that the financial wherewithal exists within the Canadian railway industry.

Section 6 – Environmental and societal benefits ▪ 78 megatonnes of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the 2030- 2050 period are achieved from avoided diesel combustion (not including upstream emissions from fuel production and distribution). Emissions of criteria air contaminants from locomotives are eliminated by 2050. ▪ An estimated 2,663 new full-time jobs could arise from the hydrail transition scenario, on the basis of capital expenditures alone.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 93 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Section 7 – Roadmap recommendations ▪ To advance hydrail systems in passenger applications, focus efforts on accelerating deployment into commercial service. Governments’ power of procurement can be levered to initiate pilots and trials of hydrail systems. This will build familiarity and experience with hydrogen equipment, which is key to mitigating barriers to development and commercial adoption. ▪ To advance hydrail systems in freight applications, the focus should be on long- term commercialization to develop the crucial aspects of the value proposition, including: o Efficacy of the technologies o Economic practicability o Safe operability A joint Canada-U.S. initiative to establish a hydrail innovation program is one way to de-risk industry engagement and leadership. An industry-government task force could work to develop a suitable reference locomotive, which can be built- to-spec by locomotive manufacturers or aftermarket builders, and then later improved upon by innovators during the successive design iterations that follow.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 94 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 1: RAILWAY NETWORK ACROSS CANADA

In the process of conducting its analysis, the study team produced a comprehensive, multilayered map of Canada’s network of railways. This is a valuable tool that can be used in future hydrail system planning or simulation work. The details of the map are viewable at high resolutions. Here, the magnification of the maps is set to a regional level.

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 95 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 96 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 97 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 98 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 99 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 2: EXTRAPOLATION FROM PAST TRENDS

Mainline Freight (Class I and Regional and Short Line), Road/Yard Switching, and Work Trains

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 1990 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 Variable Annual Traffic Growth (from 2018 onwards) Gross Tonne-Kilometres (GTK) (billions) 433 580 815 88.22% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1,054 1,285 1,567 Revenue Tonne-Kilometres (RTK) (billions) 233 310 430 84.55% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 556 678 827 Diesel Litres (x 106) 1,960.85 1,763.18 2,036.64 3.87% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 2,076.25 2,107.24 2,138.70 No. of Locomotives 2,742 2,925 6.67% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 3,081 3,206 3,337 Locomotive per GTK 4.73 3.59 -24.08% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 2.85 2.58 2.45 Locomotive per RTK 8.85 6.80 -23.10% -1.75% -1.00% -0.50% 5.41 4.89 4.65 Diesel Litres per GTK 4.529 3.040 2.499 -17.80% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 1.922 1.570 1.283 Diesel Litres per RTK 8.416 5.688 4.736 -16.73% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% 3.642 2.976 2.432 No. of Locomotives (based on GTK, RTK) 3,008 3,316 3,844 Total Diesel Litres (based on GTK, RTK) 2,026,074,852 2,017,985,125 2,009,927,698 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 5,605,874,086 5,689,553,548 5,774,482,102 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 11,211,748,172 11,379,107,096 11,548,964,205 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 333,682,981 338,663,902 343,719,173

Explanation of method ▪ Historical growth in GTK, RTK, diesel use and number of active locomotives were calculated based on actual data for 1990, 2009 and 2017, taken from the Railway Association of Canada’s 2017 Locomotive Emissions Monitoring report. Based on an assessment of the historical growth, future growth rates were conservatively estimated through 2030, 2040 and 2050. However, these projections are not the study team’s predictions for future locomotive population and diesel use. Rather, these are simply reference values against which to compare the scenario projections based on per-GTK/RTK activity levels, described next. ▪ A ratio of the locomotive population-to-GTK and to-RTK, as well as to-diesel use, is calculated for the actual historical data in 1990, 2009 and 2017. Note that the rate of growth in these ratios turn out to be negative, indicating improvements in the productivity of locomotive operations and in diesel use efficiency. The study team assumes a declining rate of improvement (i.e., less negative) in locomotive-per-GTK/RTK over the 2030, 2040 and 2050 timeframes, while a constant rate of improvement in diesel use-per-GTK/RTK is assumed (i.e., unchanging at -2.00%).

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 100 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

▪ By multiplying the initially-projected GTK and RTK values for 2030, 2040 and 2050 by the projected ratios for locomotives and diesel use per GTK and RTK, respectively, an estimate of the future locomotive population and total diesel use is produced. These figures (in bold) are checked against the initial projections of the number locomotives and diesel use, which were not based on ratios to activity levels, and are found to compare well. The activity-based projections result in a slightly higher number of locomotives and a slightly lower level of diesel use, compared to the initial estimates. ▪ Assuming that each diesel locomotive in the future is converted or replaced by one hydrogen fuel cell-powered locomotive, the associated hydrogen use can be estimated (accounting for powertrain efficiency differences).

Intercity/Tourist Locomotives

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 2006 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 Projection to 2050 Based on Historical Trend from 2006 to 2017 Diesel Litres (x 106) 64.30 63.50 51.00 -20.68% -2.08% -2.08% -2.08% 38.78 31.42 25.45 No. of Locomotives 77 82 6.49% 0.79% 0.79% 0.79% 91 98 106 Diesel Litres per Locomotive 824,675 621,951 -24.58% -2.53% -2.53% -2.53% 445,607 344,798 266,794 Total Diesel Litres 63,500,000 51,000,000 40,473,057 33,879,113 28,359,466 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 104,711,605 84,820,960 68,708,671 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 209,423,210 169,641,920 137,417,342 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 6,232,834 5,048,867 4,089,802

Commuter Rail Locomotives

Growth Existing Data % per Year Projection Parameter 2006 2009 2017 % Overall 2018 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2040 - 2050 2030 2040 2050 2% Annual Growth Projection (from 2018 onwards) Diesel Litres (x 106) 34.20 42.70 64.50 88.60% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 83.44 101.71 123.98 No. of Locomotives 102 126 23.53% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 163 199 242 Diesel Litres per Locomotive 335,294 511,905 52.67% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 662,203 807,222 983,999 Total Diesel Litres 34,200,000 64,500,000 107,935,468 160,386,428 238,325,795 Energy Delivered Through Drivetrain (kWh) 225,281,595 274,617,007 334,756,599 Hydrogen Energy Requirement (kWh) 450,563,189 549,234,014 669,513,198 Hydrogen Fuel Requirement (kg) 13,409,619 16,346,250 19,925,988

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 101 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 3: FLEET TURNOVER SCHEDULE

Locomotive Growth Profile

Locomotive Growth Profile Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Mainline, Switching & Work Total 2,925 2,931 2,938 2,944 Class I (1) 2,064 2,070 2,075 2,081 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line (1) 285 286 287 287 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (2) 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist (3) 82 83 83 84 Commuter Rail (4) 126 129 131 134

Locomotive Growth Profile Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Mainline, Switching & Work Total 2,950 2,957 2,963 2,969 2,976 2,982 2,988 2,995 3,001 3,008 Class I (1) 2,086 2,092 2,097 2,103 2,109 2,114 2,120 2,125 2,131 2,137 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line (1) 288 289 290 290 291 292 293 293 294 295 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (2) 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist (3) 85 85 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 91 Commuter Rail (4) 136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 163

Locomotive Growth Profile Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Mainline, Switching & Work Total 3,037 3,067 3,097 3,127 3,158 3,189 3,220 3,252 3,284 3,316 Class I (1) 2,163 2,189 2,215 2,242 2,269 2,296 2,323 2,351 2,379 2,407 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line (1) 299 302 306 310 313 317 321 325 329 332 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (2) 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist (3) 92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98 Commuter Rail (4) 166 170 173 176 180 184 187 191 195 199

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 102 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Locomotive Growth Profile Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Mainline, Switching & Work Total 3,365 3,415 3,466 3,518 3,570 3,624 3,678 3,732 3,788 3,845 Class I (1) 2,451 2,495 2,540 2,585 2,631 2,678 2,725 2,773 2,822 2,872 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line (1) 338 345 351 357 363 370 376 383 390 397 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (2) 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist (3) 99 100 101 101 102 103 104 105 105 106 Commuter Rail (4) 203 207 211 215 219 224 228 233 237 242

NOTES: (1) Assumes ratio is the same as in the retrofit scheduling table. (2) Based on 0% growth. (3) Based on projection using historical data. (4) Based on 2% growth.

