As someone who spent a few years looking at trolley buses, and other such hoopla like railroad electrification as air quality "solutions", this is a very interesting project.

This also an example of the law of diminishing returns in terms of marginal cost per ton of pollutant (CO, NOX, Particulates, CO2)eliminated over the far more likely use of cost effective, reliable, and ubiquitous trucks. Like will happen with the widespread introduction of the driverless, automated, super clean, fuel efficient natural gas hybrid trucks, that are now being tested.

High initial infrastructure costs, regardless of so-called technical "feasibility", and the inherently limited nature of such an infrastructure investment, make the marginal cost per ton of the crap we breath removed very high, and thus, it is not likely very cost effective, compared to an awful lot of other things we could either waste or make use of our money on......?

Now enough of trucks and trolley buses...... and back to choo choo electro-economics.

Capital costs for RR electrification for purposes of emission reductions, for the remaining emission components, beyond tier 4, are enormous on a cost per ton mile basis, and it is argued that there are other less expensive reductions in emissions.

Given the intermediate term (10 year) outlook for conventional fuel availability, and assuming no massive change in our tax codes (tax loophole subsidies), or massive federal "investment" (direct taxpayer subsidies), there is no reason to expect that the outlook for electrification is bright, outside of a few high speed and urban commuter corridors. This local electric truck demonstration is being funded by the local AQMD and the ports, and it will be interesting to see what they "learn" from it.

The problem with all of these electrification schemes for environmental benefits is the high marginal cost per ton of crap removed. Think of it this way,, today's locomotives are about 90+ cleaner, than in 1987. Current tier 4, will get us to about 95% cleaner. To get us to "electrification" based "100%" could cost us as much as 50-100 times as much as the first 95% reduced. The "marginal" cost of the last ton is literally 100's of times more than the first, or second, or third.....ton of crap eliminated from the air we breath, in an ever steeper cost curve.

And, electrification costs estimates for air quality I did back in the mid 90's were based on only electrifying primary Class III and IV mainlines only, not yards, or other secondary lines, so you will still need "off grid" units, so you really don't get a 100% reduction.

Anyhow this contract has apparently been awarded, and this should be an interesting experiment.....?