Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010

Transcription

1 Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010

2 Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010 Acknowledgements In preparing this document, the Railway Association of Canada wishes to acknowledge appreciation for the services, information and perspectives provided by members of the following organizations: Management Committee Pierre Marin, Transport Canada (Chairperson) Normand Pellerin, CN Steve McCauley, Environment Canada Bob Oliver, Pollution Probe Mike Lowenger, Railway Association of Canada Technical Review Committee Ken Roberge, CP (Chairperson) Erika Akkerman, CN Bruno Riendeau, VIA Rail Mike Cyr, GO Transit Bob Mackenzie, GO Transit Lionel King, Transport Canada Ursula Green, Transport Canada Diane McLaughlin, Transport Canada Manjit Kerr-Upal, Environment Canada Natalia Moudrak, Pollution Probe Enrique Rosales, Railway Association of Canada Consultants Gordon Reusing, Waterloo, Ontario Emissions calculation and analysis Sean Williams, Waterloo, Ontario Emissions calculation and analysis Readers Comments Comments on the contents of this report may be addressed to: Enrique Rosales Research Analyst Railway Association of Canada 99 Bank Street, Suite 901 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 P: F: Review Notice This report has been reviewed by members of Energy and Transportation Directorate, Environment Canada; Environmental Policy, Transport Canada, and Pollution Probe, and approved for publication. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Pollution Probe. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute recommendation or endorsement for use. This report has been prepared by the Railway Association of Canada in partnership with Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Pollution Probe. We dedicate this issue of the Locomotive Emissions Report to the memory of Clifford J. Mackay, President and CEO of the Railway Association of Canada, who passed away in January Cliff s 20 years as a senior government official responsible for industry and economic development was instrumental in the development and signing of a new Memorandum of Understanding to help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the rail sector in Canada. More than this, he believed that this work is good for business, the environment and our great country s future. ISBN number:

3 Executive Summary The Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) data filing for 2010 has been completed in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on May 15, 2007, between the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), Environment Canada and Transport Canada concerning the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and criteria air contaminants (CAC) from locomotives operating in Canada. The MOU identifies the following commitments that the major railway companies agreed to pursue during the 2006 to 2010 period: GHG Commitments: Compared to the target levels set out in the MOU for 2010, analyses of railway data for 2010 show aggregate GHG emissions intensity levels (expressed as [carbon dioxide] CO 2 eq. per productivity unit) by category of railway line-haul operation for 2006 to 2010, as shown in the table below. Railway Operation Units MOU 2010 target Class I Freight kg/1,000 RTK Regional and Short Lines kg/1,000 RTK Intercity Passenger kg/passenger-km Commuter Rail kg/passenger CAC-related Commitments: The fleet change-actions taken by the railways in 2010 compared to previous years to comply with the commitments listed in the MOU are shown in the table below. The change focused on increasing the number of locomotives meeting applicable CAC emissions standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and retiring older uncontrolled locomotives a 2008 CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service b c d CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Total 54 e a 2007 data was revised as per the audit conducted in Corresponding emissions values were recalculated for 2007 and included in the LEM report for b Corrected following the audit from 85 to 105. c Corrected following the audit from 92 to 6 due to findings that revealed units reported in 2007 as being upgraded to EPA Tier 0 were, in fact, already at EPA Tier 0 and recertified to EPA Tier 0 upon remanufacture. d Corrected following the audit from 10 to 7. e Includes 52 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives and 2 Tier 2 GenSet locomotives. i LEM 2010

4 In meeting the CAC commitments under the MOU, the railways have focused primarily on purchasing new, freshlymanufactured line-haul locomotives meeting the EPA Tier 2 emissions standard and retiring era mediumhorsepower locomotives. The railways, primarily the Class I freight railways, had already upgraded the majority of their high-horsepower fleet to the EPA Tier 0 standard prior to the signing of the MOU. Although reporting on the remanufacture of already-compliant locomotives is outside the requirements of the MOU, Class I railways have made significant investments to recertify to the EPA Tier 0 standard for high-horsepower locomotives upon remanufacture. In 2010, 69 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives were added to the Class I Freight Line-haul fleet and 25 were added to the Commuter Service fleet, and 126 higher horsepower locomotives were upgraded to Tier 0+ and Tier 1+ in the Class I Freight Line-haul fleet. In 2010, 4 medium-horsepower locomotives were upgraded to EPA Tier 0 standard, and 39 medium-horsepower locomotives manufactured between 1973 and 1999 were retired. Follow-up to Audit of 2007 LEM Report: as indicated in the 2009 LEM report, in August 2010, a follow-up audit was completed to address the findings of the audit that was conducted on the data contained in the 2007 LEM Report. Summary of LEM Data for 2010: Summarized below are the procedures characterizing the data collection process, input data and calculation of emissions from all diesel locomotives operating in Canada during 2010 on the 52 RAC member railways. Also summarized are emissions reduction initiatives of the railways and awareness generation actions by the RAC to improve the environmental performance of the sector. Data Collection: The cumulative emissions reported in the annual LEM reports are calculated from data in a RAC LEM protocol collected from each RAC member railway. The data includes: traffic volumes; diesel fuel consumption and locomotive fleet inventories for freight; yard switching; and work train and passenger operations. Freight data is differentiated between Class I, Regional and Short Line operations. Passenger data is differentiated between Intercity, Commuter, as well as Tourist and Excursion operations. Emissions Calculations: GHG emissions are calculated according to the amount of diesel fuel consumed and expressed as equivalents to carbon dioxide (CO 2 eq. ). Similarly CAC emissions, namely nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM) and sulphur oxides (SO x, but expressed as SO 2 ) are calculated based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed, the CAC emission factors and duty cycles reflecting a locomotive s operational service. Emissions metrics are expressed in terms of absolute mass as well as intensity, which is a ratio relating emissions to productivity or operational parameters. Freight Traffic: In 2010, the railways handled billion revenue tonne kilometres (RTK) of traffic as compared to billion RTK in 2009, an increase of 13.4 percent. The increase in 2010 reflects a recovery from the global economic downturn which affected railway traffic in late 2008 and Railway freight RTK traffic is 39.6 percent higher than for 1990, the reference year, having risen by an average annual rate of 2.0 percent. Of the freight traffic handled, the two Class I freight railways, Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP), were responsible for 93.9 percent. Intermodal Traffic: Of the total freight carloadings in 2010, intermodal dominated at 23 percent. Intermodal tonnage increased 20.3 percent to million tonnes from million tonnes in Overall, intermodal tonnage comprising both container-on-flat-car and trailer-on-flat-car traffic has risen percent since 1990 equating to an average annual growth of 5.4 percent. Class I railways intermodal traffic increased from billion RTK in 2009 to billion RTK in 2010, an increase of 10.9 percent. Passenger Traffic: Intercity traffic in 2010 by all carriers totalled 4.48 million passengers compared to 4.54 million in The carriers were VIA Rail Canada, CN / Algoma Central, Ontario Northland Railway and Tshiuetin Rail Transportation. VIA Rail Canada transported 4.15 million passengers, that is, 92.8 percent of the intercity traffic. Commuter rail traffic increased from million passengers in 2009 to million in 2010, an increase of 3.9 percent. This is up from million passengers in 1997, when the RAC first started collecting commuter statistics, an increase of 67.2 percent. In 2010, nine member railways of the RAC reported Tourist and Excursion traffic totalling million, a decrease of 31.3 percent below the million transported in ii LEM 2010

5 Fuel Consumption: Overall, the fuel consumed in railway operations in Canada increased from 1, million litres (L) in 2009 to 2, million L in 2010, a rise of 9.5 percent. The increase in fuel consumption in 2010 reflects the recovery from the global economic decline. Increased fuel consumption was offset by fuel reduction methods taken by the member railways, which include an increased proportion of fuel efficient high-horsepower locomotives in the fleet and careful re-matching of in-train locomotive power with the reduced traffic. Of the total fuel consumed by all railway operations, Class I freight train operations consumed 87.4 percent and Regional and Short Lines consumed 5.2 percent. Yard switching and work train operations consumed 2.1 percent and passenger operations accounted for 5.3 percent (of which 2.5 percent was for VIA Rail Canada, 2.3 percent for Commuter Rail, 0.3 percent for Tourist and Excursion operations and less than 0.1 percent for Amtrak operations in Canada). For total passenger operations, the overall fuel consumption in 2010 was 1.0 percent below corresponding figures for Fuel Consumption per Unit of Productivity: For total freight operations, fuel consumption per productivity unit (L per 1,000 RTK) in 2010 was 5.56 L per 1,000 RTK as compared to 5.73 L per 1000 RTK in 2009, an improvement of 2.9 percent. This is down from 7.83 L per 1,000 RTK in 1990, a reduction of 28.9 percent. In terms of fuel consumption per unit of productivity for passengers operations, the values for VIA Rail Canada intercity operations in 2010 were L per passenger-km versus L per passenger-km in 2009, and for the combined Commuter Rail operations were 0.68 L per passenger versus 0.65 L per passenger in Locomotive Fleet Inventory: The number of diesel-powered locomotives and diesel mobile units (DMUs) in active service in Canada belonging to RAC member railways totalled 2,948 in 2010 versus 2,727 in The increase is due to locomotives returning to service in 2010 due to the increase in traffic caused by the recovery from the economic downturn. For line-haul freight operations, 2,309 are in service of which 2,048 are on Class I railways and 261 are on Regional and Short Lines. A further 396 are in Switching and Work Train operations, of which 300 are in Class I service and 96 in Regional and Short lines. A total of 243 locomotives and DMUs are in passenger operations, of which 85 are in VIA Rail Canada intercity services, 139 in Commuter and 19 are in Tourist and Excursion services. In 2010, 44.6 percent of the total fleet met the U.S. EPA Tier 0, Tier 0+, Tier 1, Tier 1+ and Tier 2 emissions standards. A total of 69 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives were added to the Class I line-haul fleet in 2010 and the net in-service increase was 138. Retired were 39 medium-horsepower locomotives manufactured between 1973 and The number of locomotives in 2010 equipped with a device to minimize unnecessary idling such as an Automatic Engine Stop-Start (AESS) system or Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) was 1,380, compared with 1,106 in This represents 46.8 percent of the total in-service fleet in 2010 versus 40.6 percent in Emissions Factors (EF): The EF used to calculate total GHG emissions was kilograms / litre (kg/l) and expressed as CO 2 eq., the constituents of which for diesel cycle combustion are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). This value is in-line with the National Inventory Report submitted by Environment Canada to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reflects the latest analyses of the carbon content, density and oxidation rates of Canadian liquid fuels. The EFs used to calculate CACs emitted from locomotives are based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed, CAC emission factors (revised under an Emission Factor Study conducted in early 2011) and duty cycles reflecting a locomotive s operation service. Review of Emission Factors: An emission factors study was conducted in early 2011 to revise the CAC emission factors (EFs) used in this report. In previous annual LEM reports, CAC EFs showed significant variability as they were derived from test measurements and operational duty cycles and there was variation in the calculation methodology used. Under the emission factors study, new CAC EFs were established based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed, the U.S. EPA emission factors and the Canadian duty cycles reflecting a locomotive s operational service. New EFs were established for nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), particulate matter (PM), and sulphur oxides (SO x ) for each category of operation (i.e., freight, switch and passenger operations). The revised CAC EFs can be found in Table 9 of this report. The revised CAC EFs were used to recalculate total CAC emissions for each year from 1990 to The revised CAC emissions can be found in Table 13 of this report. iii LEM 2010

6 Emissions: Total GHG emissions from all railway operations, expressed as CO 2 eq. in 2010 were 6, kt as compared to 5, kt in 2009 and 6, kt in The total CAC emissions from all railway operations in 2010 were determined to be: 2.53 kt of PM, 4.92 kt of HC, kt of NO x, kt of CO and 0.43 kt of SO x. In 2010, the sulphur content of railway diesel fuel averaged 129 ppm for freight operations and 15 ppm for passenger operations. GHG Emissions Intensity: The 2010 GHG emissions levels per 1,000 RTK for line-haul freight operations were kg for Class I and kg for Regional and Short Lines thus achieving the MOU 2010 target levels of, respectively, kg and kg. For comparison, in 2009 the GHG emissions intensities were kg per 1,000 RTK for Class I and kg per 1,000 RTK for Regional and Short Lines. When data from all line-haul freight and switching operations for Class I and Regional and Short Lines are consolidated, the GHG emission intensity is kg per 1,000 RTK versus kg per 1,000 RTK in For 2010, Intercity Passenger GHG emission intensity was 0.12 kg per passenger-km versus 0.13 kg per passenger-km in 2009, while for Commuter Rail it was 2.06 kg per passenger; up from 1.95 kg per passenger in Due to the unique nature of the commuter sector initiatives to maintain and increase ridership (such as increasing routes, stops and train lengths, procurement of more powerful locomotives and reduction in the percentage of standees). Commuter rail GHG emissions intensity performance has moved away from the target. However these initiatives have allowed the commuter rail sector to get more commuters out of their cars and off the highways reducing both traffic congestion and automotive emissions. CAC Emissions Intensity: NO x emission intensity in 2010 for all freight operations was 0.28 kg per 1,000 RTK, down from 0.29 kg per 1,000 RTK in Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas (TOMA): Of the total Canadian rail sector fuel consumed and corresponding GHG emitted in 2010, 3.1 percent was used in the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia, 15.3 percent in the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and 0.2 percent in the Saint John area of New Brunswick. Similarly, NO x emissions for the three TOMA were, respectively, 3.1 percent, 15.3 percent and 0.2 percent. iv LEM 2010

7 Emissions Reduction Initiatives by Railways: During 2010, the railways continued to acquire new locomotives compliant with U.S. EPA Tier 2 emissions standards (which came into force January 1, 2005). These new locomotives are factory-fitted with AESS systems to minimize idling. Some older locomotives have been fitted with either AESS or APU units upon remanufacture. Additionally, the railways started retrofitting older Tier 0 and Tier 1 locomotives to bring them into compliance with the U.S. EPA upgraded Tier 0+ and Tier 1+ emission standards which came into force in 2010 in the U.S. In 2010, CP initiated a pilot project to test a new system on four road switcher locomotives that would allow for longer shutdown periods in colder temperatures called the Low Temperature Protection (LTP) system. RAC Awareness Generation Actions Aimed at Emissions Reduction: The RAC provides a venue for the railway companies to exchange ideas and best operating practices for reducing emissions associated with railway activities. The RAC is in frequent communication with its members, through newsletters, distribution, working committees, RAC member events, the RAC Annual General Meeting and through the RAC website. As such, the RAC distributes relevant information within its membership regarding technologies and operating practices that reduce emissions, particularly GHGs, on an activity basis. Similarly, to assist shippers and other concerned parties to know or evaluate the difference in emissions levels, on a shipment-by-shipment basis, between choosing rail versus trucking mode, the RAC initiated the development of an online Rail Freight Greenhouse Gas Calculator. The calculator is available at To further emphasize awareness about environmental concerns, the RAC sponsors an annual Environmental Award Program for both passenger and freight railways operating in Canada. The objective of the program is to share and assess initiatives undertaken by railways to improve their environmental performance. In 2010, CN won the RAC Environmental Award in the Class I category for their Walleye Spawning Grounds initiative. For non-class 1 railways, the winner was GO Transit (Metrolinx) for its bike racks on their new Niagara Falls service initiative. v LEM 2010