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 103 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Commuter Rail 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Incremental OEM Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 43 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commuter Rail 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5

Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen)

Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 104 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 26 25 25 59 59 58 75 75 75 174 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4 4 4 8 7 8 11 9 11 23 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 7 7 6 16 15 15 20 20 20 47 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 2 2 1 5 4 5 5 6 6 12

Incremental Locomotives Retrofitted (to Hydrogen) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 175 175 167 167 167 141 142 141 100 100 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 23 23 22 22 22 19 19 19 13 14 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 46 47 45 43 45 38 38 38 27 27 Intercity & Tourist 4 4 4 8 8 8 11 11 21 10 Commuter Rail 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 9 7 8

Total Hydrogen Locomotives

Total Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 105 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Total Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 62 113 164 249 335 420 523 626 729 931 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 17 24 31 43 54 66 80 94 108 135 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 17 24 30 46 62 77 97 117 137 184 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Commuter Rail 16 21 26 34 41 49 58 67 77 92

Total Hydrogen Locomotives Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,150 1,369 1,581 1,794 2,007 2,195 2,384 2,574 2,723 2,872 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 165 194 223 251 280 305 331 356 376 397 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 230 277 321 365 409 447 484 522 549 576 Intercity & Tourist 15 19 24 32 41 49 61 74 96 106 Commuter Rail 109 126 142 158 174 189 204 218 229 242

Total Diesel Locomotives

Total Diesel Locomotives Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 2,070 2,075 2,081 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 286 287 287 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 576 576 576 Intercity & Tourist 83 83 84 Commuter Rail 129 131 134

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 106 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total Diesel Locomotives Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 2,086 2,092 2,097 2,103 2,109 2,114 2,120 2,125 2,131 2,127 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 288 289 290 290 291 292 293 293 294 285 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 566 Intercity & Tourist 85 85 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 91 Commuter Rail 136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 153

Total Diesel Locomotives Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 2,101 2,076 2,051 1,993 1,934 1,876 1,801 1,726 1,650 1,476 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 282 278 274 266 259 251 240 231 221 197 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 559 552 546 530 514 499 479 459 439 392 Intercity & Tourist 92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 88 Commuter Rail 151 148 147 142 139 134 130 124 118 106

Total Diesel Locomotives Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,301 1,126 959 792 624 483 341 200 100 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 174 150 128 106 83 65 46 27 14 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 346 299 255 211 167 129 92 54 27 0 Intercity & Tourist 84 81 77 69 61 54 42 31 10 0 Commuter Rail 93 81 69 57 46 35 25 15 8 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 107 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 4: FUEL CONSUMPTION

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive (L) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 903,503 903,142 902,782 902,421 Mainline Freight (1) Regional & Short Line 391,263 391,107 390,951 390,795 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (1) 104,688 104,646 104,604 104,562 Intercity & Tourist (1) 661,463 641,667 622,462 603,833 Commuter Rail (1) (2) 511,587 521,844 532,306 542,978

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive (L) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 902,061 901,701 901,341 900,981 900,621 900,261 899,902 899,543 899,183 898,824 Mainline Freight (1) Regional & Short Line 390,639 390,483 390,327 390,171 390,015 389,859 389,704 389,548 389,393 389,237 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (1) 104,520 104,479 104,437 104,395 104,354 104,312 104,270 104,229 104,187 104,145 Intercity & Tourist (1) 585,760 568,229 551,223 534,725 518,722 503,197 488,137 473,527 459,355 445,607 Commuter Rail (1) (2) 553,864 564,969 576,295 587,849 599,635 611,657 623,920 636,428 649,188 662,203

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive (L) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 898,465 898,107 897,748 897,390 897,031 896,673 896,315 895,957 895,600 895,242 Mainline Freight (1) Regional & Short Line 389,082 388,926 388,771 388,616 388,461 388,306 388,151 387,996 387,841 387,686 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (1) 104,104 104,062 104,021 103,979 103,938 103,896 103,855 103,813 103,772 103,730 Intercity & Tourist (1) 434,323 423,326 412,606 402,158 391,975 382,049 372,375 362,946 353,755 344,798 Commuter Rail (1) (2) 675,447 688,956 702,736 716,790 731,126 745,749 760,664 775,877 791,394 807,222

Diesel Consumption per Locomotive (L) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 894,885 894,527 894,170 893,813 893,456 893,099 892,743 892,386 892,030 891,674 Mainline Freight (1) Regional & Short Line 387,531 387,376 387,222 387,067 386,912 386,758 386,603 386,449 386,295 386,141 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train (1) 103,689 103,647 103,606 103,565 103,523 103,482 103,441 103,399 103,358 103,317 Intercity & Tourist (1) 336,067 327,557 319,262 311,178 303,298 295,618 288,133 280,837 273,725 266,794 Commuter Rail (1) (2) 823,367 839,834 856,631 873,763 891,239 909,063 927,245 945,790 964,705 983,999

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 108 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

NOTES: (1) The consumption per locomotive for each of these types is based on the data provided in Table 3 of the RAC Locomotive Emissions Report, 2017. (2) The diesel consumption per locomotive in this case increases due to growth of the commuter rail sector and heavier use of each locomotive. A bottom-up approach to estimate total fleet fuel consumption produces a higher figure than the top-down approach to estimate fleetwide fuel consumption previously presented in Appendix 2. The effect is to make the future projects of energy demand more conservative.

Total ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel Consumption

Total 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 1,869,075,944 1,873,328,926 1,877,588,958 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 111,763,892 112,018,205 112,272,939 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 60,275,923 60,251,856 60,227,799 Intercity & Tourist 53,032,076 51,851,053 50,696,330 Commuter Rail 67,067,384 69,780,236 72,602,822

Total 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 1,881,856,052 1,886,130,221 1,890,411,478 1,894,699,834 1,898,995,303 1,903,297,897 1,907,607,629 1,911,924,512 1,916,248,557 1,920,579,778 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 112,528,096 112,783,675 113,039,679 113,296,107 113,552,960 113,810,239 114,067,945 114,326,079 114,584,641 114,843,632 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 60,203,751 60,179,713 60,155,684 60,131,665 60,107,656 60,083,656 60,059,666 60,035,685 60,011,714 59,987,753 Intercity & Tourist 49,567,324 48,463,460 47,384,180 46,328,935 45,297,190 44,288,423 43,302,120 42,337,783 41,394,921 40,473,057 Commuter Rail 75,539,581 78,595,130 81,774,276 85,082,017 88,523,554 92,104,301 95,829,887 99,706,173 103,739,252 107,935,468

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 109 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 1,943,083,417 1,965,796,739 1,988,721,715 2,011,860,334 2,035,214,606 2,058,786,556 2,082,578,232 2,106,591,699 2,130,829,041 2,155,292,363 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 116,189,268 117,547,441 118,918,271 120,301,875 121,698,375 123,107,891 124,530,546 125,966,464 127,415,768 128,878,585 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 59,963,801 59,939,858 59,915,925 59,892,002 59,868,088 59,844,184 59,820,290 59,796,404 59,772,529 59,748,663 Intercity & Tourist 39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 33,879,113 Commuter Rail 112,296,061 116,832,822 121,552,868 126,463,604 131,572,734 136,888,272 142,418,558 148,172,268 154,158,428 160,386,428

Total 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 2,193,281,255 2,231,818,092 2,270,910,819 2,310,567,494 2,350,796,291 2,391,605,506 2,433,003,551 2,474,998,964 2,517,600,403 2,560,816,655 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 131,150,181 133,454,543 135,792,145 138,163,469 140,569,003 143,009,245 145,484,696 147,995,868 150,543,278 153,127,451 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 59,724,806 59,700,959 59,677,122 59,653,294 59,629,476 59,605,667 59,581,867 59,558,077 59,534,297 59,510,526 Intercity & Tourist 33,281,940 32,695,293 32,118,986 31,552,838 30,996,670 30,450,304 29,913,570 29,386,296 28,868,316 28,359,466 Commuter Rail 166,866,040 173,607,428 180,621,168 187,918,263 195,510,161 203,408,771 211,626,486 220,176,196 229,071,314 238,325,795

Total Diesel Consumption (per Hydrail scenario)

Total Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 1,869,075,944 1,873,328,926 1,877,588,958 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 111,763,892 112,018,205 112,272,939 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 60,275,923 60,251,856 60,227,799 Intercity & Tourist 53,032,076 51,851,053 50,696,330 Commuter Rail 67,067,384 69,780,236 72,602,822

