Japan Getting Serious About CA HSR
I’ve heard mixed messages about Japan’s interest in California high speed rail in recent months. Overall they seem quite interested, particularly JR Central. But there was another report recently, can’t remember where I heard this (and can’t find a link to it), that indicated Japan has cooled on CA HSR because they prefer closed systems and do not want to build or operate a system where HSR shares tracks with other trains.
However, a recent article in a Manila business journal suggests Japan is still very interested in California HSR:
Japan may send a sales delegation to California early next year, following visits to Washington and Chicago, as it steps up efforts to win U.S. orders for trainmakers that built the world’s first bullet train in 1964.
Japan may hold a seminar in the state as early as January, Akihiko Tamura, assistant vice-minister for international affairs at the country’s Ministry of Transport, said in an interview in Tokyo Sunday.
The ministry is also considering seminars in New York, Boston and Florida, he said.
California is aiming to issue a tender for a bullet-train line linking Los Angeles and San Francisco by next year after winning the biggest share of President Barack Obama’s $8 billion in grants to link cities by fast trains. East Japan Railway Co., the world’s largest passenger rail operator by market capitalization, will compete against makers such as Alstom SA, which built Amtrak’s Acela, the fastest train in the U.S.
It’s not just that these firms want the contract to build the tracks and trainsets. They’re also looking at becoming operators as well. And remembering that these companies, such as Siemens, have already said they don’t expect any revenue guarantees, it is significant that they do not share the concerns about the HSR ridership studies that have been breathlessly reported by California HSR critics and opponents. SNCF has also shown interest in the California project, and pronounced itself satisfied with the ridership studies and route choices.
In other words, if the HSR critics were right in their claims that the system won’t cover its operating costs and won’t generate the expected ridership and has a flawed route, wouldn’t you expect that these potential operators would share those concerns and be much less eager to invest in our system? Instead they’re saying “full speed ahead.”
It’s another reason to treat the claims from HSR critics and opponents with extreme skepticism.
(TRAIN NERD TIME!!!!)
They don’t really have anything that can go 220 mph. The only one they’re actually considering selling oversees is the N700(I) series which can only get up to about 200. Unless they’re considering selling something based on the Fastech 360 they ain’t got shit. I doubt CHSR will consider something slower than 220.
HSRforCali Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
They still have 10 years to design and build a train that can reach 220 mph.
nobody important Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
It’s more like 7 or 8 years because they have to test it for a while. Also contractors have to be chosen in 2 years, and if CHSR wants a newly designed train instead of something off the shelf it will cost more.
dave Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
China already runs Siemens Velaro’s at 215 MPH on revenue runs every day. I doubt another 5 MPH isn’t achievable in 7 – 8 years.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
This is general Japanese interest, not just a JR Central effort. The N700 is JR Central’s product, whereas the Fastech 360 belongs to JR East.
While the N700 only goes 205, it has much better acceleration than the Velaro, which CAHSR’s runtime simulation is based on, and can run at a higher cant deficiency. This means it can probably achieve the same runtimes despite its lower speed. The Fastech 360 can run at an even higher cant deficiency, which is going to be useful on the Peninsula, but accelerates only about as quickly as European HSR.
Clem Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Cant deficiency is more a regulatory issue than a technical issue. Regardless of what the trains can do, the cant deficiency limit will be (very conservatively) set by the FRA.
The top speed requirement could be greatly relieved if they didn’t create gratuitous speed restrictions by building excessively tight curves and running through urban (noise-limited) areas. It’s a lot easier and cheaper to save 10 seconds by unconstraining your slowest bottleneck than it is to save 10 seconds by increasing your top speed.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:41 am
This is partly regulatory, and partly technical. The N700 tilts one degree, and the Fastech 360 tilts two degrees. Subtract the tilting from the N700, and it still gets about 30 mm more cant deficiency than the TGV and ICE, which is where regulations come in.
Clem Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Cant deficiency isn’t affected by tilting. It is purely a wheel-rail interface thing.
Joey Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 7:44 am
I thought that the FRA allowed greater cant deficiencies with tilting trains…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
For passenger comfort and safety, cant deficiency must be kept low. A non-tilting Pendolino would not be allowed 300 mm cant deficiency.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:05 am
@ clem -
Unconstraining bottlenecks would be cheaper, yes. But easier? Not in a political sense. CEQA ueber alles!
rafael Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
At high cruise velocities on level terrain, resistance to motion is almost entirely aerodynamic drag. Going from 330 to 360km/h top speed requires (360/330)^3 = 1.3 times as much rated power.
