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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 21st, 2016, 06:20 AM   #1
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 26

MISC | High Speed Rail and the law of diminishing returns

More and more countries are installing high speed rails.
In a lot of these projects, the desired speed are above 300km/hr.
While this is good, there is a price to pay, involving namely:
- Alignment: More land and communities will need to be uprooted.
- Exponential increase in energy consumption.
- Escalating stringent requirements in design and construction for safety.

In order to pay for this, eventually the fees will have to be very high, and may even go beyond the affordability of the masses it seek to serve.

In order to increase passengers, more intermediate stops may be made. But, this will slowdown the overall speed, which is elaborated below.

Furthermore, while the design speed may be 300 to 400km/hr, the actual durations the trains can travel at this speed may be very limited, due to:
- acceleration and deceleration,
- straightness and condition of track.

In order to cover longer distances that the actual ultra high speed will benefit, would such routes not be better served by air travel?

So, I may sound regressive and myopic. I am wondering if the railway world will eventually come around to dovetail to a more sustainable and affordable approach to configuration railway:
- With max speed scaled at 200km/hr, but focus on improving scheduling and operational efficiency to minimise delays so that the overall station to station actual speed will still be good.
- Allow mix-use of tracks by freight and passenger services to optimise the use of the infrastructure.

Benefits:
- Cheaper to construct. More countries will be able to afford and be able to actually build it rather than just talk about the plans.
- Cheaper to use. More people will actually be served by such a network and benefit from it, because they can afford it.
- Cheaper to operate. More optimal energy consumption.

A parallel from the aviation industry.
Some years back, it was regarded that aircraft will become bigger and bigger. Hence, the push for A380, B747-8. But, the market has shifted to favour smaller aircraft.

Hope to hear your thoughts.
__________________

mrsmartman, DanielFA liked this post

Last edited by dimlys1994; December 21st, 2016 at 10:22 AM.
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 21st, 2016, 06:31 AM   #2
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 26

Some cases for discussions:
KL-Spore. 350km with 8 intermediate stations.
UK. Average distances between major cities is about 100miles or less.
Jakarta-Surabaya. 150km with 5 intermediate stations.

Even if the KL-Spore route and the Java route is extended later, the pattern of the lines having relatively near intermediate stops will repeat.

So, at what cost would you pay to get to 350km/hr just for very brief moments of HSR, where at most part of the journey, the train is travelling at speed of less than 200 km/hr, which is not low.
__________________

mrsmartman, DanielFA liked this post
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2016, 06:25 PM   #3
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,592
Likes (Received): 5952

The ÖBB is doing pretty much that, even though max speed is not just as "low" as 200 km/h. The fastest tracks are designed for 250 km/h and operated at 230 km/h. The whole modernization master plan is aimed however at creating a "Taktfahrplan", like Switzerland. That means trains are arriving at 00', 15', 30' or 45' each hour. Transers are therefore a matter of minutes and trips with transfers hardly any slower than transfer free trips. This of course safes a lot of time for the customers makes the use of the rail network much more comfortable and efficient.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

DanielFA liked this post
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2016, 06:43 PM   #4
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
Some cases for discussions:
KL-Spore. 350km with 8 intermediate stations.
Tokyo-Nagoya Tokaido Shinkansen, 342 km
11 intermediate stations exist
Kodama 611, with all 11 stops, takes 2:42 (162 min)
Nozomi 201, with 2 stops (Shinagawa and Shin-Yokohama), takes 1:41 (101 min)
That Nozomi departs 10 minutes after Kodama and is in Shin-Osaka (515 km from Tokyo) 2 minutes before the Kodama reaches Nagoya.

Just because multiple stations exist and receive milk runs does not prevent express trains from also running on the same line.
__________________
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2016, 08:18 PM   #5
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Tokyo-Nagoya Tokaido Shinkansen, 342 km
11 intermediate stations exist
Kodama 611, with all 11 stops, takes 2:42 (162 min)
Nozomi 201, with 2 stops (Shinagawa and Shin-Yokohama), takes 1:41 (101 min)
That Nozomi departs 10 minutes after Kodama and is in Shin-Osaka (515 km from Tokyo) 2 minutes before the Kodama reaches Nagoya.