8 Glossary of Terms Terminology Pertaining to Railway Operations Class I Railway: This is a class of railway within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada that realized gross revenues that exceed a threshold indexed to a base of $250 million annually in 1991 dollars for the provision of Canadian railway services. The three Canadian Class I railways are CN, CP and VIA Rail Canada. Intermodal Service: The movement of trailers on flat cars (TOFC) or containers on flat cars (COFC) by rail and at least one other mode of transportation. Import and export containers generally are shipped via marine and rail. Domestic intermodal services usually involve the truck and rail modes. Locomotive Active Fleet: This refers to the total number of all locomotives owned and on long-term lease, including units that are stored but available for use. Not counted in the active fleet are locomotives on short-term lease and those declared surplus or have been retired or scrapped. Locomotive Power Ranges: Locomotives are categorized as high horsepower (having engines greater than 3,000 HP), medium horsepower (2,000 to 3,000 HP) or low horsepower (less than 2,000 HP). Locomotive Prime Movers: The diesel engine is the prime mover of choice for locomotives in operation on Canadian railways. Combustion takes place in a diesel engine by compressing the fuel and air mixture until autoignition occurs. It has found its niche as a result of its fuel-efficiency, reliability, ruggedness and installation flexibility. Two diesel prime mover installation arrangements are currently in use: Medium-speed diesel engine: This engine is installed in versions from 8 to 16 cylinders at up to 4,400 HP, with an operating speed of 800 to 1,100 RPM. Multiple GenSet diesel engines: This stand alone generating set (GenSet) is each powered by a 700 HP industrial diesel engine driving separate generators, which are linked electronically to produce up to 2,100 traction horsepower, with an operating speed up to 1,800 RPM. For switching locomotive applications, the advantage of this arrangement is that individual GenSet engines can be started or stopped according to the power required. Locomotive Remanufacture: The remanufacture of a locomotive is a process in which all of the power assemblies of a locomotive engine are replaced with freshly manufactured (containing no previously used parts) or refurbished power assemblies or those inspected and qualified. Inspecting and qualifying previously used parts can be done in several ways, including such things as cleaning, measuring physical dimensions for proper size and tolerance, and running performance tests to assure that the parts are functioning properly and according to specifications. Refurbished power assemblies could include some combination of freshly manufactured parts, reconditioned parts from other previously used power assemblies, and reconditioned parts from the power assemblies that were replaced. In cases where all of the power assemblies are not replaced at a single time, a locomotive will be considered to be remanufactured (and therefore new ) if all power assemblies from the previously new engine had been replaced within a five year period. (This definition for remanufactured locomotives is taken from the U.S. Federal Register Volume 63, No. 73 April 16, 1998 / Rules and Regulations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92 (Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines). vi LEM 2010

9 Locomotive Utilization Profile: This is the breakdown of locomotive activity within a 24-hour day (based on yearly averages). 24-hour day Locomotive Available Unavailable Engine Operating Time Engine Shutdown Low-Idle, Idle DB, N1 to N8 Duty Cycle The elements in the above diagram constitute, respectively: Locomotive Available: This is the time, expressed in percent of a 24-hour day that a locomotive could be used for operational service. Conversely, Unavailable is the percentage of the day that a locomotive is being serviced, repaired, remanufactured or in storage. Locomotive available time plus unavailable time equals 100 percent. Engine Operating Time: This is the percentage of Locomotive Available time that the diesel engine is turned on. Conversely, Engine Shutdown is the percentage of Locomotive Available time that the diesel engine is turned off. Idle: This is the percent of the operating time that the engine is operating at idle or low-idle setting. It can be further segregated into Manned Idle (when an operating crew is on-board the locomotive) and Isolate (when the locomotive is unmanned). Duty Cycle: This is the profile of the different locomotive power settings (Low-Idle, Idle, Dynamic Braking, or Notch levels 1 through 8) as percentages of Engine Operating Time. Railway Productivity Units: Gross Tonne-Kilometres (GTK): This term refers to the product of the total weight (in tonnes) of the trailing tonnage (both loaded and empty railcars) and the distance (in kilometres) the freight train travelled. It excludes the weight of locomotives pulling the trains. Units can also be expressed in gross ton-miles (GTM). Revenue Tonne-Kilometres (RTK): This term refers to the product of the weight (in tonnes) of revenue commodities handled and the distance (in kilometres) transported. It excludes the tonne-kilometres involved in the movement of railway materials or any other non-revenue movement. The units can also be expressed in revenue ton-miles (RTM). Passenger-Kilometres per Train-Kilometre: This term is a measure of intercity train efficiency, which is the average of all revenue passenger kilometres travelled divided by the average of all train kilometres operated. Revenue Passenger-Kilometres (RPK): This term is the total of the number of revenue passengers multiplied by the distance (in kilometres) the passengers were transported. The units can also be expressed in revenue passenger-miles (RPM). vii LEM 2010

10 Terminology of Diesel Locomotive Emissions Emission Factors (EF): An emission factors is the average mass of a product of combustion emitted from a particular locomotive type for a specified amount of fuel consumed. The EF units are grams, or kilograms, of a specific emission product per litre of diesel fuel consumed (g/l). Emissions of Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) CAC emissions are by-products of the combustion of diesel fuel and impact on human health and the environment. The principal CAC emissions are: NO x (Nitrogen Oxides): These are the products of nitrogen and oxygen that result from high combustion temperatures. The amount of NO x emitted is a function of peak combustion temperature. NO x reacts with hydrocarbons to form ground-level ozone in the presence of sunlight to contribute to smog formation. CO (Carbon Monoxide): This toxic gas is a by-product of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Relative to other prime movers, it is low in diesel engines. HC (Hydrocarbons): These are the result of incomplete combustion of diesel fuel and lubricating oil. PM (Particulate Matter): This is residue of combustion consisting of soot, hydrocarbon particles from partially burned fuel and lubricating oil and agglomerates of metallic ash and sulphates. It is known as primary PM. Increasing the combustion temperatures and duration can lower PM. It should be noted that NO x and PM emissions are interdependent; which are technologies that control NO x (such as retarding injection timing) result in higher PM emissions. Conversely, technologies that control PM often result in increased NO x emissions SO x (Sulphur Oxides): These emissions are the result of burning fuels containing sulphur compounds. For the LEM reporting, sulphur emissions are calculated as SO 2. These emissions can be reduced by using lower sulphur content diesel fuel. Reducing fuel sulphur content will also typically reduce emissions of sulphate-based PM. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) In addition to CACs, GHG emissions are also under scrutiny due to their accumulation in the atmosphere and contribution to global warming. The GHG constituents produced by the combustion of diesel fuel are listed below: CO 2 (Carbon Dioxide): This gas is by far the largest by-product of combustion emitted from engines and is the principal greenhouse gas, which due to its accumulation in the atmosphere, is considered to be the main contributor to global warming. It has a Global Warming Potential of 1.0. CO 2 and water vapour are normal byproducts of the combustion of fossil fuels. CH 4 (Methane): This is a colourless, odourless and inflammable gas, which is a bi-product of incomplete diesel combustion. Relative to CO 2, it has a Global Warming Potential of 21. N 2 O (Nitrous Oxide): This is a colourless gas produced during combustion that has a Global Warming Potential of 310 (relative to CO 2 ). The sum of the constituent greenhouse gases expressed in terms of their equivalents to the Global Warming Potential of CO 2 is depicted as CO 2 eq.. This is calculated by multiplying the volume of fuel consumed by the emission factors of each constituent then, in turn, multiplying the product by the respective Global Warming Potential, and then summing them. See page xi for conversion values pertaining to diesel fuel combustion. viii LEM 2010

11 Terminology Related to Locomotive Emissions Monitoring and Control Canada: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a document signed by the Railway Association of Canada, Environment Canada and Transport Canada, which sets out measures on a voluntary basis to address CAC and GHG emissions from all railway operations in Canada. The MOU calls for a Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) report to be published annually containing the respective cumulative data on CAC and GHG emissions, and information related to emissions reduction actions taken by the railways. The previous MOU covered the period 1995 to 2005; the current MOU covers the period 2006 to 2010, as exhibited in Appendix A. Following the expiry of the MOU, a regulatory regime to control criteria air contaminant emissions from locomotives will be implemented by Transport Canada under the Railway Safety Act. The Canadian Locomotive Emissions Regulations will be aligned with those currently in place in the United States. United States: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking promulgated in 1998 contains three levels of locomotive-specific emissions limits corresponding to the date of a locomotive s original manufacture Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 (as listed below). The significance of the U.S. EPA regulations for Canadian railways is that the new locomotives they traditionally acquire from the American locomotive original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are manufactured to meet the latest EPA emissions limits. Hence, emissions in Canada are reduced as these new locomotives are acquired. Compliance Schedule for U.S. EPA Locomotive-Specific Emissions Limits (g/bhp-hr) Duty Cycle HC CO NO x PM Tier 0 ( ) Line-haul Switching Tier 1 ( ) Line-haul Switching Tier 2 (2005 and later) Line-haul Switching Estimated Pre-Regulation (1997) Locomotive Emissions Rates Line-haul Switching Referencing the above-listed limits for locomotives operating in the U.S., the EPA in 2008 put into force revisions, which tighten the existing Tier 0 to Tier 2 standards. The revisions are now referred to as Tier 0+, Tier 1+ and Tier 2+ standards. As indicated in the tables below, the revised standards also take into account the year of original manufacture of the locomotive. Also, two new, more stringent standards levels were introduced, designated Tier 3 and Tier 4. The revised and new standards are to be phased-in between 2010 and 2015 for locomotives as they become new (new in this case includes both when locomotives are originally manufactured and when remanufactured). It is envisaged that to meet the Tier 4 standards, locomotives manufactured starting in 2015 will require additional exhaust gas aftertreatment technologies to be installed and be dependent upon diesel fuel having a sulphur content capped at 15 ppm. Elaboration on the U.S. EPA locomotive emissions regulations can be viewed on the website: ix LEM 2010

12 Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Standards g/bhp-hr Tier *MY Date HC CO NO x PM Tier 0+ a c Tier 1+ a b 2010 c Tier 2+ a c d Tier 3 e Tier or later f f 0.03 a Tier 0+ to Tier 2+ line-haul locomotives must also meet switch standards of the same Tier. b locomotives that were not equipped with an intake air coolant system are subject to Tier 0+ rather than Tier 1+ standards. c As early as 2008 if approved engine upgrade kits become available. d 0.20 g/bhp-hr until January 1, 2013 (with some exceptions). e Tier 3 line-haul locomotives must also meet Tier 2+ switching standards. f Manufacturers may elect to meet a combined NO x + HC standard of 1.4 g/bhp-hr. * MY Year of original manufacture Switching Locomotive Emission Standards g/bhp-hr Tier *MY Date HC CO NO x PM Tier b Tier 1+ a b Tier 2+ a b c Tier Tier or later d d 0.03 a Tier 1+ and Tier 2+ switching locomotives must also meet line-haul standards of the same Tier. b As early as 2008 if approved engine upgrade kits become available. c 0.24 g/bhp-hr until January 1, 2013 (with some exceptions). d Manufacturers may elect to meet a combined NO x + HC standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr. * MY Year of original manufacture Emissions Metrics: The unit of measurement for the constituent emissions is grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/ hp-hr). This is the amount (in grams) of a particular constituent emitted by a locomotive s diesel engine for a given amount of mechanical work (brake horsepower) over one hour for a specified duty cycle. This measurement allows a ready comparison of the relative cleanliness of two engines, regardless of their rated power. RAC LEM Protocol: This is the collection of financial and statistical data from RAC members and the RAC database (where data is systematically stored for various RAC applications). Data from the RAC database, which is used in this report, include freight traffic revenue tonne kilometres and gross tonne kilometres, intermodal statistics, passenger traffic particulars, fuel consumption, average fuel sulphur content and locomotive inventory. The Class I railways Annual Reports and Financial and Related Data submissions to Transport Canada also list much of this data. x LEM 2010

13 Conversion Factors Related to Railway Emissions Emission Factors (in grams or kilograms per litre of diesel fuel consumed) Emission Factors for the Criteria Air Contaminants (NO x, CO, HC, PM, SO x ) in g/l are found in Table 9. Emission Factors for Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ) for 2010: Freight Railways (129 ppm sulphur in fuel) kg / L Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gases: Carbon Dioxide CO kg / L Methane CH kg / L Nitrous Oxide N 2 O kg / L Hydrofluorocarbons* HFC Perfluorocarbons* PFC Sulphur hexafluoride* SF 6 C0 2 eq. of all six GHGs kg / L Global Warming Potential for CO 2 1 Global Warming Potential for CH 4 21 Global Warming Potential for N 2 O 310 * Not present in diesel fuel Sum of constituent Emissions Factors multiplied by their Global Warming Potentials Conversion Factors Related to Railway Operations Imperial gallons to litres U.S. gallons to litres Litres to Imperial gallons Litres to U.S. gallons Miles to kilometres Kilometres to miles Metric tonnes to tons (short) Tons (short) to metric tonnes Revenue ton-miles to Revenue tonne-kilometres Revenue tonne-kilometres to Revenue ton-miles Metrics Relating Railway Emissions and Operations Emissions in this report are displayed both as an absolute amount and as intensity, which is either a ratio that relates a specific emission to productivity or units of work performed. An example of emissions intensity metrics is the ratio NO x per 1,000 RTK; which is the mass in kilograms of NO x emitted per 1,000 revenue tonnekilometres of freight hauled. xi LEM 2010

14 Abbreviations and Acronyms used in the Report Abbreviations of Units of Measure bhp Brake horsepower g Gram g/bhp-hr Grams per brake horsepower hour g/gtk Grams per gross tonne-kilometre g/l Grams per litre g/rtk Grams per revenue tonne-kilometre hr Hour kg/1,000 RTK Kilograms per 1,000 revenue tonne-kilometres km Kilometre kt Kilotonne L Litre L/hr Litres/hour lb Pound ppm Parts per million Abbreviations of Emissions and Related Parameters CAC Criteria Air Contaminant CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CO 2 eq. Carbon Dioxide equivalent of all six Greenhouse Gases CO Carbon Monoxide EF Emissions Factor GHG Greenhouse Gas HC Hydrocarbons NO x Nitrogen Oxides PM Particulate Matter SO x Sulphur Oxides SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide TOMA Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas Abbreviations used in Railway Operations AESS Automated Engine Start-Stop COFC Container-on-Flat-Car DB Dynamic Brake DMU Diesel Multiple Unit EMU Electric Multiple Unit GTK Gross tonne-kilometres HEP Head End Power LEM Locomotive Emissions Monitoring MOU Memorandum of Understanding N1, N2 Notch 1, Notch 2 Throttle Power Settings RDC Rail Diesel Car RPK Revenue Passenger-Kilometres RPM Revenue Passenger-Miles RTK Revenue Tonne-Kilometres RTM Revenue Ton-Miles TOFC Trailer-on-Flat-Car ULSD Ultra-low Sulphur Diesel Fuel xii LEM 2010

15 Acronyms of Organizations ALCO American Locomotive Company AAR Association of American Railroads CCME Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment CN Canadian National Railway CP Canadian Pacific EC Environment Canada ESDC Engine Systems Development Centre of CAD Railway Industries Ltd. GE General Electric Transportation Systems GM/EMD General Motors Corporation Electro-Motive Division. MLW Montreal Locomotive Works MPI Motive Power Industries NRE National Railway Equipment Co. OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer RAC Railway Association of Canada SwRI Southwest Research Institute TC Transport Canada UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VIA VIA Rail Canada xiii LEM 2010

16 Table of Contents i vi xi xii Executive Summary Glossary of Terms Conversion Factors Related to Railway Emissions Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Report 1 1 Introduction Follow-Up Audit Summary of the Memorandum of Understanding and its Results 3 2 Traffic and Fuel Consumption Data Freight Traffic Handled Freight Carloads by Commodity Grouping Class I Intermodal Traffic Passenger Traffic Handled Intercity Passenger Services Commuter Rail Tourist and Excursion Services Fuel Consumption Freight Operations Passenger Services Locomotive Inventory Locomotives Compliant with United States Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Limits 13 4 Diesel Fuel Properties 14 5 Locomotive Emissions Emission Factors Locomotive Duty Cycle Emissions Generated Greenhouse Gases Criteria Air Contaminants 25 6 Fuel Consumption and Emissions in Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas Data Derivation Seasonal Data xiv LEM 2010

