China HSR Crash May Hurt Chinese Export Plans
The crash of two high speed trains in Wenzhou, China on Saturday, killing 39, is beginning to raise questions about China’s plans to export its HSR technology:
Trainmakers CSR Corp. and China CNR Corp., builders including China Railway Construction Corp. and parts makers such as Zhuzhou CSR Times Electric Co., have targeted markets including the U.S. and Europe, touting experience gained from construction of the nation’s domestic network. The fatal crash, near Wenzhou on July 23, may undermine their sales pitches.
“Their chances of selling high-speed trains are zero,” said Edwin Merner, president of Atlantis Investment Research Corp. in Tokyo, which manages about $3 billion in assets. “I don’t think they can ever get confidence back.”
CSR, builder of both trains in the crash, tumbled the most in about three years yesterday in Hong Kong trading, and China Rail Construction fell 6.7 percent on concerns the accident may damp China’s export push and disrupt domestic plans. Beijing- based CSR and partner General Electric Co. (GE) may bid to supply trains for a planned high-speed line in California, possibly competing against Siemens AG (SIE), Alstom SA (ALO) and Bombardier Inc. (BBD/B)
“There’s probably little chance of China winning a high- speed train order in the U.S.,” said Ryota Himeno, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co. “There’ll be much more importance placed on safety now.”
As the Bloomberg article reminds us, China has been frequently mentioned as a possible funder/vendor/builder/operator for the California high speed rail project, and Arnold Schwarzenegger gave glowing reviews to the Chinese system on a visit there last year.
However, criticism has been mounting in recent years of the safety of the Chinese HSR system. Last year JR Central slammed China’s HSR safety record:
The chairman of Central Japan Railway, operator of Japan’s oldest and busiest bullet train link, has denounced China’s growing high-speed rail industry for “stealing” foreign technology and compromising safety…
Many trains on Chinese routes travel at up to 350kph, 25 per cent faster than Shinkansen trains in Japan, and have had no big accidents. But Mr Kasai said they are much closer to maximum safe speeds: “I don’t think they are paying the same attention to safety that we are. Pushing it that close to the limit is something we would absolutely never do.”
In February 2011, Chinese officials took action to address safety concerns:
the railway minister who oversaw the high-speed push was removed on charges of corruption, and under his successor, the plans changed: top speed was reduced to a ‘mere’ 300 km/h, lengthening the shortest Beijing-Shanghai trip to 4 hours 48 minutes.
But those efforts appear to have been undone by the Wenzhou crash. HSR systems should not fail as a result of a lightning strike – and in the nearly 50 year history of HSR around the world, nothing like this has happened. The crash, then, raises serious questions about Chinese train exports. No wonder the Chinese companies have taken a tumble on the Hong Kong stock market.
It’s not the end of Chinese HSR or Chinese HSR exports, of course. The crash’s cause can be isolated and fixed, and as China gains experience building and operating high speed trains, the country can repair the damage to its reputation. Still, it doesn’t help China’s cause, and should be a boost to rivals in Japan, Germany, Spain and France.
What does this mean for California HSR? Right now, not very much. The project is still in planning stages, and even the Central Valley segment is over a year away from its first contracts. Were China an active bidder, the crash would be a big setback for their California HSR efforts. But there is time for Chinese HSR to address any outstanding problems and provide a solid, safe, sensible bid for California HSR work.
HSR opponents have already been using the Wenzhou crash as an argument against Chinese HSR and against HSR in general. Both claims are premature at best. China needs to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation, and address whatever issues are discovered to the satisfaction of outside observers, and not just to the leadership in Beijing. And if it gives a boost to other HSR builders and operators, with a clean record of safety, all the better for those companies. California’s HSR system will be built to strong and, it’s safe to say, exacting state and federal standards. Whoever builds it, there should be no doubt that the millions of people riding it each year will do so safely.
http://community.railwaygazette.com/blog/article/read/id/30-what-happened-at-wenzhou
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 4:34 am
That editorial, with its comments about how much of railroad operating rules worldwide deal with degraded or incapacitated signalling systems, reminded me that some American railroaders call their operating rules “the Book of Blood.” or they say it is a “book written in blood.” Translation: everything in there is there because someone did something different, and there were at least injuries if not fatalities. . .
This reaction (hurting China’s export chances) is not so surprising, but does it really make all that much sense?
It seems like the scuttlebutt so far is pointing more to shoddy operating practice than shoddy equipment / design / construction (and the designs seem to be largely still based on imported tech anyway)…. and presumably any export version would be subject to more scrutiny by the importer, and so wouldn’t suffer from corner-cutting to the same degree that the Chinese domestic version apparently did.
Ken Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:30 am
We imported baby food from China with tough regulations, yet the Chinese still screwed that up with melamine taints.
Just because export version will have tough regulations doesn’t necessarily mean they will follow through on those promises. You need to build trust first and they failed miserably.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/26/content_12979874.htm
The corridor where the crash took place is now back on service, less than 40 hours after the accident. The crashed trainsets were buried at the site at dawn, and during this burial process they uncovered a 3 year old victim who would have been buried at the site with the train debris had she not cried out for help. Heck, bodies were literally falling out of the train set while they were pulling down the rail car hanging from the viaduct. How can this be?
Chinese way of thinking is fundamentally different from our way of thinking. That accident was “no big deal” to the Chinese leadership, whose decided to make us forget the incident by burying the debris, quickly clean-up the site, and resume service as if nothing had happened. Censorship at Chinese media is at full force, and local media has stopped covering the event under the direction of the communist party. Bad things happen, life goes on, and look away, nothing to see here. Each dead victim’s family will be paid around $20,000 in compensation, including two Chinese Americans who died.
Now, do you really want to trust CAHSR construction to people who consider everyone to be expendable in the name of the great social progress? Back in 2008, there was a great melamine tainted milk scandal in China, and a number of people were executed. Fast forward 2010, melamine tainted milk is back in full force in China. Heck, Chinese milk producers have gone one step further and are now producing “leather milk” to evade melamine testing. Why? Because it is a Chinese custom to cheat while no one’s looking. An honest person is a fool who has no place in China’s society.
Chinese bullet trains have no place in the US or anywhere else on earth. China’s out of here.
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
100% agreed.
Gianny Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
+1
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 4:13 am
+1
William Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
It is unfair to say that “cheating” when no one is looking is not a “Chinese” only phenomenon. But in China, it is because the government want to divert people’s attention away from political freedom that the government “accept” people bending the rules to make money and fuel the economy.
William Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Should read “It is unfair to say that “cheating” when no one is looking is a “Chinese” only phenomenon”
Andy Chow Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
What HSRA should have is to require interested operators to have adopted and is practicing an open and transparent policy on safety and accident investigations in their own systems. I bet that other countries would have no problem in complying that except the Communist China.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Good God.
If operators are doing the investigation you’re set up for worse than failure.
That would be like having a rent-seeking pork-swilling fraud-abetting conflicted-out-the-wazoo consultancy mafioso do your alternatives “analysis” and set your “technical” standards — it’s putting the foxes in charge of guarding the chicken coop.
Respected transportation investigation agencies are industry-independent, governmental bodies world-wide, for very good reasons. (The very same reasons, as it happens, that outfits of PBQD’s ethical and professional level aren’t in charge of route selection for successful HSR networks: without unconflicted, careful, rational, fact-based analysis, there can be no reason to trust or even believe published findings.)
Andy Chow Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
I am not implying that they self investigate, but rather have a policy to have investigation from some agency. If a rail operator in country A wants to bid for California system, then that operator in country A must have independent safety oversight from some agency in country A.
California for instance is doing pretty well. CPUC provides safety oversight for all urban rail systems in the state, with regulations as tough if not tougher than the federal standard. The DC Metro system hasn’t been doing so well, and of course you cannot expect the China’s rail system to have independent oversight (the central government runs the rail system and controls the media).
Aaron Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:03 am
99% agree. Replace “Chinese way of thinking” with “The Chinese government’s way of thinking.” I’m under no illusion that the average Li on the street thinks that this kind of amorality is acceptable. But, for now, there appears to be a widespread acceptance that challenging this government is impossible. There are some awesome reform efforts going on at the local and county level, but the national government really is ensconced in a nearly-untouchable forbidden bureaucracy.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“Chinese way of thinking is fundamentally different from our way of thinking.”
this is bullshit. chinese popular opinion is in an utter uproar about this, online commentators have been scathing against the govt.’s corruption, tolerance for shoddy workmanship, insider dealing, and great leap-esque levels of delusional politics-first propaganda projects instead of doing a decent job with it. if the chinese have a round of the arab spring this fall, it will be in part to incidents like this one. i’ve seen interviews with villagers by the crash site, and they were beyond furious at the govt.’s haste to bury the trains and crash victims, almost in tears.
chinese people are human beings, and their way of thinking is not terribly different from yours or mine. the issue here is a dangerously corrupt single-party state that has been pushing HSR not as an important infrastructure but as a vanity project rushed to be finished by the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CCP and the 100th anniversary of the 1911 wuchang uprising. the midst of everyday people is not at fault here, this is a structural problem with the way the government disregards the public welfare out of their own propaganda considerations.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:56 am
midst = miNdsEt
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for bringing some common sense and logic to the discussion (as always!)
Jon Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
+1
Jon Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
…Robert, any chance you can install Disqus so we can actually +1 comments, as well as edit them for a short period after posting? Check out Streetsblog or SFist to see how it works.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
No. Oh, Great Cthulhu, please no. Disqus makes commenting so difficult that I find it easier to have productive discussions on the troll-ridden Infrastructurist than on Streetsblog or especially Market Urbanism (where the order of comments is random).
Neville Snark Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
+1
Spokker Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 1:44 am
“chinese people are human beings, and their way of thinking is not terribly different from yours or mine. ”
On a macro level we have the one-child policy and everything bad that comes with it, including female infanticide. According to Pew the Chinese people approve of this policy: http://pewglobal.org/2008/07/22/the-chinese-celebrate-their-roaring-economy-as-they-struggle-with-its-costs/
“China’s “one-child policy” is overwhelmingly accepted. Roughly three-in-four (76%) approve of the policy, which restricts most couples to a single child.”
This would represent a significant fundamental difference in the way we think in regard to human life.
On a micro level: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/chinese-couple-sells-all-three-kids-to-play-online-games.html
It’s not even that they sold their three children. It has happened in the US. They didn’t even know it was illegal. And they were doing it to fuel an Internet addiction, a really frivolous reason among all the reasons to sell a child.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:05 am
If Westerners were the people stereotyped as irredeemably authoritarian, Chinese blog commenters would be pointing out the high levels of US support for the flag burning amendment.
Spokker Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Which would be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway. We are so freedom loving that we protect us from our stupid, emotional selves.
Spokker Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:12 am
And it seems that my wild speculation and reckless posting was actually correct. These type of laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court.
And it also appears that I don’t know how my own government works.
Hooray!
Peter Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 7:29 am
Ummm, a flag burning amendment to the US Constitution would, by definition, be constitutional, and could not be struck down by the Supreme Court. This is in contrast with the flag burning statutes passed by various jurisdictions.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:28 am
Er, “approve of the policy” suggests that they recognize the value of restricting population growth, given the the clearly significant problems it causes. It doesn’t mean that they somehow don’t value human life, or approve of excessive measures taken to enforce the policy.