I have absolutely no doubt that Japanese engineers would know how to beef up the entire propulsion system of the N700i. Fully 100% of its axles are powered and each one has an axle load of just 11.4 tons. By convention, HSR operators insist on a limit of 17 tons to keep tracks geometry construction and maintenance within reason. That means engineers would have sufficient axle load reserve.
The main reason the Japanese haven’t gone beyond 330km/h yet is signaling. Beyond roughly that speed, drivers can no longer reliably read trackside signals, so everything has to be communicated via in-cab computers. ETCS level 2 has solved that problem in Europe, though it is being deployed in a piecemeal fashion. The Dutch in particular got caught at the bleeding edge of the evolution of this new standard. The Japanese still rely on ATC, which is a wireline system. Also, they have no real need for stupendously fast trains on their legacy shinkansen network: the curves don’t have the required superelevation, the timetable is already quite full and electricity is quite expensive in that country.
That’s why the N700i is an export-only model. Even so, the need for speed is rooted in the belief that time spent traveling is unproductive. On a high speed train with reliable broadband internet access, that’s arguably no longer true. Corporations in particular will still instruct their worker bees to ride the train rather than fly, even if the spend an extra 15-30 minutes on the go. Business class on a train cost about as much as full economy on a sardine can and, you get a lot more desk space as well. Above all, you usually spend a far larger fraction of total trip time in your seat on the vehicle as opposed to standing in line, walking around etc. That means you can get a lot more work done.
nobody important Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Trains use more electricity when accelerating from a standstill than at high speed so the price of electricity is irrelevant when trying to go faster.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 6:48 am
Uhm, perhaps not. At low speeds. traction is limited by available adhesion and the rated torque of the motors. Only at elevated speeds is the propulsion system constrained by rated power, specifically the amount of current the pantograph can draw from the OCS.
It takes a lot of force to get any train moving, but the power required for cruising at very high speed is considerably greater. Electricity cost is most definitely a factor.
Besides, high speed train – unlike subways, commuter trains etc. – don’t stop very often.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Good grief.
One hardly knows where to start.
Could this perhaps even beat Rafael positing that aircraft regenerate fuel when descending?
No.
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Hey, what do you like to do for fun? What’s your favorite music? How often do you get laid? I’m wondering if there’s anything beyond the vitriol.
Peter Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Hey, you must admit, though, that Rafael’s adventures into discussing aviation are highly entertaining.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
So are his adventures in discussing railroads
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 2:22 am
I didn’t mean to imply that all signals on the shinkansen network are trackside, I’m perfectly aware ATC provides in-cab displays of the local speed limit and other instructions to drivers.
Btw, I never claimed that aircraft generate fuel when descending.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 2:11 am
Rafael, the Shinkansen has the highest superelevation of any rail system in the world. According to Lindahl’s thesis, the Tokaido Shinkansen has 200 mm superelevation, and the Tohoku and Sanyo Shinkansen 180. Most likely the Tohoku Shinkansen’s superelevation has been raised to 200 since, as the Fastech 360 could attain its top speed on 4 km curves with just two degrees of tilt.
The signaling system has nothing to do with the speed limits – see the success of the Fastech 360. The speed limit is about noise emissions, coming from Japan’s penchant for building lines through populated areas, and about tunnel boom.
Neither ETCS nor 17 tons/axle is relevant to Japan. Japan is happy with D-ATC; it’s lower-capacity than ETCS, but it’s good enough that the not-invented-here issue isn’t as bad as in the US. And even fifty years ago, EMUs with non-articulated bogies never even came close to 17; Budd’s cars were in the 14-15 range and so was the 0 Series Shinkansen. The 17 tons limit is a French rule coming from the legacy of articulated bogies, but has since become standard in European export models. Japan’s privatized rail operators like their much lower axle loads; they reduce maintenance cost, which is important if you plan on your trains making a profit.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 2:28 am
The Siemens Velaro doesn’t use Jacobs bogies and still comes in at 17 tons (or very close to it), as do most other designs. The number stems from pan-European maintenance rules for various track classes. Lower axle loads are better when it comes to wear and tear on the geometry, but higher ones are better for traction – unless the fraction of powered axles is high enough to compensate.
For reference:
Talgo AVRIL 42%
Siemens Velaro 50%
Alstom AGV 50%
N700 88%
N700i 100%
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:23 am
The ICE has an axle load of 15 tons. Both the Velaro and Zefiro have an average weight per axle of 14-15 tons, but because the TGV popularized 17 as the limit, they don’t spread their weight evenly and advertise a maximum load of 17.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
TGV 001 (gas turbine+alternator) had all its wheels powered but this was abandoned in later catenary-fed models. As gradients were limited to 3.5% (for passenger comfort) and stations were spaced so far apart that slow acceleration was not a problem, the SNCF concluded that all those powered wheels unnecessarily increased maintenance costs. So far, the SNCF has shown little interest for the AGV.