17 30 7 Emissions Reduction Initiatives Railway Association of Canada Awareness Generation Actions Equipment-related Initiatives Locomotive Fleet Renewal Tier 0+, Tier 1+ and Tier 2+ Engine Retrofits Fleet Upgrading and Maintenance Low Idle Engine Anti-Idling Systems Low and Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel Biodiesel Fuel Freight Car Technology Improvements Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes Longer Trains Distributed Power Intercity Passenger Train Equipment Initiatives Passenger Train Layover Systems Commuter Rail Equipment Modifications Operations-related Initiatives Crew Training and Incentives Manual Shut-down of Locomotive Engines Consolidation of Cars with Similar Destination into Blocks Train Pacing and Braking Strategies Commuter Train Coach Door Management Infrastructure-related Initiatives Improved Track Structures Rail Lubrication Top-of-Rail Friction Control Co-production Monitoring and Evaluation of Technological Developments Government Programs Monitoring Emissions Reduction Technologies under Development 41 8 Summary and Conclusions xv LEM 2010

18 List of Tables 3 Table 1 Total Freight Traffic ( ) 7 Table 2 Canadian Rail Operations Fuel Consumption 8 Table 3 Freight Operations Fuel Consumption 9 Table 4 Passenger Services Fuel Consumption 10 Table Canadian Locomotive Fleet Summary 11 Table 6 Fleet Change Actions in Accordance with MOU 12 Table 7 Locomotives in Canadian Fleet Meeting U.S. EPA Emissions Limits 12 Table 8 Locomotives Compliant with EPA Tier Levels 15 Table 9 CAC Emission Factors for Diesel Locomotives 16 Table 10 Canadian Duty Cycle by Locomotive Service and Year of Update 17 Table 11 Locomotive GHG Emissions 19 Table 12 GHG Emissions Intensities by Category of Operation 22 Table 13 Locomotive CAC Emissions 26 Table 14 TOMA Percentages of Total Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions 26 Table 15 TOMA Percentages of Total NO x Emissions 27 Table 16 TOMA No.1 Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, Table 17 TOMA No.2 Windsor Quebec City Corridor Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, Table 18 TOMA No.3 Saint John Area, New Brunswick, Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, 2010 List of Figures 3 Figure 1 Total Freight Traffic ( ) 4 Figure 2 Canadian Rail Originated Freight by Commodity Grouping 4 Figure 3 Class I Intermodal Tonnage 5 Figure 4 VIA Rail Canada Passenger Traffic 5 Figure 5 VIA Rail Canada Revenue Passenger-Kilometres 6 Figure 6 VIA Rail Canada Train Efficiency 6 Figure 7 Commuter Rail Passengers 7 Figure 8 Freight Operations Fuel Consumption 8 Figure 9 Freight Fuel Consumption per 1,000 RTK 18 Figure 10 Total Railway GHG Emissions 18 Figure 11 Total Freight GHG Emissions Intensity 20 Figure 12 Class I Freight GHG Emissions Intensity 20 Figure 13 Regional and Short Lines GHG Emissions Intensity 20 Figure 14 Intercity Passenger GHG Emissions Intensity 21 Figure 15 Commuter Rail GHG Emissions Intensity 24 Figure 16 Total Freight NO x Emissions Intensity Appendices 45 Appendix A Memorandum of Understanding between Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Railway Association of Canada 56 Appendix B-1 Locomotive Fleet 2010 Freight Train Line-haul and Road Switching Operations 58 Appendix B-2 Locomotive Fleet 2010 Yard Switching and Work Train Operations 59 Appendix B-3 Locomotive and DMU Fleet 2010 Passenger Train Operations 61 Appendix C Railway Lines Included in Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas 62 Appendix D Traffic and Fuel Consumption (U.S. Units) 63 Appendix E-1 Locomotive GHG Emissions (U.S. Units) 64 Appendix E-2 Locomotive CAC Emissions (U.S. Units) 66 Appendix F RAC Member Railways in 2010, with Provinces of Operation xvi LEM 2010

19 1 Introduction This report contains the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) data filing for 2010 in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on May 15, 2007, between the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), Environment Canada and Transport Canada concerning voluntary arrangements to limit greenhouse gases (GHG) and criteria air contaminants (CAC) emitted from locomotives operating in Canada. The MOU, in force for 2006 to 2010, is contained in Appendix A. The MOU identifies the following GHG and CAC-related commitments for the major railway companies to achieve during this period: GHG Commitments: achieve, by 2010, aggregate operations-specific GHG emissions intensity targets (expressed as CO 2 eq. per productivity unit), as listed below: Railway Operation Units MOU 2010 target Class I Freight kg/1,000 RTK Regional and Short Lines kg/1,000 RTK Intercity Passenger kg/passenger-km 0.12 Commuter Rail kg/passenger 1.46 CAC-related Commitments: acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards; upgrade, upon remanufacturing, all high-horsepower locomotives to EPA emissions standards; upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all medium-horsepower locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010; and retire from service 130 medium-horsepower locomotives built between 1973 and In accordance with the RAC LEM protocol, annual data for this report was collected via a survey sent to each member railway of the RAC. The data assembled includes: calendar-year traffic volumes, diesel fuel consumption and sulphur content, and in-service locomotive inventory (as contained in Appendix B) for all freight train, yard switching, work train and passenger train operations. Based on this data, the GHG and CAC emissions produced by in-service locomotives in Canada were calculated. The GHG emissions in this report are expressed as CO 2 eq., the constituents of which are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). CAC emissions include nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM) and sulphur oxides (SO x ). The SO x emitted is a function of the sulphur content of the diesel fuel and is expressed as SO 2. Separate sections of the report highlight the particulars for 2010 regarding traffic, fuel consumption and composition, GHG and CAC emissions and status of the locomotive fleet. Also included is a section on initiatives being taken or examined by the sector to reduce fuel consumption and, consequently, all emissions, particularly GHG. In addition, the report contains data on the fuel consumed and emissions produced by railways operating in three designated Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas (TOMA): the Lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia, the Windsor Quebec City Corridor and the Saint John area in New Brunswick. Data for winter and summer operations have also been segregated. The railways operating in the different TOMA are listed in Appendix C. Data and statistics by year for traffic, fuel consumption and emissions are listed for the eleven-year period starting with For historical comparison purposes, the year 1990 has been set as the baseline reference year. LEM statistics for the Canadian railway sector dating from 1995 can be found in the respective reports published by Environment Canada or by RAC. 1 Unless otherwise specified, metric units are used and quantities and percentages are expressed to two and one significant figures, respectively. To facilitate comparison with American railway operations, Appendices D and E LEM EPS 2/TS/10 November and 1997 LEM EPS 2/TS/11 May LEM EPS 2/TS/13 October and 2000 LEM EPS 2/TS/15 April LEM EPS 2/TS/16 December LEM EPS 2/TS/17 December LEM EPS 2/TS/11 December LEM EPS 2/TS/19 December LEM EPA 2/TS/20 December LEM Published by RAC December LEM Published by RAC December LEM Published by RAC December LEM Published by RAC January LEM 2010

20 display traffic, fuel consumption and emissions data in U.S. units. Appendix F lists the 52 RAC member railways surveyed. 1.1 Follow-up Audit In May 2009, an audit of the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2007 report was undertaken as required under Section 5.3 of the MOU. The purpose of the audit was to support transparency of the MOU and to demonstrate credibility of the data contained in the 2007 LEM Report. The audit was completed in two phases. The first phase consisted of an initial assessment of the data management framework used by the RAC to generate the data included in the 2007 LEM Report, while the second phase proceeded to identify higher risk areas for more detailed investigation directly with the major railways. The findings of the audit included one non-conformity (NC-01) and six opportunities for improvement (OFI-01 to OFI-06). More details on the audit can be found in the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2008 report. Corrective actions were taken and incorporated into the development of the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2008 report based on the recommendations of the audit. The RAC s Management Plan (found in Appendix G of the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2008 report) identified actions that had been undertaken and those that would be undertaken in implementing the recommendations from the audit. In August 2010, a follow-up audit was completed to address the findings of the audit. The objective of the follow-up audit was to review the corrective actions taken by RAC, Transport Canada and Environment Canada to address the findings of the audit. Evidence for the follow-up audit was collected from document reviews and interviews with RAC staff and consultants to confirm that the corrective actions had been taken to address the findings of the audit. The follow-up audit concluded that the corrective actions for all findings of the audit were effective and that the status of all corrective actions was closed. The follow-up audit also concluded that no further corrective actions were required at this time. 1.2 Summary of the Memorandum of Understanding and its Results The RAC, Transport Canada and Environment Canada entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that established the framework for reducing locomotive emissions from rail operations in Canada for the years The agreement was signed on May 15, 2007 and expired on December 31, The MOU identified commitments that the Canadian railway companies agreed to pursue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria air contaminant (CAC) emissions from the rail sector on a voluntary basis. The MOU along with the predecessor MOU are presented in Appendix A. For GHGs, the commitment under the MOU was for the major member railways to meet the 2010 GHG emission intensity targets for the various categories of railway operation. These targets, along with the actual GHG emissions intensities for the 2006 to 2010 period, are summarized in Table 12. As presented in Table 12, these targets were met with the exception of Commuter Rail, which did not meet the targets in This was mainly due to an increase in Commuter Rail operations not being met by a corresponding increase in passengers. For CACs, the commitment under the MOU was for the major member railways to acquire locomotives that meet US EPA standards, retire locomotives that were manufactured between 1973 and 1999, and upgrade locomotives to EPA emission standards (Tier 0 for medium horsepower locomotives, most current EPA standards for high horsepower locomotives). As summarized in Table 6, these requirements were met, with 375 Tier 2 locomotives acquired, 151 high-horsepower and 23 medium-horsepower locomotives upgraded, and 196 locomotives retired between 2006 and In addition to the GHG and CAC commitments, other emissions reductions initiatives were adopted by the member railways in order to decrease emissions from their locomotives as well as to improve overall fleet operations as described in section 7. For example, some railways have been installing anti-idling devices on locomotives which have helped further reduce fuel usage and emissions. As of the end of 2010, 1,380 locomotives, or 46.8 percent of the fleet, had antiidling devices installed. 2 LEM 2010

21 2 Traffic and Fuel Consumption Data 2.1 Freight Traffic Handled As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, traffic in 2010 handled by Canadian railways totalled billion gross tonnekilometres (GTK) compared with billion GTK in 2009 and billion GTK for 1990 (the reference year). This increase in 2010 reflects a recovery from the significant downturn in the economy that started in 2008 and continued through Similarly, revenue traffic in 2010 increased to billion revenue tonne-kilometres (RTK) from billion RTK in 2009, and is up from billion RTK in As a percentage, the traffic in GTK in 2010 was up 12.5 percent from the 2009 level, and up 43.5 percent over the 1990 level. RTK in 2010 increased by 13.4 percent compared to 2009 and increased by 39.6 percent over that for Since 1990, the average annual growth was, respectively, 2.2 percent for GTK and 2.0 percent for RTK. Table 1 Total Freight Traffic Tonne-kilometres (billion) GTK Class I Regional + Short Line Total RTK Class I Regional + Short Line Total Ratio of RTK/GTK Note: No data is available separating Class I and Short Line traffic for the years 1990 to Figure 1 Total Freight Traffic ( ) Tonne-kilometres (billion) percent increase since 1990 GTK percent increase since 1990 RTK In 2010, Class I GTK traffic increased by 12.9 percent to billion from billion in 2009 (Figure 1). Class I railways accounted for 95.0 percent of the total GTK hauled. Class I RTK traffic increased 13.5 percent in 2010 to billion from billion in Class I railways accounted for 93.9 percent of the total RTK. Of the total freight traffic, Regional and Short Lines were responsible for billion GTK (or 5.0 percent) and billion RTK (or 6.1 percent). In 2010, the Regional and Short Lines experienced an 11.9 percent increase in RTK compared to Freight Carloads by Commodity Grouping Freight carloads by 11 commodity groups range from intermodal at 23 percent to food products at 1 percent. Minerals, agriculture and fuels and chemicals were next highest with 19 percent, 13 percent and 12 percent respectively. Manufacturing and miscellaneous, metals and paper products ranked low with 3 percent, 4 percent and 5 percent respectively (Figure 2). 3 LEM 2010

22 Figure 2 Canadian Rail Originated Freight by Commodity Grouping % Agriculture 9% Coal 19% Minerals 6% Forest Products 4% Metals 5% Machinery & Auto 12% Fuels & Chemicals 5% Paper Products 1% Food Products 3% Manufactured & Miscellaneous 23% Intermodal Class I Intermodal Traffic Of the total freight carloads in 2010, intermodal dominated at 23 percent, as illustrated by Figure 2. The number of intermodal carloads handled by the Class I railways in Canada in 2010 rose to 847,832 from 816,132 in 2009, an increase of 3.8 percent. Intermodal tonnage rose 20.3 percent to million tonnes from million tonnes in Overall, since 1990 intermodal tonnage comprising both container-on-flat-car and trailer-on-flat-car traffic has risen percent equating to an average annual growth of 8.3 percent (Figure 3). Figure 3 Class I Intermodal Tonnage million percent increase since Class I intermodal RTK totalled billion in 2010 versus billion for 2009, an increase of 10.9 percent. Of the billion RTK transported by the Class I railways in 2010, intermodal accounted for 25.5 percent of their RTK. Intermodal service growth is an indication that the Canadian railways have been effective in partnering with shippers and the trucking industry to affect a modal shift in the transportation of goods. According to the RAC s 2010 Rail Trends report, Rail is the most efficient form of freight surface transportation as it can move one tonne of freight more than 180 kilometres on just one litre of fuel Rail Trends, Railway Association of Canada, p LEM 2010

23 2.2 Passenger Traffic Handled Intercity Passenger Services Intercity passenger traffic in 2010 in Canada totalled 4.48 million, as compared to 4.54 million in 2009, a drop of 1.4 percent. The carriers were VIA Rail Canada, CN / Algoma Central, Ontario Northland Railway and Tshiuetin Rail Transportation. Of the total, 92.6 percent (4.15 million) was transported by VIA Rail Canada. This was a 1.9 percent decrease from the 4.23 million transported in 2009, and an increase of 20.0 percent from 3.46 million in In terms of revenue passenger-kilometres (RPK), the figure for VIA Rail Canada for 2010 was 1,346 million, versus 1,379 million for 2009, a decrease of 2.4 percent. It is up from 1,235 million in 1990, a rise of 9.0 percent. The annual statistics since 1990 for VIA s traffic and RPK are displayed in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 VIA Rail Canada Passenger Traffic million percent increase since Figure 5 VIA Rail Canada Revenue Passenger-Kilometres million percent increase since The parameter to express intercity train efficiency is average passenger-kilometres (km) per train-kilometre (km). As shown in Figure 6, VIA s train efficiency in 2010 was 125 passenger-km per train-km, versus 129 in 2009, but above 1990 baseline of 123. As a percentage, train efficiency in 2010 was 1.6 percent above that in LEM 2010

24 Figure 6 VIA Rail Canada Train Efficiency Passenger-kilometres per train-kilometre percent increase since Commuter Rail Commuter rail passengers in 2010 totalled million. This is up from million in 2009, an increase of 3.9 percent. As shown in Figure 7, by 2010, commuter traffic has increased 67.2 percent over the 1997 baseline of million passengers when the RAC first started to collect commuter rail statistics. This is an average annual rate of 5.2 percent since The four commuter operations in Canada using diesel prime movers are Agence métropolitaine de transport (serving the Montreal-centred region), Capital Railway (Ottawa), Metrolinx (formerly GO Transit, serving the Toronto-centred region) and West Coast Express (serving the Vancouver-centred region). Figure 7 Commuter Rail Passengers million percent increase since Tourist and Excursion Services In 2010, the eight RAC member railways offering tourist and excursion services transported million passengers as contrasted to million in 2009, a decrease of 31.3 percent. The railways reporting these services were: Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions, Barrie-Collingwood Railway, CN / Algoma Central (also operates a scheduled passenger service), CP / Royal Canadian Pacific, Great Canadian Railtour Company, Ontario Northland Railway (also operates a scheduled passenger service), South Simcoe Railway and Tshiuetin Rail Transportation (which also operates a scheduled passenger service). 6 LEM 2010

