daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 24th, 2014, 07:18 AM   #4921
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Actually it isn't Amtrak who considers 150 mph high speed. High speed can be considered as low as 200 km/h in Europe (124 mph) if it an existing line has been upgraded for high speed service. I'm not sure if Acela counts as purpose built or not but it does have a ma speed of 265 km/h (240 km/h max operating speed) so it is pretty close.

That being said... Purpose built tracks have to be capable of 250km/h (155 mph) to be considered high speed.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 24th, 2014, 07:30 AM   #4922
Buffaboy
Buffalo's Idealist💡
 
Buffaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Buffalo Southtowns, New York
Posts: 3,818
Likes (Received): 2122

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
Actually it isn't Amtrak who considers 150 mph high speed. High speed can be considered as low as 200 km/h in Europe (124 mph) if it an existing line has been upgraded for high speed service. I'm not sure if Acela counts as purpose built or not but it does have a ma speed of 265 km/h (240 km/h max operating speed) so it is pretty close.

That being said... Purpose built tracks have to be capable of 250km/h (155 mph) to be considered high speed.
I looked around after I said most use 200+... the fact is many are within the 124-155mph range. But the rest are above that.

I don't think Acela rails are purpose built but I read somewhere they are replacing ties w/concrete ties, and the wooden ties had been there for hundreds of years, or something of that nature.
Buffaboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:12 AM   #4923
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
If I were the US, I'd rather have Japanese technology, then French. Japanese technology has been exported previously (Taiwan) and so has French (S. Korea). Not only that but the Shinkansen is the worlds safest HSR - no passenger fatalities in its whole history, which is the longest in the world. I've been on the ICE, the TGV and on the Shinkansen twice.

Shinkansen is definitely the most comfortable system I've used. The TGV was okay, but I was on older stock, so I've not used the newest stock. The Italian system surprised me - the Italo was pretty comfortable, though not so reliable and I am not sure whose technology the HSR is in Italy actually... The ICE was comfortable, but the slowest system out of the three systems.
My personal ranking is Shinkansen, ICE and TGV to when it comes to comfort.

You have overlooked one detail: The Shinkansen system is completely separated from the rest of the network. The risk of disruptions in a mixed traffic system are unavoidably bigger.

Any HSR in the USA will be mixed traffic, just like in Europe. All Japanese ATC-DS variants weren't made for that, just like the French TVM300/TVM430 wasn't. German LZB has been adapted, but will be fased out in favour of ERTMS, which was from the ground up designed for mixed traffic.

My ideal system would be to combine Japanese operating procedures with European safety technology and as much as possible traffic separation. Where the rolling stock comes from is less important as long as they can meet the requirements.
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.

Donegal liked this post
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:38 AM   #4924
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
Any problems. Any perceived failure. Any glitch in the system. Any collision. Anything that High speed rail detractors can exaggerate.

The point is, using a system that has a long proven track-record is a safer bet for the USA's first real high-speed-rail system.

It's why I think they will choose either France, Germany or Japan's systems for California. They all have proven track records and a long history of safety and reliability.
They are bidding for the rolling stock, neither CRH380A or 380B have had any problems. Also for the record, German HSR killed way more people than the Chinese one, and that's due to product quality too, not human error like the Chinese accident.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:41 AM   #4925
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
My personal ranking is Shinkansen, ICE and TGV to when it comes to comfort.

You have overlooked one detail: The Shinkansen system is completely separated from the rest of the network. The risk of disruptions in a mixed traffic system are unavoidably bigger.

Any HSR in the USA will be mixed traffic, just like in Europe. All Japanese ATC-DS variants weren't made for that, just like the French TVM300/TVM430 wasn't. German LZB has been adapted, but will be fased out in favour of ERTMS, which was from the ground up designed for mixed traffic.

My ideal system would be to combine Japanese operating procedures with European safety technology and as much as possible traffic separation. Where the rolling stock comes from is less important as long as they can meet the requirements.
I agree about comfort level, I was appalled by TGV's ride after riding other HSRs in the world. But TGV is probably the closest to the American crashworthiness standard, one of the biggest obstacle for US to have efficient rolling stocks. Also I believe CASHR will be a PDL not mixed traffic.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:47 AM   #4926
flankerjun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Shenyang/Wuhan
Posts: 461
Likes (Received): 1230