On the other hand, all trains with frequent stops are EMUs.
bleh Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Increasing the top speed wouldn’t be too difficult. The N700 certainly’s got the power (more than a Velaro) and the Japanese tend to be quite conservative on the safety margins, so changes to the rest of the train should be minimal.
I don’t know where rafael got the idea that the Shinkansen uses trackside signal but he is right that the increased speed might be a problem here. The inability to get ETCS2 working delayed the push to 350km/h on Spanish tracks. ETCS2′s probably the best idea for California anyway because it was built for general use on all tracks and by the time test runs begin it will have a quite long and proven track record on 220+mph lines.
As for why the Japanese don’t increase their speed:
-The Tokaido’s limited to 270km/h anyway
-A speed increase on the Sanyo and Tohoku is possible but strict Japanese noise regulations and tight tunnel clearances make it expensive (just look at the E5. All that effort for 320
-energy use increases by 40% when you go from 300 to 350 ( (350/320)^2 ). It’s only worth it if the effect on travel times is significant and that depends on distances traveled. For California where most people will go the full distance from LA to SF that’s the case. In Japan the only cities with that kind of pull are Tokyo and Osaka and, as mentioned, the Tokaido doesn’t allow those speeds. That’s the reason they want to build the Maglev between those two. Who needs measly 350km/h if you can get 500? =)
HSRforCali Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The trains also have to be capable to meet the curve radius in the DTX tunnel.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:24 am
That is a legitimate worry, but perhaps not an insurmountable obstacle. Japanese rail cars are just as long but a little wider than European designs with conventional bogies. Fortunately, US regulations for tunnel clearances are so generous the additional width should not in and of itself pose a problem – especially since the DTX hasn’t been built yet.
A second issue is that HSR trains have extra-long bogies for stability at high speed. Allowing the bogies to rotate sufficiently relative to the car body to negotiate a curve radius on the order of 190m (630ft) isn’t hard, but the wheel flanges will scour against the sides of the rails, generating horrible squealing noise – especially so in a tunnel – as well as accelerated wear and tear. There are systems that automatically apply dry lubricants to the sides of the rails to mitigate the problem, but they represent additional expense and another point of failure.
Normally, curves that tight are only considered for HSR in sections of yards where a very low speed limit (e.g. 10mph) can be enforced and trains don’t need to go frequently. Deploying them on main lines is really a measure of last resort. The new central station in Cologne (Germany) had to be constructed close to but at a severe angle relative to both the existing rail bridge and the city’s gothic cathedral. At least it’s a run-through design, though.
In SF, the tight curves near the TBT platforms would not be necessary if the planned 4th & Townsend platforms were moved west such that the DTX could use 3rd Street rather than 2nd. Ideally, the whole concept of a three-track tunnel would be jettisoned in favor of a single loop track that would give all six TBT platform tracks run-through capability. If the outbound track was under 3rd St and the TBT platforms moved west as well, the latter could be both full-length and perfectly straight. Without run-through tracks, it’s hard to see how TJPA hopes to deliver the aggregate throughput (~20tph) Caltrain and CHSRA say the station should be designed for, even if that capacity will not be needed for quite a while yet.
But, the EIR for the project has been approved, the architects have come up with a shiny design and ARRA funding has been secured at the expense of track construction – so let’s implement a seriously flawed DTX design and “fix” it all later, right? You know, decades down the road. I’m not being facetious here, TJPA has literally defined an unfunded phase II for specific design improvements that CHSRA has asked for. Basically, TJPA has already admitted its own design for the heavy rail portion is crud even before the first shovel hits dirt.
Peter Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Not to mention they would have to knock down a number of tall buildings to use 3rd St.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 2:07 am
“That’s the reason they want to build the Maglev between those two. Who needs measly 350km/h if you can get 500? =)”
Except that at $53 billion and rising, the appetite for actually funding the Chuo shinkansen has – for now at least – been tempered.
http://www.maglev.net/news/delay-in-launch-of-2025-japanese-maglev/
Also, JR Central’s decision to tunnel through the Japanese Alps between Chuo and Iida to cut costs could yet come back to bite them. The tunnel route crosses the Median Tectonic Line, a major oblique right-lateral strike-slip fault that creeps aseismically at 10-15mm a year on Shikoku Island but is constrained in the Iida area by the intersection with the ISTL. See <a href=""That’s the reason they want to build the Maglev between those two. Who needs measly 350km/h if you can get 500? =)"
Except that at $53 billion and rising, the appetite for actually funding the Chuo shinkansen has – for now at least – been tempered.
http://www.maglev.net/news/delay-in-launch-of-2025-japanese-maglev/
Note that pesky details like fare prices and expected ridership levels haven't been figured out yet. The main thing is to go really, really fast – right?
