Quick Note: Commuter Rail Rolling Stock Costs
ETA just published a report on New York rolling stock costs for commuter rail. In the report, we talk about the need to electrify the entire system, and, if there are unelectrified tails (which there shouldn’t be), the solution for them is not more diesel locomotives. For the purposes of this post, I’d instead like to talk about the difficulties of getting some of this information; the rolling stock database that we have at the Transit Costs Project is growing, but is far from complete, and has gaps, with some information including cost missing for critical orders. What I think from the available data is that alternatives to electrification are far more expensive – the one with the most reliable cost data, battery-electric trains (BEMUs), costs close to 2.5 times as much, while dual-mode diesel-electric multiple units (DEMUs) cost less than BEMUs and more than regular electric multiple units (EMUs). But this is based on imperfect data and I’d like to discuss this issue more.
To the point on EMU costs: something is seriously screwed up with some of the orders. There’s that diva effect for large cities that I’ve talked about for years, in which large cities with old systems prefer to buy custom designs, for example the X’Trapolis in Paris, or the Berlin U- and S-Bahn orders. These are the largest orders, so the average cost Europe-wide is pulled up by these cases. In contrast, standard regional EMU orders are more routine and cheaper; two recent FLIRT orders, for Hanover and Bremen, were respectively $110,000/meter of length and $104,000/meter. But even then, there are variations, and Coradia Stream orders vary by a factor of about 2, for reasons that I don’t quite get.
Then BEMUs are not ordered in a large quantity, but when they are, the costs appear high – the database has a $249,000/m order by ÖBB; there’s an even more expensive order for NAH.SH, both FLIRT Akkus. Another fairly large order, for Pfalznetz, does not have cost data anywhere that I can see; Stadler is putting up a technical sheet for it, but not for ÖBB, but then whenever I look up costs for the Pfalznetz Akku I only get the NAH.SH one and I don’t know why.
There’s a Metra Akku order, whose costs are murky, depending on how one counts them. The procurement order lists the cost as $12.635 million for a two-car BEMU set, which is about $250,000/m, but then the option order includes trailer cars at about $2.5 million apiece. A four-car train so formed would only be around $176,000/m, but would also be severely underpowered. The Stadler technical sheet for the Metra Akku lists its power rating as 1 MWh, which is the wrong unit, but could plausibly be a typo for 1 MW; no weight is listed, but the two-car NAH.SH Akku is 96 t – but then the Metra Akku uses a power pack, which may yield somewhat different results, so the exact numbers are unclear, even if the general result that the Metra Akkus are likely to have a power-to-weight ratio in the vicinity of 6 is close enough, and damning enough. In general, American orders sometimes do that, using multiple-unit trains as locomotives with seats and diluting them with unpowered cars, just because their acquisition costs are so high that they can’t run trains with good performance specs (and, given how conservative the schedules are, they don’t think it’s important anyway).
Pedestrian Observations 
I believe the cost for the BEMUs for Nah.SH is in error. The publicly stated cost is 600 million EUR for 55 trainsets. That sounds like an easy calculation: 600e6 EUR /55 (number of tainsets) /46 m per train = 237154 EUR/m.So fat, that number roughly matches what’s in the blog post, depending on what EUR/$ exchange rate you assume. However, that price includes a 30 year maintainance contract and other supplies (for an englisch source see, e.g. https://www.railway-technology.com/news/stadler-signs-e600m-contract-with-nah-sh/ but this matches the official German press releases and other documents that I read).THeprice the vehicles themselves is not separately given. I think that’s on purpose – nah.SH did not want to take theirs for a new technology – but it means that you can’t just use the contract price as “price per m”.
I believe that Rheinland-Pfalz took a similar approach, also making the cost seem higher than it is.
I believe the cost for the BEMUs for Nah.SH is in error. The publicly stated cost is 600 million EUR for 55 trainsets. That sounds like an easy calculation: 600e6 EUR /55 (number of tainsets) /46 m per train = 237154 EUR/m.
So fat, that number roughly matches what’s in the blog post, depending on what EUR/$ exchange rate you assume. However, that price includes a 30 year maintainance contract and other supplies (for an englisch source see, e.g. https://www.railway-technology.com/news/stadler-signs-e600m-contract-with-nah-sh/ but this matches the official German press releases and other documents that I read).
THeprice the vehicles themselves is not separately given. I think that’s on purpose – nah.SH did not want to take theirs for a new technology – but it means that you can’t just use the contract price as “price per m”.
I believe that Rheinland-Pfalz took a similar approach, also making the cost seem higher than it is.