Just because multiple stations exist and receive milk runs does not prevent express trains from also running on the same line.
That's exactly the beauty of the Kodama ("local" service) running alongside the Nozomi (super express) trains. If someone wants to travel much further than Nagoya from a place like, for example, Numazu in Shizuoka, one can board the Kodama, travel to Nagoya, and wait for the faster Nozomi to get to places like Shin-Osaka, Hiroshima, or even Hakata. And with the Japanese obsessions with time and precision, train operators truly want to make sure they get to their destinations on time since they have a mutual understanding that their passengers have other places to go rather than just being obsessed with speed.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross

DanielFA, pudgym29 liked this post
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2016, 12:06 PM   #6
Rebasepoiss
Registered User
 
Rebasepoiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 5,818
Likes (Received): 1818

Several countries have planned (or had) services that have top speeds of 350 km/h or more but so far all have settled on a bit lower speeds (300-320 km/h) which seems to be the maximum feasible limit at the moment.

You make it sound like it's all or nothing when it comes to building railways or operating trains. It's not. There are high-speed (300-320km/h) tracks being built, then there are so-called higher-speed railways at 200-250 km/h. Then you have upgraded existing tracks at 160-200 km/h. The possiblities are endless, really, and it's up to the infrastructure owner and operating companies to decide which approach to take.

I agree, however, that more emphasis should be on easier transfers and better connections to local public transport. There isn't much point in arriving 20 minutes early to a station if you have to wait 30 minutes for the next train.

Others have pointed out that Japan has an excellent system of express trains and "local" high-speed services. What Japan also does well is trains that accelerate quickly as is illustrated in this graph. The TGV takes over 7km longer to reach 300 km/h than the N700 Series Shinkansen train.
__________________

Swede, mrsmartman, DanielFA liked this post
Rebasepoiss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2016, 03:00 PM   #7
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 26

Interesting read related to this topic:


http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaug-2011/the-case-for-not-quite-so-high-speed-rail-2/
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2016, 03:02 PM   #8
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 26

Interesting read related to this topic:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazin...-speed-rail-2/
__________________

DanielFA liked this post
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2016, 04:36 PM   #9
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Construction costs of greenfield railways actually do not change that much once you get into the territory of higher speeds in general, full grade separation and, especially, tunneling.

There are very little extensive 200 km/h new line projects out there. These lower limits are often the results of limitations to upgrades in situ of existing lines.

Your original post also assumes only one type of service with one stop pattern to be possible on a high speed system, as if it were a metro network.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2016, 04:34 AM   #10
alphorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
More and more countries are installing high speed rails.
In a lot of these projects, the desired speed are above 300km/hr.
While this is good, there is a price to pay, involving namely:
- Alignment: More land and communities will need to be uprooted.
- Exponential increase in energy consumption.
- Escalating stringent requirements in design and construction for safety.
The word "exponential" gets thrown around a lot. "Linear" would be more appropriate: Air resitance grows quadratically with speed but travel time decreases linearly, therefore energy consumption rises linearly with speed (double speed equals double energy consumption for a trip). However, the required engine power needed rises in the third power (double speed requires eight times stronger motors). Most importantly, thoug, the track wear also rises in the third power of speed, which makes very high speeds very expensive.

As for sharing tracks with freight: Fast and slow don't mix well. If you want to put just two passenger trains (200 km/h) and two freight trains (80 km/h) per hour on a line, then the freight trains will need to stop for getting overtaken every 48 km. The numbers quickly get worse with higher train counts.