Also, JR Central's decision to tunnel through the Japanese Alps between Chuo and Iida to cut construction cost could yet come back to bite them. Major tunneling projects have an uncanny knack for generating large cost overruns. Two alternative routes around that mountain range via central Nagano province were rejected.
Located deep underground and with trains traveling at 500km/h, ambient air temperatures in the tunnel could climb to problematic levels (cp. the A/C failures in German ICE trains over the weekend). In winter, trains would be exposed to large temperature swings when they enter or leave these tunnels (cp. Eurostar failures in the Channel Tunnel last Christmas). Granted, one half of of maglev propulsion is buried in the track, where it can be cooled with piped water, but it could still become an issue for the half that is installed on the vehicles.
In addition, the preferred tunnel route crosses the Median Tectonic Line, a major oblique right-lateral strike-slip fault that creeps aseismically at 10-15mm a year on Shikoku Island but is constrained in the Iida area by the intersection with the much more active ISTL near the town of Suwa. See MAP. Fortunately, there are no historical records of a major quake on the MTL, just an unprovable conjecture that it may have been involved in one that occurred in 1596. Paleoseismology suggests a recurrence interval of 1000-3000 years.
The Chuo shinkansen route crosses the far more active ISTL above ground. A massive quake (8 on the Richter scale, Mercalli shake intensity XII) in Shikuoka prefecture on the coast is considered possible in the next 50 years or so. It would almost certainly affect the Tokaido shinkansen, especially if the Hamaoka nuclear plant suffers a meltdown in the process. Earthquake resilience is one of the reasons the Chuo shinkansen route (referred to as the Tokaido bypass by JR Central) runs so far north. Ironically, they picked an incompatible technology for the purpose, so the company would be saddled with a lot of steel wheels bullet trains with nowhere to go for a while.
bleh Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
“Except that at $53 billion and rising, the appetite for actually funding the Chuo shinkansen has – for now at least – been tempered.”
Considering that JR Central’s mostly JR Tokaido-Shinkansen and that line took a big hit due to the crisis (compared to e.g. JR East which depends mostly on commuter traffic which is more resilient) that’s hardly a surprise.
“Note that pesky details like fare prices and expected ridership levels haven’t been figured out yet.”
I sure as hell have a lot more faith in their predicitions than in California’s. The Tokaido provides actual data both on the route as well as the change in passengers due to reduced travel times for that specific region.
“Located deep underground and with trains traveling at 500km/h, ambient air temperatures in the tunnel could climb to problematic levels”
The Yamanashi test track’s mostly tunnels, too. They built it that way so they could actually *test* the issues of the actual final line. The Japanese idiosyncrasy of doing sensible stuff like that is why I don’t doubt that the end result’s gonna work.
So the ICE ACs don’t work because it’s hot and the EuroStar failed because of the wrong kind of snow and then there’s HSR axles built to standards from 1908, the perennial surprise about leaves on the track, yada, yada. Funny that it’s always the same jokers who come up with this crap. In some countries shit works, in others it doesn’t, and the difference is mostly the corporate culture of the involved companies.
About the fault lines: That’s an interesting summary of the thoughts behind the route choice. They’re gonna bet the whole future of the company on the line, of course seismology’s a big issue. It is Japan after all.
“Ironically, they picked an incompatible technology for the purpose, so the company would be saddled with a lot of steel wheels bullet trains with nowhere to go for a while.”
The Tokaido would be used for commuter service and travel between the smaller cities along the route, the same as the Tokaido main line today. If there’s an earthquake along the route it’s not like the whole line’s gonna shut down. It will just stop services on a relatively short part but that’s still enough to stop the all important Tokyo-Keihanshin runs. This is the main rationale behind the Chuo-Shinkansen.
Not just in case of an earthquake. In 2024 the Tokaido Shinkansen will turn 60 and that’s the planned lifespan of a lot of bridges, etc along the way. If there’s a bypass you can shut down a small section and you will only affect a relatively small amount of travelers because the majority either
a) goes directly from Tokyo to Osaka,
b) won’t lose too much time by going Wherever->Nagoya->Tokyo->Wherever or
c) can take the Tokaido main line.
There’s too much emphasis placed on compatibility in the West. The Shinkansen itself is incompatible with the rest of the Japanese rail network and you can’t even mix trains on JR East’s Shinkansen lines with those on the Tokaido/Sanyo/Kyushu. Similarily they use a lot of dedicated rolling stock for very many lines. It has disadvantages but it also offers advantages. In case of HSR the biggest advantage is political: it prevents the kind of half-assed solutions we see in Germany.