“ability to have lots of kids with no restriction” is not the same as “human life.”
Spokker Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 3:58 am
There are policies that succeed in the same goals that the one child policy does while avoiding the horrible side effects that give outsiders cause for alarm.
TomW Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:28 am
“Chinese bullet trains have no place in the US or anywhere else on earth”
… and yet people continue to buy Chinese goods from Wal-Mart etc. Double standards.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Pretty sure a plastic kiddie toy won’t slam into another killing and injuring a hundred or more innocent people.
Might scuff the bright red lead based paint, though…
Jim
The immediately obvious failure is one of signaling: either positive train control was not installed or the positive train control system failed catastrophically without excuse. If it was not installed, which is criminally negligent at the speeds operated at, then we run into human error in passing a stop signal or, again, the trackside signaling failed. If the PTC system failed, it was designed to criminally negligent standards. Routine weather phenomenon should not cause signal failure even if they do cause power supply failures and any system should fail-safe with no possibility of a rear end collision.
That this crash happened in this manner indicates that there should be a complete lack of confidence in China’s systems, especially given that the reaction of China has been to blame Japan (contrary to their previous proclamations of indigenous Chinese tech) and try to cover-up what happened. That lightning strikes dozens of miles from the line caused the power failure is also concerning.
Useless Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
@ Paulus Magnus
The word from China is that the collision prevention system was disabled to get the trains run closer together due to bad weather. The trains were running at slow speeds, and they could not pack the traffic together as long as the collision prevention system was on.
bleh Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:04 am
Why would bad weather necessitate closer trains? And the speeds can’t have been that low otherwise the crash wouldn’t have happened.
Word is the train control system crashed from lightning strikes and stopped the trains. But due to all the glitches on the Beijing-Shanghai line and the resulting criticism, the local railway bureau wanted to avoid the delays that would result from rebooting it properly. So they just switched it off completely and decided to control the HSR line without any signalling.
On a related note, CRH2 are built to Shinkansen standards (It’s an E2) and are supposed to be not as crash-worthy as European models. But the CRH2 plowed right through the Bombardier-derived CRH1 and most passengers in the first two carriages seem to have survived the 15m drop off the viaduct. Japanese engineering at work.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Substitute “nuclear power plant” for “high speed rail” in your message and we might really be onto something with this whole “fail safe” business.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
That seems the absurd thing: by trying to cover things up (as it appears they’re doing), they automatically cast doubt on their technology and process.
If they want to save their HSR export business and preserve general confidence in their system, they’d be far better off doing a careful analysis of what went wrong, because then they at least stand some chance of showing it was some operational error, or at least identifying the problem and showing that it can be fixed…. but it seems their instinct to cover up failures is simply too strong.
Aaron Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:20 am
That seems the absurd thing: by trying to cover things up (as it appears they’re doing), they automatically cast doubt on their technology and process.
That’s definitely it. As long as the reason for the crash isn’t 100% known and preventable, their “technology” is rightly untouchable (which is to say, Japanese and European technology sold by a Chinese government that thinks very little of foreign patents), . At the moment, I’m hoping that this incident puts an end to any delusions of using Chinese methods to build or operate the system. They may offer it on the cheap, but if lightning did this, I shudder to think what the Big One will do. Stick
Well if China is out, then by that logic Siemens is disqualified too.
Better forget about TGV too.
Joey Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I dunno, something feels a bit different when they’re trying to bury their mistakes … literally.
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
I would ride a German or French train without a care in the world and if you can’t see why, perhaps you really are drunk, hyuck-yuck-yuck!
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:26 am
Never a fatality in high speed operations on a TGV (one due to a terrorist attack, a bomb planted in a TGV car, hope you don’t count it?).
The Jacobs bogie, only on Alstom trains, is on another planet when it comes to safety and comfort.
bleh Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:20 am
So please enlighten us, how would those magical unicorn bogies have helped a train that dropped off the side of a bridge? I’m really tired of the Alstom propaganda.
There’s a reason France and Japan have gone decades without serious accidents. That reason is good operations procedures and no half-assed solutions. The Chinese failed on the first, the Germans on the second.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:04 am
You’ve got a point with your last assertion. The key is : good systems, good solutions, good operation, it’s undeniable.
Regarding your first point : I don’t have a particular love for Alstom ; AAMOF, it happens that all the french HSR knowledge is deposited in three hands : RFF (how to build HSR, although they don’t build themselves, they just set the standards), SNCF (operation), Alstom (rolling stock)
So, like it or not, all the french weaknesses and advantages in rolling stock are in Alstom hands – that’s all.
And to me the biggest advantage of Alstom’s productions is the Jacobs bogie.
Now, regarding the accident in China, I don’t know if an Alstom train would have made a real difference ; simply consider that the AGV (newest TGV Duplex, perhaps, also?) has a deformable structure at front that can take up to 1GJ in a crash, plus a safety cage for the Engineer ; maybe, only maybe, could have it saved one car? The engineer’s life? Frankly, I don’t know.
But take Eschede, for instance : The ICE derailed just in front of a concrete bridge, then jacknifed, and because it jacknifed it hit a concrete pile of the bridge that pulverized both the pile and at least one car, further inducing the collapse of the bridge on the other cars.
If it had been an Alstom train it wouldn’t have jacknifed when derailing, thanks to the Jacobs bogie (more on that later), then it perhaps would have avoided the bridge pile or at least hit it tangentially, not laterally, leaving the possibility that the bridge would have stayed standing, and even if the bridge had collapsed, it would have fallen on fewer cars, for the train would have stayed relatively parrallel to the tracks, anyway a much less serious catastrophe ; but wait, it’s not over :
Why did the Eschede catastrophe happen? Because of a faulty wheel ; usually HST wheels are plain ; this one had dampers ; in fact at first the wheels were supposed to be plain but during the ICE development tests people complained about COMFORT ; so DB or Siemens, I don’t know, replaced the plain wheels by wheels with dampers, inducing, soon or later, a catastrophe ; but wait, wait, how come on Alstom trains the French, of ultra-sensitive “seat” fame, didn’t complain? Because of the Jacobs bogies, which have such a good suspension that there was no need to work on the wheels, just choose the most secure solution, plain wheels, and stick to it.
Conclusion : not only the Jacobs bogie would have LIMITED the Eschede catastrophe, but they would have PREVENTED it.
Now, you say, how do I know that an Alstom TGV wouldn’t have jacknifed at Eschede? Because the TGV, AFAIK, IS THE ONLY HST TO HAVE HAD A DERAILMENT AT CLOSE TO 300KM/H (blame a sinkhole).
And I can tell you bleh, I’ll never forget that vision, on french TV news, of a TGV, perfectly aligned with the tracks, stiff as a two-day baguette, with its passengers on the sidetrack complaining of minor bruises and being late (well, of course, they didn’t show the ones who had broken wrists or else, but remember : NO FATALITY). For that, and for that only, hail Alstom and François Lacôte (TGV designer), man!
Last but not least : there is a lot of attention given in this blog to the noise that CHSR will produce, because of all those NIMBYS etc. ; ok, I know that the ICE is supposed to make less noise than the TGV, but frankly, I don’t believe it the least ; I prefer by far the noise of a passing TGV to the noise of an ICE and I’m sure the Jacobs bogie is for something in this ; check this out :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhp03t5nwYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPfnPNpWlVI&feature=related
you decide
Speaking about comfort now : have you taken the TGV on an ordinary rail line? it has to slow to “only” 120 mph ; at that speed, so comfortable are the Jacobs bogie, it’s like a magic carpet ; you don’t feel nothing ; it’s totally eerie, it’s even a bit unnerving not to feel anything.
Best regards,
Eric
thatbruce Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:38 am
@ericmarseille:
You seem to be unaware of certain details of the Eschede incident, given your comment of:
Now, you say, how do I know that an Alstom TGV wouldn’t have jacknifed at Eschede? Because the TGV, AFAIK, IS THE ONLY HST TO HAVE HAD A DERAILMENT AT CLOSE TO 300KM/H (blame a sinkhole).
Quoting from the WP article on the Eschede crash which Drunk Engineer previously linked to:
The broken-off check rail then forced the point blades of the following set of points to change direction, and the rear cars of the trainset were diverted to a different track. They hit the pillars of a street overpass, which then collapsed onto the tracks.
I’d like to see the explanation of how a Jacobs Bogie-equipped train would successfully deal with a bridge coming down atop it mid-train. I would surmise that like DB’s ICE, it would come to a very abrupt stop. Unlike the ICE, which jackknifed, the Jacobs Bogie-equipped train would probably experience more telescoping in the individual carriages, due to, as you point out, the propensity of the Jacobs Bogie not easily permitting jackknifing.
You are correct in that the particular wheel in use failed. This was simply the origin of the equipment that became improperly detached from the train and changed the points/turnout. The rest of the Eschede distaster unfolded due to initial unwillingness of the onboard staff to bring the train to an immediate stop, and a poor design in the placement of the bridge supports between two tracks, especially near points/turnouts. If either of these two factors were not present, Eschede would not have been as severe. Both of these factors have since been addressed by DB across their network.
Eschede could easily have happened due to a different piece of equipment becoming improperly detached, such as underframe equipment, the front spoiler/streamlining, even an entire wheelset (even plain ones crack and have suffered catastrophic failure). The fact that such equipment doesn’t regularly come loose from HSR trains is a testament to the higher maintenance standards which such trains are subjected to compared to ‘regular’ trains. The Jacobs Bogie is not a magic fix to every conceivable problem.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Yes if it happened this way it probably would have been to the same effect on a TGV, except for something : the TGV being way stiffer, it would have taken much more energy to divert the whole train raher than individual cars ; to what effect? I sincerely don’t know, but I believe that a train that stays as parrallel as possible from the tracks and as straight as possible when derailing is basically safer.
I know that the wheel problem has been adressed by DB and Siemens since.
I don’t believe the Jacobs Bogie is a magic fix to every conceivable problem, don’t worry, but I’m convinced that without them the TGV derailment on the Nord line would have been a terrible catastrophe with dozens of victims.
Listen, I’m not a super-opiniated guy ; I just drop a few comments here and there, when I feel that I can correct a post or give some relevant information ; I’m very happy to read that blog as I believe in the usefulness of high speed rail ; but I’m also a high speed rail user, and frankly, I’d be worried to use a train without Jacobs Bogies. To me they should be MANDATORY in HSR operations, all the while knowing that they’re not a cure-all all right ; I hope, now that the competition will open on domestic routes in Europe, that DB doesn’t eat SNCF’s breakfast. Bigoted? If you like. And I’ll keep boarding trains with Jacob Bogies.
bleh Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:10 am
ok, I know that the ICE is supposed to make less noise than the TGV, but frankly, I don’t believe it the least ; I prefer by far the noise of a passing TGV to the noise of an ICE and I’m sure the Jacobs bogie is for something in this
And then you try to tell me that you’re not a fanboy, right.
simply consider that the AGV (newest TGV Duplex, perhaps, also?) has a deformable structure at front that can take up to 1GJ in a crash
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobs bogies nor with Alstom (it’s part of the UIC standards) but you’re off by two orders of magnitude.
It’s *mega*, not gigajoule. That structure would have done nothing in this case. It only works for ramming trucks on non-HS lines or against trains at very, very low speeds.
