Talk:Railway electrification

AC vs DC for mainlines

"Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive."

Why is an AC motor system faced with the problem of converting high voltage AC to low voltage DC? Surely it has to convert that mains AC into "3-phase AC". It is certainly not obvious to the lay person that this has to be via DC.

London's Central line trains are being converted to AC motors, but as DC is supplied to the track it will have to be converted 'on train' but it does not staand to reason that mains AC has to be converted to AC for motors via DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification required

In Railway electrification#Overhead systems we read "Short pioneered "use of a conduit system of concealed feed". Can someone be more specific and tell us exactly what system Short pioneered? Peter Horn User talk 22:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Any idea? Peter Horn User talk 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

power supply system from generation to railway traction system

Please tell us how power supply provided to railway traction system by generating Grid sub-station. what type of substations or auxiliary substation are required to supply power to traction system and railway station? in case if u will found about the railway system you can explain about the metro station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.188.166 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

World electrification

Using the numbers from Template:Infobox rail network

Suggestion for expanding the World electrification-section. Many pages use the Template:Infobox rail network which has the attributes length and ellength (sometimes also el1length, el2length, and el3length). How about using this info (see example of graph presenting the data)?

• Data: https://gist.github.com/jsekamane/a1b50dd5bd439df175868a9c915d766a
• Script: https://gist.github.com/jsekamane/e0176568a04e0bfa4ccdb154308257a8

--Jsekamane (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted sections

What was the reason, and purpose, for deleting the following sections and thereby loosing the info. Would it not have been more useful to have dug up the appropriate references and/or corrected some statements? The following link forth rail now is useless.

Fourth rail

London Underground track at Ealing Common on the District line, showing the third and fourth rails beside and between the running rails

The London Underground in England is one of the few networks that uses a four-rail system. The additional rail carries the electrical return that, on third rail and overhead networks, is provided by the running rails. On the London Underground, a top-contact third rail is beside the track, energized at +420 V DC, and a top-contact fourth rail is located centrally between the running rails at −210 V DC, which combine to provide a traction voltage of 630 V DC. The same system was used for Milan's earliest underground line, Milan Metro's line 1, whose more recent lines use an overhead catenary or a third rail.

The key advantage of the four-rail system is that neither running rail carries any current. This scheme was introduced because of the problems of return currents, intended to be carried by the earthed (grounded) running rail, flowing through the iron tunnel linings instead. This can cause electrolytic damage and even arcing if the tunnel segments are not electrically bonded together. The problem was exacerbated because the return current also had a tendency to flow through nearby iron pipes forming the water and gas mains. Some of these, particularly Victorian mains that predated London's underground railways, were not constructed to carry currents and had no adequate electrical bonding between pipe segments. The four-rail system solves the problem. Although the supply has an artificially created earth point, this connection is derived by using resistors which ensures that stray earth currents are kept to manageable levels. Power-only rails can be mounted on strongly insulating ceramic chairs to minimise current leak, but this is not possible for running rails which have to be seated on stronger metal chairs to carry the weight of trains. However, elastomeric rubber pads placed between the rails and chairs can now solve part of the problem by insulating the running rails from the current return should there be a leakage through the running rails.

On tracks that London Underground share with National Rail third-rail stock (the Bakerloo and District lines both have such sections), the centre rail is connected to the running rails, allowing both types of train to operate, at a compromise voltage of 660 V. Underground trains pass from one section to the other at speed; lineside electrical connections and resistances separate the two types of supply. These routes were originally solely electrified on the four-rail system by the LNWR before National Rail trains were rewired to their standard three-rail system to simplify rolling stock use.

Fourth-rail trains occasionally operate on the National third-rail system. To do so, the centre-rail shoes are bonded to the wheels. This bonding must be removed before operating again on fourth-rail tracks, to avoid creating a short-circuit.

Linear motor

Main articles: Linear motor and linear induction motor

Five rail system

An S-series northbound train at Lawrence East station. Note the slab between the running rails.

In the case of Scarborough Line 3, the third and fourth rails are outside the track and the fifth rail is an aluminum slab between the running rails.

