Beginning in 1998, the EPA required all newly
manufactured and re-manufactured diesel-electric
locomotives to meet certain exhaust emissions standards.

Here is the EPA's summary of this:

> Rule Summary
> In 1998, EPA promulgated final exhaust emission standards
> for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon
> monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM) and smoke for newly
> manufactured and remanufactured locomotives and locomotive
> engines. The requirements for compliance with these emission
> standards are described in 40 CFR Part 92. These provisions
> apply to manufacturers, remanufacturers, and owners and operators
> of locomotives and locomotive engines manufactured on or after
> January 1, 1973. The three most significant requirements for
> railroads relate to: 1) remanufacture of locomotives,
> 2) maintenance of locomotives, and 3) testing of locomotives.

Here is the link to the complete text of the Tier 0-Tier 4 EPA
exhaust emissions regulations, which is this 107-page text of
40 CFR Parts 85, 89, and 92:

[www.gpo.gov]

The days of exhaust-belching diesels are over, never to return.
So any argument in favor of changing motive power in any rail
system from diesel-electric locomotives to electric locomotives
has no basis in any supposed elimination of the "dirty" diesel
exhaust -- except for CO2 emission, which the Tier 0-Tier EPA
regs do not deal with.

Yes, diesel-electrics burn diesel fuel, and in so doing, emit
CO2. And electric locomotives do not burn anything, so they
do not emit CO2. Sounds great, right? But the electricity
needed by electric locomotives has to come from somewhere, and
many power-generating plants do burn something -- either coal
or natural gas, both of which release CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, in those cases, all that is being done is to move the source
of pollution -- which modern Toer 3 and Tier 4 locomotives emit
very little of -- from the locomotive exhaust stacks to the power
plants -- elsewhere. Kinda a NIMBY thing.

Yes, electricity is also made by water falling over turbines
in hydroelectric power plants at dams, and by using the heat
made from radioactive rods to boil water and nake steam, neither
of which release any CO2. But there are no more good sites for
new dams anywhere in the West, and nuclear power plants do have
their big problems (see Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and
Fukushima).

Yes, electricity can be made from truly renewable sources, mostly
the sun and the wind, but: neither of those provides a steady
ongoing flow of electricity. The sun does not shine 24/7 and
the wind does not blow 24/7, so I would think that huge banks of
batteries would be needed at solar and wind plants.

But, as was pointed out above, the electricity from existing
power plants is already committed to present customers, and there
is truly none to spare for new customers such as California
High Speed Rail or Caltrain.

So -- Caltrain does not "need" to electrify. They are pushing
for this huge waste of money because they are on the CAHSR
gravy train, which is being run by the political machine that
controls California.

What Caltrain PASSENGERS need are places to sit and more
frequent service, and longer platforms to handle longer
trains. To make that happen, all Caltrain really needs
to do is buy more cars and locomotives and support equipment,
and hire more people to crew and maintain and repair and
clean the trains, and construct longer platforms that can
handle the 10-car trains they need sometimes. That is all.
But the trouble with that is that doing that is that the
very powerful political machine that runs California does
not support that, only projects that make them even richer --
from big increases in the value of the land they own and the
real estate they can sell. Those people do not care about us
ordinary people at all.

Remember -- "Follow the money," and please ask yourselves,
"Cui bono?" -- "Who benefits?"

We all need a lot of street smarts and really good BS detectors
when trying to figure out what is really going on and why.