If it had been an Alstom train it wouldn’t have jacknifed when derailing, thanks to the Jacobs bogie (more on that later)
It jackknifed *because* it hit the pillar. Jacobs bogies won’t prevent half of a 1000t train at one end and a bridge pillar at the other from folding together the middle. The bogie would simply have been ripped straight from one of its anchor points.
Because of the Jacobs bogies, which have such a good suspension that there was no need to work on the wheels, just choose the most secure solution, plain wheels, and stick to it.
This, too, has nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobs bogies. You can fit a good suspension on any train.
Eschede:
A train with MUB (magic unicorn bogies) and an equivalent fault would have taken the turn off as far as the cars’ connection would have allowed it. That would have been more than enough to hit the central pillar. Then the back of the train and the pillar would have jackknifed everything in the middle and the bridge would have come down. No difference.
The problem with Eschede was DB’s love for half-assed solutions. On a HS line there are no switches in front of bridges because you don’t cluster error sources. Bridges have no central pillars and reinforced supports on the side to prevent exactly the scenario that played out at Eschede. But Eschede was an old line, upgraded and uprated for 200km/h.
Also German HS lines (with two exceptions) and, of course, the upgraded lines are for mixed traffic, i.e. freight trains. Their axle loads damage the track within months. But DB didn’t improve the suspension compared to old, slower trains and that led to vibrations at higher speeds. To stop them, somebody had the idea to use wheel tires like on trams.
Those tend to rip from the inside and that couldn’t be detected without x-raying them which was too expensive. Even worse, when fractures where found on old tires they committed the same fallacy as NASA with the O-rings on the Shuttle. A tire/ring ripped half way through was said to have a “safety margin of 2″, which is of course utter BS. Never let MBAs make engineering decisions.
Eschede was the result of half assed solutions. Both for the track as well as for the train.
Bonus story: The axles on ICE3 and ICET (like all their predecessors DB designed, with Siemens&Co as subcontractors) are prone to axle breaks because DB chose the size of the axles according to a DIN standard from 1908. The first thing Siemens did when developing the Velaro was to double the axle size.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 6:40 am
>And then you try to tell me that you’re not a fanboy, right.
The noise…All right I’m a fan boy (remember, there’s a quality to a noise, it’s not all intensity, and I wrote : you decide)
>This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobs bogies nor with Alstom (it’s part of the UIC standards) but you’re off by two orders of magnitude.
It’s *mega*, not gigajoule. That structure would have done nothing in this case. It only works for ramming trucks on non-HS lines or against trains at very, very low speeds.
I checked because I had a doubt (before reading your comment) and I admit I was wrong : it’s exactly 4.6 MJ (in fact I checked my post to humbly rectify); and you’re right, it’s enough to withstand the shock of a truck on a crossing and not much else.
>It jackknifed *because* it hit the pillar. Jacobs bogies won’t prevent half of a 1000t train at one end and a bridge pillar at the other from folding together the middle. The bogie would simply have been ripped straight from one of its anchor points.
From the reconstitution of the accident that I watched on french TV, absolutely not ; the film showed the train jacknifing before hitting the pillar ; Now, perhaps
1) My memory fails me
2) The reconstitution didn’t show the reality
You seem to know better
>This, too, has nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobs bogies. You can fit a good suspension on any train.
So why did Siemens or DB decide to work on the wheels instead of working on the suspension?
If it was possible, as you say, it’s the sleaziest industrial engineering decision I’ve heard of (meaning Siemens or DB = Utter shite)
Pls now explain to me (in all friendliness, don’t worry, I’m not doing a pissing contest), what would have happened during the nord line derailment at 270km/h (I read also 290km/h, you probably know better cause you are clearly more informed than me) with an ICE or Shinkansen train? Following your logic, it would have been just like what happened with the TGV. This, I can’t believe for a second ; but if you have good arguments, you may convince me.
Until then, I’ll very respectuously and very irrationally keep on feeling reassured in Alstom-technology, MUB (hey, I like that!)-equipped trains
Best regards bleh
bleh Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 11:27 am
So why did Siemens or DB decide to work on the wheels instead of working on the suspension?
Because replacing the existing suspension would have meant redesigning and replacing the bogies. (They did that for ICE2+3+T). Switching to wheel tires as the old wheels wore out was dirt cheap by comparison.
If it was possible, as you say, it’s the sleaziest industrial engineering decision I’ve heard of (meaning Siemens or DB = Utter shite)
DB, their design, their responsibility.
Sleazy would mean that they knowingly chose a dangerous and inferior solution. I really don’t think they did, originally. The track damage in question is the small deformations caused by deformed freight wheels (brakes acting on the running surface of the wheel and long standing times) and high axle loads. Wheel tires are quite effective to smooth out that kind of damage.
They should have known after the first replacement cycle when fractures became apparent on the inside of the tire. But as I said, it’s the same kind of institutional blindness that affected the space shuttle. It may have been criminal negligence but it’s the kind that is very, very hard to avoid in even the best organizations (see Amagasaki if you don’t like NASA).
The *real* problem is the lack of safety margins. That was the problem of the shuttle (how often did the Russians try to crash a Soyuz the last 10 years? It’s a more benevolent design) and that is the problem of German HSR. On dedicated lines, the design of the line itself prevents such disasters, because all three causes that acted together, bridge+switch+wheel tire, will never be clustered (the first two don’t occur together, the third is unnecessary).
Following your logic, it would have been just like what happened with the TGV.
Likely. The connections between cars aren’t that weak.
The Eschede train had been derailed for quite a while before the broken tire caught on the the switch and dragged it into the turn off. The EuroStar had no anchor pin like that.
The Joetsu derailment was also at more than 200 km/h (I think?) without the train breaking apart the way you expect.
And in China there’d probably be fewer carriages off the bridge had the CRH2 just broken apart.
None of those were at 300 km/h, but you can’t treat it as a badge of honor that the TGV had the only true high speed derailment in the world. oO
ericmarseille Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
None of those were at 300 km/h, but you can’t treat it as a badge of honor that the TGV had the only true high speed derailment in the world. oO
Badge of honor, c’mon…
But listen, you must be American, ain’t you? Ok, now, you’ve had Apollo 13, which (I quote the film) “Morphed the greatest space catastrophe of the USA into its greatest triumph” (approximative quote, you get the message).
Well we, the French public, have had such a moment ; when we should have looked at a tragedy, , we were met with triumph.
You may be cynical and all but that day many French people, including yours unashamedly, were proud of being French and to live in this country. From then on, the French have put a blind faith in the safety of Alstom’s/SNCF’s desigh, the same blind faith we could have when I was a kid in SNCF’s trains punctuality, and have never been deceived since. That’s more than I can say for the Germans, and now the Chinese.
Maybe one day a sinkhole or a crack will open under a track and cause a derailment at high speed ; I understand that you tell me that any kind of HST could withstand this ordeal the way that that TGV did ; I hope you’re right.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Hey, speaking of the “best organisations”…
I read a few days ago, on a French train engineers forum, that DB’s ICEs have had 200 “incidents de voie”, literally “track incidents”, but actually meaning “immobilization on tracks for a failure of some kind”, since they have been put in service on the Est line…They were rants everywhere on the sloppy and stingy DB maintenance (maintenance is done in the same workshops as TGVs, in France, for those ICEs, they know what they’re talking about).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Sure!
RFF and SNCF and CFDT-FGAAC would never ever ever under any circumstance do anything — like, say, completely destroy France’s freight rail system, just for example, or take nearly a decade to approve rolling stock homologation, as another example of things that would never happen in France — in order to keep the evil Germans and evil EU-mandated Open Access off their rusty rails.
The only surprise so far is a lack of an instance of mechanical sabotage of visiting ICEs.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I saw it coming from miles Richard
thatbruce Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
There are links in this post. I would encourage you to follow them all, watching or reading as appropriate, before you comment on this topic again.
From the reconstitution of the accident that I watched on french TV, absolutely not ; the film showed the train jacknifing before hitting the pillar ; Now, perhaps
1) My memory fails me
2) The reconstitution didn’t show the reality
If you want to watch video and commentary about the crash, you can watch a music video which uses footage take from the Seconds
from
Disaster
Episode
on
Eschede.
If you watch that, which includes several sections on reconstructing the accident, you will notice:
(1) The train was dragging the broken wheel and other debris along the track for a substantial distance before encountering the points/turnout, without the train derailing, and with (obviously) the train remaining aligned in the direction of travel.
(2) The jackknife that you thought you saw was the rear axles of coach 3 being switched onto the parallel track, due to the dragging equipment activating the points/turnout.
(2a) A Jacobs Bogie-equipped train, with a longer distance between bogies for coaches of the same length, would have had a slightly easier time being switched to a parallel track since the bogie/coach interface wouldn’t have had to pivot as much.
(3) Coaches 4 to 12 and rear power car followed coach 3 to the parallel track.
(4) Coach 3 impacted the bridge supports, and passed underneath the bridge.
(5) Coach 4 passed under the bridge, becoming disconnected from coaches 3 and 5 (due to coach 5 violently stopping) and then going its own way.
(6) The bridge collapsed onto coaches 5 and 6, stopping them abruptly.
(7) Coaches 7 to 12 and rear power car impacted the bridge and preceding coaches, with their substantial inertia separating them and piling them up against each other’s sides.
(7a) A Jacobs Bogie-equipped train might have telescoped instead, with similar loss of life.
(8) Coaches 1 to 3 came to a stop substantially on the track and aligned in the direction of travel, just like a Jacobs Bogie-equipped train would have.
(9) The lead power car became disconnected from the rest of the train as the result of coach 5 violently stopping, and continued down (and on) the track.
(9a) A TGV has Jacobs Bogies between the coaches, and not between the coaches and the power car, with the exception of TGV-001. Such a separation (or a jackknife) is therefore possible with a TGV set.
So why did Siemens or DB decide to work on the wheels instead of working on the suspension?
Once you’ve designed and built a trainset, there’s only so much you can do with the in-situ suspension. At the time, and probably after some minor tweaks to the suspension on the existing sets, DB decided to replace the wheels with a new technology which had seemed to address the very same vibration problem that they were having.
Pls now explain to me (in all friendliness, don’t worry, I’m not doing a pissing contest), what would have happened during the nord line derailment at 270km/h
Jackknifing happens when the front section of a train stops abruptly. With the incident that you are referring to, the train passed over the sinkhole and derailed, and then came to a halt staying upright and in the same line as the track and the rest of the train. In other words, the incident did not have the right conditions to trigger a jackknife.
On a non-Jacobs Bogie-equipped train, much the same thing would have initially happened. The train would have passed over the sinkhole and derailed, and then came to a halt. With the connections between the coaches not being as strong, results would have been similar to the Hatfield crash (which was slightly slower), with the train separating into multiple sections and some possibly ending up on their side, but still aligned in the original direction of travel. This is a different failure mode from jackknifing, and is something which a Jacobs Bogie-equipped train would have avoided, as you (repeatedly) point out.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Wow…My defeat is complete, and I’m NEARLY convinced now.
But since I’m a very stubborn person, I’ll ask first Mr. François Lacôte on his opinion on this subject (in another life, of course, don’t know him from neither Eve nor Adam), and then, will be able to die gladly, with peace in mind.
For what is the interest in designing, making, SELLING FOR 30+ YEARS Magic Unicorn Bogies equipped high-speed-rail, when there’s no magic and the unicorn is just an old cannasson fitted with a gilded cardboard horn?