Peter Horn User talk 20:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: @Andy Dingley: May be we should restore this material and other massive, unproductive and malicious deletions by User:TheVicarsCat. I went through the revision history of this article and noted all his deletions and "why". Peter Horn User talk 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There would be many reasons for that, from WP:DENY onwards. Just watch out for new socks returning to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please clarify. Do you mean many reasons for restoring and that new socks would again delete this? Peter Horn User talk 19:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd support restoring it. But both of these two are shameless sockers, and will likely be back. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that User:Wtshymanski as well, and if not, who is the other one? In addition there are no doubt many other "sockers". Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I B Wright (talk · contribs) / Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC) / Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 03:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(off topic) To be perfectly clear, I am not a sock puppet, and have never used sock puppets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Double stack under wire

As can be seen by the edit history, I added a bit about Indian railways successfully running double stack container trains on electrified routes, which disproves the Anglo-American claim that such a thing is impossible. I think if the claim that electrification and double stacking are in conflict is germane for this article, an example of the conflict being resolved is germane, too. As a matter of fact, Indian Railways is not the only railway that double stacks under wire - similar successes have been achieved in China on standard gauge tracks. I furthermore added a bit about Switzerland being a country with 100% railway electrification which was reverted as unsourced. I'll find a source if it is deemed okay to include this statement with source. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why @Wtshymanski: reverted your contribution, as it was sourced. Do you have a source for double-rail stacking in China? NemesisAT (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search with a generic search engine yielded this Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I did have a search but didn't come across that one. It's not clear though if that's two full size containers in that case.NemesisAT (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reinstated the edit in question since the user who did the revert has not engaged on the talk page. They are free at any time to raise their concerns here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The names of overhead line supports

What would one call the supports of overhead lines? gantry? Utility poles in case of trams? Peter Horn User talk 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I found Traction current pylon. That solves half of the naming problem. Peter Horn User talk 17:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What about Overhead catenary bridge? Peter Horn User talk 14:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No "History" Section??

Very simply, I came to this page to see when Electrification of Railway lines began. And there is nothing, nothing AT ALL!

It is a very good break-out of the types of electrification, voltages, advantages and disadvantages, etc. However, unlike almost every other WIKI page in existence, which ALWAYS start with a section titled: "History", this page does not.

Over on the Diesel locomotive page, which starts with a "History" section, one gets the idea that locomotives went from Steam to Diesel, to Diesel-electric, and this process took a while. So except for subways inside cities, the arrival of wide-spread Railway electrification was (I assume) rather late in arriving.

Still, it would be nice to have a quick overview, with some DATES as to when and where things got started, and perhaps some sense of the percentages of electrification in different nations along with some dates as things moved along.

Well, this is my idea/gripe. I have no knowledge on this topic, or I would put it in myself.

All the best,

James 202.44.216.44 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why comparision with diesel?

I do not see any need for this section. The article on diesel locos does not compare to electrics. So why should this? Further, it feels as if there is some kind of passive "I like this" war going on there. Rather remove it, since it serves no function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.47.145 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Most electrifications, especially today, are conversions from diesels. They need to make an economic case for that, and the large capital investment needed. See the South Wales Main Line especially for an example of this (if not an example of good business!) where the rolling stock was converted to duel-mode electro-diesels in order to allow running from the electrified section out of London into the unelectrified wilderness of Wales. To the point where engine wear now exceeds what was first planned. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Benefits of electrification

Reposting what I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Original research / POV-pushing at Railway electrification:

A source saying that rail transportation has a somewhat negligible overall contribution to greenhouse gases in the United States cannot be used to support the claim that electrification would not reduce emissions. These are two entirely different claims.