Not that this invalidates the semi-high-speed approach. It makes more sense to use a 200 km/h train on slower old lines and the end of the high speed line in order to create direct connections (as is done in Switzerland); an expensive 320-km/h-train would be wasted. Also, very high speed trains are not very good at accelerating. Therefore the new trains in Germany "only" do 250 km/h.
__________________

mrsmartman, DanielFA liked this post
alphorn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2016, 10:02 AM   #11
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphorn View Post
As for sharing tracks with freight: Fast and slow don't mix well. If you want to put just two passenger trains (200 km/h) and two freight trains (80 km/h) per hour on a line, then the freight trains will need to stop for getting overtaken every 48 km. The numbers quickly get worse with higher train counts.
That's average speed, though. You could have on the same 80 km track a freight train that travels the 80 km without stopping and turns off to a freight station, and a passenger train with a top speed of 120 km/h that drops off passengers in stations each few km and as a result averages also 80 km/h.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2016, 12:12 PM   #12
Gusiluz
Jaén (Spain)
 
Gusiluz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,578
Likes (Received): 10872

I could discuss other topics, but with my poor English I prefer to focus on just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
...
- Exponential increase in energy consumption...
Well, the fact that the high-speed train is an energy predator is rather more than debatable, even though "everyone" believes it.

Razones técnicas del menor consumo de energía del tren de alta velocidad por Alberto García Álvarez
Technical reasons for the lower energy consumption of the high-speed train

- Equal to all other factors, speed increases produce practically linear (non-quadratic) increases in consumption, and at high speed a negligible increase in energy costs. For example, passing from 300 to 330 km / h on a direct train from Madrid to Barcelona means a reduction of 5 minutes and an increase in the cost of energy of 19 cents € per passenger (at 2008 prices).
- The high-speed train is able, thanks precisely to the speed, to capture a significant part of passengers from the plane and the car. Therefore, the main advantage of the implementation of a high speed line does not come from the replacement of the conventional train: typically the high speed train avoids the emission of 3 kilos of carbon dioxide per traveler compared to the conventional train; While in the whole of the route (If there is air competition) the implementation of the high speed has a multiplier effect that supposes that the emission of 31 kilos of CO2 is avoided for each traveler transported in high speed.
- The high-speed train, in its normal operating conditions, consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions (an average of 29% less) for each traveler carried than a conventional train traveling between the same points at a slower speed.

And because? The reasons for the lower consumption of the high-speed train are to be found in some intrinsic characteristics of the high-speed system:
- Shortest distance traveled
- Lower consumption of auxiliary services (lighting, air conditioning and technicians, which accounts for up to 20% of the consumption of the Commuters and Medium distance) due to the shorter duration of the trip.
- Power supply in alternating current, and at higher voltages (25 kV over 3 kV, so losses are lower), which also improves the ...
- Return regenerated energy to the grid during braking (the regenerative brake is to reverse the polarity of the motors, which makes them generators)
- More homogenous speeds, with lower accelerations and braking (less speed limitations and fewer stops)
- Larger and more busy trains
- Lower mechanical resistance (wheel / rail) in curve (there is less and have a greater radius)

Types of trains and average speeds:


Más velocidad, menos consumo Vía Libre 2007
More speed, less consumption

Quote:
Comparison of energy consumption in the sections from Lleida to Roda and from Cordoba to Antequera

Traditionally it has been presupposed that the high speed supposes a remarkable increase of the energy consumption with respect to the conventional train. However, this article shows that in the stretches from Lleida to Roda de Bará and from Cordoba to Antequera, the Alvia and Talgo 200 trains achieve reductions in energy consumption in 16% and 8% pantographs when passing through The conventional line to do so by the high speed, which is compatible with the increase of the average speed of 64 and 78% respectively. The entry into service of these two new sections of high speed, by the same trains that circulated previously by conventional line, offers an opportunity to compare the consumptions due to the infrastructure, speed and the type of service without being devoured by differences in moving material, since this is the same in the two cases that are compared.
These are partially terminated high speed lines. We compare the energy consumed by the same trains between A and D when there is high speed line only between A and B, with consumption when there is high speed line between A and C.
Conclusion, with the same trains: more speed, less consumption.
__________________
Gusiluz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2016, 04:57 AM   #13
Cakwan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lamongan-Gresik-Surabaya-Sidoarjo
Posts: 930
Likes (Received): 354

Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
Some cases for discussions:
KL-Spore. 350km with 8 intermediate stations.
UK. Average distances between major cities is about 100miles or less.
Jakarta-Surabaya. 150km with 5 intermediate stations.