what makes me impressive is that JP railway has the curve of only 4500m and they can run over 280km/h,but in China,it is 9000~12000m,almost a straight line,but run at 310km/h.but for comfort,my opinon is China best,if you put a bottle of water on the desk,you can tell how stable it is on China HST,you hardly feel the train us running if you do not look outside the window.I think most of guys even not have an experience in China HST.they should have a try.
flankerjun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:55 AM   #4927
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by flankerjun View Post
what makes me impressive is that JP railway has the curve of only 4500m and they can run over 280km/h,but in China,it is 9000~12000m,almost a straight line,but run at 310km/h.but for comfort,my opinon is China best,if you put a bottle of water on the desk,you can tell how stable it is on China HST,you hardly feel the train us running if you do not look outside the window.I think most of guys even not have an experience in China HST.they should have a try.
Because those lines that run at 310km/h now are designed for 350-380km/h service with speed increase potential. 4500m curves have no potential at all and it increases wear and tear of the track and rolling stock.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 10:34 AM   #4928
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

The track radius on the Shinkansen network is generally 4000 m. However on the original Tokaido line the track radius is only 2500 m. The tokaido max speed is 285 km (Soring 2015). Other lines will have no problem reaching 360km per hour and higher. The Tohoku line trainsets can run at 360km/h but due to excessive wear on the pantograph and Japan's extremely strict noise pollution laws is limited to 320km/h for now. They're workig on increasing this for 2020. China quietly reduced the Max speed on their transets from 350 to 300 (Now 320) for safety reasons (efficiency and wear are suspected reasons as well). Track radius is only part of the equation. If Japan can run trains at 285km on the Tokaido line around 2500m curves....

The Chuo line under construction has an 8000m track radius and starting design speed of 505km/h. The problem with higher speeds are not only to do with track radius. At speeds higher than 400 km you start to really run into problems with air friction and friction and wear and noise due to the wires and the contact with rails. Not to mention the time of takes to accelerate and decelerate. All limited by the very real limitations of steel on steel friction.

The Chuo line will have no catenary wires and no rail friction above 100km/h and will be 80% in a tunnel which negates many of the sids effects of speed.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 12:02 PM   #4929
Gusiluz
Jaén (Spain)
 
Gusiluz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,578
Likes (Received): 10868

10 expressions of interest in California high speed fleet

Well, there are already official proposals (thank goodness!)
10 expressions of interest in California high speed fleet

And there for everyone, but it seems to me that I do not qualify. We will see.

Responses were submitted by:
  • Alstom Transportation;
  • AnsaldoBreda;
  • Bombardier Transit Corp;
  • CSR Corp;
  • Hyundai Rotem;
  • Marnell Transportation;
  • Kawasaki Rail Car;
  • Siemens Industry;
  • SunGroup USA & World Harmony City/CNR Tangshan Railway Vehicle Co;
  • Talgo.
The expressions of interest are intended to enable CHSRA to ‘open up conversations’ with manufacturers to help shape the upcoming request for proposals. CHSRA is looking for information regarding procurement and how the manufacturers propose complying with Buy America and Buy California provisions.

The initial procurement is expected to be for a base order and options for up to 95 trainsets, suitable for ‘sustained speeds’ over 320 km/h (200 miles/h) to offer Los Angeles – San Francisco journey times of less than 3 h.
Gusiluz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 12:21 PM   #4930
Gusiluz
Jaén (Spain)
 
Gusiluz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,578
Likes (Received): 10868

Already posted here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusiluz View Post
"The design would be based on a ‘service-proven trainset in use in commercial high speed service at at least 300 km/h for a minimum of five years’. A maximum train length of 205 m is specified, with a minimum of 450 seats in first and business classes with seat pitches of 1 067 mm and 991 mm respectively. Static axleloads should not exceed 17 tonnes"


And I add: it must have a width of 3.2 / 3.4 meters.

These are the ones that meet:
Kawasaki. Hitachi. Nippon Sharyo & Kinki Sharyo N700 width 3.380 300 km/h 546 seats 205 meters 370 tonnes
Siemens Velaro CN (CRH3C) width 3.200 350 km/h 556/600 seats 200 meters 447 tonnes