The benefits of electrification have been studied to death. There are better sources available. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the edit you know it would saying "...that rail transportation has a somewhat negligible overall contribution to greenhouse gases in the United States...", as an example where it has the largest rail network in the world and almost all of it is diesel-operated, supports that claim that electrification would make a NEGLIGIBLE reduction in pollution, not make no difference. To say that such is not the case would be completely and utterly absurd. As to the guy who claimed it was original research, showing an article heavily implies something without outright saying it is not original research, its highlighting what the article implied. I don't why you are all being so pedantic and acting like Reddit users.195.252.206.55 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Pollution is not just greenhouse gas emissions. Pollution from diesel engines includes many other components - see diesel exhaust. Your whole paragraph is based on just one interpreted (not stated in the source) number. Your selective claim fails to give the full facts. It is the very essence of original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The United States has the largest physical network, but in terms of ton-kilometers (far more relevant for emissions) it's actually third, behind Russia and China. Anyway, the source, which we've all read, does not support or even discuss the claim that the environmental effects of electrification are minimal. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are other components, and you would know I acknowledged such if you actually read my contribution. Also if an article says "In group x, half of them are xy, four fifths of which are xyz and the remaining are xya.", and that is used for a source, so the contributor writes "Pertaining to group x, about 40% are xyz." That isn't original research, even if the article doesn't outright say 40%, it's what the article implies. The same carries over here. While I could not find information for Russia, China's railways contribute to .86% of transport-based carbon emissions (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1295233/china-transportation-co2-emission-shares-by-mode/#:~:text=CO%E2%82%82%20emissions%20distribution%20from%20transportation%20in%20China%202019%2C%20by%20mode&text=In%202019%2C%20road%20transport%20in,total%20CO2%20emissions%20that%20year.). Transportation makes up 8% of Chinese carbon emissions (https://earth.org/environmental-issues-in-china/). This would make rail transport responsible for .0688% of Chinese emissions. As around four fifths of Chinese rail lines are electrified, and those lines are also higher capacity, to be generous, I'll multiply that number by 20, so if Chinese lines were not electrified, they would contribute to 1.376% of Chinese carbon emissions, which isn't much. There are other things besides carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses, but that's already been discussed. Now, while the EPA-cited statement is not original research as we established, what I've stated here about Chinese rail emissions are. However, as this is not being used in an article, but to prove a point in a talk page about mackensen's gripe over ton-kilometers, it's fair game. Also, a department of transportation document from 1984 states the environmental impact wouldn't be very noticeable (https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/14659/The%20Energy%20and%20Environmental%20Impact%20of%20Railroad%20Electrification%20Aug%201984%20Report%20date%20Sept%201977.pdf) (page 90 for the PDF, page 80 for the document itself). I can source this as well in the article if you want.195.252.206.55 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The report is actually from 1977; it wasn't released until 1984. Much has changed in how we measure emissions since then. Also, the evaluation of emissions is based on the mix of power generation in use at the time; coal was far more common then than now (see page 76). The US railroad network is also quite different now; a report written in 1977 was written before deregulation took hold. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Saying a source is unreliable due to its age isn't sufficient to discredit it unless you can find a more recent source about the same thing showing significantly different numbers. While power emissions have gone down, the difference between diesel emissions and indirect electric emissions is still not that much. The network is not very different in terms of emissions. In fact, while there were deregulations after the report, emissions regulations specifically have by and large gone up.195.252.206.55 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I know without looking that there is a better source on the environmental effects of railway electrification than a fifty-year old internal report from the US Department of Transportation. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

An example of a better source is this paper in Built Environment from 2009. Sample quote: In terms of C02 emissions per vehicle-km, the operation of electric trains in the UK results in significantly less C02 emissions, about 22 per cent less, than diesel trains. Mackensen (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but what does that turn out to? Do the same calculations I did with China to figure out how much pollution an all-diesel network would make to see if it's significant. If not, there's no reason not to re-add my contribution.195.252.206.55 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No reason? You're posting original research, which includes data synthesised from a wildly out of date source. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I already demonstrated that giving the .56% isn't original research, and nobody objected to my reasoning. If you're too lazy to actually read and remember what I said, I have no further reason to discuss this with you. Besides, even if that somehow was original research, I could just get around by saying something along the lines of "the EPA stated in 2021, transportation greenhouse gasses made up 28% of US emissions; of the 28%, not 100%, 2% of which was rail, making rail contributions in the largest rail network in the world, almost all of which diesel powered, fairly negligible." You would simply be forcing me to use awkward phrasing to convey the same point if you were somehow correct on the original research point.2600:1008:B034:DEA5:85F8:2095:AEEB:1660 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You're drawing a conclusion that sources don't draw. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion that rail transport contributes a small amount is strongly inferred enough that it's not original research. 2% of 28% is a small number And again, if you actually read what I said, you would know in any case I could just phrase it differently to get around this.195.252.206.55 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

See the "Routine calculations" segment of NOR.195.252.206.55 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