25 2.3 Fuel Consumption As shown in Table 2, total rail sector fuel consumption increased to 2, million L in 2010 from million L in 2009 in comparison with 2, million L in As a percentage, fuel consumption in 2010 was 9.5 percent higher than in 2009 and 0.5 percent under the 1990 level. The higher fuel consumption in 2010 relative to 2009 reflects the economic recovery from the downturn in 2009, which offsets improvements to the locomotive fleet, such as more fuel efficient high-horsepower locomotives and re-matching in-train locomotive power with reduced traffic. Table 2 Canadian Rail Operations Fuel Consumption Litres (million) Freight Train 1, , , , , , , , , , , , Yard Switching Work Train Total Freight Operations 1, , , , , , , , , , , , Total Passenger Operations Total Rail Operations 2, , , , , , , , , , , , Freight Operations Fuel consumption in 2010 for all freight train, yard switching and work train operations was 1, million litres, a rise of 10.1 percent from the 1, million L consumed in 2009 but 0.8 percent lower than the 1990 level of 1, million L. The volume of fuel consumption since 1990 in overall freight operations is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 Freight Operations Fuel Consumption Litres (million) percent decrease since A measure of freight traffic fuel efficiency is the amount of fuel consumed per 1,000 RTK. As shown in Figure 9, this value in 2010 for overall rail freight traffic was 5.56 L per 1,000 RTK. Compared to 5.73 L per 1,000 RTK in 2009, it is a 2.9 percent improvement, but is 29.0 percent below the 1990 level of 7.83 L per 1,000 RTK. The improvement shows the ability of the Canadian freight railways to accommodate traffic growth while reducing fuel consumption per unit of work by carefully matching locomotive power with train weight. 7 LEM 2010

26 Figure 9 Freight Fuel Consumption per 1,000 RTK Litres percent decrease since This improved fuel efficiency by Canadian freight railways has been achieved primarily by replacing older locomotives with modern fuel-efficient U.S. EPA compliant locomotives. As well, operating practices that reduce fuel consumption are being focused upon. In Section 7 of this report, the fuel consumption reduction initiatives implemented or under examination in 2010 are discussed. Table 3 shows the freight operations fuel consumption by service type for 2010 compared to years 2003 through Of the total diesel fuel consumed in freight operations in 2010, Class I freight trains accounted for 92.2 percent, Regional and Short Lines 5.6 percent and Yard Switching and Work Train 2.2 percent. Of note from Table 2 and Table 3 data, due to operational changes resulting in reduced switching activities, the fuel consumed by Yard Switching and Work Train operations has been reducing steadily. Table 3 Freight Operations Fuel Consumption Litres (million) Freight Train Operations Class I 1, , , , , , , , Regional and Short Line Sub-total 1, , , , , , , , Yard Switching Work Train Sub-total Total 1, , , , , , , , LEM 2010

27 2.3.2 Passenger Services Overall rail passenger fuel consumption, that is, the sum of intercity, commuter and tourist and excursion train operations, was million L in 2010, down from million L in 2009, a drop of 1.0 percent. The breakdown and comparison with previous years are shown on Table 4. VIA s fuel consumption in 2010 decreased 9.1 percent from that of Commuter rail fuel consumption in 2010 increased 9.9 percent over the 2009 level. Table 4 Passenger Services Fuel Consumption Litres (million) VIA Rail Canada * Amtrak Commuter Tourist Train and Excursion Total * Corrected to following an internal VIA audit in 2007 of its 2006 operations. 9 LEM 2010

28 Locomotive Inventory The active fleet of diesel locomotives and DMUs in Canada in 2010 totalled 2,948. Locomotives assigned to line-haul freight train operations in 2010 totalled 2,309. Yard Switching and Work Train locomotives totalled 396 and Passenger Train motive power totalled 243 consisting of 234 locomotives and 9 DMUs. The detailed inventory is shown in Appendix B. Only locomotives powered by diesel engines have been included in the 2010 inventory. Excluded were steam locomotives, nonpowered slug units and EMUs as they do not contribute diesel combustion emissions. Table Canadian Locomotive Fleet Summary Type of Operation: Freight Train Line-haul and Road Switching Locomotives 2,309 Yard Switching and Work Train Locomotives 396 Total - Freight Operations 2,705 Passenger Train Locomotives 234 DMUs 9 Total - Passenger Operations 243 Total Canadian Locomotive Fleet 2,948 Total 3.1 Locomotives Compliant with United States Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Limits Under the MOU, RAC member railways are encouraged to conform to all applicable emission standards; including any updated U.S. EPA emission standards respecting new and in-service locomotives manufactured after The current EPA standards are listed in the Glossary of Terms section of this report. The CAC emissions intensity for the Canadian fleet is projected to decrease as the railways continue to introduce new locomotives, retrofit high-horsepower and medium-horsepower in-service locomotives to U.S. EPA Tier 0 when remanufactured, and retire non-compliant locomotives. Table 6 lists the fleet change actions taken by the railways in 2010 compared to similar actions from 2006 to LEM 2010

29 Table 6 Fleet Change Actions in Accordance with MOU CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight a 2008 Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service b c d Table 6 Continued Fleet Change Actions in Accordance with MOU CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Total 54 e a 2007 data was revised as per the audit conducted in Corresponding emissions values were recalculated for 2007 and included in the LEM report for b Corrected following the audit from 85 to 105. c Corrected following the audit from 92 to 6 due to findings that revealed units reported in 2007 as being upgraded to EPA Tier 0 were, in fact, already at EPA Tier 0 and recertified to EPA Tier 0 upon remanufacture. d Corrected following the audit from 10 to 7. e Includes 52 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives and 2 Tier 2 GenSet locomotives. 11 LEM 2010

30 Table 7 shows the progressive number of in-service locomotives meeting Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 compared to the total number of freight and passenger train locomotives. Table 7 Locomotives in Canadian Fleet Meeting U.S. EPA Emissions Limits In-service Locomotives a Total Line-haul Freight and Passenger Units 1,991 2,048 2,069 2,129 2,300 2,363 2,425 2,565 2,390 2,239 2,260 Number of Line-haul Freight and Passenger units meeting U.S. EPA Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Emissions Limits ,082 b 1,110 1,159 1,309 a Does not include DMUs, EMUs, RDCs, switchers, slugs, historic or steam locomotives. b Corrected following the audit from 1,065 to 1,082. Switcher locomotives are not shown in Table 7 because, beginning in 2010, under the MOU, the CAC commitment for switcher locomotives is to upgrade, upon remanufacturing, all medium-hp locomotives built after In 2010, 44.5 percent of the total fleet (1,312 locomotives) met the U.S. EPA Tier 0, Tier 0+, Tier 1, Tier 1+ and Tier 2 emissions standards. It should be noted that not all of the fleet is required to meet the U.S. EPA emission standards at this time (Table 8). The U.S. EPA emission standards are phased in over time and are applicable only to new locomotives (new in this case includes both when locomotives are originally manufactured and when remanufactured). As such, there is a portion of the existing fleet that is not presently required to meet the standards until the time of their next remanufacture. In addition, locomotives originally manufactured prior to 1973 and that have not been upgraded are not required to meet the standards. Furthermore, locomotives that are below 1,006 horsepower are not required to meet the standards as they are not captured by the definition of a locomotive in the U.S. regulations, Title 40 CFR Part Table 8 Locomotives Compliant with EPA Tier Levels Type of Operation EPA Tier 0 EPA Tier 0+ EPA Tier 1 EPA Tier 1+ EPA Tier 2 Total Freight Train Line-haul and Road Switching Locomotives ,256 Yard Switching and Work Train Locomotives 0 3 Total - Freight Operations ,259 Passenger Train Locomotives DMUs Total - Passenger Operations Total Locomotives Compliant with EPA Tier Levels ,312 In 2010, 69 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives were added to the Class I Freight Line-haul fleet, and 126 Class I Freight Line-haul locomotives were upgraded to Tier 0+ and Tier 1+. In 2010, 39 medium-horsepower locomotives manufactured between 1973 and 1999 were retired. The number of locomotives in 2010 equipped with a device to minimize unnecessary idling such as an Automatic Engine Stop-Start (AESS) system or Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) was 1,380, compared with 1,106 in This represents 46.8 percent of the total in-service fleet in 2010 versus 40.6 percent in LEM 2010

31 4 Diesel Fuel Properties Effective June 1, 2007, amendments to Environment Canada s Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations came into force limiting the sulphur content of railway diesel fuel to 500 ppm (or 0.05 percent). A further reduction will come into force June 1, 2012, limiting sulphur content in diesel fuel produced or imported for use in locomotives to 15 ppm (or percent) referred to as ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) fuel. However, the sulphur content in diesel fuel sold for use in locomotive engines will remain at 500 ppm. The RAC survey showed that in 2010 VIA Rail Canada and the commuter railways had already standardized on the 15 ppm ULSD fuel. The survey also showed that, for the Canadian freight railways, the weighted average sulphur content of their diesel fuel was 129 ppm. This is up from the average of 110 ppm in 2009, but down from 147 ppm in 2008, 500 ppm in 2007 and 1,275 ppm in As noted in Section 5, this resulted in a slight increase of the emission factor for the calculation of the amount of sulphur oxides (SO x, but expressed as SO 2 ) compared to LEM 2010

32 5 Locomotive Emissions 5.1 Emission Factors Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gases: The emission factors (EF) used to calculate the three GHGs emitted from diesel locomotive engines (CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O) are those used in Environment Canada s National Inventory Report : Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada submitted annually to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 3 The EFs for GHG can be found in the Conversion Factors Related to Railway Emissions section of this report. The CO 2 eq. EF used to calculate GHG emissions was kilograms/litre (kg/l). Emission Factors for Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions: The methodology for calculating CAC emissions for the annual LEM Report has evolved since reporting began in New testing information has improved the knowledge of the emissions attributable to both non-regulated (uncontrolled) and U.S. EPA regulated (Tier level) locomotives. As this new test information was introduced in each annual LEM Report, the reported emissions of certain CACs have shown significant variability. It was critical that the variability in the emission factors be fully explained and acceptable to ensure the accuracy of the data used to generate the annual reports and for the purposes of trend analysis. A study was commissioned in July 2010 to perform a comprehensive review and evaluation of existing methodologies for calculating the CAC emission factors reported in the annual LEM Report. The study found significant variability in the existing emission factors due to the calculation methodology used. Based on the findings and recommendations of the July 2010 emission factors review study, a second study was initiated to modify the U.S. EPA s emission factors to reflect Canadian duty cycles and fuels, and to apply these new factors to past years emission estimates published in the LEM Report. This emission factors study was conducted in early 2011 to revise the CAC EFs used in the annual LEM reports. In previous annual LEM reports, CAC EFs showed significant variability as they were derived from test measurements and operational duty cycles and there was variation in the calculation methodology used. Under the emission factors study, new CAC EFs were established based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed, the U.S. EPA emission factors and the Canadian duty cycles. New EFs were established for nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), particulate matter (PM), and sulphur oxides (SO x ) for each category of operation (i.e., freight, switch, and passenger operations). The EFs for the CACs (i.e., NO x, CO, HC, PM and SO x ) emitted from diesel locomotive engines have been calculated in grams per litre (g/l) of fuel consumed and are listed in Table 9. The EFs to calculate emissions of SO x (calculated as SO 2 ) are based on the sulphur content of the diesel fuel (for 2009 freight railways the sulphur content is 129 ppm). As noted in Section 4 of this report, the new regulations in 2007 have significantly reduced the sulphur content of railway diesel fuel in Canada. 3 National Inventory Report : Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Environment Canada, LEM 2010

33 Table 9 CAC Emission Factors for Diesel Locomotives grams / litre (g/l) Operation Year PM HC NO x CO SO 2 (g/l) (g/l) (g/l) (g/l) (g/l) Total Freight Total Yard Switching Total Passenger LEM 2010

34 5.2 Locomotive Duty Cycle The duty cycle is an element of the daily locomotive utilization profile. An explanation of what constitutes the Locomotive Utilization Profile and where the duty cycle fits in the profile is given in the Glossary of Terms. Duty cycles are determined by evaluating the time spent at each power notch level for a statistically significant sample of locomotives. The duty cycles for the different services as well as the year of update are displayed in Table 10. Table 10 Canadian Duty Cycle by Locomotive Service and Year of Update Percent of Engine Operating Time Idle N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 DB Update 2007 Class I Mainline Freight Class I Road Switch Regional Mainline Freight Yard Switching Intercity Passenger Commuter Update 2001 Freight Class I Freight Train Passenger Switching Update 1990 Freight Branch/Yard Emissions Generated Greenhouse Gases In 2010, GHG emissions produced by the railway sector as a whole (expressed as CO 2 eq. ) were 6, kt, as compared to 5, kt in 2009 and 6, kt in This is a decrease of 0.6 percent since 1990, with a corresponding rise in RTK traffic of 39.6 percent. Table 11 and Figure 10 display the GHG emissions produced annually since 1990 for the constituent railway operations. 16 LEM 2010

35 Table 11 Locomotive GHG Emissions in kilotonnes, unless otherwise noted Total Railway C0 2 eq. 6, , , , , , , , , , , , CO 2 5, , , , , , , , , , , , CH N 2 O Passenger - Intercity, Commuter, Tourist / Excursions C0 2 eq CO CH N 2 O Freight Train - Line Haul C0 2 eq. 5, , , , , , , , , , , , CO 2 4, , , , , , , , , , , , CH N 2 O Yard Switching and Work Train C0 2 eq CO CH N 2 O Total Freight Operations C0 2 eq. 5, , , , , , , , , , , , CO , , , , , , , , , , , CH N 2 O Emissions Intensity -Total Freight (kg per 1,000 RTK) C0 2 eq CO CH N 2 O Emissions Intensity - Class I Freight Line Haul (kg per 1,000 RTK) C0 2 eq. n/a n/a n/a n/a Emissions Intensity - Regional and Short Line Freight Train (kg per 1,000 RTK) C0 2 eq. n/a n/a n/a n/a Emissions Intensity - Intercity Passenger (kg per passenger-km) C0 2 eq. n/a n/a n/a n/a Emissions Intensity - Commuter Rail (kg per passenger) C0 2 eq. n/a n/a n/a n/a Note: n/a not available; prior to 2003, data was not segregated between Class I and Regional and Short Lines and therefore some emission intensity calculations could not be performed. 17 LEM 2010

36 Figure 10 Total Railway GHG Emissions kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent 7000 Total rail Total freight Figure 11 shows the GHG emissions intensities trend line for freight traffic which decreased in 2010 to kg per 1,000 RTK from kg in 2009 and kg in The yearly values are listed in Table 9. As a percentage, the 2010 GHG emissions intensity for total freight was 2.9 percent below the level for 2009 and 29.0 percent below that for Figure 11 Total Freight GHG Emissions Intensity kg of CO2 equivalent /1,000 RTK percent reduction since The MOU (attached as Appendix A) sets out targets to be achieved by 2010 for GHG emissions intensities by category of railway line-haul operation. In relation to the 2010 targets, Table 12 shows the GHG emissions intensity levels (expressed as CO 2 eq. per productivity unit) for, Class I freight, Regional and Short Lines, Intercity Passenger and Commuter Rail for the years 2006 to LEM 2010