Total Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 1,881,856,052 1,886,130,221 1,890,411,478 1,894,699,834 1,898,995,303 1,903,297,897 1,907,607,629 1,911,924,512 1,916,248,557 1,911,591,535 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 112,528,096 112,783,675 113,039,679 113,296,107 113,552,960 113,810,239 114,067,945 114,326,079 114,584,641 110,951,261 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 60,203,751 60,179,713 60,155,684 60,131,665 60,107,656 60,083,656 60,059,666 60,035,685 60,011,714 58,946,299 Intercity & Tourist 49,567,324 48,463,460 47,384,180 46,328,935 45,297,190 44,288,423 43,302,120 42,337,783 41,394,921 40,473,057 Commuter Rail 75,539,581 78,595,130 81,774,276 85,082,017 88,523,554 92,104,301 95,829,887 99,706,173 103,739,252 101,313,434

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 110 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 1,887,574,516 1,864,632,938 1,841,709,379 1,788,187,851 1,734,708,770 1,682,326,991 1,614,169,875 1,546,066,920 1,478,018,091 1,321,554,833 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 109,537,970 108,125,789 106,714,718 103,481,621 100,706,691 97,478,540 93,342,474 89,664,753 85,535,078 76,407,062 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 58,189,284 57,432,865 56,799,189 55,067,110 53,458,456 51,851,078 49,757,160 47,664,906 45,574,314 40,683,805 Intercity & Tourist 39,759,655 39,058,828 38,370,354 37,694,016 37,029,599 36,376,894 35,735,694 35,105,796 34,487,000 30,431,137 Commuter Rail 101,761,940 102,187,861 103,410,866 102,130,415 101,611,291 100,159,562 98,609,119 96,050,417 93,349,924 85,789,060

Total Diesel Consumption (L) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,164,163,508 1,006,897,659 857,120,761 707,463,309 557,925,230 431,621,328 304,367,943 178,265,945 88,994,231 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 67,286,322 58,172,854 49,520,801 40,875,647 32,237,390 24,966,839 17,702,089 10,443,136 5,455,287 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 35,918,954 31,036,190 26,400,644 21,890,407 17,262,204 13,366,791 9,474,485 5,585,286 2,791,528 0 Intercity & Tourist 28,374,743 26,402,980 24,512,881 21,510,979 18,645,388 15,911,128 12,200,965 8,668,496 2,700,760 0 Commuter Rail 76,926,779 67,675,691 59,024,282 49,999,745 40,590,618 31,846,856 22,737,107 14,354,854 7,881,650 0

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen (L) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen (L) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,988,244 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,892,371 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,041,454 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,622,034

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 111 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen (L) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 55,508,902 101,163,801 147,012,336 223,672,483 300,505,836 376,459,566 468,408,357 560,524,779 652,810,950 833,737,530 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 6,651,298 9,421,652 12,203,553 16,820,254 20,991,684 25,629,351 31,188,072 36,301,711 41,880,690 52,471,522 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1,774,517 2,506,994 3,116,737 4,824,892 6,409,632 7,993,106 10,063,130 12,131,499 14,198,215 19,064,858 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,447,976 Commuter Rail 10,534,121 14,644,961 18,142,002 24,333,190 29,961,443 36,728,710 43,809,440 52,121,851 60,808,503 74,597,368

Total Diesel Displaced by Hydrogen (L) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 1,029,117,747 1,224,920,433 1,413,790,058 1,603,104,185 1,792,871,061 1,959,984,177 2,128,635,609 2,296,733,019 2,428,606,172 2,561,022,877 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 63,863,859 75,281,689 86,271,344 97,287,821 108,331,613 118,042,406 127,782,607 137,552,732 145,087,991 153,108,914 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 23,805,853 28,664,770 33,276,478 37,762,887 42,367,272 46,238,876 50,107,382 53,972,792 56,742,769 59,510,526 Intercity & Tourist 4,907,197 6,292,313 7,606,106 10,041,859 12,351,282 14,539,177 17,712,605 20,717,799 26,167,555 28,395,035 Commuter Rail 89,939,261 105,931,737 121,596,886 137,918,518 154,919,543 171,561,916 188,889,379 205,821,342 221,189,664 238,331,271

Total Hydrogen Consumption

Total Hydrogen Consumption (kg) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Total Hydrogen Consumption (kg) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,465 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 607,339 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162,501 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,033,258

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 112 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Total Hydrogen Consumption (kg) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 8,633,297 15,683,410 22,718,252 34,454,342 46,142,275 57,621,362 71,468,273 85,253,318 98,977,401 126,012,726 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,034,476 1,460,637 1,885,851 2,590,979 3,223,245 3,922,860 4,758,578 5,521,328 6,349,835 7,930,649 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 275,990 388,659 481,639 743,223 984,191 1,223,435 1,535,401 1,845,147 2,152,694 2,881,500 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521,134 Commuter Rail 1,638,371 2,270,406 2,803,537 3,748,266 4,600,540 5,621,741 6,684,306 7,927,501 9,219,618 11,274,793

Total Hydrogen Consumption (kg) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 155,056,803 183,983,376 211,692,167 239,295,737 266,796,289 290,766,883 314,817,931 338,640,190 356,992,414 375,312,732 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 9,622,345 11,307,330 12,917,737 14,522,176 16,120,776 17,511,785 18,898,611 20,281,366 21,327,176 22,437,802 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,586,819 4,305,456 4,982,614 5,636,875 6,304,654 6,859,613 7,410,711 7,957,980 8,340,890 8,721,147 Intercity & Tourist 739,366 945,107 1,138,891 1,498,951 1,837,988 2,156,911 2,619,634 3,054,721 3,846,494 4,161,235 Commuter Rail 13,551,116 15,910,975 18,207,165 20,587,129 23,053,503 25,451,493 27,936,093 30,347,183 32,513,725 34,926,967

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 113 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 5: ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS

Annual ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel GHG Emissions

The tonnes of CO2 presented in the following charts are based on emissions factors developed by Change Energy Services and embedded in its proprietary modeling. These values should be considered CO2-equivalent emissions, comprising key species of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2, CH4 and N2O.

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 332,816 333,572 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 179,013 178,942 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 154,054 150,623 Commuter Rail 199,263 207,323 215,709 Total 6,421,152 6,439,023 6,457,321

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,706,204 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 334,330 335,090 335,850 336,612 337,375 338,140 338,905 339,672 340,441 341,210 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 178,229 Intercity & Tourist 147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249 Commuter Rail 224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 320,685 Total 6,476,056 6,495,242 6,514,890 6,535,014 6,555,628 6,576,746 6,598,383 6,620,556 6,643,282 6,666,577

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 5,773,064 5,840,547 5,908,659 5,977,406 6,046,794 6,116,828 6,187,515 6,258,861 6,330,872 6,403,555 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 345,208 349,243 353,316 357,427 361,576 365,764 369,991 374,257 378,563 382,909 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 178,157 178,086 178,015 177,944 177,873 177,802 177,731 177,660 177,589 177,518 Intercity & Tourist 118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 100,658 Commuter Rail 333,641 347,120 361,144 375,734 390,914 406,707 423,138 440,232 458,018 476,522 Total 6,748,200 6,831,044 6,915,136 7,000,503 7,087,175 7,175,179 7,264,548 7,355,313 7,447,506 7,541,161

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 114 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 6,516,423 6,630,919 6,747,067 6,864,890 6,984,413 7,105,661 7,228,658 7,353,430 7,480,002 7,608,402 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 389,658 396,505 403,450 410,495 417,642 424,892 432,247 439,708 447,277 454,955 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 177,447 177,377 177,306 177,235 177,164 177,093 177,023 176,952 176,881 176,811 Intercity & Tourist 98,883 97,140 95,428 93,746 92,094 90,470 88,876 87,309 85,770 84,258 Commuter Rail 495,773 515,802 536,641 558,321 580,877 604,345 628,760 654,162 680,590 708,086 Total 7,678,185 7,817,743 7,959,891 8,104,688 8,252,191 8,402,462 8,555,564 8,711,561 8,870,521 9,032,511

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 332,816 333,572 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 179,013 178,942 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 154,054 150,623 Commuter Rail 199,263 207,323 215,709

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,679,499 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 334,330 335,090 335,850 336,612 337,375 338,140 338,905 339,672 340,441 329,646 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 175,134 Intercity & Tourist 147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249 Commuter Rail 224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 301,011