“Also, JR Central’s decision to tunnel through the Japanese Alps between Chuo and Iida to cut construction cost could yet come back to bite them. Major tunneling projects have an uncanny knack for generating large cost overruns.”
That is certainly true. OTOH, monumental disasters of epic proportions like the Bid Dig aren’t unavoidable. The Gotthard base tunnel which is gonna be the longest in the world is currently 2.73% over budget.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“The Gotthard base tunnel which is gonna be the longest in the world is currently 2.73% over budget.”
That’s because Swiss voters increased the budget from the original estimate.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Damned straight! Because here in the future energy is too cheap to meter.
Why not go for supersonic ground transportation? California will lead the world.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Supersonic travel is so 20th Century. Why not go for vac tubes and hypersonic travel?
I doubt that those operators even consider what HSR critics say. They had the very same arguments in their own countries and those critics were proven wrong on all claims.
What I like about Japan is that they can provide the knowledge to create a system that can resist earthquakes. That’s know-how that Europe cannot provide. On the other hand, Siemens has the fastest conventional, commercial train sets (Velaro 390km/h = 242 mph).
We are still 8 years away from those decisions, but I think that Siemens is likely to get that contract. Their trains are the ones operating that the highest speeds right now (Spain, Russia, China).
Matthew Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I remember a rather large Italian earthquake just last year… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7984867.stm
nobody important Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
No, the decisions are going to be made in late 2011.
rafael Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
The train vendor won’t be decided that early. FRA hasn’t even spelled out the safety rules for operating at speeds over 150mph yet. Rulemaking and vendor pre-qualification are a big part of why the Merced-Bakersfield segment is being prioritized along with SF-SJ and LA-Anaheim.
Also, CHSRA will be looking for a package deal consisting of suitable technology plus skin in the game. They need private investment and are talking to numerous foreign railway operators with HSR experience.
thatbruce Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I hope that the bidding contracts emphasis the ‘skin in the game’ requirement (aka 20 years or so). Last thing CAHSR needs is to be the proving grounds for someone’s pet project.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 12:38 am
I was referring to the vendor assuming ridership risk by accepting (partial) payment in the form of a cut of operating profits for a certain number of years, rather than just cash up front or a regular loan.
Since safe operations require infrastructure, trains and staff to work in concert, bidder may well want a design-build-operate contract for a turnkey system. It’s not like there’s an organization in California that already knows how to do all this properly.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
No, Europe actually has a lot of experience with earthquake-proof designs – see Spain, Italy, and southern France.
The top speed advantage of the Velaro is fake. In normal runs, the Velaro is limited to 350 km/h, and any higher speed would require such a long time to accelerate to that it would provide negligible time savings.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I’m sure they can tweak it a bit to get 355 out of it. 355 KPH is 220.59 MPH.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:44 am
I’m talking about 350 as opposed to 390, which no existing conventional train is certified for. The fastest is the Zefiro at 380, and even China is building for 350.
rafael Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
@ Emma -
high speed trains have to pass official certification tests at speeds 10% higher than those that will be permitted in commercial service. For the Siemens Velaro family, the latter number is 350km/h. The Alstom AGV comes in a tiny bit higher, 360km/h. Bombardier and Talgo are both working on designs that with certification targets of 380km/h.
For California, any one of those would do nicely, thank you very much. If I were you, I’d worry less about these small differences in top speed – which takes a really long time to actually reach, anyhow – and more about how on earth CHSRA can keep noise emissions in check. If they cannot come up with an adequate and affordable technical solution, cities like Fresno and Bakersfield will figure out a way to impose a speed limit.
Emma Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Have you heard a train at 300km/h? 189mph? I have. They are comparatively quiet compared to a highway. Complaining about a train but not the highway nearby would be pure hypocrisy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Shhh! Running a clean quiet electric train next to 99 would just ruin the bucolic ambiance of the highway.
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I live a couple miles from the freeway and I can hear its ever-present rumble if I open my window. The street next to my house is where cars routinely operate at 45 to 50 MPH even though the speed limit is 40 mph. Now that I can hear even when I close my window. People deliberately put parts on their cars that make them louder, and also purchase stereo equipment for their trunk and an increasingly large number of them are putting speakers on the outside of their cars. It’s really bad in my poor neighborhood.
thatbruce Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Oakland exhaust whistles.
AndyDuncan Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
That’s only in the mornin’, you should be up cooking breakfast or somethin’.
woo, wooo!
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 2:48 am
You’re assuming CHSRA will actually succeed in securing a greenfield ROW in the CA-99 corridor through Fresno and up to Manteca. Color me unconvinced on that one.
Btw, the section through e.g. downtown Bakersfield is not next to a freeway and it will be on a viaduct 60 feet in the air.