37 Table 12 GHG Emissions Intensities by Category of Operation expressed as C0 2 eq. per productivity unit Railway Operation Units MOU 2010 target Class I Freight kg/1,000 RTK Regional and Short Lines kg/1,000 RTK Intercity Passenger kg/passenger-km Commuter Rail kg/passenger In 2010, as the economy recovered from the downturn experienced in late 2008 and 2009, the Class I freight railways were successfully able to re-match locomotive power with the increase in freight traffic, which allowed Class I freight to exceed the targets for GHG emissions intensity. In addition, the reduction in fuel consumed and GHG emissions produced was also attributed to various technological and operational improvements, particularly new high-horsepower locomotives and distributed power in long trains, as described in Section 7 of the report. Regional and Short Lines, while they also experienced an increase in freight traffic, were not as successful in rematching locomotive power, and as such, experienced an increase in the emissions intensity, although it is still below the MOU 2010 target. Intercity Passenger operations were able to more successfully match changing traffic level, and therefore the Intercity Passenger GHG emissions intensity decreased relative to 2009, however, Commuter Passenger rose relative to The increase in Commuter Rail GHG intensity levels can also be accredited to the introduction of longer trains and the addition of service routes. New higher-horsepower locomotives have been acquired to move the longer trains. Generally, when additional service routes are introduced it takes a period of time to increase ridership to fill new capacity. As new capacity is utilized, it is expected that GHG intensity levels will decrease. This combination of events negatively impacted the GHG intensity level. Another influence has been the suspension of the use of the proprietary FPC fuel extender additive (due to new locomotive warranty reasons) by GO Transit since The GHG emission intensity target for the commuter sector is proportional to the ratio of annual diesel fuel consumption to annual ridership. Therefore anything that increases fuel consumption or decreases passenger density adversely affects the ability to meet that target. The primary objective of commuter rail is to get commuters out of their cars and off the highways reducing both traffic congestion and automotive emissions. In order to appeal to commuters the service must offer convenient stations, frequent trains, short travel times and a comfortable trip. The first three changes to the service mentioned above all increase annual fuel consumption and may reduce passenger density. In addition the comfort factor dictates an optimal passenger density with a minimum number of standees. Thus the scope for improving GHG emissions intensity in the commuter sector is very limited. And in fact efforts to improve performance in its primary objective work against achievement of the GHG target. Assuming an optimal passenger density, fuel reduction initiatives that do not impair rail service performance are the only means to decrease GHG emissions intensity as currently identified for the commuter rail sector. The four categories of railway operation and the intensity trend lines of GHG emissions (expressed as CO 2 eq. ) are illustrated in Tables 11 and 12, and Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15. The 2010 target identified in the MOU is denoted as the horizontal dash line in the figures. 19 LEM 2010

38 Figure 12 Class 1 Freight GHG Emissions Intensity kg per 1,000 RTK 20 CO 2 equivalent Figure 13 Regional and Short Lines GHG Emissions Intensity kg per 1,000 RTK CO 2 equivalent Figure 14 Intercity Passenger GHG Emissions Intensity kg per passenger-km CO 2 equivalent LEM 2010

39 Figure 15 Commuter Rail GHG Emissions Intensity kg per passenger CO 2 equivalent Criteria Air Contaminants The 2010 CAC EFs were calculated based on the work done for the 2009 LEM report, 2010 CAC emission factors were recalculated in early Table 13 displays the CAC emissions produced annually by locomotives in operation in Canada, namely NO x, CO, HC, PM and SO x. The values are for both absolute amounts and intensities per productivity unit. The CAC of key concern for the railway sector is nitrogen oxides (NO x ). As shown in Table 13, the Canadian railwaygenerated NO x emissions in 2010 totalled kt. Freight operations accounted for 94.2 percent of railway-generated NO x emissions in Canada. 21 LEM 2010

40 Table 13 Locomotive CAC Emissions in kilotonnes, unless otherwise noted Operation Year PM HC NO x CO SO 2 Total Freight Total Yard Switching Total Passenger LEM 2010

41 Table 13 continued Locomotive CAC Emissions in kilotonnes, unless otherwise noted Operation Year PM HC NO x CO SO 2 Total Freight Operations (1) Total Railway Operations (2) Total Freight Operations Emissions Intensity (kg/1000 RTK) (1) Freight Operations = Freight + Yard Switching (2) Total Railway Operations = Freight + Yard Switching + Passenger 23 LEM 2010

42 The NO x emissions intensity (i.e., the quantity of NO x emitted per unit of productivity) was 0.28 kg per 1,000 RTK in This is down from 0.52 kg per 1,000 RTK in 1990, a 46.2 percent reduction. Figure 16 shows the historical trend in NO x emissions per 1,000 RTK for freight operations 1990 to Figure 16 Total Freight NO x Emissions Intensity kg of NOx per 1000 RTK percent reduction since LEM 2010

43 6 Fuel Consumption and Emissions in Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas 6.1 Data Derivation Three Tropospheric Ozone Management Areas (TOMA) have been designated as being of particular interest for railway emissions. These areas of concern relate to air quality for Lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia, the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and the Saint John area in New Brunswick. TOMA No. 1: The Lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia represent a 16,800-km2 area in the southwestern corner averaging 80 km in width and extending 200 km up the Fraser River Valley from the mouth of the river in the Strait of Georgia to Boothroyd, British Columbia. Its southern boundary is the Canada/United States international boundary and it includes the Greater Vancouver Regional District. TOMA No. 2: The Windsor-Quebec City Corridor in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec represents a 157,000-km2 area consisting of a strip of land 1,100 km long and averaging 140 km in width stretching from the City of Windsor (adjacent to Detroit in the United States) in Ontario to Quebec City. The Windsor-Quebec City Corridor TOMA is located along the north shore of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River in Ontario and straddles the St. Lawrence River from the Ontario Quebec border to Quebec City. It includes the urban centres of Windsor, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City. TOMA No.3: The Saint John TOMA is represented by the two counties in southern New Brunswick Saint John County and Kings County. The area covers 4, km2 with a total population 133,869 (2006), approximately 20 percent of the total population of the province of New Brunswick. Railway operations that are included in the TOMA regions are shown in Appendix C. The fuel consumption in each of the TOMA regions is derived from the total traffic in the areas or as provided by the railways. Table 14 shows the fuel consumption and the GHG emissions in the TOMA regions as a percentage of the total fuel consumption for all rail operations in Canada. Table 15 shows NO x emissions in the TOMAs as a percentage of the total NO x emissions for all rail operations. 25 LEM 2010

44 Table 14 TOMA Percentages of Total Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions Lower Fraser Valley, B.C. Windsor-Quebec City Corridor Saint John, N.B Table 15 TOMA Percentages of Total NO x Emissions Lower Fraser Valley, B.C. Windsor-Quebec City Corridor Saint John, N.B *2009 and 2010 values are the only values that were updated using the revised CAC EFs. The emissions of GHGs for the three TOMA regions (Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor, and Saint John, New Brunswick) were calculated using the respective GHG emissions factors as established in Section 5.1 and the fuel consumption in each of the TOMA regions. The CAC emission factors and emissions for the three TOMA regions (Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor, and Saint John, New Brunswick) were calculated based on the total fuel usage for each region. The emission factors for each CAC presented for these three regions is a weighted average of the calculated Freight, Switch, and Passenger emission factors, as calculated in Section 5.1, and based on the reported Passenger and Freight fuel usage. The calculation of these emission factors has been changed from previous LEM reports with the inclusion of the emission factors for Switch locomotives, instead of just the Freight and Passenger emission factors. Since the Freight fuel usage includes both the Freight Train fuel usage and the Switching fuel usage, the percentage of fuel allocated for these TOMA regions to Switching was based on the percentage of fuel used Canada-wide. Once these weighted CAC emission factors were derived, the emissions for each CAC were calculated by multiplying the emission factors by the fuel usage for each TOMA region. The results are summarized in Tables 16, 17, and Seasonal Data The emissions in the TOMA have been split according to two seasonal periods: Winter (seven months) January to April and October to December, inclusively; and Summer (five months) May to September, inclusively. The division of traffic in the TOMA in the seasonal periods was then taken as equivalent to that on the whole system for each railway. The fuel consumption in each of the TOMA was divided by the proportion derived for the traffic on each railway. The emissions in the seasonal periods were then calculated as data derivation (see Section 6.1). These results are also displayed in Tables 16 to LEM 2010

45 Table 16 TOMA No. 1 Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, 2010 Total TOMA REGION NO. 1 Lower Fraser Valley, B.C. Seasonal Split Winter 58% Summer 42% Traffic million GTK CN 8,890 5,156 3,734 CP 10,043 5,825 4,218 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Southern Railway of BC Total Freight Traffic 20,187 11,708 8,478 Fuel Consumption million Litres Freight Operations Freight Fuel Rate: 3.04 Litres/1,000 GTK Total Freight Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Passenger Operations Via Rail Canada Great Canadian Railtour Company West Coast Express Total Passenger Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Total Rail Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Emission (kilotonnes/year) Emission Factors (g/l) (1) NO x : CO: PM: HC: SO 2 : CO 2 : CH 4 : N 2 O: C0 2 eq. : (1) The emission factor used in the emissions calculations is a weighted average of the overall Freight, Switching and Passenger emissions factor based on the quantity of Freight and Passenger fuel used. Since the Freight operations fuel consumption for the TOMA zone includes Freight and Switching operations, the overall fuel usage for Freight and Switching was used to determine the percent allocation of fuel for each service in the determination of the weighted average. 27 LEM 2010

46 Table 17 TOMA No. 2 Windsor Quebec City Corridor Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, 2010 Total TOMA REGION NO. 2 Windsor-Quebec City Corridor Seasonal Split Winter 58% Summer 42% Traffic million GTK CN 51,598 29,927 21,671 CP 23,379 13,560 9,819 CSX Essex Terminal Railway Goderich-Exeter Railway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Norfolk Southern Ottawa Valley - RaiLink (2) Quebec Gatineau 1, St. Lawrence & Atlantic Total Freight Traffic 77,590 45,002 32,588 Fuel Consumption million Litres Freight Operations Freight Fuel Rate: 3.04 Litres/1,000 GTK Total Freight Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Passenger Operations Via Rail Canada Commuter Rail Total Passenger Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Total Rail Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Emission (kilotonnes/year) Emission Factors (g/l) (1) NO x : CO: PM: HC: SO 2 : CO 2 : CH 4 : N 2 O: C0 2 eq. : (1) The emission factor used in the emissions calculations is a weighted average of the overall Freight, Switching and Passenger emissions factor based on the quantity of Freight and Passenger fuel used. Since the Freight operations fuel consumption for the TOMA zone includes Freight and Switching operations, the overall fuel usage for Freight and Switching was used to determine the percent allocation of fuel for each service in the determination of the weighted average. (2) Ottawa Valley - Raillink data are included in CP data 28 LEM 2010

47 Table 18 TOMA No.3 Saint John Area, New Brunswick Traffic, Fuel and Emissions Data, 2010 Total TOMA REGION NO. 3 Saint John, NB Seasonal Split Winter 58% Summer 42% Traffic million GTK Freight Operations CN New Brunswick Southern Railway Total Freight Traffic 1, Fuel Consumption million Litres Freight Operations Freight Fuel Rate: 3.04 Litres/1,000 GTK Total Freight Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Total Passenger Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Total Rail Fuel Consumption (10 6 L) Emission (kilotonnes/year) Emission Factors (g/l) (1) NO x : CO: PM: HC: SO 2 : CO 2 : CH 4 : N 2 O: C0 2 eq. : (1) The emission factor used in the emissions calculations is a weighted average of the overall Freight, Switching and Passenger emissions factor based on the quantity of Freight and Passenger fuel used. Since the Freight operations fuel consumption for the TOMA zone includes Freight and Switching operations, the overall fuel usage for Freight and Switching was used to determine the percent allocation of fuel for each service in the determination of the weighted average. 29 LEM 2010

48 7 Emissions Reductions Initiatives The railways deployed new operational tactics and technology aimed at reducing locomotive diesel engine exhaust emissions, both overall and in terms of intensity per unit of work performed. Reductions can be achieved not only through improved diesel engine technology, but also by introducing a variety of new rolling stock equipment designs, train handling improvements and infrastructure improvements that increase operational fluidity resulting in reduced fuel consumption and emissions. Section 7.1 describes the awareness generation actions of the RAC amongst its members, while subsequent sections list initiatives by the railways or equipment supply companies regarding new technology, operating procedures, infrastructure enhancements and governmental funding support for actions to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. 7.1 Railway Association of Canada Awareness Generation Actions The RAC provides a venue for the railway companies to exchange ideas and best operating practices for reducing emissions associated with railway activities. The RAC represents virtually all of the railways operating in Canada. Its 52 members include Class I freight, Regional and Short Lines, Intercity Passenger, Commuter Rail and Tourist and Excursion railways. The RAC is in frequent communication with its members, through newsletters, distribution, working committees, RAC member events, the RAC Annual General Meeting and through the RAC website. For example, RAC coordinates the Canadian railway officer participation in annual meetings of fuel conservation teams wherein North American Class I railways share information on best practice solutions, technologies and related information. As such, the RAC distributes relevant information within its membership regarding technologies and operating practices that reduce the emissions of GHGs on an activity basis. Furthermore, the RAC has an annual Environmental Award Program for both passenger and freight railways operating in Canada. The objective of the program is to share and assess initiatives undertaken by railways to improve their environmental performance. To date, this program has proven very useful in sharing various projects and initiatives within the RAC membership by recognizing, on a yearly basis, the efforts that individual railways have made in developing new environmental programs and initiatives. In 2010, recipients of the RAC Environmental Awards were CN and Metrolinx (GO Transit). In 2008, the RAC-developed an online Rail Freight GHG Calculator, a web-based user-friendly tool for calculating the GHG emissions associated with specific shipments. 4 This tool allows shippers and others to better understand, on a shipment by-shipment basis, the difference in emissions levels by choosing the rail as compared to truck mode. As new data becomes available, the RAC updates the input factors employed to ensure it always reflects the particulars of the current transportation situation. The Calculator is available at: environment/calculator. 7.2 Equipment-related Initiatives Locomotive Fleet Renewal Canadian freight and commuter railways are progressively renewing their fleets by acquiring new locomotives that are compliant with U.S. EPA emissions standards, the current one being the Tier 2 standard that came into force in As of the end of 2010, 460 locomotives in the Canadian fleet meet this standard. Of the total, 397 are assigned to freight line-haul operations, 2 to switching and 61 are in Commuter Rail services. Their diesel engines emit 62 percent less NO x than those in locomotives without emission control technologies. As these new locomotives also have higher-power and higher-adhesion capabilities, fewer locomotives are needed to pull the same train weight. This results in a more optimum matching of motive power to train operations (i.e., more time at high notch power levels, resulting in economies in fuel consumption and reduction in emissions intensities). 5 Generator Set (GenSet) locomotives are being considered for new yard and road switching locomotives. GenSet locomotives use two or three smaller diesel engines and generators (instead of one large diesel engine and generator), which turn on and off electronically as needed. The result is lower fuel consumption and emissions. 4 RAC Launches New Environmental Tool for Shippers, Press Release issued by the Railway Association of Canada, Ottawa, May 6, Freight Transportation Emissions Reductions, presentation by Normand Pellerin, CN, to Rail-Government Interface Conference 2010, Ottawa, Ontario, May 28, LEM 2010