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 5,608,143 5,539,981 5,471,873 5,312,856 5,153,966 4,998,335 4,795,834 4,593,495 4,391,316 3,926,450 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 325,447 321,251 317,058 307,453 299,208 289,617 277,328 266,402 254,132 227,012 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 172,885 170,638 168,755 163,609 158,830 154,054 147,833 141,616 135,405 120,875 Intercity & Tourist 118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 90,413 Commuter Rail 302,343 303,609 307,242 303,438 301,896 297,582 292,976 285,374 277,350 254,887

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 115 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 3,458,828 2,991,578 2,546,578 2,101,933 1,657,643 1,282,383 904,303 529,643 264,409 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 199,913 172,836 147,130 121,445 95,780 74,179 52,594 31,027 16,208 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 106,718 92,211 78,439 65,038 51,287 39,714 28,149 16,594 8,294 0 Intercity & Tourist 84,304 78,445 72,830 63,911 55,397 47,273 36,250 25,755 8,024 0 Commuter Rail 228,556 201,070 175,366 148,553 120,598 94,620 67,554 42,649 23,417 0

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,705 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,565 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,094 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,675

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 164,922 300,566 436,786 664,550 892,828 1,118,493 1,391,681 1,665,366 1,939,556 2,477,104 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 19,762 27,993 36,258 49,974 62,368 76,147 92,662 107,855 124,431 155,897 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 5,272 7,448 9,260 14,335 19,044 23,748 29,898 36,044 42,184 56,643 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,244 Commuter Rail 31,298 43,511 53,901 72,296 89,018 109,124 130,162 154,858 180,667 221,635

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 116 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 3,057,595 3,639,342 4,200,489 4,762,957 5,326,771 5,823,278 6,324,355 6,823,787 7,215,593 7,609,014 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 189,745 223,668 256,319 289,050 321,862 350,714 379,653 408,681 431,069 454,899 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 70,729 85,165 98,867 112,197 125,877 137,380 148,873 160,358 168,588 176,811 Intercity & Tourist 14,580 18,695 22,598 29,835 36,697 43,197 52,626 61,554 77,746 84,364 Commuter Rail 267,217 314,732 361,275 409,768 460,279 509,725 561,206 611,513 657,173 708,102

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 117 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annual Total (Hydrogen & Diesel) GHG Emissions

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 5,565,818 5,578,475 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 332,816 333,572 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 179,013 178,942 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 154,054 150,623 Commuter Rail 199,263 207,323 215,709 Total 6,421,152 6,439,023 6,457,321

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 5,591,153 5,603,851 5,616,571 5,629,312 5,642,075 5,654,858 5,667,663 5,680,488 5,693,336 5,679,499 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 334,330 335,090 335,850 336,612 337,375 338,140 338,905 339,672 340,441 329,646 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 178,870 178,799 178,728 178,656 178,585 178,514 178,442 178,371 178,300 175,134 Intercity & Tourist 147,269 143,989 140,782 137,647 134,582 131,585 128,654 125,789 122,988 120,249 Commuter Rail 224,434 233,513 242,958 252,786 263,011 273,650 284,719 296,235 308,218 301,011 Total 6,476,056 6,495,242 6,514,890 6,535,014 6,555,628 6,576,746 6,598,383 6,620,556 6,643,282 6,605,539

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 5,608,143 5,539,981 5,471,873 5,312,856 5,153,966 4,998,335 4,795,834 4,593,495 4,391,316 3,926,450 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 325,447 321,251 317,058 307,453 299,208 289,617 277,328 266,402 254,132 227,012 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 172,885 170,638 168,755 163,609 158,830 154,054 147,833 141,616 135,405 120,875 Intercity & Tourist 118,129 116,047 114,002 111,992 110,018 108,079 106,174 104,302 102,464 90,413 Commuter Rail 302,343 303,609 307,242 303,438 301,896 297,582 292,976 285,374 277,350 254,887 Total 6,526,947 6,451,526 6,378,931 6,199,348 6,023,917 5,847,667 5,620,145 5,391,189 5,160,667 4,619,637

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 118 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 3,458,828 2,991,578 2,546,578 2,101,933 1,657,643 1,282,383 904,303 529,643 264,409 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 199,913 172,836 147,130 121,445 95,780 74,179 52,594 31,027 16,208 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 106,718 92,211 78,439 65,038 51,287 39,714 28,149 16,594 8,294 0 Intercity & Tourist 84,304 78,445 72,830 63,911 55,397 47,273 36,250 25,755 8,024 0 Commuter Rail 228,556 201,070 175,366 148,553 120,598 94,620 67,554 42,649 23,417 0 Total 4,078,319 3,536,141 3,020,343 2,500,881 1,980,705 1,538,169 1,088,851 645,669 320,353 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 119 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 6: CUMULATIVE GHG EMISSIONS

Cumulative ‘Business-As-Usual’ Diesel GHG Emissions

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 664,875 998,448 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 358,098 537,040 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 311,617 462,240 Commuter Rail 199,263 406,586 622,295 Total 6,421,152 12,860,175 19,317,496

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,182,985 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,332,778 1,667,868 2,003,718 2,340,331 2,677,706 3,015,846 3,354,751 3,694,424 4,034,864 4,376,074 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,322,534 Intercity & Tourist 609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773 Commuter Rail 846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,322,504 Total 25,793,553 32,288,795 38,803,685 45,338,699 51,894,326 58,471,072 65,069,455 71,690,012 78,333,294 84,999,870

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 78,956,049 84,796,597 90,705,256 96,682,662 102,729,456 108,846,284 115,033,799 121,292,660 127,623,532 134,027,087 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,721,282 5,070,526 5,423,842 5,781,269 6,142,845 6,508,609 6,878,600 7,252,857 7,631,420 8,014,329 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,500,691 2,678,777 2,856,793 3,034,737 3,212,610 3,390,412 3,568,143 3,745,803 3,923,393 4,100,911 Intercity & Tourist 1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,887,638 Commuter Rail 3,656,145 4,003,265 4,364,409 4,740,143 5,131,057 5,537,763 5,960,901 6,401,133 6,859,151 7,335,672 Total 91,748,071 98,579,115 105,494,251 112,494,754 119,581,929 126,757,108 134,021,656 141,376,969 148,824,475 156,365,636

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 120 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 140,543,510 147,174,429 153,921,496 160,786,386 167,770,799 174,876,460 182,105,119 189,458,548 196,938,551 204,546,952 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 8,403,987 8,800,492 9,203,941 9,614,437 10,032,079 10,456,971 10,889,219 11,328,927 11,776,204 12,231,158 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 4,278,358 4,455,735 4,633,041 4,810,276 4,987,440 5,164,533 5,341,556 5,518,508 5,695,389 5,872,200 Intercity & Tourist 2,986,521 3,083,662 3,179,090 3,272,836 3,364,930 3,455,400 3,544,276 3,631,585 3,717,355 3,801,613 Commuter Rail 7,831,445 8,347,248 8,883,888 9,442,209 10,023,086 10,627,431 11,256,191 11,910,353 12,590,943 13,299,029 Total 164,043,821 171,861,564 179,821,456 187,926,143 196,178,334 204,580,796 213,136,360 221,847,921 230,718,442 239,750,953

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 664,875 998,448 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 358,098 537,040 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 311,617 462,240 Commuter Rail 199,263 406,586 622,295

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,156,280 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,332,778 1,667,868 2,003,718 2,340,331 2,677,706 3,015,846 3,354,751 3,694,424 4,034,864 4,364,510 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,319,439 Intercity & Tourist 609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773 Commuter Rail 846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,302,830

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 78,764,423 84,304,404 89,776,277 95,089,134 100,243,099 105,241,434 110,037,269 114,630,764 119,022,079 122,948,530 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,689,956 5,011,207 5,328,265 5,635,718 5,934,926 6,224,543 6,501,871 6,768,273 7,022,405 7,249,417 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,492,325 2,662,962 2,831,718 2,995,327 3,154,156 3,308,210 3,456,043 3,597,659 3,733,064 3,853,939 Intercity & Tourist 1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,877,393 Commuter Rail 3,605,173 3,908,782 4,216,024 4,519,462 4,821,358 5,118,940 5,411,916 5,697,290 5,974,640 6,229,527