Qu’est-ce qu’ils sont cons, ces Français! j’en ris encore!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Jacobs bogies have other advantages – mainly, fewer bogies means less total train weight, at the cost of higher axle load.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:54 am
To Alon : In France Jacob Bogies had been “sold” to the public for their safety, and after the nord line derailment, the disaster that wasn’t (and that wouldn’t have been anyway, according to that Bruce), the media were all out with the “good choices” made by the SNCF and Alstom in safety.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Why do they have to sell them? It seems like they do the job fine, so …
ericmarseille Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 1:40 am
To Miles : Because when the public first saw those trains in 1981, they had doubts on their safety
Remenber, in 81 there was no safety record, we were going in unchartered territory
And TGVs looked rather intimidating compared to other trains.
Part of the education of the public then was to tell them that those intimidating and impressive-looking bogies were designed for their safety!
Listen, this is my last post for a few days ; I’ve been invading this thread and don’t want to be banned.
There seems to be a total wall of incomprehension in this side of the pond to what the French PUBLIC feels, or believes, to be safe (not specialists, not transportation planners and engineers).
Have we been French people brainwashed? Maybe. I’ll stick to this : I want to know now what French engineers and specialists have to say on that matter.
That said, merci pour tout les gars!
Best regards
Andy M. Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 1:56 am
“(2a) A Jacobs Bogie-equipped train, with a longer distance between bogies for coaches of the same length, would have had a slightly easier time being switched to a parallel track since the bogie/coach interface wouldn’t have had to pivot as much.”
Objection.
The distance between bogies on a Jacobs-Bogie train is not greater than on a regular train. The distance between the bogies (and the width of the cars) determines the amount of extra overhang you have in curves, and as the permissible width is more or less standardised across Europe, this is not a value you can vary. TGV coaches are as a result quite a bit shorter than ICE coaches.
thatbruce Reply:
July 29th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Ah, good to know. In that case (2a) is irrelevant when comparing TGV and ICE.
William Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Drawbacks of Articulate Bogies: fewer axles resulting in higher axel weight. Higher axel weight means more wear and tear for the track structure. This can be compensate with shorter cars, but that adds complexity and takes away seating spaces for the same length of train. I would guess that trains using Articulate Bogies are not as easy to scale up (increasing width) like ICE or Shinkansen based designs.
Shinkansen trains have been known to be comfortable as well, and Shinkansen does not use Articulate Bogies, resulting in longer, wider car bodies. In a few derailing accidents on Shinkansen lines (Japan & Taiwan) due to earthquakes, no train jackknifed and stayed up straight.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:38 am
The seating space seems to be one of Alstom’s biggest concern, true enough.
Scaling up, I have no idea, but scaling up a Jacobs Bogie must be certainly very costly, more so than ICE bogies? I don’t know…
Yes Shinkansen has a reputation for comfort, I was just saying that Jacobs Bogies were comfortable enough to not sacrifice safety the least bit, contrary to ICE bogies.
Shinkansen have had a few derailments, but AFAIK TGV is the only HST to have derailed close to 300km/h…Don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m wrong.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:29 am
The Shinkansen’s width has nothing to do with the bogies, and everything to do with the wide loading gauge. Since the Shinkansen couldn’t use legacy track in any way because of the track gauge, JNR decided to build the new track to have wide enough loading gauge to allow 2+3 seating.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 7:01 am
We’ve used something like Jacobs bogies for years in America, although I was not familiar with that name until recently. Mostly we just noted that there were rail cars that were articulated. Most of these were two-unit interurban and tram cars; notable examples included the double units of the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad built by Brill, and the “Bridge Units” of the Key System in California. Articulated railroad equipment included the original Rocket trains of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific (cars by Budd, locomotives by EMD), the early Burlington Zephyrs (motor trains, carbodies by Budd, engines by EMD), and distillate powered streamliners on the Illinois Central (Green Diamond, built by Pullman) and Union Pacific (early City-series trains, Pullman).
Biggest single user of articulated railroad passenger equipment would have been the Southern Pacific, which rostered dozens of two-unit coaches, and had several triple-unit dining and lounge cars in the postwar era.
As I understand it, the biggest drawback to articulation was seen as inflexibility; you could tie up an entire train in the shops for a problem on one car. In addition, many of these early articulated motor trains suffered from an inability to easily expand or contract the train’s size (i.e., add or subtract cars) to match business. This was a real situation in America in the days before the dominance of highway and air transport, with seasonal changes in traffic demand on trains running to Florida in the winter, to New England in the summer, and to western resorts as well.
Since then, articulation has become quite common in America–on freight trains, in the form of various articulated container cars, typically consisting of 5 units each. It is worth noting that these cars are often in a dedicated or semi-dedicated service; they don’t get shunted in freight yards like others do, and you’re not going to see one used to deliver containers or trailers up some branch line. Rather, they are used in places where their capacity of up to 10 containers per car (double-stack well configuration) is really needed.
Classic action: the preserved Nebraska Zephyr on the way to the Train Festival in Rock Island, Ill.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUCpLsRKmP0&feature=related
A better look at low speed, complete with a 1940-vintage EMD E-5 locomotive, custom built in stainless steel for the Chicago Burlington & Quincy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qLNb3KToCw&feature=related
I am a strong fan of steam locomotives, and here we have a simple-expansion version of a Mallet articulated (invented by Anotole Mallet, of Switzerland), on a special movement, pulling a train of articulated container cars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhgHrDbN4EU
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 7:20 am
A little more classic preserved action: Southern Pacific 4449, pulling cars of the Daylight type, including at least one articulated pair (just ahead of the observation car at the rear of the train):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllF93zEqIM
The Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee had two special articulated trains called Electoliners. After this road’s abandonment in 1962, the trains were sold to a railroad in the Philadelphia area, where they operated for more years. Both have been preserved. Here is footage of one of them at a museum road in Illinois:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op9ruCGIsw8
Vintage footage of the trains and other equipment on the Philadelphia & Western:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNVO2DZw2Go
Enjoy some more.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Both Eschede and Wenzhou happened at lower speed. Fatal HSR accidents seem to be more frequent at lower speed, for the same reason that fatal plane accidents are more frequent during takeoff and landing and fatal car accidents are more frequent on 50 km/h city streets than on 130 km/h motorways.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
All this tells you is that is it junctions and traffic density (ie potential conflicts with other trains together with extra points of failure in the form of turnouts and and absolute stop signals) that are the leading order term in accident rates — at least in for passenger operations in advanced first world industrialised democracies. (Amtrak clearly doesn’t count.)
Trains don’t tend to leap off plain track, and when they do, a combination of good fortune and and unencumbered right-of-way and not luckily derailing into opposing traffic that tends to keep things upright and inline. So far.
It’s only a matter of time before luck runs out, regardless of the train and track and national boundaries — we’re dealing with humans and engineered artifacts here, not magic unicorn technology. Good engineers and good operational management, applied in many organizations in many countries around the world,. are the way we try to defer the bad stuff as long as humanly possible.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:46 am
The TGV has a spotless record regarding casualties. Only a few light injuries. Unfortunately, safety has a cost. Alstom trains are 20% more expensive than the competition, which will keep them out of most markets including the US.
Aaron Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:42 am
What you describe here are well-document accidents that can be proven to be a preventable outlier. Planes from Boeing and Airbus have crashed, but we still fly them because the US and Europe have become highly skilled at forensically deriving the conditions causing the crash in order to, hopefully, ensure that a fatality will not reoccur on account of the same correctable conditions or deficiency.
Here, they have taken a “what we don’t know can’t hurt us” approach, a decidedly foolish response.
The Chinese fail to understand that in the US, the cover up is always worse than the crime. Burying those pieces is going to lead to conspiracy theories left and right. The Canadians, Australians, Brazilians, Russians, Africans…none are going to be excited about partnering with China for HSR construction now…..
Welcome to California Japan…I love their trains, specially the 500 Nozomi! That is one sexy train.
Joey Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I wouldn’t count on Japan being in the running. Caltrain’s waiver precludes anything below UIC crashworthiness standards (which all Shinkansen models are). I heard somewhere that they may be developing a UIC-compliant model for export, but that might reduce or eliminate the main benefit of Japanese trains – their low axel loads.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
I suspect that if they want Japanese tech, the FRA will be induced to let them use it.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:24 am
@ Miles Bader
> I suspect that if they want Japanese tech, the FRA will be induced to let them use it.
No.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Yes.
nobody important Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Too early to say.
Justin H Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:45 am
If we buy the system from the Japanese, it won’t HAVE to be crashworthy (assuming we can operate it as smoothly as they do….)
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:52 am
@ Justin H
> it won’t HAVE to be crashworthy
FRA says no. FRA already circulated the preliminary questionnaires for what the train set makers could and could not do in terms of crashworthiness, and Japanese replied they would comply with all of FRA’s demands via modifications.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Source? You seem to be privy to information that most of us don’t have access to, and I’m intrigued.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:27 am
@ Peter
> Source?
It was already discussed here. http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/02/lack-of-hsr-funding-undermining-agreements-with-freight-rail/#comment-101311
I have a more interesting stuff about the current state of Japanese marketing effort on CAHSR project from the Japanese law maker Kono Taro who was getting tipped by US Senator Daniel Inouye. Basically the Japanese effort is in a complete disarray relative to Chinese, Korean, and French who are all over, that Japanese sent technical materials in Japanese language and gave a presentation with a PPT prepared for the Chicago project in California. Japanese rightwingers were furious at the incompetence of Japanese government officials after reading Mr. Kono’s article, and why the Japanese bid is doomed in California of that sort.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:50 am
I remember that discussion now, right. Now as before, I’m not sure how a Japanese language article on an English language blog is helpful as a source.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:59 am
@ Peter
> I’m not sure how a Japanese language article on an English language blog is helpful as a source.
Obviously it is, if you can access it. Like you said yourself, I seem to know stuff that the rest of people here don’t, and that gives me an advantage.
For example, people here are debating the cause of crash. In China, the media already concluded that it was the human error(of the decision to turn off the PTC to run trains packed together to minimize delays in a bad weather), not the lightening strike. The first train(CRH1) was running on its own power at 20 km/hr, and the following train(CRH2E) struck the first one at 100 km/hr.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Maybe I should have been more specific. Let me rephrase.
“I’m not sure how a Japanese language article on an English language blog is helpful as a source that anyone who can’t read Japanese, or how it would improve your credibility.”
It’s the blog equivalent of George W. Bush saying to trust him, because he knows better.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Unless you tell us how you know this while other Japanese-speaking commenters here don’t, I’m going to assume you’re a paid PR flak for Korail or Rotem.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@ Alon Levy
> Unless you tell us how you know this while other Japanese-speaking commenters here don’t
Well, it simply means that Japanese posters here aren’t 2CH netouyos. Because that Kono Taro’s article was used as a tool to criticize the DPJ government at 2CH.
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:47 am
About half of it is made up or manipulated, just like how he jumped to conclusions about E2 durability after the Wenzhou crash.
God forbid he post a single word about KTX’s recent failings.
http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2011/07/18/after-37th-breakdown-ktx-concerns-grow/
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:05 am
@ quashlo
> God forbid he post a single word about KTX’s recent failings.
And no serious injuries even in a derailment at 90 km/hr(CRH2E impacted the first one at 100 km/hr) due to a loose nut at the railroad switch. All trains stopped every time there was a problem detected, false alarm or not. KTX actually had a head-on collision by a sleepy driver before, and once again no one was seriously injured. KTX is a ling testimony that French style loco-pulled jacobs bogie train sets offer the greatest safety against a head on collision and derailment.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Remind us how many fatalities Korea’s had in the last 20 years and how many Japan’s had. I’m sure everyone would love to know the difference.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Death toll over past 20 years.
People riding in bullet train.
Japan : Zero
Korea : Zero
People riding in regular train
Japan : Quite a bit. 107 died at Amagaski alone.
Korea : Zero
People who were hit by trains
Japan : Quite a bit
Korea : Quite a bit
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Actually there was a big accident in Korea back in 1993, when a regular train running over a track on weakened ground suddenly sunk and the train derailed. 73 died. That was the last reported train passenger fatality in Korea.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Yep. And per passenger-km, Japan’s record over the last 20 years is about 7 times safer than Korea’s. And that’s without counting the Daegu subway fire.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
@ Alon Levy
> Yep. And per passenger-km, Japan’s record over the last 20 years is about 7 times safer than Korea’s.
But the death toll was higher.
> And that’s without counting the Daegu subway fire.
That one was a subway suicide attack, not a railway accident.
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Japan has eight times the annual passenger-km and annual passengers of S. Korea. Passenger-km is the appropriate metric to compare the two.
=====
Daegu was an act of terrorism compounded by a lack of simple emergency precautions (fire extinguishers and sprinklers) and operator error in sealing the passengers inside a burning train. The operator error alone was responsible for 79 of the total 198 fatalities.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
@ quashlo
> Japan has eight times the annual passenger-km and annual passengers of S. Korea
And the occurance of a major accident like that is pretty rare, like once in decades. Heck, the sudden ground sinking was basically a natural disaster like earthquake, which no one could prepare for.
> Daegu was an act of terrorism compounded by a lack of simple emergency precautions (fire extinguishers and sprinklers)
How many subway cars have sprinklers? It was an act of terror like you described. The subway operation was not at fault, and why it is not counted as a railway accident. You would see a similar outcome if it happened in elsewhere.
Here, we are talking about railway accidents, which could clearly be attributed to human error or operational errors. Natural disasters and terrorist attacks have no place in this discussion.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Natural disasters do have a place in this discussion. By analogy, consider earthquake-safe buildings: if a construction firm’s projects (or buildings built under one area’s regulations) collapse in an earthquake while other firms’ (or countries’) buildings stay standing, it implies something about the safety record.
Probably the most comparable disaster to Daegu was the 7/7 London bombing. Four bombs, 52 dead excluding the bombers. The relatively low number was attributed to good ventilation system; at the time, some people (I forget who) noted that New York subway system’s ventilation was far worse and a comparable attack would’ve killed hundreds.
But anyway, the fact that train crashes are low-probability and high-impact is no excuse. The same is true of plane crashes, and yet it’s normal to look at historical data series about deaths per passenger-km, in which we can readily see a steady trend of decline.
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
The Mugunhwa accident in 1993 was the result of subsidence, yes. But this was not a “natural” phenomenon. It was the result of a careless decision made during underground electrical construction where they noticed the subsidence but refused to stop work or take adequate precautions to prevent the trackbed from collapsing.
As for the Daegu fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire#Errors_compound_the_disaster
“Transcripts show Choi Sang-yeol made three announcements advising passengers in train 1080 to remain seated while he attempted to reach superiors. Finally, he was advised “Quickly, run somewhere else. Go up… kill the engine and go.” Choi then opened the doors and fled, but in doing so he removed the master key, shutting down the onboard batteries which powered the train doors — effectively sealing passengers inside. Later investigation showed 79 passengers remained trapped inside train 1080 and died there.”
“Inadequate emergency equipment also worsened the disaster. Daegu subway trains were not equipped with fire extinguishers, and the stations lacked sprinklers and emergency lighting. Many victims became disoriented in the dark, smoke-filled underground station and died of asphyxiation looking for exits. Emergency ventilation systems also proved inadequate.”
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
@ quashlo
> It was the result of a careless decision made during underground electrical construction where they noticed the subsidence but refused to stop work or take adequate precautions to prevent the trackbed from collapsing.
And once again how is that the fault of the railway operator?
> “Inadequate emergency equipment also worsened the disaster. Daegu subway trains were not equipped with fire extinguishers
Lessons learned 18 years ago. Now all rail cars do. Now can you tell me that the Chinese have learned the lesson from this crash?
> and the stations lacked sprinklers
I don’t see one in most New York Subway stations either. But lessons learned.
> and emergency lighting.
Lessons learned. Something like this never happened again.
Now, do you want us to become guinea pigs in order for Chinese to learn their lessons, or do Chinese even bother to learn lessons when they are buring the wreckage at dawn the next morning?
What’s really scaring us is not that the accident happened, but that the Chinese authorities were covering up quickly and were acting as if nothing happened. That’s not the act of someone trying to learn a lesson from a disaster, and history shows that Chinese don’t learn lessons from disasters. Most notorious one being the melamine-tainted milk, which returned to the market exactly two years after the first scare and even evolved into melamine test-beating “leather milk” in 2011.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
“Now, do you want us to become guinea pigs in order for Chinese to learn their lessons, or do Chinese even bother to learn lessons when they are buring the wreckage at dawn the next morning?”
Nice way of deflecting the discussion from a comparison of Korea and Japan by suddenly making it about China.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@ Peter
> Nice way of deflecting the discussion from a comparison of Korea and Japan by suddenly making it about China.
No, it is plain wrong to compare this Chinese disaster caused by a human/operational error with what basically amounts to a natural disaster and a terrorist attack in Korea 18 years ago. Do you believe it would be any less fatal if some mad man decides to burn down a packed New York subway train today with a tank of gasoline, which is worse than a bomb because it triggers a blazing fire?
Would we be having these discussions about the distrust of Chinese HSR system if it was a terrorist bomb attack that caused this accident?
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
My, my… How quickly you switch tracks. How did our dialogue transform itself into a rant against Chinese cover-ups and melanine-tainted milk?
1. The subsidence was not a “natural phenomenon”. Comparing it to an earthquake is absurd. While it may not have been directly caused by the railway operator, you usually need to obtain permits or other approvals to perform this type of work. There was either a failure to check the construction plans for adequate precautions or lack of oversight while the work was being performed.
2. The Daegu fire was 8 years ago, not 18.
3. The comparison to the New York City Subway is a cheap shot. Daegu Subway Line 1 was opened in 1993… Hardly comparable to NYC. However, even if I give you the sprinklers, you cannot explain away the lack of fire extinguishers inside the train, nor the operator sealing the passengers inside the train.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
The reason I brought up Daegu is that in Korea and Japan, more so than anywhere else in the world, there’s complete integration between subways and mainline rail. I’ll plead ignorance on Daegu, but in Seoul parts of the subway are run by Korail, with lines extending to the border of the metro area.
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
You insinuated in the other thread that a UIC compliant model would have fared better at Wenzhou. Where is your support for this? Now you are insinuating that a train equipped with Jacobs bogies would have performed better at Wenzhou? More baseless hypotheticals perhaps?
First, you cannot compare a simple derailment (even if at 90 km/h) with a head-on collision. Two completely different situations. In addition, the loose nut may have been the direct cause of the derailment at Gwangmyeong, but the root cause was lack of communication and maintenance ethic (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/463482.html), showing that the whole incident could have easily been prevented by properly following simple procedures. Bulking up the trains only helps after a point… It doesn’t solve institutional problems in how the railway is run.
As for the Busan collision, it was low-speed… One train was parked at the station, another train was entering the station to stop at the same platform. I don’t see what relevant conclusions you can draw from it in relation to Wenzhou.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
@ quashlo
> You insinuated in the other thread that a UIC compliant model would have fared better at Wenzhou.
Well, it was the Shinkansen that got tossed out of the viaduct, not Regina. Why? A Regina rail car is 50% heavier than a Shinkansen rail car.
> Now you are insinuating that a train equipped with Jacobs bogies would have performed better at Wenzhou?
Yes, because the Jacobs bogies equipped bullet train would have maintained the formation and transferred the motion energy forward to the Regina instead of being tossed out of viaduct.
> In addition, the loose nut may have been the direct cause of the derailment at Gwangmyeong, but the root cause was lack of communication and maintenance ethic (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/463482.html), showing that the whole incident could have easily been prevented by properly following simple procedures.
But that incident proved that the passengers were protected when the accident did happen. Shinkansen proved it couldn’t.
> As for the Busan collision, it was low-speed… One train was parked at the station, another train was entering the station to stop at the same platform. I don’t see what relevant conclusions you can draw from it in relation to Wenzhou.
KTX-II locos have a static compression strength of 500 tons, 5X the Shinkansen level and 2.5X the UIC train. A KTX-II would not have broken apart and be tossed out if it was the model involved in the crash. I can’t say the same thing about forthcoming HEMU-400X, because this one weigh like Shinkansen(despite being a UIC-train) and relies on advanced energy absorption structure instead of static load strength to survive a crash.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Is that like your logic of claiming that KTX-II locomotives are stronger because they are made by Rotem, who also builds Main Battle Tanks?
Your arguments would be better if you didn’t pepper them with ridiculous claims/conclusions.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
@ Peter
> Is that like your logic of claiming that KTX-II locomotives are stronger because they are made by Rotem
It is not a claim. It is a fact that KTX-II features the highest static compression strength of 500 tons and the energy absorption rate of 6.2 MJ at frontal impact, to protect the passenger coaches behind. The only thing stronger is Acela, which isn’t a bullet train.
And the US FRA used the exactly same logic to approve Amtrak Cascade, which uses Talgo’s UIC coach rail cars surrounded by heavy locomotives back and front.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Ummm, no, that was not my point. I don’t deny that the KTX-II is built like a tank. My point is that you claimed that is was built like a tank because it was built by a manufacturer that also builds tanks. That’s a ridiculous claim. You don’t exactly have a good track record of logical arguments.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
@ Peter
Rotem’s experience with main battle tanks clearly helps them to achieve strength at low weight. After all, Rotem is the only train vendor to achieve UIC strength at Shinkansen axle load. Kawasaki’s UIC model has an axle load of 17 tons like European models.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The TGV has a 500 ton static buff strength, too. Maybe that’s why the KTX-II has the same buff strength.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@ Alon Levy
> The TGV has a 500 ton static buff strength, too. Maybe that’s why the KTX-II has the same buff strength.
TGV-K that Alstom sold to Korea did not; it was a 300 ton class locomotive. 500 ton was chosen for KTX-II because it was the maximum strength that could be packed into 17-ton axle road limit.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
On another hand, axle load is entirely a function of what standards you design to. The Velaro has an average axle load of 14 metric tons, but the European standard is 17, so Siemens preferred to distribute the load unevenly. The same is true of the Zefiro. I’m pretty sure that something similar is true of the efset and Oaris; 68 tons per car gives you a power car, and not even FRA-compliant EMUs are that heavy.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@ Alon Levy
> 68 tons per car gives you a power car, and not even FRA-compliant EMUs are that heavy.
Acela loco weigh 90 ton, or 22.5 ton per axle. GE Genesis is like 120 tons.
Peter Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Whoever said the Acela was an EMU?
Anyway, Metra’s Gallery Car EMUs are 64.8 tons.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
What Peter said. The LIRR’s M7 EMUs are 56.7 tons; the M8 EMUs, which are dual-voltage, are 65.5.
swing hanger Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Interesting. In today’s Korea Times morning edition, there was an article about safety concerns about the Korean TGV Sancheon (not the earlier Alstom built version). It seems not a few Koreans are nervous about riding the Sancheon after recent mishaps and now this incident in China (unreasonable or not). One frequent rider who uses KTX to get to Daegu to visit his mother was quoted as saying he will now only choose to ride the Alstom version- which seems to be the more common trainset, based on my observations at Seoul Station today.
*posting from Seoul
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
“Japanese replied they would comply with all of FRA’s demands via modifications.”
It’s not that easy. Japanese HSTs are not designed for blended traffic. Modifying existing rolling stock wouldn’t work. The Japanese would have to design a new train and test it in blended traffic. They can’t do that in Japan where legacy tracks are narrow gauge. So, they start with a serious disadvantage compared with the French or Germans.
The likely winner in California is, in my opinion, Siemens. The AGV would be OK but it will price itself out. As for regular TGVs, they are very efficient and cheap to operate on long non-stop trips at constant speed but are probably not the best choice for a line demanding frequent deceleration and acceleration.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I think going with a locomotive-based train would be an enormous mistake; it seems pretty clear that EMUs are the way to go for future systems.
BTW, what’s “blended traffic”? How is that different from normal operation?
[p.s. I have seen Shinkansen on legacy tracks! I have absolutely no idea how they do it (is there some dual-gauge rolling-stock?), but I've been standing on the platform waiting for a normal train, and ... whoops there goes a Shinkansen right past ...WTF?!]
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
They dual-gauged the track to let Shinkansen train use it. It’s called Mini-Shinkansen.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
This was in central Tokyo though; aren’t the mini-shinkansen up in Akita or wherever?
Maybe they dual-gauged some particularly handy track to allow moving rolling stock around…
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
p.s. Note, this was also underground, which somehow made it even more startling…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Maybe, I don’t know… Where was this – Shinagawa?
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Perhaps you are thinking of the Keisei Skyliner (AE series, 2nd generation)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisei_AE_series_%282009%29
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Hmm, no this was back in the ’90s; unfortunately I don’t really remember where exactly it was, just that it was clearly an old-style (300series or earlier) shinkansen, and I standing on an underground center-platform, somewhere near the center of Tokyo, waiting for a local train. My memory says “subway”, with curved walls etc.
Hmmm, google shows that some Tokyo subways actually do use standard-gauge (I never realized!), so it’s maybe less implausible than I thought…
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Sorry, minor correction:
The mini-Shinkansen are regauged from narrow gauge to standard (Shinkansen) gauge, not dual-gauge. :)
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Ugh, never mind, you’re right. There’s one segment of the Ou Main Line that’s dual-gauge, but I’d thought the entire Mini-Shinkansen trackage was dual-gauge.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
@ Alon Levy
Mini-shinkansens are not dual-gauged. Certain portions of existing legacy narrow gauge tracks are regauged to standard gauge tracks to allow Mini-Shinkansen trains to travel over. Re-gauging is far cheaper than constructing new standard gauge tracks due to high land prices in Japan.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
@ Andre Peretti
> Modifying existing rolling stock wouldn’t work.
The proposal is based on a strengthened Shinkansen E6.
> The likely winner in California is, in my opinion, Siemens.
Velaro has no chance in California because the German government won’t provide the government loan.
Excluding Chinese who now has no chance, only Japanese and Korean governments offered to finance at least $20 billion in construction loan. I do expect the French to come up with some sort of loan too, not as aggressive as Asians who are turning the California bidding into a penis size contest. These three are only bidders whose governments are willing to back their respective national bids with government loans.
> As for regular TGVs, they are very efficient and cheap to operate on long non-stop trips at constant speed but are probably not the best choice for a line demanding frequent deceleration and acceleration.
If the TGV-type is preferred, then the winner will be KTX-II because it accelerates like a Shinkansen and reaches 300 km/hr in 5 minutes flat.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
@ Miles Bader
> I think going with a locomotive-based train would be an enormous mistake;
Not necessarily, since locomotive-based bullet trains do offer better crash protection for passengers, who are protected behind heavy locomotives absorbing most of impact energy. This is important for a blended traffic system.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 5:53 am
“it seems pretty clear that EMUs are the way to go for future systems.”
Not necessarily. SNCF doesn’t want EMUs on its high-speed lines because of maintenance costs. Changing the power car is far cheaper than immobilising the whole train as sometimes happens with the ICE. SNCF has no use for fast acceleration because the LGVs have few stops, if any, between departure and destination. A TGV takes 3.5% gradients “in its stride”, like a roller-coaster.
That’s why SNCF made it clear to Alstom that it won’t consider the AGV in its future bids unless a non-EMU version is available.
On the other hand, it wants regional trains to be EMUs because of the shorter distance between stations.
Each country has its own needs. French regional trains are rather fast and many of them would be labelled “high-speed” in the US. Using the TGV for 100-km trips would thus make no sense. The situation is different in California where CHSR will combine the duties of TER and TGV.
Peter Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 7:38 am
I find that interesting, because isn’t one of the TGV’s problems the fact that most of its lines are maxed out in terms of capacity? I know that’s one of the reasons for the use of the TGV Duplex trainsets. Haven’t they then been modifying the Duplex trainsets to be a sort of power car/EMU hybrid, with some of the regular cars being modified to have powered bogies (in order to increase the maximum passengers per trainset)?
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I looked at data on the 3rd generation Duplex (Euro Duplex) and saw no major differences. except improved comfort. The configuration is still 1 power car+8 unpowered cars+1 power car. The main difference is its compatibility with all European networks (regulations, power and signalling systems).
Alstom did equip duplex cars with powered bogies for the 2007 speed record but this configuration was never meant for normal use. SNCF wanted to test the duplexes’ stability in extreme conditions (357mph). In fact, a duplex car is not much taller than a single-level one thanks to its very low floor and the air drag is just 4% higher compared to a single-level TGV.
The only really saturated LGV is the trunk line south-east of Paris where the two tracks have one train every 5 minutes. This has made duplex trains the only solution, and their length is generally doubled (4 power cars and 16 trailers). So, if you’ve booked a seat on the first car you have to walk 1/4 mile, sometimes in the rain because only normal-length trains (200m) are totally sheltered.
These trains also have two other advantages for the company: tolls are paid per train, whatever the number of riders, and a double duplex needs only one driver.
The TGV Duplex is SNCF’s cash cow.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Er, they could build a bit of extra roof, right? Some posts and sheet-metal aren’t all that expensive…
Joey Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Even under the most overbuilt full-build scenario, CalTrain and HSR are not completely segregated, ergo the rules of CalTrain’s waiver still apply.
As Miles’s and Useless’s correctly observe, the problem with China has less to do with technical issues and more to do with political culture and the lack of a real legal system, although the latter affects the former. Miles is right that the same technology (which is not in fact Chinese) would not necessarily have any safety problems if operated in a different context, where people have to pay attention to things like the lives of individual people, the interests of private investors, and the consequences of the law — not just Party visions of “national strength”.
Questions of safety aside, it would be unethical and illegal for other countries to award hsr contracts to the Chinese firms that have appropriated foreign technology with their government’s support. It would be nice if the article had included some non-Japan-based sources, but regardless of whatever bias they might have, what they have said is in fact true. The Japanese and other non-Chinese firms have done things the right way, they have followed the rules, and they have made real contributions to the available technology, for the benefit of all. For California to award its contract to firms that have unjustly appropriated this technology would not only be unethical and illegal, it would also send a message to the world that the way to succeed is not to produce intellectual property, but to steal it. It is incredibly naive for us Californians even to discuss hypothetically plans to adopt Chinese HSR technology of any kind. IF the 220 mph figure for CHSR is based on some Chinese bid, we should stop using this figure, and associated time estimates, and instead use the speed promised by legitimate bidders.
What is bad is that the crash happened so early. This is shedding a bad light on Chinese engineering. This will not so easily happen in California because we don’t rush our program. But if those idiots in Sacramento and the NIMBYs convince CHSRA to build grade crossings then expect at least 1 crash per year.
Owen Evans Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:17 am
How long has this line been running? This is not the beijing-shanghai dedicated HSR line that just started operating; this is a line that’s more like the Chinese equivalent of the Acela/NEC.
ks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
This is Ningbo-Taizhou-Wenzhou line, which is part of the Hangzhou-Fuzhou-Shenzhen line. It was built in 2005, and completed in 2009.
Kinda OT: I live in San Diego. On my way home I passed Santa Fe Depot and I couldn’t believe my eyes. Three was an Amtrak Cascades stopping here. Well, at least the locomotive in the front said that. The locomotive in the back was a P32AC-DM. But it was an unusual long train that consisted of Amfleet cars.
Does anybody know what was going on there?
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Probably the other stuff was being serviced. Most major repairs on Amtrak equipment occurs in L.A. from what I understand…..
California doesn’t need Chinese technology, but Chinese fund is essential. The problem is if you reject the train, you can’t have the money too.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:27 am
@ ks
Others, namely Japanese and Korean governments, are willing to finance the construction. Of course their offers are not as generous as that 100% financing offer from the Chinese, but at least half the cost and that’s enough to get things going. The French might jump in with a financing offer of its own as well.
China already has a shoddy reputation. That is….would you purchase a chinese car, for example?
Ball 1.
Add to that a HSR accident?
Strike 1.
Add to that a HSR accident on a relatively new line?
Strike 2.
Add to that, that no investigation was done, and they BURIED the entire train….without even checking for survivors?
Ban the player for life, theyre on steroids.
The Chinese HSR brand is now toxic.
Tell me, the last time somebody was killed on a highway, did that stop people buying cars?
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:30 am
When some idiot is found on the side of the road dead, at least our officials have the decency to write up a proper report and then release the body back to the family for a proper burial/cremation/boat trip on the Ganges.
But let’s look at the difference between first-world and third-world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster#Consequences
Changes were actually made. Lessons were actually learned. Reports were actually available to be read. Memorials were set up. The event was not forgotten or brushed aside.
I know what lesson I learned. If the fucking wheel comes through the fucking floor of the train, not to waste time telling the asshole conductor about it. Pull that fucking cord.
The actual circumstances surrounding the Chinese accident may never be known. Fuck them and fuck their broken culture.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:40 am
Yes, and 10 years later, DB’s continued undermaintenance of its rolling stock led to a total meltdown at the Berlin S-Bahn. Lessons were learned only in the most narrow way possible, akin to those learned from the S&L bailout and the tech bubble.
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:41 am
Go to hell.
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Then I’m sick of hearing about Europe. I’m sick of hearing about China. Europe’s rail system this and China expanding that and yet half the German fleet is not available for service.
Enough! publictransit.us is going to tell us how copying the Swiss is going to let grandma go from LA to some shithole in the woods on a train and the trip will be faster than driving and all timed transfers will go swimmingly every time. Until someone tells me that Swiss train engineers routinely just don’t feel like going into work every other day.
Build the goddamn Palmdale route already! Build Pacheco! Build the I-5 racetrack! Build four Altamonts while you’re at it. I just don’t care anymore.
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:58 am
I mean, Christ, they keep telling us that “this is how they do things in Europe” and I repeat it like a bloody twat. We need a European style rail system! They’ve got timed transfers! Lots of different kinds of service! The stations are just wonderful! Okay, let’s do it! I’ll be your biggest spokesperson!
And then you come here and say, “Well, good sir, the whole thing is pretty much a wreck and at one point the entire system just melted down.”
Is anything what it seems?! Are you going to tell me that Japan’s perfect little rail system and on-time percentage may result in a culture where train operators may drive at excessive speeds in order to fulfill what are, at times, seemingly unrealistic goals for timeliness, resulting in derailments that kill multiple riders?
*reads about Amagasaki rail crash*
FUCK
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:13 am
Okay, first, let’s get things straight: DB, including Eschede, has a better safety record than the American passenger rail network. And Japan has an even better safety record, including Amagasaki. The individual lessons from those accidents are not the same as the lessons of cross-national (or cross-modal) comparisons.
The point about Eschede is something different. An accident in Germany or France is a tragedy. An accident in Japan or China is evidence of a defective culture, no matter what the likelihood of an accident is.
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:58 am
Man, I need to sit down.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:00 am
bingo.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:03 am
You’re clearly just venting (why so bitter?), but anyway:
Obviously the lesson is that no system is ever quite perfect. That doesn’t mean that these systems aren’t vastly better than U.S. passenger rail, because they clearly are.
Amagasaki was an awful crash, but it represented a very rare event in an extremely large network, which carries many more passengers than U.S. passenger rail, with far superior performance, much more safely, and without government subsidies.
In response to that crash, changes were made to fix the problems identified; besides driver pressure, Amagasaki represented one of the few places that didn’t have ATS (which probably would have prevented the accident) installed — though in fact installation was already scheduled.[*] The result is that an already extremely safe system is now even safer.
The rumors of apparent cover-up attempts in the Chinese crash are worrying, but one hopes (and it seems reasonably likely) that despite this, there will still be an attempt to address the problems revealed, maybe when they think people aren’t looking…
As the Railway Gazette editorial I posted a link to above notes, excellent safety records are in part a result of intelligent reactions to bad accidents, and ultimately it seems impossible to completely avoid this.
[*] http://www.itfglobal.org/transport-international/ti21amagasaki.cfm
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:20 am
I understand the Japanese system is very safe. That part of the rant was tongue in cheek.
But the larger point is that the grass is not always greener on the other side in regard to what Alon said about the German system. I think we look at European or Asian systems and become jealous, yet you would probably find a lot of people complaining about, say, the Paris Metro or the London Underground with the same angst that people complain about our transit systems.
And I certainly wouldn’t want to be shoved into a JR cattle car commuter train, no matter how safe it was.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:57 am
If you’re trying to say that U.S. rail transit is maybe “not as bad as people say,” you’d be wrong.
The difference is not subtle.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Except that it is. That’s just how the world is. Some people put more effort into grass cultivation than others and become better at it. Either deal with it, or pretend otherwise.
Look, if I wanted to blow up a a house full of extremists, or a house full of “extremists”, or send a missile into a wedding party, at any location in the world, and do it within 24 hours, I wouldn’t call on the Japan Self Defense Force.
If I needed a few billion barrels of light sweet crude oil I wouldn’t confine myself to suppliers in New Hampshire.
If I needed a kick-ass attack helicopter or cruise missile I’d not expect New Zealand’s industrial base to deliver.
If I wanted to operate a cost effective and reliable and attractive public transportation network I wouldn’t engage the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority.
Capitalism — the very pinnacle of all human thought and ethics! — is supposed to be all about comparative advantage, so why should the very most awesomest bitchingest capitalistest country in the universe hold back from importing greener grass from elsewhere?
Wad Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Three words: Buy America laws.
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@ Wad
> Buy America laws.
Anybody, even Chinese, can comply with Buy America law by moving the assembly to the US and sourcing as many parts as possible.
That doesn’t make those foreign brand trains American any more than US-assembled Toyotas are considered to be American cars.
Wad Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@Useless, Buy America laws hold back what Richard says we could import … and import more cost-effectively and with better workmanship.
Buy America = opening a redundant “policy shop” so two assembly plants must now do the work that one abroad was perfectly capable of doing.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Spokker, there are different classes of complaint. Although on most metrics the Paris Metro is better than the New York City Subway, on many it isn’t, and most passengers would not notice a consistent difference in competence; this is especially true if they perceive the RER as extra subway lines rather than as commuter rail.
However, regional rail in the US is simply inexcusable. After riding the subway in New York for a few years, the Paris Metro annoyed me in several ways. Multi-ride tickets there don’t exist; you get a bundle of 10 single-ride tickets, which are indistinguishable from one another even though you’ll need to keep your ticket for exit if you rode the RER. Getting the Navigo is really hard – and yes, there is another way; in Boston you can pick up a Charlie Card for free. And there’s no air conditioning. However, after riding the LIRR and Metro-North, the PACA TER seemed like heaven, and I submit that everyone who’s had to ride Northeastern commuter trains off-peak or on the weekend will agree with me.
spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
You’re right, you’re right. I was not in my right mind. All it took to bring me back down was to ride an American train. I’m on one right now and I feel like a fish swimming upstream.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 4:01 am
“California’s HSR system will be built to strong and, it’s safe to say, exacting state and federal standards. Whoever builds it, there should be no doubt that the millions of people riding it each year will do so safely.”–Robert Cruikshank
That is very true, but it will not silence the anti-rail critics (not that anything would anyway).
This reminds me of talking to someone in West Virginia about trains, including high-speed operations (there is one corridor, Charleston-Huntington, that could qualify for semi-high speed service based on travel demand, and a nice wide valley to build in). This person was concerned about safety at such speeds, and I reminder her that at the time, we killed about as many people in car wrecks per day as died in all of Amtrak’s history to that time.
This is not to say things can’t happen, as incidents in China, Germany, and even Japan (though not on a proper HSR line) tell us. Our railroads, or anything else, are not built by gods, nor run by angels. They are run by people, and something will happen sooner or later; the question is, how do you reduce the odds?
In that respect, even conventional rail is a huge improvement over driving. Perhaps that is something to keep in mind as the anti-rail dogs do their usual yapping.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 12:11 am
On a french train engineers forum, I recently read that they were 200 “incidents de voie” with ICEs (“track incidents” literally, meaning immobilization on track due to any kind of failure) on the Est line since it was open to them ; there is really a concern with DB’s maintenance of its Siemens stock. Don’t ever try to sell the idea of the ICE, or DB, to French train engineers…
Communist China, land of harmony:
(from China Media Project, http://cmp.hku.hk/2011/07/25/14036/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
“On the Wenzhou train collision accident, various media must report information from the Ministry of Railways in a timely manner, media from various regions must not send reporters [to the scene] to report the story, and child papers and magazines as well as websites must especially be managed well [EDITOR'S NOTE: This refers to commercial newspapers and magazines like Southern Metropolis Daily and Caijing]. Links must not be made to the development of the high-speed rail, and reports looking back (反思性报道) must not be done.” [EDITOR'S NOTE: Reports "looking back" refer to reports that investigate the causes of an event and make suggestions, for example, about government responsibility.]
“Latest demands on the Wenzhou train collision accident: 1. Figures on the number of dead must follow numbers from authoritative departments; 2. Frequency of reports must not be too dense; 3. More reporting should be done on stories that are extremely moving, for example people donating blood and taxi drivers not accepting fares; 4. There must be no seeking after the causes [of the accident], rather, statements from authoritative departments must be followed; 5. No looking back and no commentary.
” . . . From now on, the Wenzhou train accident should be reported along the theme of ‘major love in the face of major disaster’. No calling into doubt, no development [of further issues], no speculation, and no dissemination [of such things] on personal microblogs! . . . ”
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:27 am
As if it didn’t happen in Western countries…
Justin H Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:30 am
What does this have to do with Western countries? Am I representing a Western country? Did I make a comparison with a Western country? If you want to post an exposé on a Western country’s Propaganda Department directive to media on how to report a scandalous accident, be my guest. This comment is about China.
This is exactly the kind of comment you typically get from brainwashed PLA reps at academic talks on China, and, sometimes, a particularly naive Westerner.
Aaron Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:01 am
“As if it didn’t happen in Western countries…” = “I know you are, but what am I?”`
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:05 am
You’re right I was venting some frustration
Justin H Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Me too, no problem.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:03 am
and yet in that same article you get tons of quotes from outraged chinese citizens, as well as the fact that some chinese journalist leaked that directive to undermine the effectiveness of the propaganda.
china’s not a monolith, and the populace is pretty pissed about the govt.’s treatment of this mess.
Three points:
1) If lightening caused the crash, that sounds like a problem with th2 signalling system, not the rolling stock.
2) Despite the fact that two trains collided at speed, I did not see any significant deformation of the carriages. Further, there was also no telecsoping. The deaths seem to have been caused by the train falling off a high viaduct, not the impact itself. This is in stark contrast to a typical American passenger rail crash – see this picture of the 2009 Washington Metro Crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:June_22,_2009_WMATA_Collision_-_NTSB_accident_photo_422860.jpg
3) China’s rail network carries far more passengers than the USA’s, so fatal accidents will be more frequent. On a per passenger-mile basis, China’s railways are significantly safer than the USA’s. ( http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/comparative-rail-safety/ ). That would still be true even if China was only reporting one rail death in ten. (India’s railways are also safer than the USA’s…)
Useless Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:37 am
@ TomW
There is no excuse for Chinese action of burying the wreckage at dawn, and doing so almost buried a 3 year old girl alive, and resuming service by Sunday afternoon(Crash happened on Friday at 8:30 PM) as if nothing happened. These people are not even interested in finding out why the crash happened; all they are interested is saving the face via an aggressive cover-up, hoping that people have a short-memory and forget.
Unfortunately, we tend to remember longer than the Chinese and still remember the Tienanmen Square, unlike the vast majority of Chinese public who forgot. Hence the “Let’s ban French, German and Japanese train makers from bidding for their WW2 atrocities” hype a while back.
When Chinese come to California to bid on the project, Californians will remember what happened in China on July 22rd, 2011.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:07 am
you need to distinguish between the chinese govt and the chinese people. i know you’re lobbying like hell against a chinese bid on CAHSR, but it’s ignorant to smear a billion people in the process. most chinese citizens will agree that the govt is corrupt and did a terrible job with the HSR project, and even moreso predictable accidents such as this.
as for forgetting tian’anmen, chinese people who were alive at the time remember it, especially in beijing, it’s younger people who have grown up in the decades following, under severe censorship, who don’t know.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
That’s the Fox News problem. You would think every Chinese person loves the PRC, every Israeli wants more settlements, every Cuban wants to overthrow Castro….
There are cultural differences, but there is diversity of opinion in all countries. Most Americans for example aren’t fond of how much American manufacturers have used China as a huge sweatshop. But they don’t stick it to GE or Apple, they blame the guy who took the job at FoxConn because the Politburo took his farm to build a dam.
But on a different note: the only reason foreign firms are bidding is they want to sell us trainsets. They need a way to unload all their US dollars they have from our trade deficits and they will do it anyway they can. The Japanese have a lot of technology they can share with us, yes. And if I had to pick a partner I would pick them.
Still, there’s plenty of money and talent here in Am-erica to build this project. Foreign involvement is a choice, not a requirement.
TomW Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:24 am
I agree 100% that the actions of the government following the crash have been terrible.
However, the point I was making is that people are saying “this crash means Chinese trains are unsafe!!!”, when the evidence shows that they are safer than US trains.
California Watch:
Megaprojects like bullet train have big cost overruns, critics say
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/megaprojects-bullet-train-have-big-cost-overruns-critics-say-11710
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:52 am
“Point 2.1 :Empirical(sic) precedents suggest that by the tenth operational year, CHSR ridership should be 5-10 million”
Well, I’m not American, I’m not an “Expert”, but I’m telling you, I’ll eat my hat if ridership isn’t more than 15 million by the tenth operational year!
“Experts” my foot, “Experts” my @ss! if it were a matter of giving their pay and situation to whom is right eventually, you’d see them agreeing with me in the blink of an eye!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:16 am
The cited empirical evidence consists solely of Acela (not, for instance, Paris-Lyon which was up to 18 million by ten years time) which is extremely expensive, rather slow, and really has some major differences between it and the proposed CAHSR system. It is entirely possible and indeed quite likely that by ten years time there would be five million riders on IRV-ANA-FULLERTON/NORWALK-LAUS alone. It is also rather mind boggling to suggest that when driving is projected to take 3:15 minutes between LA and San Diego that a 80-90 minute train would not achieve substantial amounts of ridership on the busiest highway corridor in the country and what is already a two million rider line.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:35 am
No Paulus they’re speaking of CHSR, not Acela, and I was also speaking of CHSR.
Listen, even if the CHSR Authority botches totally the construction of the line, I don’t see how the ridership could go under 15 million at the tenth operational year…And if CHSR is built with the best standards, at the optimal commercial potential (comfort but no luxury, safety, punctuality, etc.), by the tenth operational year the CHSR Authority could very well be starting to think about the need to double the line in my opinion!
The truth lies in between, I’d give my right hand
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Sorry Paulus I just understood your post…
That report infuriated me and they speak of empirical evidence in Europe (among others)
to me Acela isn’t HSR so I didn’t have it in ming when I read your post ; the idea that someone can use Acela as “evidence” is so remote that I misunderstood totally what you were saying
Sorry
ericmarseille Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:23 am
Page 26 once again that old infuriating lie that “only two segments, one in Japan and one in France, break even”!
It’s worth telling it again in case this comment is read by someone who doesn’t know yet (others, sorry) : Those two segments have paid their construction costs in full, that is!
In France 70% of TGV routes are profitable, despite the dramatic raise in tolls due by SNCF to RFF!!!
And in Japan it must be even better!
Lies, lies and damn lies…
Anger mounts as China is accused of a cover-up over train disaster
LINK
Spokker Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
That it is.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
this could be bigger than people are assuming, politically. people are pissed.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 4:16 am
We do have what looks like the evidence of a telescope in that photo. Check out that one car is partially buried under another; this is behind the cranes and the car being lifted. Something overrode the anticlimber, possibly more than one car in the collision, before going off the bridge.
I wonder how many of the fatalities were in that one car?
China’s crash already cost the bidding in Russia. Chinese are basically eliminated from supplying train sets and infrastructure, they may only bid on track construction. Interestingly enough, Russians were angered by Chinese willful violation of foreign intellectual property rights already, and this crash finally finished Chinese bid. There is no chance for Chinese in California now.
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/07/25/russia-rail-wary-of-the-chinese/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186477/20110725/china-rail-crash-train-accident-russian-bids.htm
synonymouse Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:03 am
You are forgetting the thread that runs thru every aspect of CHSRA planning, and that is corruption, incompetence and frivolity. Look at the quality of the leadership – for instance the 3 crones in DC who are ultimately in charge of funding this thing. They know nothing about railroading and never will; they lounge in the realm of panem et circenses. How do you thing we ended up with the mother of bid digs: the craptastic Rose Pak Memorial Central Subway?
So never count the Chinese or Palmdale out.
They ought to take a second and third hard look at the steel in the Bay Bridge but if it is defective we won’t find out until something fails.
This is why I previously said that CAHSR should focus on safety first instead of going to the cheapest bidder. With consideration that CA is also an earthquake prone area as Japan, the best one IMO would be the Japanese who has a near perfect safety record. It may cost more, but you can’t put a price tag on safety; more so when you have 500 or more souls on board.
TomW Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:27 am
When an earthquake happens, the best thing that can happen is that the trains are brought to a stop quickly – and that’s a matter for the signalling system, not the physical trains.
California’s existing regulations should ensure that any tunnels/bridges are deisgned to resist earthquakes, so who builds them is less impotant than who designs them.
Ken Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I disagree. Anyone can design and build, but not many has the experience.
Say you want to remodel your home. You can hire contractor A who does it for cheap because he’s just starting out in this business or you can hire contractor B who is expensive but has 50 years of experience behind him. Whom do you take your chances with?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
If there’s one thing California has in abundance, it’s engineers who know how to build earthquake-resistant infrastructure. LA and SF are full of towers designed to resist 8-pointers.
Ken Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
To further stress the point of why experience in running high speed rail in earthquake land for 50 years with near perfect safety record, what more do you want with a country whose engineers can keep the Shinkansen running with a near perfect safety record in a country that had thirteen 7.0+Mw, three 8.0+Mw, and even one 9.0 Mw sized earthquakes since they started running the Shinkansen?
If anyone were to run high speed rail in California, the Japanese have my vote hands down.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Running trains safely in earthquake land has nothing to do with the quality of trains or tracks.
The only thing you can do when there is an earthquake is stop the train, and that’s what the Japanese do. They invested billions in the densest network of quake sensors. They have the most sophisticated earthquake warning system in the world and their train control centers are connected to it. This enables drivers to stop their train before it reaches a deformed portion of track. Sometimes the train can’t be brought to a full stop and just derails at very slow speed with no injuries to passengers.
If California doesn’t have such an early-warning system, it won’t have Japanese-style safety whoever builds the trains or the tracks.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
The other thing that can be done is to not build giant aerials along a major fault line.
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
While in general I agree with you that the earthquake warning system is one of the biggest factors, the Japanese are doing some unique (as far as I know) things with respect to track design, and they are probably more in tune about seismic design and retrofit of aerial structures, etc.
Remember, the earthquake warning system only works on the principle of detection of the earthquake’s P waves before the arrival of the slower, but more destructive S waves. The further the source, the more lag between P waves and S waves, and the greater the amount of time to slow down trains with emergency braking. However, a quake in close proximity to the line will not provide much time to slow down, and trains could still be moving by the time the S waves arrive. That’s why they have installed derailment guards on the Shinkansen:
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/economy/news/110616/biz11061608440003-n1.htm
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Not unique.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spag85/3638904977/sizes/l/
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/12/earthquakes-and-terrorists.html
Miles Bader Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Hey how come you’re so much less snarky on that other blog…
quashlo Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
So similar, although not quite the same.
Japan actually uses two different designs. One is placed in the center like those guards, and a separate design that is more like a beefed-up version of a typical guard rail used on track curves.
wu ming Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
i agree on japan. gotta make sure it’s a good deal, but the seismic experience and safety record certainly recommend japanese systems.
Gianny Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
+1 on Japan. Those Earthquake numbers your describe have not happened anywhere else where there is HSR… probably no even putting China, France, Germany and Spain together can’t equal the seismic acitivity and magnitude of those in Japan.
Owen Evans Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
They have had years of experience to perfect their earthquake detection and shutdown systems as well as to devise various physical modifications to the right-of-way and rolling stock in order to (1) make derailments less likely, and (2) make sure a train does not leave the right-of-way in the event that an earthquake happens that is so severe that a derailment cannot be prevented.
It is likely that if Japan gets the primary systems contract that they will want to use their signaling system (ATC-NS) rather than ERTMS.
Justin H Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Not only are they safe, they’re also reliably on time.
Ken Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
My point exactly. You can build up experience, but you can’t make earthquake happen to test it out if it works. Japan on the other hand, ever since the Shinkansen started running, went through dozens of huge seismic activity that would’ve decimated most cities had it happened elsewhere. They have the records, hard data, and experience to back those claims up.
If CA says “show me proof that your trains are going to be safe in an earthquake,” what more do you want from a country that can say “here’s thousands of pages of real data and live videos of our Shinkansen’s safety features that kicked in during the last 9.0Mw Tohoku Earthquake of March 11, 2011. Plus, we have the data from how Shinkansen reacted from three more 8.0+ Mw and thirteen 7.0+ Mw if a 9.0er doesn’t satisfy you.”
In contrast, I doubt France, Germany, China, Korea, or Spain can provide such hard data. LOL
China showed that they are thinking light of safety of railway system by having crushed crashed cars into pieces and burried in the mud.
Taiwan chose European bullet train at first but changed their mind to adopt Japanese Shinkansen by considering the reliable system agaist eathquake.
Cakifornia must take eathquake into account on choice of high speed railway system.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 4:57 am
Taiwan’s system was entirely designed and built by European firms, mostly French and German. THSR was run by SNCF until local staff were sufficiently trained to take over.
The TGV had been selected but an enormous corruption scandal was revealed by French media concerning the sale of warships by Thomson-CSF to the Taiwanese navy. A navy general even commited suicide and the government decided to ban any future imports from Thomson.
Alstom was then a branch of the Thomson group and the TGV fell victim to the ban. A last-minute attempt to go round the ban by offering a Siemens-Alstom hybrid named Eurotrain didn’t fool the Taiwanese who decided to buy Japanese trains. A good thing they did. The “Frankenstein” Eurotrain was really ugly.
Since SNCF was not concerned by the ban they kept it as operator, which makes it the only non-Japanese company with first-hand knowledge of Shinkansen trains.
Ken Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Whatever the details are, Taiwan High Speed Railway addressed that they had got anxiety about robustness against quake right after the major earthquake around Taipei and they had turned over the bid.
Then they dared to build up ‘Frankenstein’ of Japanese Shinkansen on European train controll system.
Europeans began to realize the advantage of Shinkansen beginning with motor distributed system over European bullet trains of locomotive consentrated system, didn’t they?
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The Japanese didn’t invent distributed traction. It was already used in European light rail when steep slopes made it necessary. The TGV-001 prototype was all-wheels-powered but SNCF later opted for a separate power car. Its position is that distributed traction is costly overkill given the profile of French high-speed lines. Since its involvement in Taiwan HSR and its own experience with the TGV has given it experience of both systems I suppose SNCF’s choice is technically and economically motivated.
What is good for France is not good for Germany. The ICE has to climb 4% slopes just after starting from a stop. There, distributed traction is necessary.
Ken Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I did not say the Japanese invented distributed motor system itself.
But I say Japan is the pioneer that adopted it for high speed train.
There were so many break-throughs and they have vast peripheral IP.
And I predict Japanese system turn out more cost effective in long range.
The reason the bullet is safe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_protection_system
In China, it did not work so
Shinkansen Cockpit Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IJtlkCVkSg
South Side Elevated Railroad in Chicago began using multiple units in 1897. Electric vehicles had been climbing steep slopes, in Richmond Virginia, for a decade, at that point.