49 Compared to a conventional Tier 0 switcher locomotive, the GenSets have demonstrated a three-fold reduction in HC, CO and PM and less than half the NO x emissions. In 2009, CP commenced in-service evaluation of two GenSet switchers produced by National Railway Equipment with support from the Transport Canada ecofreight program. 6 A purchase was subsequently confirmed. After a period of testing, fuel savings were approximately 35% over traditional switching locomotives. Low idling New engine technologies Throttle control Automatic start / stop devices Dynamic brakes Rail / flange lubrication Distributed Power Photo: CN Tier 0+, Tier 1+ and Tier 2+ Engine Retrofits The railways are also exploring options of retrofitting existing locomotive bodies with new tier-compliant diesel engines. In 2008, new Tier level locomotives were introduced. The existing Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards were revised to more stringent standards. These revised standards are referred to as Tier 0+, Tier 1+ and Tier 2+. These more stringent standards result in a lowering of emissions of CACs of up to 50% compared to the existing standards. In addition, new more stringent standards, referred to as Tier 3 and Tier 4, were added. These revised and new standards are to be phased-in starting in In 2010, CP retrofitted 6 Tier 0 and 50 Tier 1 GE AC-4400 locomotives to the new Tier 0+ and Tier 1+ standards, respectively. CN retrofitted 9 tier 0 SD60s, 43 SD75s, and 15 tier 0 SD70s to the tier 0+ standard. CP is examining replacing a road switcher s existing EMD 16-cylinder 16V-567 or 16V-645 series engine with a new Tier 2 compliant 2,000 hp turbocharged 8-cylinder 8V-710 series engine having electronic fuel injection. 7 Fuel consumption reductions up to 25 percent are claimed. The locomotive control system has been upgraded with a microprocessor-based unit that not only controls wheel slippage to maximize tractive effort but also operates all engine diagnostics. The locomotive control system s flexible software program also allows the engine to be fine-tuned for future emissions compliance Fleet Upgrading and Maintenance Upon remanufacture, the Class I freight railways are upgrading to EPA Tier 0 limits in-service high-horsepower locomotives manufactured prior to 2000, a commitment under the MOU. Selected medium-horsepower locomotives have been upgraded to Tier 0. The Canadian railways are introducing maintenance programs aimed at realizing fuel 6 ecofreight Delivers ecofriendly Locomotives, Press Release issued by Canadian Pacific Railway Media Relations, Calgary, Alberta, May 6, New Electro-Motive 710 ECO TM Repower Locomotive Enters Service, Press Release issued by Electro-Motive Diesel Inc., LaGrange, Illinois, June 4, LEM 2010

50 Photo: CP conservation gains and emissions reduction, such as a scheduled three-year fuel injector change-out on certain locomotives. Such measures ensure emissions intensities, particularly for NO x, and PM, will continue to be reduced Low Idle The railways are extending the application of the Low Idle feature to more locomotives. This feature allows the diesel engine to idle at a reduced speed with a consequently reduced load from cooling fans and other parasitic equipment. The reduction in fuel consumption can be as much as 10 L/hr and, on the accepted duty cycles, can be up to 1.0 percent of the fleet annual fuel consumption. The use of the low idle feature is limited in some cases, particularly in cold weather, by the need to supply sufficient power for battery charging and crew comfort equipment. All new Tier 2 locomotives are equipped with the low idle function as a standard feature Engine Anti-Idling Systems Railways are installing devices on locomotives for both line-haul and yard switching services, which will automatically shut down and restart the diesel engine to idle for a time to prevent radiator coolant freezing and to charge the batteries. These devices include auxiliary power units (APUs) as well as the automatic engine stop/start (AESS) systems that new locomotives come equipped with. The latter extends the time during the warmer seasons when the locomotive engine can be shut down. Monitoring of line-haul locomotives equipped with a properly operating AESS system has shown annual average savings per locomotive of 30,000 L. 8 Analyses of fleet operations indicate that the capital and installation costs of an auxiliary power unit to maintain critical systems for a shutdown locomotive can be recouped within 2.2 years. 9 8 Reduction of Impacts from Locomotive Idling, presentation by Linda Gaines, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, to Society of Automotive Engineers International Truck and Bus Meeting, Fort Worth, Texas, November Locomotive Emission and Engine Idle Reduction Technology Demonstration Project, report CSXT A29312 authored by J.R.Archer (TECHSVCTRAIN) for CSX Transportation for Maryland Energy Administration and U.S. Department of Energy, March LEM 2010

51 In 2010, CP initiated a pilot project to test a new system of extending the period of shutdown during colder weather. The project, supported by the Ministère des Transports du Québec and the regional Bavarian government in Germany, used a system that was designed by Angewandte System Technik (AST) from Germany and is called the Low Temperature Protection (LTP) system. The system is equipped with full automatic electronic engine control functions as well as status monitoring equipment. Similar to traditional stop-start devices the system monitors the coolant water temperature, ambient temperature, locomotive battery voltage, air pressure and other factors. The difference in this case is the LTP system acts to maintain the locomotive coolant water at a suitable temperature through the use of its 50 kw burner system. As a result, this allows for longer periods of shutdown, until one of the other criteria such as battery voltage do not meet their minimum levels. The LTP system uses only 0-5 litres per hour which is significantly less than the regular locomotive in idle position. Early results from the project demonstrated the ability of the system to allow for engine shutdown in sub-zero temperatures which resulted in fuel consumption reductions in the winter months Low and Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel Sulphur in diesel fuel influences emissions both directly in the amount of SOx produced and indirectly by enabling exhaust emissions reduction technologies, such as diesel particulate filters and oxidation catalysts, to function and not become contaminated. In alignment with standards introduced in the U.S., the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations required as of June 2007 that the production, importation and sale of diesel fuel for use in locomotives be limited to a sulphur content maximum of 500 ppm (0.05 percent), referred to as low sulphur diesel fuel. As of June 1, 2012, ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel (ULSD) having a sulphur content limited to 15 ppm ( percent) will be the only diesel fuel produced in or imported in Canada for use in railways. In view of the environmental benefits of ULSD, VIA Rail Canada and the commuter passenger railways standardized on its use. However, the sulphur content in diesel fuel sold for use in locomotive engines will remain at 500 ppm Biodiesel Fuel10 11 Biodiesel is a renewable fuel that can yield reduced GHG emissions overall. It can be blended with petro-diesel to facilitate its handling, particularly to raise its cloud point at low temperatures. As part of the Government of Canada s Renewable Fuels Strategy, the Renewable Fuels Regulations require producers and importers of diesel fuel and heating oil to have an annual average of 2 percent renewable fuel content in the fuel they produce and import. This requirement will come into force on July 1, More information is available at In order to test the feasibility of biodiesel in Canadian winter conditions CP completed a five-month winter operational trial, with support from the National Renewable Diesel Demonstration Initiative. From November 2009 to March 2010, four GE AC4400CW diesel-electric locomotives were held in captive service on CP s mainline between Calgary and Edmonton. The primary focus of the study was to assess the feasibility of using up to a maximum of five percent (B5) biodiesel blend in freight locomotives operating in cold weather service (-40 degrees Celsius). Ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) was splash blended with soy-based biodiesel to produce the resulting B5 biodiesel. Mechanical assessments were performed prior to and after the test period to determine impacts on locomotive engine performance and components. Demonstration findings reported no service operations, and no adverse impact to locomotive engine performance or components. Fuel efficiency was not assessed. While the test successfully demonstrated the viability of B5 biodiesel use in cold weather freight rail service, there are renewable fuel supply chain issues to address. These issues were identified in the test and include the availability of biodiesel and distribution infrastructure, the limited number of vendors, quality control, and the availability of appropriate blends. Following the completion of the demonstration project, GE approved the use of up to B5 biodiesel in their family of locomotives powered by FDL and Evolution engines. This approval requires that the biodiesel blend be compliant with ASTM 10 Canadian Pacific announces industry-leading biodiesel testing underway, Press Release issued by Canadian Pacific Railway Media Affairs, Calgary, Alberta, November 27, Canadian Pacific Biodiesel Demonstration: Cold Weather Test, presentation by Grete Bridgewater Canadian Pacific, Rail Government Interface 2010 conference, Ottawa, Ontario, May 28, LEM 2010

52 D975-09a and the B100 blend stock be compliant with ASTM D More information along with the final report can be found at: The short line, Southern Railway of British Columbia also evaluated biodiesel blends in its operation. In 2007, an operational trial was conducted to gain experience for handling biodiesel and have been using it since. Long siding Lighter freight cars Rail lubrication Smart switch heaters Welded / harder rail Photo: CN Freight Car Technology Improvements The maximum allowable axle load has been increased from 119,545 to 130,000 kg (263,000 to 286,000 lb) on many lines in Canada. The increased gross-to-tare ratio of freight cars is permitting the railways to reduce the number of railcars without losing capacity. Similarly, to improve gross-to-tare weight ratios, the railways have: invested in lighter-weight aluminum railcars; freight car rolling friction have been reduced through the use of steerable-axle trucks; and there is universal use of roller bearings on running gear. Double-stack container cars permit a higher container cargo volume for a specific train length, thus lowering the fuel consumption and emissions per RTK of intermodal trains. However, on intermodal trains, attention is required to avoid unfilled slots (flat cars without containers). Analyses show that improving slot utilization from 90 to 100 percent reduces the aerodynamic resistance coefficient saving up to 2.4 L/km of fuel Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes use an electronic signal from the locomotive to direct compressed air from each railcar s reservoir to the brake cylinder or to release air from the brake cylinder to de-activate the brakes. In late 2008, CP took delivery of two coal sets equipped with ECP brakes. The two sets, comprising 264 cars, utilize an electric signal, rather than train brake pipe (air), to provide brake commands to the train brakes. Both trains continue to perform well and have made in excess of 300 trips to date. A thorough analysis of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes benefits was recently initiated and revealed significantly reduced fuel consumption through the use of graduated brake release, producing improvements in wheel and brake shoe life, as well as a significant reduction in lateral forces on track infrastructure due to improved train handling. 12 Options for Improving the Energy Efficiency of Intermodal Freight Trains, Paper No by Y.C. Lai and C.P.L. Barkan, University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign, published in the Journal of the Transportation Research Board, LEM 2010

53 ECP brake systems are also being evaluated in single-product unit trains, such as those operated by the Quebec North Shore and Labrador railway Longer Trains Trains up to 2.5 kilometres in length are now operating as a result of lengthened passing tracks and sidings. Longer trains permit improved utilization of the locomotive power. In its long trains, CN is deploying Distributed Braking Cars (DBC) at the end of trains to maintain airbrake pipe pressure at a certain operational level. 13 The DBC were designed to assist in the operation of long trains in cold weather conditions, particularly between Winnipeg and Edmonton. The concept is based on the older-design air repeater car, which utilized an air compressor installed in a box car that was placed in the middle of the train. DBC obviate the need for additional locomotives used primarily in long trains to supply additional air for the braking system avoiding the concomitant fuel consumption and emissions. DBC are monitored by a suite of proprietary Wi-Tronix software that link CN managers via the Internet to provide data on: GPS tracking, fuel levels, refuel alerts, engine monitoring (running state, overload, oil temperature, and coolant temperature), main reservoir pressure, battery voltage monitoring and the ability to receive ed alerts Distributed Power Distributing a remote-controlled locomotive within or at the end of a freight train permits better handling of long trains, especially in undulating terrain, by providing more optimum locomotive power assignment and better air distribution for braking. As well, distributing a locomotive within the train helps remove energy-dissipating slack action, permits shorter braking distances and reduces wheel/rail lateral forces in curves resulting in reduced fuel consumption Intercity Passenger Train Equipment Initiatives Emissions reduction initiatives underway or planned for VIA Rail Canada s intercity operations include: installing locomotive low-idle settings; upgrading the engines of FP40 units to make them more fuel efficient; installing separate head-end power (HEP) low-emissions diesel generators in FP40s; and promoting the use of dynamic braking. In addition, layover heating and AESS systems are under test and evaluation on a P42 locomotive. The use of 15 ppm ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) fuel has been standardized for VIA s operations. Not only does ULSD fuel reduce SO x emissions but also sulphur-based PM formed during diesel combustion. Initiatives to reduce coach energy requirements (which result in a lower power draw from the HEP generating lower emissions) include installation of light-emitting diode (LED) and low-mercury fluorescent tube lighting, lowering air conditioning demand by raising the set point and weight reduction by removal of redundant electrical equipment Passenger Train Layover Systems Commuter and intercity passenger railways shut down locomotives during layover, such as overnight and during off-peak periods. To maintain suitable passenger comfort levels when the locomotive is shut down, wayside electrical power for coach heating or cooling is drawn from the local utility. As well, locomotive layover heating systems have been installed that keep the engine coolant and crankcase oil warm and the batteries charged. This allows the engines to be shut down anytime during the year, resulting in significant fuel savings and reductions of emissions and noise. 13 Wi-Tronix WiPUs to be Installed on CN Distributed Braking Cars, Press Release, Wi-Tronics LLC, Bolingbrook, Illinois, October 18, LEM 2010

54 Commuter Rail Equipment Modifications The Metrolinx (GO Transit) coach fleet has been retrofitted with reflective windows, which reduce solar gain significantly, thus reducing air conditioning requirements in summer. To further reduce energy loss, new and refurbished coaches are being fitted with upgraded insulation and LED lighting (to replace incandescent lighting). Metrolinx has also retrofitted the locomotives with an energy management switch, which reduces the heating and cooling requirements of the coaches when the train is not in revenue service but not on wayside power and, therefore, does not require full heating or cooling. Ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel is now a standard on all commuter railways. In 2010, West Coast Express worked with Environment Canada to test and evaluate diesel oxidation catalyst exhaust after-treatment devices, for which use of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel is necessary. The Emissions Research and Measurement Section of Environment Canada undertook the study to quantify the exhaust emissions of NO x, CO, fine particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller (PM2.5), total hydrocarbons (THC), CO 2, methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) from a West Coast Express commuter locomotive. Exhaust emissions were quantified with and without the use of a diesel oxidation catalyst. The tests were conducted from June 16th to June 23rd, 2010 and showed that PM2.5, THC and CO emission rates significantly decreased by 62.5%, 68%, and 65%, respectively, on the EPA Line-Haul and RAC 2008 Commuter Rail cycles, with the use of the diesel oxidation catalyst. 7.3 Operations-related Initiatives Photo: CN Crew training focused on fuel conservation Locomotive shutdowns Streamlined car handling practices to switch only the number of cars needed Train pacing, coasting and brake strategies Notch limiting Crew Training and Incentives The railways have on-going training programs that focus on awareness of the importance of fuel conservation practices. The railways also aim to overcome variations in the manner engineers operate and handle a train, which can impact significantly on fuel consumption and emissions generated. The Class I railways conduct regular training reviews and have introduced incentives to reduce driver variance. 36 LEM 2010

55 7.3.2 Manual Shut-down of Locomotive Engines For those locomotives that are not equipped with AESS or APU systems, the Class I railways have policies in place for trains that are not moving. These policies state that locomotive engines should be shut down when ambient temperatures and other operational conditions permit. The railways concentrate on matching locomotive horsepower with train resistance. 14 In this regard, when there is excess power available in locomotives, some are shut down or isolated. Railways are conducting audits to ensure compliance with shutdown policies and system procedures Consolidation of Cars with Similar Destination into Blocks This operational tactic reduces delays at intermediate locations and increases fluidity at rail yards and terminals. The reduction of delays reduces fuel consumption and emissions Train Pacing and Braking Strategies Pacing is the use of better track/train management by the network management personnel to improve operational efficiency. Where operations permit, coasting to a stop rather than using heavy braking requiring engine power, is being practiced more and more. Effectively all mainline locomotives are now fitted with dynamic brake equipment. This allows the use of the dynamic brake to control train speed variations rather than the use of the air brake system. As the latter does not allow the locomotive engineer to reduce the severity of a brake application already in force, it is frequently necessary to apply power at the same time as the brakes to maintain speed over variable track grades. This causes a significant increase in fuel consumption. When the dynamic brake is used to control speed, the severity of the application can be varied at will and the fuel consumption is reduced. The abovementioned practices are audited to ensure conformance to pacing and use of dynamic braking objectives. Following operational testing, which indicated fuel savings ranging from 6 percent to more than 10 percent depending on territory, CP decided to proceed with acquiring the new GE Fuel Trip Optimizer system. Beginning in late 2009 and continuing into 2010, CP installed the new GE Fuel Trip Optimizer on their 200 GE Evolution series locomotives, which is the product s first commercial deployment. The Fuel Trip Optimizer is an advanced energy management system, which optimizes fuel consumption based on a specific train s configuration and the route travelled. The system evaluates train length, weight, grade, track condition, weather and locomotive performance to calculate the most efficient way of running the train while maintaining smooth train handling. Operation of the system is similar to the autopilot feature in today s jetliners. Train crews retain responsibility for safe train operation and can engage or disengage the system at any time. In 2009, CN continued the implementation of a program to match locomotive HP to the trailing tons of the train (HPT or Horsepower per Ton). This is accomplished by throttle notch limiting instructions, which are issued to each train upon dispatch. This means that locomotives are not run in their top throttle power notch setting when maximum power is not required. An on-board locomotive wireless communication system (Wi-Tronix) connected to a special CN designed Real-Time Business Information system is used to monitor compliance with the program as each train proceeds. Control of excess HPT is a significant factor in reducing freight train fuel consumption. Year 2010 fuel consumption per RTK was 2.7 percent less than Commuter Train Coach Door Management Initiatives are being implemented in GO Transit s commuter rail operations that include eliminating the practice of opening all doors at long dwell-time station stops. This initiative decreases warm coach air being evacuated and replaced by colder ambient air (or warmer ambient air in summer), which wastes energy and over-taxes the HEP generator. GO Transit has also interlocked the fresh air input fan with the door open interlock to prevent fresh air being forced into the coach while the doors are open so as to limit the warmed, or cooled, air being forced out while the doors are open. 14 Locomotive Shutdown A Fuel Conservation Project, CSX Corporation information presentation LEM 2010