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 121 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 126,407,358 129,398,935 131,945,513 134,047,446 135,705,089 136,987,472 137,891,775 138,421,418 138,685,827 138,685,827 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 7,449,330 7,622,166 7,769,297 7,890,742 7,986,522 8,060,700 8,113,295 8,144,322 8,160,530 8,160,530 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,960,658 4,052,869 4,131,307 4,196,346 4,247,633 4,287,347 4,315,496 4,332,091 4,340,385 4,340,385 Intercity & Tourist 2,961,697 3,040,143 3,112,972 3,176,883 3,232,280 3,279,554 3,315,804 3,341,559 3,349,583 3,349,583 Commuter Rail 6,458,083 6,659,153 6,834,519 6,983,073 7,103,671 7,198,290 7,265,844 7,308,494 7,331,911 7,331,911

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,705 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,565 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,094 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,675

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 191,626 492,193 928,979 1,593,528 2,486,356 3,604,849 4,996,530 6,661,896 8,601,453 11,078,557 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 31,326 59,319 95,576 145,551 207,919 284,066 376,728 484,584 609,015 764,912 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 8,366 15,815 25,075 39,410 58,454 82,202 112,100 148,144 190,328 246,971 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,244 Commuter Rail 50,972 94,484 148,385 220,681 309,699 418,823 548,985 703,843 884,510 1,106,145

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 122 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Diesel GHG Emissions Avoided (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 14,136,152 17,775,494 21,975,983 26,738,940 32,065,711 37,888,988 44,213,344 51,037,131 58,252,724 65,861,738 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 954,657 1,178,325 1,434,645 1,723,695 2,045,557 2,396,271 2,775,924 3,184,605 3,615,673 4,070,573 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 317,701 402,866 501,733 613,930 739,807 877,186 1,026,060 1,186,417 1,355,005 1,531,816 Intercity & Tourist 24,824 43,519 66,117 95,952 132,649 175,846 228,472 290,026 367,772 452,136 Commuter Rail 1,373,362 1,688,095 2,049,369 2,459,137 2,919,416 3,429,140 3,990,347 4,601,859 5,259,032 5,967,135

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 123 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Hydrogen GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen & Diesel) GHG Emissions

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 Class I 5,553,182 11,118,999 16,697,474 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 332,060 664,875 998,448 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 179,085 358,098 537,040 Intercity & Tourist 157,563 311,617 462,240 Commuter Rail 199,263 406,586 622,295 Total 6,421,152 12,860,175 19,317,496

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Class I 22,288,627 27,892,478 33,509,049 39,138,362 44,780,437 50,435,295 56,102,957 61,783,446 67,476,781 73,156,280 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,332,778 1,667,868 2,003,718 2,340,331 2,677,706 3,015,846 3,354,751 3,694,424 4,034,864 4,364,510 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 715,910 894,709 1,073,437 1,252,093 1,430,678 1,609,192 1,787,634 1,966,005 2,144,305 2,319,439 Intercity & Tourist 609,508 753,497 894,280 1,031,927 1,166,509 1,298,093 1,426,748 1,552,537 1,675,524 1,795,773 Commuter Rail 846,729 1,080,242 1,323,200 1,575,986 1,838,997 2,112,647 2,397,365 2,693,601 3,001,819 3,302,830 Total 25,793,553 32,288,795 38,803,685 45,338,699 51,894,326 58,471,072 65,069,455 71,690,012 78,333,294 84,938,832

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Class I 78,764,423 84,304,404 89,776,277 95,089,134 100,243,099 105,241,434 110,037,269 114,630,764 119,022,079 122,948,530 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,689,956 5,011,207 5,328,265 5,635,718 5,934,926 6,224,543 6,501,871 6,768,273 7,022,405 7,249,417 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,492,325 2,662,962 2,831,718 2,995,327 3,154,156 3,308,210 3,456,043 3,597,659 3,733,064 3,853,939 Intercity & Tourist 1,913,903 2,029,950 2,143,951 2,255,943 2,365,961 2,474,040 2,580,214 2,684,516 2,786,980 2,877,393 Commuter Rail 3,605,173 3,908,782 4,216,024 4,519,462 4,821,358 5,118,940 5,411,916 5,697,290 5,974,640 6,229,527 Total 91,465,779 97,917,305 104,296,236 110,495,584 116,519,501 122,367,168 127,987,313 133,378,502 138,539,169 143,158,806

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 124 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Class I 126,407,358 129,398,935 131,945,513 134,047,446 135,705,089 136,987,472 137,891,775 138,421,418 138,685,827 138,685,827 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 7,449,330 7,622,166 7,769,297 7,890,742 7,986,522 8,060,700 8,113,295 8,144,322 8,160,530 8,160,530 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,960,658 4,052,869 4,131,307 4,196,346 4,247,633 4,287,347 4,315,496 4,332,091 4,340,385 4,340,385 Intercity & Tourist 2,961,697 3,040,143 3,112,972 3,176,883 3,232,280 3,279,554 3,315,804 3,341,559 3,349,583 3,349,583 Commuter Rail 6,458,083 6,659,153 6,834,519 6,983,073 7,103,671 7,198,290 7,265,844 7,308,494 7,331,911 7,331,911 Total 147,237,125 150,773,266 153,793,609 156,294,489 158,275,195 159,813,363 160,902,214 161,547,883 161,868,236 161,868,236

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 125 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 7: ANNUAL CAC EMISSIONS

Annual ‘business-as-usual’ diesel criteria air contaminant (CAC) emissions (tonnes)

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 67,600 68,390 69,188 69,993 70,805 71,625 72,453 73,288 74,132 74,983 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,042 4,089 4,137 4,185 4,234 4,283 4,332 4,382 4,433 4,484 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 4,146 4,144 4,143 4,141 4,139 4,138 4,136 4,134 4,133 4,131 Intercity & Tourist 2,240 2,201 2,162 2,124 2,086 2,049 2,013 1,978 1,943 1,909 Commuter Rail 6,327 6,582 6,848 7,125 7,413 7,712 8,024 8,348 8,685 9,036 Total 84,355 85,407 86,477 87,567 88,677 89,807 90,958 92,131 93,325 94,542 PM Class I 1,399 1,415 1,432 1,449 1,465 1,482 1,499 1,517 1,534 1,552 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Intercity & Tourist 46 45 44 43 43 42 41 40 40 39 Commuter Rail 129 134 140 145 151 157 164 170 177 184 Total 1,747 1,769 1,791 1,814 1,837 1,860 1,884 1,908 1,933 1,958 CO Class I 14,282 14,449 14,617 14,787 14,959 15,132 15,307 15,483 15,662 15,841 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 818 828 837 847 857 867 877 887 897 907 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 441 441 440 440 440 440 440 440 439 439 Intercity & Tourist 280 275 270 265 260 256 251 247 242 238 Commuter Rail 789 821 855 889 925 962 1,001 1,042 1,084 1,128 Total 16,609 16,813 17,019 17,228 17,441 17,657 17,876 18,098 18,324 18,554 HC Class I 2,837 2,870 2,904 2,937 2,971 3,006 3,041 3,076 3,111 3,147 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 170 172 174 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 Intercity & Tourist 87 86 84 83 81 80 78 77 76 74 Commuter Rail 246 256 266 277 288 300 312 324 338 351 Total 3,580 3,623 3,668 3,713 3,758 3,805 3,852 3,901 3,950 4,000

SO2 Class I 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commuter Rail 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total 45 46 47 47 48 48 49 50 50 51