Obviously EMUs are going to win everytime given the technologies. I mean given the trajectory of battery technology globally is this going to be permanent advantage over DEMUs? I mean I come from the country that is likely to be the No.1 buyer of BEMUs given Treasury Brain and British Environmentalist-unfunded-mandate brain interacting consistently to produce suboptimal outcomes.
The view in the UK from the industry when I have spoken to them, is that EVs and cheaper batteries will change the calculus.
I agree re electrification and EMUs. Dual mode (catenary and 3d rail) should be considered for IBX line, if additional cost of those dual modes would be low–as suggested in latest ETA report. (Thanks for the link to that report.)
BEMUs have real potential, in my opinion; however, cost issue could result from hauling batteries long distances where they are not needed, in electric territory.
Note: The MTA Board is scheduled to approve an order for dual mode locomotives for LIRR at tomorrow’s meeting. See Board Book at p. 18, available at https://new.mta.info/document/160631 Not EMUs, but a step forward by reducing or eliminating diesel operation in electric territory, or need for riders to change trains.
It’s interesting that BEMUs are disfavored given that in-motion charging is seen by, at least this blog, as the best option for buses, yet they are substantially similar technology. Can anyone speculate what the technological reasons for battery/electric hybrids to be the best solution for buses but an inferior one for trains might be?
The cost of overhead wires is fairly close as I understand it, maybe a factor of 2 higher on a train than on a bus, but then the trains are much bigger so the benefits of wire there to operating costs are much larger. Buses are also much cheaper to buy than trains per unit length.
Buses use a right-of-way shared with trucks. Watch what happens to a power line when a dump truck leaves a construction site with it’s dump body still up. Or a pickup truck pulling a backhoe on a trailer behind it with the articulated arm folded up. I am guessing Caltrain and CAHSR feel spending money on grade separation isn’t worth the “insurance” against these events it provides. BART’s 100% grade separation mantra has its upsides in spite of its costs. P.S. San Francisco has electric buses because diesel buses can’t handle steep hills.
Watt hours is correct.
Has something to do with this thing call time. It eventually works it’s way allllllllllll the way down to a watt-second being a joule being expended over a second. It uses a bazillion joules over an hour – not all at once – and that works out to a million watt hours… It’s the way your friggin’ electricity bill works.
No, watt hours is wrong as a unit of power.
Power is Joule per second, or Watt.
Energy is Joule, or Watt-seconds to Watt hours.
There is definitely a typo in there, though which way is correct is undetermined.
The NASH FLIRT Akkus are listed as 1MW power in Stadler’s reference (https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/fbemu_nahsh0324_en.pdf), with 2 500kW motors in 1 of the bogies, the other 4 axles are unpowered. Sadly, the reference says nothing about range or battery capacity.
Stadler’s reference for the METRA FLIRTs (https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/fbemu_metra0724_en.pdf) reference this wrong ‘power at wheel’ of 1MWh (a unit of energy), but with 4 powered axles in 2 bogies (suggesting a greater power than the NASH FLIRT).
Sadly, none of the other references for battery FLIRTs give a capacity.
The WINK does have a capacity, of 180kWh in full battery-electric mode (https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/warr0521e.pdf). Or at least, that’s how I interpret the “Electric / Battery (capacity)” line, given the separate entry for ‘recuperation only’.
I’m not sure how close that capacity is to a maximum capacity. A WINK has all traction cabinets in the power pack & not above the powered bogies like a FLIRT, so there is less space in that power pack for (more) batteries. However, I don’t think 1MWh would fit, so I join Alon: the METRA FLIRT has a max power of 1MW and an unknown battery capacity (in MWh & any other relevant unit).
Watt-hours is incorrect. Watt-hours is a measure of energy. It is a measure of average power output over a period of time.
For example, the 2025 Toyota Camry LE 2.5L four cylinder gas/electric hybrid power train is listed with a peak power output of 225 horsepower or 168 kilo-Watts. The Watt-hours is unknown as that is determined by the average power output of the power train whilst the car is motion.
Your electricity bill is measured in Watt-hours as a matter of convenience and customary industry practice. To measure the electrical power consumed in your house, or an appliance, you can purchase what is commonly termed a Watt Meter. This will commonly provide you with instantaneous value for Watts, Amps, Voltage, Frequency and Power Factor, as well as cumulative values for power consumption (i.e., energy) in kilo Watt-hours.
I was under the impression that “locomotives with seats, with unpowered cars” was standard modern practice in Europe, or at least its German (-influenced) part? Typical examples are 4-6-units of Stadler KISS or Bombardier TWINDEXX, with the two end units being Bo’Bo’ “locomotives”, and the rest trailers. (While both examples are double-decker, many of the traditional-bogie single-deckers are similar.) Is this no longer considered good practice within Europe, or a case where Japan (with its habit of homogeneous rakes of Bo’2′ or (A1)'(1A)’ cars) clearly made a better choice than Europe, or something else?