56 7.4 Infrastructure-related Initiatives Improved Track Structures Improved track structures facilitate train handling and reduce the dynamics that impede smooth train operation. The railways are investing in improvements aimed at reducing friction on a train caused by such track features as sharp curves, grades, uneven roadbeds, track flexing and jointed rail. The railways are also assessing laser glazing of the Railhead. 15 Testing of laser glazing by the Transportation Test Center Inc. on its Facility for Accelerated Service Testing at Pueblo, Colorado using an Instrumented Wheel Set of the Wheel, Bearing and Brake Facility of the National Research Council of Canada has shown improved fuel consumption by reducing wheel flange/rail friction of up to 13 percent on curved track and 3 percent on tangent track. To eliminate the structural fuel penalty of single-line trackage, investment in double tracking and siding extensions of heavily trafficked sections is underway. Double tracking permits operational efficiencies (such as eliminating meets and avoiding idling and day-to-day variability) that yield reductions in fuel consumption and emissions Rail Lubrication In many tests efficient rail gauge-face lubrication has been shown to reduce fuel consumption. Railways have system wide, trackside flange lubricators and locomotive-mounted wheel flange lubricators. As well, the railways have an on-going program to ensure that the track mounted rail lubricators are maintained in good operating condition. 15 Laser Glazing of Rails, WBB/IWS Tests at NRCC, report to Argonne National Laboratories by S. Aldajah, et al of Wheel, Bearing and Brake Facility (WBB) of National Research of Canada, January LEM 2010

57 7.4.3 Top-of-Rail Friction Control Top-of-rail friction control is being deployed in selected Canadian railway regions. The reduction of wheel-rail drag friction of freight cars has been shown to lower the fuel consumption and emissions. Top-of-rail friction control involves applying a proprietary liquid having a specific coefficient of friction of 0.30 to 0.35 to the railhead (top of the steel rail). The liquid dispersed from both the wayside applicators as well as the trailing unit of a locomotive is sufficient enough to lubricate the wheel-rail interface of all the trailing railcars. Measurements on a railway line having curve densities of 34, 42 and 51 percent over its length exhibited fuel consumption savings (and emissions reductions) of 2.3, 2.5 and 10.5 percent respectively Co-production Co-production allows railways to share its tracks with another to deliver freight, or move a train more expeditiously and efficiently than by sticking to its own line. An example is the agreement between Canada s two Class I railways on directional running in the Fraser Canyon region of B.C. Directional running allows the railways to eliminate meets and concomitant idling as well as to haul heavily loaded trains over lighter grade (less steep) track sections of one railway and light loads (empty cars) on heavier grade sections on the other. This agreement should lower fuel consumption, hence emissions, on both railways. Co-production is also being implemented on other sites in Canada Monitoring and Evaluation of Technological Developments Government Programs The railways have taken advantage of Transport Canada s Freight Technology Demonstration Fund and Freight Technology Incentives Program, which cost-share the deployment and evaluation of various fuel conservation and emissions reduction schemes. Examples are top-of-rail lubrication, electronic fuel injection, automatic stop/ start systems, auxiliary power units for idling avoidance, upgraded governor controls and switchers having hybrid battery/diesel motive power. This program concluded in March Information and case studies are available at: Monitoring Emissions Reduction Technologies under Development The railways are monitoring technologies and procedures under development worldwide aimed at reducing emissions from diesel locomotives. Many of those technologies aim to enable the OEMs to supply locomotives that meet the next levels of emissions standards that the U.S. EPA will bring into force. For example, being followed with interest is the testing under the California Emissions Program to evaluate oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filter technologies retrofitted onto conventional diesel line-haul and switching locomotives. 18 In-service testing of a Union Pacific (UP) GM/EMD SD60M locomotive equipped with a diesel exhaust oxidation catalyst exhibited reductions in PM of 60 percent at power notches N1 to N4 and, over the line-haul and switch cycles respectively, PM reductions of 52 and 50 percent, CO reductions of 82 and 81 percent and HC reductions of 38 and 34 percent, but with some increase in NO x and smoke emissions. 19 Similarly, comparative in-service testing of a UP and a Burlington Northern Santa-Fe (BNSF) GM/EMD M15DC switcher each fitted with diesel particulate 16 Top-of-Rail Friction Control with Locomotive Delivery on BC Rail: Reduction in Fuel and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presented by team of BC Rail, Kelsan Technologies Corp. and National Research Council Canada to the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association Conference and Expo, Nashville, Tennessee, September CN, CP Push Co-production, article in Interchange Official Publication of the Railway Association of Canada, Ottawa, Spring 2006, pages Exhaust Aftertreatment Technologies Definitions and Maintenance, report by Ted E. Stewart, Advanced Global Engineering, published in Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association (LMOA), Chicago, Illinois, September 21 24, Exhaust Emissions from a 2,850 kw EMD SD60M Locomotive Equipped with a Diesel Oxidation Catalyst, Paper No. JRCICE presented at the ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference and Internal Combustion Engine Technical Conference, Pueblo, Colorado, March LEM 2010

58 filters exhibited reductions in PM of 80 percent and in HC of 30 percent. 20 The engine of the BNSF unit was fitted with low oil consumption rings and liners that yielded an engine-out PM average of 0.33 g/kw-hr versus 0.53 g/ KW-hr for the UP unit. Several types of locomotives incorporating non-traditional motive power technology are entering railway service or are under development. The aim of all such developments is to realize a step-wise improvement in fuel consumption and significantly lower emissions, primarily by the avoidance of idling. The pioneer development of this nature was the Railpower Technologies hybrid switcher locomotive. 21 In place of a standard 16-cylinder diesel engine, the locomotive has a battery pack kept charged by a 250 kw diesel generator set to energize the battery pack, which has the capacity to supply 2,000 horsepower-hours of electrical energy to the traction motors. The battery pack also permits the recoupment and storage of braking energy. Being accepted into operational service in 2009 were road switcher locomotives having as motive power three stand alone diesel generator sets (GenSets) to collectively produce the power equivalent to a conventional switcher locomotive. The most common arrangement consists of three 700 horsepower truck engines, each powering separate alternators. The advantage of this arrangement is that individual GenSet engines can be started or stopped according to the power required. As truck-type engines use antifreeze in their cooling systems rather than water, the necessity to idle in cold weather is further reduced. 22 A proof-of-concept hydrogen-fueled fuel cell-battery hybrid switcher locomotive has been constructed in the U.S. by a consortium of Vehicle Projects LLC, the BNSF railway and the U.S. Department of Defense. The test vehicle is the most powerful fuel cell land vehicle built to date. The final results of tests performed in mid 2010 in Pueblo, Colorado are to be published soon. The objective is to develop technology so a locomotive would not require fossil fuel, which in turn would eliminate GHG and CAC emissions. 23 The U.S. Department of Energy 21st Century Locomotive Technology program is also stimulating several initiatives, one of note being a Tier 2+ compliant GE Evolution-series freight locomotive fitted with regenerative braking battery storage, advanced fuel injection, advanced turbocharger and real-time consist fuel trip optimizer. 24 Target fuel consumption reduction is 20 percent (with a concomitant 10 percent CAC reduction) of which 15 percent is contributed from regenerating captured braking energy, 1 to 3 percent from the trip optimizer and 2 to 4 percent from diesel engine combustion advancements. This project is one of several initiated following a joint foresight established with the North American railway sector for a technology development roadmap to reduce fuel consumption and emissions from railway and locomotive operations Experimental Application of Diesel Particulate Filters to EMD Switcher Locomotives, Paper No. ICEF presented at the ASME Internal Combustion Engine 2007 Technical Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, October Hybrid Technology for the Rail Industry, paper No. RTD presented by F.W. Donnelly, R.L. Cousineau, et al, Railpower Hybrid Technologies Corp., at the Rail Technology Division conference of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, Maintenance Experience with GenSet Switcher Locomotives to Date, report by Tad Volkmann, Union Paciific Railroad, published in Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association (LMOA), Chicago, Illinois, September 21 24, Testing of the BNSF Fuelcell Switch Locomotive, report by Arnold Miller et al, Vehicle Projects LLC, published in Proceedings of the 71st Annual Meeting of the Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association (LMOA), Chicago, Illinois, September 16 18, st Century Locomotive Technology (locomotive system tasks), presentation by GE Global Research to the DOE Heavy Vehicle Systems Optimization peer review, April Railroad and Locomotive Technology Roadmap, report ANL/ESD/02-6 compiled by F. Stodolsky, Argonne National Laboratories/U.S. Department of Energy, December LEM 2010

59 8 Summary and Conclusions The recovery from the global economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 caused significant increases in the Canadian railway s overall fuel consumption and emissions in The freight railways were able to match the available locomotive power to the increased freight traffic, resulting in a 13.4% increase in RTK traffic and a 10.1% increase in fuel consumption, demonstrating an increase in fuel efficiency. In meeting the objectives of the MOU, the particulars experienced by the 52 RAC member railways as of end of 2010 were: a. Relative to the targets specified in the MOU for 2010, the GHG emissions intensity levels (expressed as CO 2 eq. per productivity unit) by category of operation for 2006 to 2010 are shown in the table below. Railway Operation Units MOU 2010 target Class I Freight kg/1,000 RTK Regional and Short Lines kg/1,000 RTK Intercity Passenger kg/passenger-km Commuter Rail kg/passenger b. In 2010, the freight railways were able to meet the MOU 2010 targets, with the Class I Freight railways further decreasing their GHG emissions intensity. The Regional and Short Lines railways showed an increase in their GHG emission intensity, but were still able to meet the MOU targets. c. Passenger operations GHG emissions intensities showed two different results. Intercity Passenger, which showed a slight year-to-year decrease, met its 2010 target. Commuter Rail, showed an increase relative to 2009 and did not meet is 2010 target. d. For Commuter Rail operations, the increase in GHG intensity levels in 2010 to 2.06 kg per passenger from 1.95 in 2009 can be attributed to a combination of events, which impacted negatively compared to the MOU 2010 target of In 2008, the commuter railways introduced additional scheduling and the operation of longer trains, which were sustained in Furthermore, new high-horsepower locomotives were employed to move the longer trains. e. GHG emissions from all railway operations in Canada totalled 6, kt, up 9.4 percent from 5, kt in This increase reflects an increase in fuel consumption due to a 13.4 percent rise in freight RTK traffic. For overall freight operations, the GHG emissions intensity (in kg of CO 2 eq. per 1,000 RTK) decreased from in 2009 to in Compared to in 1990, the 2010 intensity is a 29.0 percent improvement. f. CAC emissions for 2010 were calculated using the CAC emissions factors. This amounted to kt of NO x emitted from all Canadian rail operations in In terms of emissions intensity, the NO x level in 2010 for freight operations was 0.28 kg per 1,000 RTK. g. The emissions factor (in grams per litre of diesel fuel consumed) used to calculate NO x emitted from freight locomotives was 49.23g/L. h. The in-service diesel-powered Canadian fleet totalled 2,948 units in There were 1,312 locomotives compliant with the U.S. EPA emissions limits, which is 44.5 percent of the in-service fleet. i. The number of locomotives equipped with Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) or Automatic Engine Stop-Start systems to minimize unnecessary idling totalled 1,380, which is 46.8 percent of the in-service fleet. 41 LEM 2010

60 j. Fleet change actions undertaken in 2010 in accordance with MOU commitments are shown in the table below a 2008 CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service b c d CAC Commitments Listed Under the MOU Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards. Upgrade, upon remanufacturing all high-hp locomotives to EPA emissions standards Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all mediumhp locomotives built after 1972 beginning in 2010 Retire from service 130 medium-hp locomotives built between 1973 and 1999 Actions Taken New EPA Tier 2 Locomotives Acquired High-horsepower Units Upgrades to EPA Tier 0 or Tier 1 Mediumhorsepower Units Upgraded to EPA Tier 0 Retire era Mediumhorsepower Units Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Class I Mainline Freight Intercity Passenger Commuter Service Total 54 e a 2007 data was revised as per the audit conducted in Corresponding emissions values were recalculated for 2007 and included in the LEM report for b Corrected following the audit from 85 to 105. c Corrected following the audit from 92 to 6 due to findings that revealed units reported in 2007 as being upgraded to EPA Tier 0 were, in fact, already at EPA Tier 0 and recertified to EPA Tier 0 upon remanufacture. d Corrected following the audit from 10 to 7. e Includes 52 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives and 2 Tier 2 GenSet locomotives. 42 LEM 2010

61 k. In 2010, 69 Tier 2 high-horsepower locomotives were added to the Class I Freight Line-haul fleet, and 126 locomotives were upgraded to Tier 0+ and Tier 1+. In 2010, 39 medium-horsepower locomotives manufactured between 1973 and 1999 were retired. l. In volume, the rail sector s total diesel fuel consumption in 2010 increased to 2, million L from 1, million L in 2009; slightly below the 1990 benchmark of 2, million L. As a percentage, fuel consumption in 2010 was 9.5 percent higher than in 2009 and 0.6 percent under the 1990 level. The higher fuel consumption reflects the impact of the rise in freight traffic due to the economic recovery. m. Productivity of the freight railways improved in Their fuel consumption per 1,000 RTK in 2010 declined 2.9 percent to 5.56 L from 5.73 L in 2009, and is 29.0 percent down from 7.83 L in n. Revenue traffic handled in 2010 by Canada s freight railways, as measured in RTK, increased 13.4 percent compared to Since 1990, railway freight traffic RTK has risen by an average annual rate of 2.0 percent for an overall increase of 39.6 percent. o. The Class I railways were responsible for 93.9 percent of the total RTK traffic in Of the billion RTK they transported, intermodal accounted for 25.5 percent. Intermodal tonnage has increased percent since The growth in intermodal traffic is the result of the continued success of Canadian railways to develop strategic partnerships with shippers and trucking companies for the transportation of goods. p. VIA Rail Canada s intercity service transported 4.15 million passengers, a decrease of 1.9 percent from 2009, while Commuter Rail passengers increased by 3.9 percent to million from in Tourist and excursion traffic totalled million in 2010, a decrease of 31.3 percent below the million transported in q. Sulphur content of the diesel fuel consumed by freight railways averaged 129 ppm across Canada in All passenger operations have standardized on using 15 ppm ULSD fuel. 43 LEM 2010