And these that no:
Hyundai Rotem KTX Sancheon II (since 2010) 305 km/h width 2.970 363 seats 201 meters 434 tonnes
Talgo/Bombardier T350 (102 series) width 2.942 363 seats 200 meters 322 tonnes. Talgo could offer the 112 series but with interior AVRIL G3. I understand that the "service-proven trainset" has to do with the width of the box.
CSR Sifang CRH2C width 3.380 m 610 seats 201 meters 371 tonnes (rather than potential patent issues with Kawasaki)
CSR Sifang CRH380A (since 2010) width 3.380 579 seats 203 meters 388 tonnes
Kawasaki-Hitachi E5 (since 2011) width 3.350 731 seats 253 meters 454 tonnes
Alstom AGV (ETR 575 since 2012) width 2.985 460 seats 200 meters 401 tonnes
Bombardier Zefiro 380 ( CRH380D since 2014) width 3.400 495 seats 215 meters 462 tonnes
Bombardier V300 Zefiro (ETR 1000. desde 2015) 447/485 seats 202 meters 500 tonnes
CAF Oaris (on test) 430 seats 202 meters
AnsaldoBreda ETR 500 656 seats 328 meters 576 tonnes (It is 2000, ruled for many reasons)
Alstom Duplex (two floors) width 2.900 509/560 seats 200 meters 390 tonnes
I imagine the list will:
AGV
V300Zefiro (ETR 1000)
Zefiro 380
CRH380A
KTX II o prototipe HEMU430
¿?
N700E (export)
Velaro
CRH380B
112 series (with Bombardier) with AVRIL G3 interior
__________________

Donegal liked this post
Gusiluz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 03:31 PM   #4931
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,071
Likes (Received): 8773

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
My personal ranking is Shinkansen, ICE and TGV to when it comes to comfort.

You have overlooked one detail: The Shinkansen system is completely separated from the rest of the network. The risk of disruptions in a mixed traffic system are unavoidably bigger.
Main Shinkansen, yes, but mini-shinkansen, no. The Akita and Yamagata Shinkansen's do share I believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
Any HSR in the USA will be mixed traffic, just like in Europe. All Japanese ATC-DS variants weren't made for that, just like the French TVM300/TVM430 wasn't. German LZB has been adapted, but will be fased out in favour of ERTMS, which was from the ground up designed for mixed traffic.

My ideal system would be to combine Japanese operating procedures with European safety technology and as much as possible traffic separation. Where the rolling stock comes from is less important as long as they can meet the requirements.
Indeed, but when it comes to technical prowess, rolling stock and safety overall I still say the best model is the Japanese. They have managed to survive earthquakes, have not suffered from derailments, no passenger fatalities in over 50 years of service etc etc. To me that is an incredible record given this is the longest running HSR network in the world that has to deal with difficult terrain and natural disasters. Not only that, but it is still the busiest HSR system in the world (though China will overtake it). Separation of services I do see as important, but the Japanese have shown that the Shinkansen can be adapted for mixed-running with the Akita and Yamagata Shinkansen lines.

The French LGV's are separated traffic too I believe, not mixed.
Svartmetall está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 04:38 PM   #4932
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Guys, US has all technical expertise it needs to build the infrastructure for high-speed rail. Lack of ability to build is not what stems progress in HSR in USA at all. Politics, regulations, bitter budgetary disputes, the fact high-speed trains have been turned into a political symbol emboldening far more than its transportation attributes (like people who hate HSR and vow to "stop the train" because they associate it with anti-Christianity, escessivley educated, liberal Europhiles) ...

Bringing the Chinese, the French or the Japanese to build the lines would accomplish nothing, assuming the political and legal landscape in US remains the same. Complex environmental legislation that has been hijacked by NIMBYs, for instance, won't change because the Chinese came... And it would be absurd if it did, US is the most powerful country in the World, it should be the one pushing its regulations over other countries, not the other way around anyway. The Chinese, French or Japanese won't be able to build cheaper lines, or build them faster, in US because of their passports...

Train manufacturing is a separate issue there. Trains can be built anywhere and transported to their point of use, and there are scale and scope advantages to it. However, since CAHSR is subject to Buy America provisions, plants would have to be located in US.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 04:41 PM   #4933
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
But TGV is probably the closest to the American crashworthiness standard, one of the biggest obstacle for US to have efficient rolling stocks. Also I believe CASHR will be a PDL not mixed traffic.
If CAHSR rolling stock needs to be FTA-compliant for mixed traffic, there is simple no trains that would match such requirements in the market and, very importantly, any conceivable train under those regulations would require a massive increase on axle load, bringing costs of construction of tracks significantly higher.

It will share tracks with Caltrain, but then I think they will definitively end any freight traffic between Gilroy and San Francisco, right?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 04:44 PM   #4934
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,071
Likes (Received): 8773

Technical expertise does not = ability to build the line successfully without it taking longer than using expertise from abroad. Look at South Korea. They have technical ability in abundance and a highly educated workforce, but they still adopted the French TGV system and had SNCF consult on the building of their network. Taiwan was the same when they started their HSR - Japanese technical support. Now with Malaysia/Singapore - Japanese technical support.