And again, the source being old is irrelevant unless you can prove the Built Environment source significantly contradicts it- you did not, you simply mentioned a sentence from it.2600:1008:B034:DEA5:85F8:2095:AEEB:1660 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research to understand the basic problem with the line you're taking. Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See my response to socket. It is clearly implied in the source if you apply basic algebra, and there's a way around this in any case.2600:1008:B034:DEA5:85F8:2095:AEEB:1660 (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is still original research as information cited from a source needs to be directly stated by the source, it can't be implied or inferred. Fork99 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the NOR policy you would know "Simple calculations are not original research" if you read the routine calculations segment. And again, in any case, even if it somehow was original research, I can simply rephrase to get around this.195.252.206.55 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want some real data from a reliable source, then take a look at the Rail Handbook published by the International Union of Railways (UIC). It was published in six editions from 2012 to 2017 with each edition having a focus on a different aspect of energy use in the global railway sector. Go have a dig around and see what is useful / relevant to this (or other rail) articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You're the one claiming the DOT/FRA pdf is unreliable, the burden of proof is on you to find a reliable source that significantly and relevantly contradicts it- saying it is old in not enough.195.252.206.55 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Three separate editors are saying that to you. As far as that reference you're pushing, I think it's time for you to read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and just move on. I'm throwing you a lifeline here in the spirit of positivity and helpfulness - if you want to read the UIC publications then you may find relevant information to add to the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Using the bandwagon fallacy will get you nowhere. The fact is I presented a source you're claiming shouldn't be used. It is up to you to prove that claim is a sound one, not me. And in any case, I am free to re-add the .56% bit from the EPA as demonstrated once this is over. I hope you'll forgive me for not reading that link when the last link you three told me to read had a clause specifically about what I was doing showing it was not original research, showing that you don't even read them closely yourselves.195.252.206.55 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am free to re-add the .56% bit from the EPA as demonstrated once this is over. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. What you're doing now is edit warring. Mackensen (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, consensus does not override the original research policy, which states simple calculations are fair game. Second of all, given you and the other two stopped responding, I made the educated guess that you did not care anymore. You can't claim something cannot be added if the people objecting to it aren't continuing conversation. Consensus only matters for people participating, and given everyone else left, it is not consensus not to add it.195.252.206.55 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen is correct. You are edit warring. If you are going to add stats then use global figures based on recent data. What you added was highly selective and out-of-date. There is no consensus for its addition. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't use the DOT DPF which was the basis of the consensus dispute. I added the .56 from the EPA which the page all of you directed me to stated was fair game with the "simple calculations" clause.195.252.206.55 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No editor is obliged to respond indefinitely. The discussion had run its course. You explained the change you wanted to make. We all indicated the various problems we had with that change, and that we didn't agree with it. There was no consensus to make the change. Mackensen (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It didn't "run its course" the burden of proof was on them and they didn't give an answer. Furthermore, the consensus issue with the other two was only the DOT PDF, not the .56, they objected to that on the basis of original research, which I have disproven. You're the only one objecting to the .56 now, on no grounds at all.195.252.206.55 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You're asserting based on your calculations that the environmental effects of railway electrification are minimal. Whether your calculations are correct or not is immaterial. The conclusions that you're drawing from your calculations are original research. In any event, we're going in circles. If you read WP:BURDEN you'll see that the burden is on you to find adequate sources to support your change: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Emphasis added. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As shown with the original research article, all you do is cherry pick parts from these articles so you can push your narrative. Why should I read and follow these articles when you don't even read them yourselves? You three completely and utterly discredited yourselves from having legitimate objection to my edits when you showed me to an article clearly stating what I wrote wasn't original research, and then moved the goalposts when you realized you played yourselves. Speaking of burden, the burden is still on you and the others and the others to find articles that significantly and relevantly differ in equivalent data to the DOT, and tell me where in the articles it is. Saying it's too old isn't sufficient to discredit it, you have to show why it being old makes it invalid. Even if you can do that, I can likely put the .56 bit somewhere else in the article without drawing a conclusion from it anyway. You can't win, save yourselves time and go yap somewhere else.195.252.206.55 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're now getting into personal insults and that isn't acceptable. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's insulting to point out you don't even read the very policies you cite? It's insulting to point out you move goalposts? It's insulting to point out you have the burden of proof on you to discredit the DOT PDF? If you consider these insults I'd hate to see how you take actual ones.195.252.206.55 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We've engaged for two weeks and responded to every point you've made. Despite your claims to the contrary we've read the sources you've provided. We've explained how Wikipedia's content policies work, and why the edit you're trying to make isn't acceptable. We've also told you exactly what type of source is necessary--a modern, reliable source that the environmental effects of electrification are minimal. Far from "moving goalposts", that's been my position, and I think the position of Forks99 and 10mmsocket, from the very beginning. Absent such a source, there isn't much else to say. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You only started responding again recently when I made the edit again when you weren't able to discredit the DOT report. You, willingly or unwillingly, left out the very clause of original research that gives me edit the green light, so forgive me if I do not trust any of you with explaining other policies. Don't lie to me, you and the other three had to change your narrative from simple arithmetic to implications when you realized your initial change didn't work, that's moving goalposts. And for the 100th time, the DOT report being older does not discredit it. You need to find articles that significantly and relevantly differ in equivalent data to the DOT, and tell me where in the articles it is, and explain why it matters. Your objections are otherwise moot. "Absent such an [opposing] source, there isn't much else to say."195.252.206.55 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All your points aside, there is no consensus for your addition. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's walk this out, starting with the article history between July 17-21:

1. You make an edit on July 17th claiming that the environmental benefits of electrification are minimal: Special:Diff/1235198428. You do not provide a source. You are reverted for adding what appears to be an uncited opinion.
2. You revert: Special:Diff/1235408170. You still don't provide a source. You're reverted (again) and asked to provide a source.
3. You add a source for the claim that rail is a comparatively small part of the US railway network. The source does not speak to any of the conclusions drawn, nor does it purport to represent a worldwide viewpoint: Special:Diff/1235897448. You're reverted because it's original research.
4. You revert: Special:Diff/1235908169. You're reverted (by me, this time).
5. You revert again: Special:Diff/1235960309. You're reverted, and warned about edit warring.

Now, let's look at the discussion on the talk page:

1. The primary issue is, and always has been, original research. Your original claim is that the environmental benefits of railway electrification are minimal because rail is responsible for a comparatively small part of emissions in the United States. The source for the latter does not advance that claim.
2. The DOT report from 1977 said that the environmental impact of electrification would be minimal. It said so because it compared the emissions of diesel locomotives with the emissions of the US power grid at that time. By introducing this report as a source you're creating a new issue. The DOT report does speak to the issue at hand, but it's also almost fifty years old, and the shares of coal and renewables in the US have changed since then. You can't combine a fifty-year old report with a modern source that look at two different data sources to produce a conclusion.
3. I introduce a 2009 article from the Built Environment journal, which looks at many of the same issues in the DOT report, and in greater detail. It also compares diesel emissions with the emissions from the British power grid. It determines that electric trains produce 22% less emissions than diesel. That's significant, and different from the conclusions of the DOT report. You've never really acknowledged that in the subsequent discussions.
4. Discussion trails off, because there wasn't new information.

These policies are relevant to this discussion:

• No original research: you can't introduce conclusions not made in reliable sources.
• Verifiability: it's the responsibility of the editor introducing new material to provide sources that support the change.
• Consensus: when an edit is disputed, you have to gain consensus, usually on the talk page. There are other ways to gain consensus, such as an RfC or at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

No one's moving the goal posts here. To the contrary, as new sources were introduced they were evaluated on their merits. The relevance of the US DOT report is in serious doubt because the more recent article in Built Environment uses similar methodology and disagrees with its conclusions. That's where things are, and absent new, relevant sources there's not much more to say. Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

For the longest time you three brought up the .56 as being the issue about original research with the conclusion being a side show, only becoming the main focus after I pointed out the simple calculations clause. You need to show how much 22% less changes in the big picture. That may sound like a lot, but given how little pollution rail changes in the first place, that would mean US rail emissions would go from .56 to around .45 or so of the nation's total (and this is generous as not every single line would be electrified realistically). That seems pretty minimal to me, so it's a stretch and a half at least to say BE conflicts with the DOT in that regard. And again, in any case, I can add the .56 somewhere else in the article without the implied conclusion if I wish.195.252.206.55 (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, where in the DOT article does it give a significantly different figure for percentage reduction from diesel to electric in any case?195.252.206.55 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said the DOT report is unreliable, just that it's outdated. If both reports used the same methodology, but the mode share of grid power generation has changed significantly between the two, then the conclusions of the older report are no longer valid. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You still need to demonstrate where the two significantly and relevantly differ in equivalent data to prove the DOT report cannot be used.195.252.206.55 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

References