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 126 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 76,304 77,645 79,005 80,385 81,784 83,204 84,644 86,105 87,587 89,091 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,563 4,643 4,724 4,807 4,890 4,975 5,061 5,149 5,237 5,327 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 4,129 4,128 4,126 4,124 4,123 4,121 4,119 4,118 4,116 4,115 Intercity & Tourist 1,875 1,842 1,810 1,778 1,746 1,716 1,685 1,656 1,626 1,598 Commuter Rail 9,401 9,781 10,176 10,587 11,015 11,460 11,923 12,405 12,906 13,427 Total 96,273 98,039 99,841 101,681 103,559 105,476 107,433 109,432 111,473 113,558 PM Class I 1,579 1,607 1,635 1,664 1,693 1,722 1,752 1,782 1,813 1,844 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 94 96 98 99 101 103 105 107 108 110 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 90 90 90 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Intercity & Tourist 38 38 37 36 36 35 34 34 33 33 Commuter Rail 192 200 208 216 225 234 243 253 263 274 Total 1,993 2,030 2,067 2,105 2,144 2,183 2,224 2,265 2,307 2,350 CO Class I 16,121 16,404 16,691 16,983 17,278 17,578 17,883 18,191 18,504 18,822 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 923 940 956 973 990 1,007 1,024 1,042 1,060 1,078 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 439 439 439 438 438 438 438 438 438 437 Intercity & Tourist 234 230 226 222 218 214 210 207 203 199 Commuter Rail 1,173 1,220 1,270 1,321 1,374 1,430 1,488 1,548 1,610 1,675 Total 18,890 19,232 19,581 19,937 20,299 20,667 21,043 21,425 21,815 22,212 HC Class I 3,202 3,258 3,316 3,373 3,432 3,492 3,552 3,613 3,676 3,739 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 191 195 198 202 205 209 212 216 220 224 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 Intercity & Tourist 73 72 70 69 68 67 66 64 63 62 Commuter Rail 365 380 396 412 428 445 463 482 502 522 Total 4,071 4,145 4,219 4,295 4,373 4,452 4,532 4,615 4,699 4,785

SO2 Class I 44 45 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commuter Rail 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 Total 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 127 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual diesel CAC emissions avoided (tonnes)

Annual Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 1,931 3,519 5,115 7,782 10,455 13,097 16,296 19,501 22,711 29,006 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 231 328 425 585 730 892 1,085 1,263 1,457 1,825 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 123 173 215 334 443 553 696 839 982 1,318 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 Commuter Rail 593 825 1,022 1,371 1,688 2,069 2,468 2,937 3,426 4,203 PM Class I 40 73 106 161 216 271 337 404 470 600 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 5 7 9 12 15 18 22 26 30 38 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3 4 5 7 10 12 15 18 21 29 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Commuter Rail 12 17 21 28 34 42 50 60 70 86 CO Class I 391 712 1,035 1,575 2,116 2,650 3,298 3,946 4,596 5,870 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 47 66 86 118 148 180 220 256 295 369 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 13 18 23 35 47 59 74 89 104 140 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Commuter Rail 74 103 128 171 211 258 308 366 427 524 HC Class I 81 148 215 327 439 550 684 818 953 1,217 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 10 14 18 25 31 37 46 53 61 77 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 7 10 12 19 26 32 40 49 57 76 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Commuter Rail 23 32 40 53 66 80 96 114 133 163

SO2 Class I 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 11 13 17 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 128 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 35,803 42,615 49,186 55,772 62,374 68,188 74,055 79,903 84,491 89,098 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,222 2,619 3,001 3,385 3,769 4,107 4,446 4,785 5,048 5,327 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1,646 1,982 2,301 2,611 2,929 3,197 3,464 3,732 3,923 4,115 Intercity & Tourist 276 355 429 566 696 819 998 1,167 1,474 1,600 Commuter Rail 5,067 5,968 6,851 7,770 8,728 9,666 10,642 11,596 12,462 13,428 PM Class I 741 882 1,018 1,154 1,291 1,411 1,533 1,654 1,749 1,844 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 46 54 62 70 78 85 92 99 104 110 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 36 43 50 57 64 69 75 81 85 89 Intercity & Tourist 6 7 9 12 14 17 20 24 30 33 Commuter Rail 103 122 140 159 178 197 217 237 254 274 CO Class I 7,245 8,623 9,953 11,286 12,622 13,798 14,986 16,169 17,097 18,030 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 450 530 607 685 763 831 900 968 1,021 1,078 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 175 211 245 278 311 340 368 397 417 437 Intercity & Tourist 34 44 53 71 87 102 125 146 184 200 Commuter Rail 632 745 855 970 1,089 1,206 1,328 1,447 1,555 1,675 HC Class I 1,503 1,788 2,064 2,341 2,618 2,862 3,108 3,353 3,546 3,739 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 93 110 126 142 158 172 187 201 212 224 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 95 115 133 151 170 185 201 216 228 239 Intercity & Tourist 11 14 17 22 27 32 39 45 57 62 Commuter Rail 197 232 266 302 339 376 414 451 484 522

SO2 Class I 21 24 28 32 36 39 43 46 49 51 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Commuter Rail 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 129 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual total (hydrogen and diesel) CAC emissions (tonnes)

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 65,669 64,871 64,073 62,211 60,351 58,528 56,157 53,788 51,420 45,977 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 3,811 3,762 3,713 3,600 3,504 3,391 3,247 3,119 2,976 2,658 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 4,023 3,971 3,927 3,807 3,696 3,585 3,440 3,296 3,151 2,813 Intercity & Tourist 2,240 2,201 2,162 2,124 2,086 2,049 2,013 1,978 1,943 1,714 Commuter Rail 5,733 5,757 5,826 5,754 5,725 5,643 5,556 5,411 5,259 4,833 Total 81,476 80,561 79,701 77,496 75,361 73,197 70,414 67,592 64,749 57,996 PM Class I 1,359 1,343 1,326 1,287 1,249 1,211 1,162 1,113 1,064 952 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 79 78 77 75 73 70 67 65 62 55 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 87 86 85 83 80 78 75 71 68 61 Intercity & Tourist 46 45 44 43 43 42 41 40 40 35 Commuter Rail 117 118 119 117 117 115 113 110 107 99 Total 1,688 1,669 1,651 1,605 1,561 1,516 1,459 1,400 1,341 1,201 CO Class I 13,289 13,127 12,966 12,589 12,212 11,844 11,364 10,884 10,405 9,304 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 771 761 751 729 709 686 657 631 602 538 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 428 422 417 405 393 381 366 350 335 299 Intercity & Tourist 280 275 270 265 260 256 251 247 242 214 Commuter Rail 715 718 727 718 714 704 693 675 656 603 Total 15,482 15,303 15,131 14,705 14,289 13,871 13,331 12,788 12,241 10,958 HC Class I 2,756 2,722 2,689 2,611 2,533 2,456 2,357 2,257 2,158 1,929 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 160 158 156 151 147 142 136 131 125 112 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 233 230 228 221 214 208 200 191 183 163 Intercity & Tourist 87 86 84 83 81 80 78 77 76 67 Commuter Rail 223 224 226 224 223 219 216 210 204 188 Total 3,459 3,420 3,383 3,289 3,198 3,105 2,987 2,867 2,746 2,459

SO2 Class I 38 37 37 36 35 34 32 31 30 26 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commuter Rail 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total 44 43 43 42 41 39 38 36 35 31

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 130 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 40,501 35,030 29,819 24,613 19,410 15,016 10,589 6,202 3,096 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,341 2,024 1,723 1,422 1,122 869 616 363 190 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,483 2,146 1,825 1,514 1,194 924 655 386 193 0 Intercity & Tourist 1,599 1,488 1,381 1,212 1,050 896 687 488 152 0 Commuter Rail 4,334 3,813 3,325 2,817 2,287 1,794 1,281 809 444 0 Total 51,258 44,500 38,074 31,577 25,063 19,500 13,828 8,248 4,075 0 PM Class I 838 725 617 509 402 311 219 128 64 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 48 42 36 29 23 18 13 8 4 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 54 47 40 33 26 20 14 8 4 0 Intercity & Tourist 33 30 28 25 21 18 14 10 3 0 Commuter Rail 88 78 68 57 47 37 26 17 9 0 Total 1,062 922 788 654 519 404 286 171 84 0 CO Class I 8,196 7,089 6,034 4,981 3,928 3,039 2,143 1,255 627 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 474 410 349 288 227 176 125 74 38 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 264 228 194 161 127 98 70 41 21 0 Intercity & Tourist 199 186 172 151 131 112 86 61 19 0 Commuter Rail 541 476 415 351 285 224 160 101 55 0 Total 9,674 8,388 7,164 5,932 4,698 3,648 2,583 1,531 760 0 HC Class I 1,700 1,470 1,251 1,033 815 630 444 260 130 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 98 85 72 60 47 36 26 15 8 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 144 124 106 88 69 54 38 22 11 0 Intercity & Tourist 62 58 54 47 41 35 27 19 6 0 Commuter Rail 168 148 129 109 89 70 50 31 17 0 Total 2,173 1,885 1,613 1,337 1,061 825 585 348 172 0

SO2 Class I 23 20 17 14 11 9 6 4 2 0 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intercity & Tourist 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 27 24 20 17 13 10 7 4 2 0