If anything, the Caltrain KISS order was criticized for being overmotorized (“rocket-powered” for 57% motorized axles).
The 1967 tube stock on the Victoria Line that was scrapped in 2012 had 50% motorised axles as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1967_Stock
No guarantees as it’s not explicitly mentioned but the 1972 stock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1972_Stock) still in use on the Bakerloo line probably has got 57% motorised axles assuming all axles in the motorised cars are powered as on the older 1967 stock.
So Caltrain going for “rocket powered” 57% motorised axles seems pretty sensible.
The class 170 trains look to be 50% powered as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_170
It’s standard practice here, yeah, but the difference is that those FLIRTs and Mireos and Coradias have a power-to-empty-weight ratio of 20, not 6.
Having about half the cars unpowered is the standard in Japan for commuter trains than what you’re describing, even if that is also not uncommon. That also seems to be the case in Korea. About 40-60% of axles end up being powered.
About 40-60% of axles powered and often even more, is also common in Europe, even Germanic Europe for metro and high speed rail EMUs. In France and UK, it seems like that is also true for suburban trains like it is in Japan and Korea. China seems to typically go for all motorized except for end cars, which means about 40-60% powered axles for shorter trains, and almost all powered for longer ones.
I wonder what factors drive suburban trains in Germanic Europe towards fewer, more powerful motorized axles. Though with the fairly short trainsets, “just the ends” being powered can still be a significant chunk of the axles, e.g. Zurich S-Bahn trains made of one or more 4 car trainsets coupled together have 50% axles powered.
(1) 15-25kv (vs 0.6-1.5kv) power supply requires on-train traction transformer(s) and rectifiers.
The technology improves, but there are still volume and mass and economic cost trade-offs. How many per train consist, where to site them within the train volume, how to feed power at what voltage within a consist.
(2) Sub-1000mm platform height reduces the opportunity to site equipment below-floor. So equipment must be located within isolated cabinets within what might have been passenger-carrying volume within the train, and/or roof-mounted (which has its own costs.)
In the case of Caltrain KISS order, my un-expert 100%-outsider perception is that a stupid and totally incompetent client made stupid demands that were adhered to by the manufacturer, resulting in trains that have poor passenger volume per length and high costs (which of course in the Anglosphere is a feature not a bug, as the consultants feed upon percentage overheads.). The trains are inexplicably narrow (3.0m; meanwhile the US freight on the line is 3.25m wide, and the corridor is cleared for almost-Shinkansen 3.4m), and there are too many powered bogies per consist meaning too much train volume eaten by traction equipment. Stadler appear to have been “lazy” (which is a good thing in a professional commercial engineering organization responding to commercial client demands!) and re-used standard KISS/FLIRT traction components from narrower (2.8m) and less-tall vehicles rather than do anything creative with cabinet consolidation or roof mounting; the result is American trains which are big and stupid and expensive and wasteful, which is just what Americans want. (The trains aren’t appallingly awful, but they’re clearly mis-conceived and a represent a half billion dollar squandered opportunity.)
There are Americans east of the Sierra Nevada. East of the Sierra Nevada they look around and decide that while “Amtrak” loading gauge isn’t ideal, it’s good enough. And since there will be commuter trains in the Northeast and Chicago until teleportation is perfected they’ll take some of whatever the MTA or NJTransit ordered the last time. Perhaps one of the battery things Metra thinks is a good idea.
Yes, and both the Metra BEMU order and whatever the MBTA is trying to do instead of wiring Fairmount are worse than the Caltrain KISSes.
The MTA has the urge too, complete with the governor showing up to watch the two LIRR cars move without third rail. I suspect it’s “we tested it, it won’t work”. Because if you don’t, IRUM will fire up his copy of Office 2003 again and make a stink. Biodiesel is a thing, if your goal is carbon neutral, biodiesel works. Spec, it has to be recycled from restaurants.
Although the answer is now somewhat academic (as stock is not available for sale), it would be interesting if rolling stock costs could be obtained for the Vivarail D-trains (refurbished London Underground D-stock). EMU version running on Isle of Wight, DMU version was running on Marston Vale line, and BEMU version on trial in London (Greenford shuttle).
Great Western Rail (Firstgroup) now owns the Vivarail assets (facilitating the Greenford trial).
And I wonder if the assets (including remaining unconverted D-stock vehicles) would be converted to BEMU/EMU as rolling stock for proposed West London Orbital instead of electrifying the unelectrified portions (I can’t recall whether the rest of the line would be overhead, 3rd/4th rail, or both, needing significate vehicle development which might be more expensive than fixed electrivication and buying EMUs from one of the big train makers)