It's always good, when you are first entering into a civil works package like this to learn from those that operate successful systems. The Chinese did this as did all those I mentioned above. The US would be silly to ignore all this experience around them.
Svartmetall está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 04:44 PM   #4935
Don31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 94
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Guys, US has all technical expertise it needs to build the infrastructure for high-speed rail. Lack of ability to build is not what stems progress in HSR in USA at all. Politics, regulations, bitter budgetary disputes, the fact high-speed trains have been turned into a political symbol emboldening far more than its transportation attributes (like people who hate HSR and vow to "stop the train" because they associate it with anti-Christianity, escessivley educated, liberal Europhiles) ...

Bringing the Chinese, the French or the Japanese to build the lines would accomplish nothing, assuming the political and legal landscape in US remains the same. Complex environmental legislation that has been hijacked by NIMBYs, for instance, won't change because the Chinese came... And it would be absurd if it did, US is the most powerful country in the World, it should be the one pushing its regulations over other countries, not the other way around anyway. The Chinese, French or Japanese won't be able to build cheaper lines, or build them faster, in US because of their passports...

Train manufacturing is a separate issue there. Trains can be built anywhere and transported to their point of use, and there are scale and scope advantages to it. However, since CAHSR is subject to Buy America provisions, plants would have to be located in US.

Well said. I agree 100%
Don31 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 06:08 PM   #4936
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

Suburbanist is mostly right on the reasons why HSR hasn't succeeded in US already.
__________________
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 08:34 PM   #4937
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
If CAHSR rolling stock needs to be FTA-compliant for mixed traffic, there is simple no trains that would match such requirements in the market and, very importantly, any conceivable train under those regulations would require a massive increase on axle load, bringing costs of construction of tracks significantly higher.

It will share tracks with Caltrain, but then I think they will definitively end any freight traffic between Gilroy and San Francisco, right?
Yes the line will be passenger traffic only, no freight. Is it possible that FTA will draft a HSR specific regulation that will favor the heavier TGV design over the Shinkansen?
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 08:59 PM   #4938
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

There will still be freight service on Caltrain at night.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:32 PM   #4939
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
Yes the line will be passenger traffic only, no freight. Is it possible that FTA will draft a HSR specific regulation that will favor the heavier TGV design over the Shinkansen?
FTA regulations "shouldn't" apply in this case, as the tracks will not be run with freight and as far as I understand won't have level crossings. California will hopefully not get stuck with an Acela-type system.

The new AGV has moved to a Japanese-style Powered EMUs (as opposed to a Locomotive on front and back). It's very new for the French, though... first launching in Italy 2 years ago. It's also, unfortunately, 1' narrower than the specs require. Not sure if this is an issue or not.

I think you will see more trainsets move in this direction. Some of the advantages of having powered EMUs are weight distribution and more even and faster acceleration.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2014, 09:38 PM   #4940
Donegal
Leave the city behind 
 
Donegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Yorkville Avenue
Posts: 435
Likes (Received): 1094

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Guys, US has all technical expertise it needs to build the infrastructure for high-speed rail. Lack of ability to build is not what stems progress in HSR in USA at all. Politics, regulations, bitter budgetary disputes, the fact high-speed trains have been turned into a political symbol emboldening far more than its transportation attributes (like people who hate HSR and vow to "stop the train" because they associate it with anti-Christianity, escessivley educated, liberal Europhiles) ... Bringing the Chinese, the French or the Japanese to build the lines would accomplish nothing, assuming the political and legal landscape in US remains the same. Complex environmental legislation that has been hijacked by NIMBYs, for instance, won't change because the Chinese came... And it would be absurd if it did, US is the most powerful country in the World, it should be the one pushing its regulations over other countries, not the other way around anyway. The Chinese, French or Japanese won't be able to build cheaper lines, or build them faster, in US because of their passports... Train manufacturing is a separate issue there. Trains can be built anywhere and transported to their point of use, and there are scale and scope advantages to it. However, since CAHSR is subject to Buy America provisions, plants would have to be located in US.
Agreed. It's not lack of technical expertise, but experience. But hey, you guys sent a man to the moon. You surely could build a HSR from scratch.
__________________


And in the end, we lie awake

And we dream of making our escape
Donegal no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium