Quote:

On a cost per mile full life cycle basis the electric locomotive would have lower per mile O&M costs, despite being more costly/offset by longer life. No prime mover, means way less maintenance costs, and longer service. But, electrification is very-very-very expensive, and adds to maintenance costs of the electric distribution system and overhead to power the train.

I had not noted my obviously grievous error in not breaking out the additional marginal cost savings from fuel tanks, generators, and alternators in noting the lower per mile O&M costs of electric over diesel locomotive...

Oops, my bad!

I probably was also in err for not including the added tree trimming costs associated with overhead electric power lines, too....

Oops, my bad again...

And, yes, from my experience in mobile source emissions, it is definitely easier to police big stationary sources of emissions, in certain ways. But what has that to do with the actual inventory of where emissions actually come from, or the most cost effective way to achieve emissions reductions.

Unfortunately, mobile source emissions are indeed a very significant source of health impacting pollutants, and a not insignificant part of total greenhouse emissions. And, in a fact based universe, we can observe that some of the biggest reductions in health related pollutants we were once exposed to have come from reduced car, truck, bus, and train emissions, due to technological progress and with quite effective and enforceable regulations. Just ask Volkswagen what happens when they catch you cheating.

Whether RR electrification is the most cost effective way to control mobile source health related emissions, or the most cost effectively reduce total emissions of greenhouse gases, compared to other more cost effective and technically achievable emission reductions investments or strategies, is a highly debatable proposition however.