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 131 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Annual CAC emissions, visualized

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 132 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 133 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 134 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 135 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 136 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

APPENDIX 8: CUMULATIVE CAC EMISSIONS

Cumulative ‘business-as-usual’ diesel CAC emissions (tonnes)

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 924,538 992,928 1,062,116 1,132,109 1,202,914 1,274,539 1,346,992 1,420,280 1,494,412 1,569,394 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 55,284 59,373 63,511 67,696 71,930 76,213 80,545 84,928 89,360 93,844 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 58,194 62,338 66,480 70,621 74,761 78,898 83,034 87,168 91,301 95,432 Intercity & Tourist 36,293 38,493 40,655 42,779 44,865 46,915 48,928 50,906 52,849 54,758 Commuter Rail 69,331 75,913 82,761 89,886 97,299 105,011 113,035 121,383 130,069 139,105 Total 1,143,639 1,229,046 1,315,524 1,403,091 1,491,768 1,581,576 1,672,534 1,764,665 1,857,991 1,952,533 PM Class I 19,134 20,549 21,981 23,430 24,895 26,377 27,877 29,394 30,928 32,480 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,144 1,229 1,314 1,401 1,489 1,577 1,667 1,758 1,849 1,942 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1,263 1,352 1,442 1,532 1,622 1,712 1,801 1,891 1,981 2,070 Intercity & Tourist 741 786 830 873 916 958 999 1,039 1,079 1,118 Commuter Rail 1,415 1,550 1,689 1,835 1,986 2,143 2,307 2,478 2,655 2,839 Total 23,696 25,466 27,257 29,071 30,907 32,767 34,651 36,559 38,492 40,449 CO Class I 195,325 209,774 224,391 239,178 254,137 269,269 284,576 300,059 315,721 331,562 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 11,187 12,015 12,852 13,699 14,556 15,422 16,299 17,186 18,083 18,990 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 6,186 6,627 7,067 7,507 7,947 8,387 8,827 9,267 9,706 10,145 Intercity & Tourist 4,529 4,803 5,073 5,338 5,598 5,854 6,105 6,352 6,594 6,833 Commuter Rail 8,651 9,472 10,327 11,216 12,141 13,103 14,104 15,146 16,230 17,357 Total 225,878 242,691 259,709 276,938 294,379 312,035 329,911 348,009 366,333 384,887 HC Class I 38,799 41,669 44,573 47,510 50,482 53,487 56,528 59,604 62,715 65,861 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,320 2,492 2,665 2,841 3,019 3,198 3,380 3,564 3,750 3,938 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,375 3,615 3,856 4,096 4,336 4,576 4,816 5,056 5,295 5,535 Intercity & Tourist 1,411 1,496 1,580 1,663 1,744 1,824 1,902 1,979 2,054 2,128 Commuter Rail 2,695 2,951 3,217 3,494 3,782 4,082 4,394 4,718 5,056 5,407 Total 48,600 52,224 55,891 59,604 63,362 67,167 71,020 74,920 78,870 82,870

SO2 Class I 531 571 611 651 692 733 774 816 859 902 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 32 34 37 39 41 44 46 49 51 54 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 28 Intercity & Tourist 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 19 Commuter Rail 25 27 29 32 35 37 40 43 46 49 Total 618 664 710 757 805 853 902 952 1,002 1,053

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 137 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative 'Business-As-Usual' Diesel CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 1,645,699 1,723,343 1,802,348 1,882,733 1,964,517 2,047,721 2,132,365 2,218,471 2,306,058 2,395,149 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 98,407 103,050 107,774 112,581 117,471 122,446 127,508 132,656 137,894 143,221 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 99,562 103,689 107,815 111,940 116,063 120,184 124,303 128,421 132,537 136,652 Intercity & Tourist 56,633 58,475 60,284 62,062 63,808 65,524 67,209 68,865 70,491 72,089 Commuter Rail 148,506 158,287 168,463 179,050 190,066 201,526 213,449 225,853 238,759 252,187 Total 2,048,805 2,146,844 2,246,685 2,348,366 2,451,925 2,557,401 2,664,834 2,774,266 2,885,740 2,999,297 PM Class I 34,059 35,666 37,301 38,964 40,657 42,379 44,131 45,913 47,725 49,569 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,037 2,133 2,230 2,330 2,431 2,534 2,639 2,745 2,854 2,964 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,160 2,250 2,339 2,429 2,518 2,607 2,697 2,786 2,875 2,965 Intercity & Tourist 1,156 1,194 1,231 1,267 1,302 1,337 1,372 1,406 1,439 1,471 Commuter Rail 3,031 3,231 3,439 3,655 3,880 4,113 4,357 4,610 4,874 5,148 Total 42,443 44,472 46,539 48,644 50,788 52,971 55,195 57,460 59,767 62,117 CO Class I 347,683 364,087 380,778 397,761 415,039 432,617 450,500 468,691 487,195 506,017 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 19,913 20,853 21,809 22,781 23,771 24,778 25,802 26,844 27,904 28,982 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 10,584 11,023 11,461 11,900 12,338 12,776 13,214 13,652 14,090 14,527 Intercity & Tourist 7,067 7,296 7,522 7,744 7,962 8,176 8,386 8,593 8,796 8,995 Commuter Rail 18,530 19,751 21,021 22,342 23,716 25,146 26,634 28,182 29,792 31,467 Total 403,777 423,009 442,591 462,527 482,826 503,493 524,536 545,961 567,776 589,989 HC Class I 69,064 72,322 75,638 79,011 82,443 85,935 89,487 93,101 96,776 100,515 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 4,130 4,325 4,523 4,725 4,930 5,139 5,351 5,567 5,787 6,010 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 5,774 6,014 6,253 6,492 6,731 6,970 7,209 7,448 7,687 7,926 Intercity & Tourist 2,201 2,273 2,343 2,412 2,480 2,547 2,613 2,677 2,740 2,802 Commuter Rail 5,773 6,153 6,548 6,960 7,388 7,834 8,297 8,779 9,281 9,803 Total 86,942 91,086 95,305 99,600 103,973 108,424 112,957 117,572 122,271 127,056

SO2 Class I 946 991 1,036 1,082 1,129 1,177 1,226 1,275 1,326 1,377 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 57 59 62 65 68 70 73 76 79 82 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 40 Intercity & Tourist 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 Commuter Rail 53 56 60 64 67 72 76 80 85 90 Total 1,104 1,157 1,210 1,265 1,321 1,377 1,435 1,493 1,553 1,614

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 138 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative diesel CAC emissions avoided (tonnes)

Cumulative Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 2,244 5,763 10,878 18,659 29,114 42,211 58,507 78,008 100,719 129,725 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 367 695 1,119 1,704 2,435 3,326 4,411 5,674 7,131 8,957 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 195 368 584 917 1,360 1,913 2,609 3,447 4,429 5,747 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 Commuter Rail 967 1,792 2,814 4,185 5,873 7,942 10,410 13,347 16,773 20,976 PM Class I 46 119 225 386 603 874 1,211 1,614 2,084 2,685 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 8 14 23 35 50 69 91 117 148 185 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 4 8 13 20 30 42 57 75 96 125 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Commuter Rail 20 37 57 85 120 162 212 272 342 428 CO Class I 454 1,166 2,201 3,776 5,891 8,542 11,839 15,785 20,381 26,251 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 74 141 226 345 493 673 893 1,148 1,443 1,812 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 21 39 62 97 145 203 277 366 471 611 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Commuter Rail 121 224 351 522 733 991 1,299 1,665 2,093 2,617 HC Class I 94 242 457 783 1,222 1,771 2,455 3,274 4,227 5,444 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 15 29 47 72 102 140 185 238 299 376 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 11 21 34 53 79 111 151 200 257 333 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Commuter Rail 38 70 109 163 228 309 405 519 652 815