At 360km/h, the power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is 73% higher than at 300km/h. The additional turbulence generates a corresponding increase in sound pressure. The noise level at 50m (165 feet) is comparable to that of a commercial airliner at take-off about 200m (660ft) away. At the 10+ tph that CHSRA is estimating will need to run in the network core, anyone living or working near the tracks will experience about 20 such events an hour, for about 16 hours a day, every day.
While each individual event only lasts for a few seconds, the cumulative effect is captured by averaging over a suitable period of time. Where there’s the constant din of a freeway right next to the train tracks, the change in this so-called equivalent level will probably be insignificant as you say. That won’t be the case where there is no such freeway.
In addition to objective measures such as the equivalent level, there are subjective psychoacoustic metrics for harshness etc. Every person is different, the same sound level can trigger different psychological and physiological responses. Some people get habituated to rail noise, other develop disease. One size does not fit all.
Emma Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Then please take a look at Alstom AGV. They have been working on this and guarantee that at 360 km/h their trains are as loud as at 300km/h.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Yes, they’re as loud as the oldest HSR trains in the SNCF fleet at 300 km/h. In Japan, the HSR operators had to install noise-reducing windows in a very large number of homes abutting the shinkansen lines.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
A noise is all the more unbearable as it relates to something or someone you hate. HSR noise will gently lull Robert Cruickshank to sleep and keep Morris Brown awake.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Ironically enough, you’d imagine that HSR would be preferable to the extremely loud horns one can hear very clearly on Stone Pine Lane – or even elsewhere in Menlo Park, further from the tracks. It’s stunning to me that a small number of residents there actually want to keep the horns in place.
Caelestor Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I don’t think they want ANY noise, hence their support for electrification (I think this is right, correct me if I’m wrong). That partially explains their reasoning for a tunnel: drowns out all the noise! However, TANSTAAFL.
Peter Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
They would prefer for Caltrain to stop running completely. That way their perfect suburban living would be complete.
Silly trains moving people. They should just teleport people to work, I guess. Or those people should all just drive.
Bianca Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Electrification alone won’t get rid of the horns- in order to do that, you’ll need grade separations too.
Living in Menlo Park (as I do) and knowing what HSR sounds like as it’s whooshing by (having seen it firsthand in Japan and Spain) I find it hard to believe that some might prefer the status quo of freight trains in the wee hours of the night to HSR, but hey, to each their own.
Caelestor Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Americans have tended to be isolationist (common debate in historical elections). Only recently (20th century) has the government aggressively invaded countries overseas.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
No, the US invaded Latin America over and over in the 19th century.
But isolationism has nothing to do with insular attitudes. Americans in large groups refuse to learn from European and Asian successes in the same manner Europeans refused to learn from non-European cultures (including the US) in the age of imperialism.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
“they can provide the knowledge to create a system that can resist earthquakes.”
This will make engineers smile. No system resists a major earthquake. All you can do is stop the train before it reaches a deformed portion of the track. What the Japanese have done, any developped country can do it. Seismographs are the same in California, Italy or Japan and knowledge is freely shared by specialists of all nations.
What makes the difference is how much money you are willing to invest. The Japanese have the densest network of seismographs in the world. When a quake starts, they know in which direction the wave is moving and which tracks will be on its path. Drivers are immediately alerted and have time to stop the train before it reaches the dangerous zone.
The Japanese system is very expensive but if you divide its cost by the number of train riders it becomes negligible.
Is California ready to make the same effort for a line that will have a much smaller ridership than the Shinkansen? I’m a bit sceptical about it when I see single tracks shared by passenger and freight trains with no other signalling than trackside lights.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
What? I heard the Japanese have figured out a way to STOP earthquakes altogether. They’re only working out the kinks, such as assuring Earth will retain its spin and from loosing orbit and sliding into the Sun.
I think it should be a train that has no problems to travel at 220mph (350 km/h) and above. The only trainsets that are ready or could catch up in the next two years are
Alstom AGV,
http://bit.ly/c5K3St
Siemens Velaro,
http://www.usa.siemens.com/industry/us/hsr-portal/hsr-landing.html
Talgo 350,
http://www.talgoamerica.com/very-high-speed.aspx
and Bombardier ZEFIRO.
http://www.zefiro.bombardier.com/desktop/en/home/index.html
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:00 am
For completeness’ sake, you might also want to include the following products currently in development in your list:
a) TALGO AVRIL. The following slide set is in Spanish, but the pictures should be self-explanatory.