62 Notice of Clarification The metrics for the 2010 GHG emission targets for intercity passenger and commuter rail were incorrectly recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding signed on May 15, This Notice of Clarification corrects that error. Section 4.1 GHG Commitments by RAC lists the targets for intercity passenger and commuter rail. The metric for these targets should be changed from kg CO 2 eq. per 1000 passenger-km to kg CO 2 eq. per passenger-km for intercity passenger rail; and from kg CO 2 eq. per 1000 passengers to kg CO 2 eq. per passenger for commuter rail. As a result, the 2010 GHG emission targets for intercity passenger and commuter rail are the following: Intercity Passenger: 0.12 kg C0 2 eq. per passenger-km; and Commuter: 1.46 kg C0 2 eq. per passenger. Approved by the Management Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on emissions of criteria air contaminants and greenhouse gases from railway locomotives operated by Canadian railway companies in Canada. May LEM 2010

63 Appendix A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT CANADA AND THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRANSPORT CANADA AND THERAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA 1.0 Objectives This Memorandum of Understanding ( Memorandum ) establishes a framework through which the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), its member companies (Annex 1), Environment Canada (EC), and Transport Canada (TC) will address emissions of criteria air contaminants (CAC) and greenhouse gases (GHG) from railway locomotives operated by Canadian railway companies in Canada. This Memorandum: recognizes the successes of the predecessor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the RAC and EC respecting the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) produced by locomotives during rail operations in Canada (Annex 2); and, includes measures, targets and actions, which will further reduce emissions from rail operations and help protect health and environment for all Canadians as well as address climate change; and, reflects targets and action plans from the rail industry s emission reduction and fleet renewal strategies for the period Duration of the Memorandum This Memorandum will come into force upon signing by the duly authorised representatives of the RAC, EC and TC, and will endure until December 31st 2010, unless it is terminated at an earlier date. The party that is terminating the Memorandum will give six months prior formal written notice to the other two parties. 3.0 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions Air pollution represents a serious threat to human health and the environment. Air quality issues, such as smog and acid rain, result from the presence of, and interactions between, a group of pollutants known as criteria air contaminants (CACs) and related pollutants (Annex 3). The federal government has taken action to reduce air pollution from on-road and off-road vehicles and engines. This Memorandum builds upon the previous MOU that was signed in Despite major growth in rail traffic, NO x emissions averaged below the 115 kilotonnes cap that was set in the MOU. Further reductions in CAC emissions are expected to be achieved under this Memorandum. 3.1 CAC Commitments by the RAC It is recognised that, during the life of this Memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may introduce new emissions standards for locomotives. The RAC will encourage all of its members to conform to all applicable emission standards, including any updated EPA emissions standards respecting new and in-service locomotives manufactured after For the same period, the RAC will also encourage its members to adopt operating practices aimed at reducing CAC emissions. 45 LEM 2008

64 Appendix A continued 3.2 CAC Commitments by the Major Railway Companies Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, VIA Rail and GO Transit will, during this Memorandum: Acquire only new and freshly manufactured locomotives that meet applicable EPA emissions standards; Retire from service 130 medium-horsepower locomotives built between 1973 and 1999; Upgrade, upon remanufacturing, all high-horsepower locomotives to EPA emissions standards; and Upgrade to Tier 0, upon remanufacturing, all medium horsepower locomotives built after 1972 beginning in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate change is a major challenge for transportation, as it is for all other sectors of the Canadian economy. In 2002 railways accounted for 6 megatonnes, or 3 percent of total Canadian transportation GHG emissions (Annex 4). 4.1 GHG Commitments by RAC For the duration of the Memorandum, the RAC will encourage all of its members to make every effort to reduce aggregate GHG emissions from railway operations. The 2010 GHG emission targets for the rail industry are: Class I Freight kg C0 2 eq. per 1,000 RTK Short Lines kg C0 2 eq. per 1,000 RTK Intercity Passenger 0.12 kg C0 2 eq. per 1,000 passenger-km Commuter 1.46 kg C0 2 eq. per 1,000 passengers 4.2 For the same time period, the RAC will prepare, in cooperation with all of its members, an Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions within six months of signing of the Memorandum. The Action Plan will set out actions that the RAC and its members will undertake to attain the GHG emission targets. Examples of possible actions are listed in Annex LEM 2010

65 5.0 Reporting 5.1 Annual Reporting: The RAC will prepare an annual report by December 31st of each year, which will describe the performance under this Memorandum and will contain: the information described in section 5.2; a summary of the actions undertaken by the RAC s members to conform with all applicable EPA emission standards and to adopt operating practices that reduce CAC emissions; a summary of the actions undertaken by the RAC to inform its members about practices or technologies that reduce emissions of CACs and GHGs; and, a summary of the annual progress that the RAC and its members have made towards meeting targets in GHG emissions as set out in Section 4.1. Each annual report will be approved by the Management Committee (Section 6.1). Each annual report shall be published jointly by the parties to the Memorandum and released to the public as soon as possible once approved, including publication on EC, TC and the RAC websites. RAC will be the copyright holder of all rights in and to the annual report. EC and TC will be the licensees of any copyright held by RAC in the annual report. The first report will be for calendar year 2006 and the last report will be for the year Data: The emissions inventory in each annual report will be prepared in accordance with the methodologies described in Recommended Reporting Requirements for Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Program, September 1994 and/or as recommended by the Management Committee The annual report will contain the following information: the names of the Canadian railway companies that reported under the Memorandum, and their provinces of operation; a table describing locomotives that meet the EPA emissions standards; the composition of the locomotive fleet by model, year of manufacture, horsepower, engine model, and duty type; the gross tonne-kilometres, revenue tonne-kilometres and total fuel consumption data for railway operations during the reported calendar year; estimates of the annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ), hydrocarbons (HC), sulphur oxides (SO x ), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and CO 2 eq., emitted during all rail operations in Canada; and, fuel consumption and emissions data will be listed separately and aggregated as follows passenger, freight, and yard switching services. 5.3 Third Party Verification: A qualified auditor will be given access, each year, or periodically but not more frequently than once a year, to audit the processes and supporting documentation pertaining to the Memorandum. Parties to the Memorandum will select the appropriate auditor capable of independently verifying the reports and will share audit costs. The mandate of the auditor will be decided by the Management Committee. 47 LEM 2010

66 Appendix A continued 6.0 MANAGEMENT OF THE MEMORANDUM 6.1 The Memorandum will be governed by a Management Committee comprising of senior officials from the parties to the Memorandum and a representative of an environmental non-governmental organization. The Director General, Energy and Transportation Directorate of Environment Canada, the Director General of the Office of Environmental Affairs of Transport Canada and the Director General of Rail Safety of Transport Canada, or their delegates will represent the federal government. The RAC and its member companies will be represented by the RAC s Chair of the Environment Committee, and its Vice-President, Operations and Regulatory Affairs, or their delegates. The RAC, TC and EC will select the environmental non-governmental organization representative prior to the first meeting of the Management Committee. The Management Committee will meet at least once a year. 6.2 The Management Committee will: review the annual report before its publication; conduct, as necessary, a review of the Memorandum to assess any significant changes to the Canadian rail industry or the Canadian economy in general that can have an impact on the ability of the RAC and its member companies to respect the terms of the Memorandum; make recommendations that it deems necessary to improve the Memorandum; and at its discretion create, schedule, and oversee the work of a Technical Review Committee (Section 6.3). 6.3 The functions of the Technical Review Committee may include the following: oversee reporting and verification activities; review and verify annual data submitted to EC and TC by the RAC; review as necessary the methodology used for estimating emissions and recommend changes, when appropriate; review actions undertaken to achieve the goals of the Memorandum; and undertake any other activities as requested by the Management Committee. 7.0 Supporting the Memorandum 7.1 EC and TC will work with the RAC in support of the RAC s implementation of measures to reduce emissions of CACs, by providing technical advice on emission reduction technologies and best practices; 7.2 TC will work with the RAC in support of the RAC s implementation of the Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions, including such programs and initiatives as may be established in support of the government s environmental agenda. 7.3 EC and TC will make reasonable efforts to consult with the RAC on the inclusion of rail related research in departmental research and development plans. 7.4 EC and TC will organize and convene jointly with the RAC, a conference or seminar on emissions reduction and environmental best practices in the railway industry. 48 LEM 2010

67 7.5 EC and TC will recognize, as appropriate, progress achieved by the RAC and its members towards meeting or exceeding emissions reduction objectives. EC and TC will choose the time and manner of any public acknowledgement of the RAC s and its members achievements. 7.6 EC and TC will share information with the RAC respecting how emissions reduction actions may be credited in accordance with any such mechanisms as may be established for this purpose. 7.7 EC and TC will use best efforts to work with the RAC to address barriers that may impede emission performance in the railway industry. 8.0 General Provisions and Signatures This Memorandum is a voluntary initiative that expresses in good faith the intentions of the Parties. It is not intended to create nor does it give rise to legal obligations of any kind whatsoever. As such, it is not enforceable at law. The government reserves the right to develop and implement regulatory or other measures it deems appropriate to achieve clean air and climate change goals. Nothing in this Memorandum will constrain the Parties from taking further actions relating to CAC and GHG emissions or fuel use that are authorized or required by law. The parties recognize that the information provided pursuant to the Memorandum will be governed by the applicable legislation concerning protection and access to information. Dated at this day of 2007 Minister of the Environment Minister of Transport Infrastructure and Communities President, Railway Association of Canada 49 LEM 2010

68 Annex 1 RAC MEMBER COMPANIES November 2006 Agence métropolitaine de transport Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions Amtrak Arnaud Railway Company Athabasca Northern Railway Ltd. Barrie-Collingwood Railway BNSF Railway Company Burlington Northern (Manitoba) Ltd. Canadian Heartland Training Railway Canadian Pacific Railway Cape Breton & Central Nova Scotia Railway Capital Railway Carlton Trail Railway Central Manitoba Railway Inc. Charlevoix Railway Company Inc. Chemin de fer de la Matapédia et du Golfe inc. CN CSX Transportation Inc. Essex Terminal Railway Company GO Transit Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited Great Canadian Railtour Company Ltd. Great Western Railway Ltd. Hudson Bay Railway Huron Central Railway Inc. Kelowna Pacific Railway Ltd. Kettle Falls International Railway, LLC Montréal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. New Brunswick East Coast Railway Inc. New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Limited Norfolk Southern Railway Okanagan Valley Railway Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Ontario Southland Railway Inc. Ottawa Central Railway Inc. Ottawa Valley Railway Québec Cartier Mining Company Québec Gatineau Railway Inc. Québec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company Inc. Roberval and Saguenay Railway Company, The Romaine River Railway Company Savage Alberta Railway, Inc. SOPOR South Simcoe Railway Southern Manitoba Railway Southern Ontario Railway Southern Railway of British Columbia Ltd. St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (Québec) Inc. Sydney Coal Railway Toronto Terminals Railway Company Limited, The Trillium Railway Co. Ltd. Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. VIA Rail Canada Inc. Wabush Lake Railway Company, Limited West Coast Express Ltd. White Pass & Yukon Route Windsor & Hantsport Railway 50 LEM 2010

69 Annex MOU REGARDING LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between ENVIRONMENT CANADA and THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA Part 1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to set out the principles of the basic agreements reached among The Railway Association of Canada (RAC), The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and Environment Canada (EC) with respect to the control of emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) produced by locomotives during all rail operations in Canada. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed from the recommendations contained in the joint Environment Canada / Railway Association of Canada (EC/RAC) report entitled Recommended Reporting Requirements for the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Program. Part 2 Background The Railway Association of Canada, being an association of environmentally concerned corporations doing business in Canada, proposed to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), a voluntary cap on the total emissions of oxides of nitrogen from locomotive engines in Canada of 115 kilotonnes per year. The RAC proposal for a voluntary cap on NO x emissions has been included in the CCME NO x /VOC Management Plan and is officially validated by this MOU. Part 3 The Program Between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2005 the RAC will endeavour to collect all data necessary to calculate the total amount of emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) produced during all rail operations in Canada and, if necessary, take whatever action is necessary to avoid exceeding the agreed maximum NO x emissions of 115 kilotonnes per year. The RAC will make every effort to report once per year to Environment Canada in the manner described below. The data collected should represent the activity of all RAC members and the RAC will endeavour to encourage Associate members of the RAC and non-members to participate in the data reporting. The RAC also agrees to monitor developments in railway operations technology and encourage member railways to implement new cost-effective technologies that will reduce the NO x emissions from their new equipment. Part 4 Reports As outlined in the joint EC/RAC report entitled Recommended Reporting Requirements for the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Program, the RAC will make every effort to submit to Environment Canada annual reports containing the following information; 1) A list of the Gross Ton Miles (GTK), Net Ton Miles (RTK) and total fuel consumption data for railway operations plus estimates of the emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of sulphur (SO x ), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) using the RAC emissions factors as corrected in Table 9 of the Report referenced above. All fuel consumption and emissions data will be listed separated with respect to passenger, freight and yard switching services. These data will be submitted for the reporting year and will include revised projections for years 1995, 2000 and 2005; In addition to the national aggregate figures, fuel consumption and emissions should be provided for each Tropospheric Ozone Management Area (TOMA) as geographically defined in the NO x /VOCs Management Plan (CCME, 1990); 51 LEM 2010

70 2) The emissions data for the TOMAs should be further separated into two additional categories: the Winter Months and the Critical Ground Level Ozone Forming Months of May, June, July, August and September; 3) Updated information should be provided about the composition of the locomotive fleet by year of manufacture, horsepower, engine model, duty type and railway company; 4) A brief written update should be provided on the progress of the railway industry in introducing new, more NO x - efficient operating procedures and/or technology on rail operations; 5) Companies should submit a report on any emissions control systems, hardware or techniques installed or implemented during an engine rebuild program that would effect NO x emissions; 6) A report should be provided on new emissions performance data and new emissions factors for locomotives operated by railways obtained from the AAR, the manufacturers or other agencies; 7) Information should be provided about changes in the properties of diesel fuels used when the properties significantly depart from those specified in the Canadian General Standards Board Specifications CAN/CGSB , entitled Diesel Fuel for Locomotive Type Medium Speed Diesel Engines. Data should be reported from any tests on the sensitivity of emissions from various locomotive engines to fuel quality or to alternative fuels; and 8) A brief report should be provided on the progress and success of any other emissions reduction initiatives or changes in operational procedure, as well as any major changes in the type of duty cycles or service that would significantly affect emissions and their relative percentage of the overall railway operation. The RAC will make every effort to submit an annual report containing all of the information indicated above by June 30th of the year following the report year. The first report covered by the MOU will be for the year 1990 and last report under this MOU will be for the year Part 5 General The baseline of 115 kilotonnes per year for locomotive NO x emissions is based upon the best technical information that was available by the end of 1989 and on projections for traffic increases. It is understood that, if new emissions factors significantly departing from those used to determine the baseline are developed as a result of advanced research on engine emissions or if the rail traffic growth rate is significantly impacted by a shift of traffic from or to another mode of transport, a new environmental review will be initiated. Although both of the parties hereto have indicated by their signature, acceptance of the principles set out herein, this MOU is not intended to create a legally binding agreement and shall not be construed as creating enforceable contractual obligations among the parties hereto. DATED at Ottawa this 27th day of December 1995 Minister of the Environment Minister of Transport Infrastructure and Communities 52 LEM 2010

71 Annex 3 Criteria Air Contaminants Air pollution is linked to respiratory diseases (e.g. asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), cardiovascular disease, allergies, and neurological effects. Air pollution can also prejudice the quality of soil and water resources. The most important Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC s) produced by locomotives include: Sulphur Oxides (SO x ); Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ); Particulate Matter (PM); Hydrocarbons (HC); and Carbon Monoxide (CO). NO x and HC contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is a respiratory irritant and one of the major components of smog. Smog has been identified as a contributing factor in thousands of premature deaths across the country each year, as well as increased hospital visits, doctor visits and hundreds of thousands of lost days at work and school. Environmental problems attributed to smog include effects on vegetation, structures, and visibility and haze (mainly due to fine PM). Acid deposition, which is a more general term than acid rain, is primarily the result of emissions of SO 2 and NO x that can be transformed into secondary pollutants. Damage caused by acid deposition affects lakes, rivers, forest, soils, fish and wildlife populations and buildings. 53 LEM 2010