SO2 Class I 1 3 6 11 17 24 34 45 58 75 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 139 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Diesel CAC Emissions Avoided (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 165,528 208,143 257,328 313,100 375,474 443,662 517,718 597,621 682,112 771,210 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 11,179 13,798 16,799 20,184 23,953 28,059 32,505 37,290 42,338 47,664 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 7,393 9,375 11,676 14,287 17,216 20,413 23,877 27,609 31,532 35,647 Intercity & Tourist 471 825 1,254 1,820 2,515 3,335 4,332 5,500 6,974 8,574 Commuter Rail 26,043 32,011 38,862 46,632 55,360 65,026 75,668 87,264 99,726 113,153 PM Class I 3,426 4,308 5,326 6,480 7,771 9,182 10,714 12,368 14,117 15,961 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 231 286 348 418 496 581 673 772 876 986 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 160 203 253 310 374 443 518 599 684 773 Intercity & Tourist 10 17 26 37 51 68 88 112 142 175 Commuter Rail 532 653 793 952 1,130 1,327 1,545 1,781 2,036 2,310 CO Class I 33,496 42,119 52,072 63,358 75,980 89,778 104,764 120,933 138,030 156,060 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,262 2,792 3,399 4,084 4,847 5,678 6,578 7,546 8,567 9,645 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 786 997 1,241 1,519 1,830 2,170 2,538 2,935 3,352 3,789 Intercity & Tourist 59 103 156 227 314 416 541 686 870 1,070 Commuter Rail 3,250 3,994 4,849 5,819 6,908 8,114 9,442 10,889 12,444 14,119 HC Class I 6,947 8,735 10,799 13,140 15,757 18,619 21,727 25,080 28,626 32,365 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 469 579 705 847 1,005 1,178 1,364 1,565 1,777 2,000 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 429 544 677 829 998 1,184 1,385 1,601 1,829 2,067 Intercity & Tourist 18 32 49 71 98 130 168 214 271 333 Commuter Rail 1,012 1,244 1,511 1,813 2,152 2,528 2,941 3,392 3,876 4,398

SO2 Class I 95 120 148 180 216 255 298 344 392 443 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 21 24 27 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Intercity & Tourist 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 Commuter Rail 9 11 14 17 20 23 27 31 35 40

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 140 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative total (hydrogen and diesel) CAC emissions (tonnes)

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

NOx Class I 922,294 987,165 1,051,238 1,113,449 1,173,800 1,232,328 1,288,485 1,342,272 1,393,693 1,439,670 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 54,917 58,679 62,391 65,992 69,495 72,886 76,134 79,253 82,229 84,887 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 57,999 61,970 65,897 69,704 73,400 76,985 80,425 83,721 86,872 89,685 Intercity & Tourist 36,293 38,493 40,655 42,779 44,865 46,915 48,928 50,906 52,849 54,563 Commuter Rail 68,364 74,121 79,948 85,702 91,426 97,069 102,625 108,036 113,296 118,129 Total 1,139,867 1,220,428 1,300,129 1,377,625 1,452,987 1,526,184 1,596,597 1,664,189 1,728,938 1,786,934 PM Class I 19,087 20,430 21,756 23,044 24,292 25,504 26,666 27,779 28,843 29,795 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,137 1,214 1,291 1,366 1,438 1,508 1,576 1,640 1,702 1,757 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 1,258 1,344 1,430 1,512 1,592 1,670 1,745 1,816 1,885 1,946 Intercity & Tourist 741 786 830 873 916 958 999 1,039 1,079 1,114 Commuter Rail 1,395 1,513 1,632 1,749 1,866 1,981 2,095 2,205 2,313 2,411 Total 23,619 25,287 26,939 28,544 30,105 31,621 33,080 34,480 35,821 37,022 CO Class I 186,633 199,760 212,725 225,314 237,527 249,370 260,734 271,618 282,023 291,327 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 11,113 11,874 12,625 13,354 14,063 14,749 15,406 16,037 16,640 17,178 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 6,166 6,588 7,005 7,410 7,803 8,184 8,550 8,900 9,235 9,534 Intercity & Tourist 4,529 4,803 5,073 5,338 5,598 5,854 6,105 6,352 6,594 6,808 Commuter Rail 8,530 9,249 9,976 10,694 11,408 12,112 12,805 13,481 14,137 14,740 Total 216,970 232,273 247,405 262,110 276,399 290,269 303,600 316,388 328,629 339,587 HC Class I 38,705 41,427 44,116 46,727 49,260 51,716 54,073 56,330 58,488 60,417 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 2,305 2,463 2,618 2,769 2,916 3,059 3,195 3,326 3,451 3,562 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 3,364 3,594 3,822 4,043 4,257 4,465 4,665 4,856 5,038 5,202 Intercity & Tourist 1,411 1,496 1,580 1,663 1,744 1,824 1,902 1,979 2,054 2,121 Commuter Rail 2,657 2,881 3,108 3,331 3,554 3,773 3,989 4,199 4,404 4,592 Total 48,442 51,862 55,245 58,533 61,731 64,837 67,823 70,690 73,435 75,894

SO2 Class I 530 567 604 640 675 708 741 772 801 828 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 49 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Intercity & Tourist 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 19 Commuter Rail 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Total 616 659 702 744 784 824 862 898 933 964

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 141 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative Total (Hydrogen + Diesel) CAC Emissions (tonnes) Locomotive Type 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

NOx Class I 1,480,171 1,515,201 1,545,020 1,569,633 1,589,043 1,604,059 1,614,648 1,620,850 1,623,946 1,623,946 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 87,228 89,252 90,975 92,397 93,518 94,387 95,003 95,366 95,556 95,556 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 92,168 94,314 96,140 97,653 98,847 99,771 100,426 100,812 101,005 101,005 Intercity & Tourist 56,162 57,650 59,031 60,243 61,293 62,189 62,877 63,365 63,517 63,517 Commuter Rail 122,463 126,276 129,601 132,418 134,705 136,500 137,781 138,589 139,033 139,033 Total 1,838,193 1,882,693 1,920,766 1,952,344 1,977,406 1,996,906 2,010,734 2,018,983 2,023,058 2,023,058 PM Class I 30,633 31,358 31,975 32,484 32,886 33,197 33,416 33,544 33,609 33,609 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 1,805 1,847 1,883 1,912 1,935 1,953 1,966 1,974 1,978 1,978 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 2,000 2,046 2,086 2,119 2,144 2,165 2,179 2,187 2,191 2,191 Intercity & Tourist 1,146 1,177 1,205 1,230 1,251 1,269 1,283 1,293 1,297 1,297 Commuter Rail 2,500 2,578 2,645 2,703 2,750 2,786 2,812 2,829 2,838 2,838 Total 38,084 39,006 39,794 40,448 40,967 41,370 41,657 41,828 41,912 41,912 CO Class I 299,523 306,611 312,646 317,626 321,554 324,593 326,735 327,990 328,617 328,617 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 17,651 18,061 18,409 18,697 18,924 19,100 19,224 19,298 19,336 19,336 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 9,798 10,026 10,220 10,381 10,508 10,606 10,676 10,717 10,737 10,737 Intercity & Tourist 7,008 7,193 7,366 7,517 7,648 7,760 7,846 7,907 7,926 7,926 Commuter Rail 15,281 15,756 16,171 16,523 16,808 17,032 17,192 17,293 17,348 17,348 Total 349,261 357,648 364,812 370,744 375,442 379,091 381,673 383,205 383,965 383,965 HC Class I 62,117 63,587 64,838 65,871 66,686 67,316 67,760 68,021 68,151 68,151 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 3,661 3,746 3,818 3,878 3,925 3,961 3,987 4,002 4,010 4,010 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 5,346 5,470 5,576 5,664 5,733 5,787 5,825 5,847 5,858 5,858 Intercity & Tourist 2,183 2,241 2,295 2,342 2,383 2,417 2,444 2,463 2,469 2,469 Commuter Rail 4,760 4,908 5,038 5,147 5,236 5,306 5,356 5,387 5,404 5,404 Total 78,067 79,952 81,565 82,902 83,962 84,787 85,372 85,720 85,892 85,892

SO2 Class I 851 871 888 902 914 922 928 932 934 934 Mainline Freight Regional & Short Line 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 55 55 55 Road Switching, Yard Switching & Work Train 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 Intercity & Tourist 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 Commuter Rail 43 45 46 47 48 48 49 49 49 49 Total 991 1,015 1,035 1,052 1,065 1,076 1,083 1,087 1,090 1,090

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 142 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

Cumulative CAC emissions, visualized

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 143 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 144 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 145 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 146 of 147 Transport Canada – Contract No. T8080-200257 Hydrail Railway Transition in Canada: Technological, Operational, Economical, and Societal Barriers and Opportunities

As this report is produced under contract to Transport Canada, any disclosure, use, or duplication of this document or any information contained within, is prohibited except as may otherwise be agreed to in writing. Page 147 of 147