http://www.forotrenes.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=72031&sid=33e4a6037bf5d1672bd2025362efee35
b) FS ETR 1000. Beyond a speed target of 360km/h in commercial operations, the details are still vague. The Kawasaki efSET was not chosen, instead the vendor shortlist is now a consortium Bombardier and AnsaldoBreda and Alstom (which acquired FIAT Ferroviaria in 2000). In other words, as usual, a state-owned railway is going with vendors with manufacturing plants in the same country. Jobs, jobs, jobs and all that. Note that FS will soon be competing against new market entrant NTV, which is buying Alstom AGV trains.
http://www.fsnews.it/cms/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=dd1c6cdcac3f8210VgnVCM1000004016f90aRCRD
Taiwan has a European earthquake system. There seems to be some debate about whether or not they should have gone with a Japanese system.
http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xitem=95614&CtNode=414
Of course there is a limit to what anyone can do, including the Japanese. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20041119f1.html
We’re certainly due for a big one like the 6.8 that hit Japan above, so better do our homework.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/1906/18april/othereqs.php
Emma Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Remember the Easter earthquake? It was a 7.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Baja_California_earthquake
I will say it again. I think China will provide both the equipment and capital which we need. They have already met the speed requirements of 220mph on a re-engineered Velaro and are willing to put up huge amounts of money for our system. I think the operator will be SNCF and Siemens will team up with the Chinese to get in on some of the capital and foothold on true HSR in the United States.
jimsf Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:35 am
French trains s’il vous plait. AGV.
Useless Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 6:19 am
Chinese doesn’t care for safety of passengers and speed their trains.
Eric M Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Useless,
Can you show proof of this on their high speed trains? Links?
Emma Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Where is their technology? We can’t wait 10 years. We need to sign contracts within two years as it takes five years to build such a huge fleet of high speed trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:16 am
It’s not particularly huge. Medium sized at best.
Emma Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Even if it were only 50. If they signed a contract in 2014, this would mean 10 trains per year. And each train would have at least 7 cars.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
CHSRA plans to order 60 self-propelled trainsets of 8 cars each, with options on 40 more. It’s a large order, to be sure, but not huge by international standards. Nothing any of the serious candidates couldn’t handle in the space of a few years. Building the trains is not the long pole in the tent.
Btw, Japan Inc. almost got its foot in the door in the early 1980s when there was a plan to upgrade LOSSAN to support shinkansen operations. Then-governor Jerry Brown had tried to build a high speed rail system using only state tax revenue but was shot down by a hostile state legislature. A second attempt led by the newly formed American High Speed Rail Corporation managed to secure sufficient private investment to get the line built without taxpayer funding, but this effort also collapsed when Orange County residents rebelled against efforts to exempt it from environmental review.
Plus ca change…
http://www.counterpunch.org/trainor12092003.html
For more details, watch the 1982 NOVA documentary “Tracking the Supertrains”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTV1ij6ST_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgKYF53y9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gAaU9NMeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExHnLeXRxYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlA2U_kYomk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puwhS2EK44I
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Presentation on JR Central’s N700i. Includes slides on measures to reduce the risk of catastrophic derailment during an earthquake.
http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/JRCENTRAL.pdf
These come on top of Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System (UrEDAS), a Japanese network of sensor arrays that can detect a traveling seismic wave and give operators valuable seconds to bring trains likely to be affected to an emergency stop. Of course, that is only effective if the epicenter is distant enough, which was not the case for one train on the Joetsu shinkansen on Oct 23, 2004. Fortunately, only the leading tractor car derailed and none of the 155 people on board at the time was injured.
http://www.essexsection.co.uk/html/chuetsu_earthquake.html
Just as important are the lessons learned regarding the resilience of the infrastructure and the effort required to implement repairs.
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr43_44/pdf/f46_ogu.pdf
See also our earlier post on trains and earthquakes:
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/01/shake-rattle-roll/
Shinkansen will not make it to California because of mixed traffic issue with Caltrain and Metrolink. Florida is another story, but not in California.
The lowest crashworthiness standard that FRA will accept is UIC. None of Shinkansen models are UIC compliant, while all the non-Japanese and non-Chinese offerings are UIC compliant.
So it’s not a problem to cut out Japanese and Chinese from California project; that still leaves Koreans with their UIC-compliant KTX-II to do the low-ball bidding.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 6:41 am
The Chinese CHR3 (Hexian) is a version of the Siemens Velaro. Is that also not UIC compliant?
Useless Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 6:55 am
The Chinese company that’s bidding in California is CSR(Modified Shinkansen E2), not CNR(CRH3).
Like Japanese with their Shinkansens, Chinese CRHs are designed to Chinese railroad conditions and were not designed to be exported to countries with high safety standards, which adds cost and weight.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Japan runs the safest railway system in the world. They have the highest safety standard.
Show me where there is to be mixed traffic. All the proposals coming out from CHSRA show Caltrain and HSR trains running in a shared corridor, but separate tracks.
Joey Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 7:53 am
The irony is that the way plans are going, CAHSR will share tracks with Metrolink but not with CalTrain.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
CHSRA has always planned to share the DTX tunnel tracks between 4th & King and the TBT in SF with electric Caltrain equipment.
The original plan also called for HSR trains to share track with Amtrak PS and Metrolink’s OC line in the short section between Fullerton and Anaheim. This was nixed as soon as Anaheim mayor Curt Pringle became chairman of the board, because he wants more than 3 HSR trains per hour to pull into the future ARTIC station. In addition. there were concerns about whether FRA would allow HSR trains to share track with FRA-compliant Amtrak and Metrolink equipment with capacity-killing large guaranteed time separations.
However, residents of Anaheim and other OC cities have expressed strong reservations about the construction of dedicated HSR tracks. In the wake of FRA granting Caltrain its mixed traffic waiver, Sen. Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wants CHSRA to go back to the original plan not just for Fullerton-Anaheim but for LA-Anaheim. He wants to leverage the HSR project for decongesting the BNSF Transcon so freight volume at the LA and LB harbors can increase without clogging SoCal freeways any more than is already the case.
The CHSRA board has just approved studying both dedicated tracks and a shared LOSSAN corridor.
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/press-release-July-board-meeting-final.pdf
Giese Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 8:10 am
I thought Japanese vendors had already dropped out of the bidding in California due to their persistence of the closed systems. Alstom or Siemens are the most likely candidates in many aspects. Chinese and Korean especially KTX-II something have no possibility. Their trains are basically derived form of German or French ones, and cannot make up the lack of long-term experience in their own countries till the decisions late 2011.
rafael Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
The bidding hasn’t even begun yet. I seriously doubt CHSRA will be selecting a vendor as early as the fall of 2011. FRA hasn’t even drawn up the rules for operating trains at speeds over 150mph yet.
Btw, the KTX-II is a homegrown Korean design by Hyndai Rotem.
Useless Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 10:29 am
@ Giese
KTX-II is kosher for sale in the US, because it uses no TGV parts and drawings. The entire model was redesigned from scratch. KTX-II certainly draws from the experience of working on TGV-R, but the vehicle itself is totally new and is actually enhanced over TGV.
Chinese on the other hand uses designs supplied by foreign vendors for license production in their “indigenous trains’ and this is the cause of IP rights friction between China and foreign vendors. If Chinese played the game like Koreans did, there wouldn’t be any IPR disputes.
AndyDuncan Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
KTX-II is kosher for sale in the US, because it uses no TGV parts and drawings.
Did they truly clean-room that new design? IE: were there any engineers on the project who had seen the designs for the TGV? It looks like a facelifted TGV, I wouldn’t be surprised if Alstom were to take issue with any export of that train. Maybe the train world is different from what I’m used to, but I wouldn’t take Rotem’s word at face value.
Useless Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@ AndyDuncan
> Did they truly clean-room that new design?
Yes, and this is why it took them 12 years to commercialize this since the project began in the late 90s, because it took them that long to design, test, and validate their model.
> It looks like a facelifted TGV
But totally different internally. For example, the transformer is said to be only 40% the size of TGV-R’s, thanks to latest technology. TGV-R was made out of skin, while KTX-II is made out of dual-layer aluminum. Power car’s structural strength is double that of TGV-R. Ride KTX(aka TGV-R) and KTX-II back to back and you can feel the difference, with KTX-II’s ride feeling quieter and more “solid” thanks to its stiffer body and new bogie suspension.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if Alstom were to take issue with any export of that train.
KTX-II’s competing against TGV in Brazil, Florida, and California and you don’t hear Alstom complaining. Alstom president did call out for a ban of Chinese train export citing unauthorized use of licensed design back in 2009, so whatever Koreans are doing is Kosher(Using the experience, not the design).
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
The Chinese have a revanchist spirit that Koreans don’t have. A Chinese official (whose name I forgot) once said: “How can the West complain about technology theft after stealing so much from us? Where would the West be without the compass and gunpowder? Did China get any royalties for these Chinese inventions?”
For the Chinese, stealing from the West is not unethical. It is patriotic.
Peter Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I didn’t know IP law went back to the 14th century…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
If the Chinese official had known more about Western history, he’d have been able to cite more specific examples. The US did not respect foreign intellectual property until the 20th century; the New York publishing industry got its start by pirating British books. Earlier, Britain was so pissed that its sphere of influence in the Americas didn’t have any gold that it paid off pirates to raid Spanish ships. The IP protections the first world demands of the third are so onerous that there are globalization supporters, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, who point to them as examples of corruption in free trade agreements and say that good free trade shouldn’t have them.