Even if the KL-Spore route and the Java route is extended later, the pattern of the lines having relatively near intermediate stops will repeat.
.......................
I'll correct your statement for Jakarta-Surabaya, as there's currently 2 separate project ongoing:

Jakarta-Bandung (150km) cost: $7 bn
Will be 300km/h max. It will be about 4 stops, but since this is quite short distance, non-stop direct travel will be dominant like the existing train.
According to local studies, about 150.000 people travel between this two cities daily. currently it takes 4:15 hours to travel by train, and about 3 hours or less if you drive @150km/h (which most people do) by car/bus via recently built Cipularang highway, which is now preferred mode of travel by 99% people.
it will cost about $15 to ride this high speed train (old train $10, by bus $8)
The catch is, this project is almost entirely about politics. I don't think it will be even running beyond 200km/h.

Jakarta-Surabaya (800km) cost: $6 bn
At first it is planned for 350km/h high speed, but scrapped. I apperciate our government that quickly learn from Jakarta-Bandung project.
Now this project will be higher speed tilting train with 1067mm narrow gauge designed @ 200km/h max, and achieve average speed of 150km/h. Existing train takes 9 hours to travel via recently built double track trans-Java railway (before 2014 it takes 12 hours). There will be 8 stops max.
it will cost about $50 to ride this higher speed train (now is $35)
For passenger, its main competitor is of course low cost airliner. Its the most busiest route in Southeast asia. If you book in advance, you can find ticket as low as $25.
this project is not meant to be passenger focused, but also will be upgrade for freight capacity (speed & volume). Its new track will be void of horizontal crossing, which is one main source of traffic jam and countless accident daily (Indonesian people are very, very reckless)
__________________
Indonesia Maju 2045. 100 Tahun Indonesia Merdeka. Hiduplah Indonesia Raya!
semoga lebih cepat :)
Cakwan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2016, 08:49 AM   #14
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 26

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications.

The cases of Jakarata-Bandung HSR and the Jakarta-Surabaya 'higher speed railway' provide very apt illustration of the point.

The Jakarta-Surabaya 'higher speed railway' implemented now will bring in tremendous real benefit to the people and the economy compared to the HSR which will likely remain on the drawing for many years to come, not to talk about how much more it will cost the eventual users even if it were ever built.

I also thought it is a pragmatic approach for Indonesia to upgrade it's railways with cape gauge, as in the case of the new Jakarta-Surabaya line. Basically, it is an island nation that does not need to connect to any other system. With regard to economy of scale for procurement, I also think there will be sufficient critical mass fr Indonesia, Japan, Tawian, New Zealand, South Africa to keep the cape gauge competitive.

An even more modest example can be seen in the KL -Ipoh ETS system. This is a metre gauge system that covers a distance of 130 miles. The 160km/hr max speed system with double tracking has brought back rail travel between the two cities where the previous century old railway system has fallen into oblivion. Had they insisted on the HSR, they will probably still be talking. Indeed, this is what is happening to the JB to Gemas section, where the double tracking 'higher speed railway' is still pending while all the excitement now is in the KL-Spore HSR. It remains to be seen if and when the KL-Spore HSR will materialise.

Having said that, i would hv preferred the Malaysian railway to have gone for regauging to standard gauge (instead of remaining at the present meter gauge ) when they started doing the double tracking earlier. This is to anticipate future linking up to the Chinese railway eventually.
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2016, 11:22 AM   #15
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
I also thought it is a pragmatic approach for Indonesia to upgrade it's railways with cape gauge, as in the case of the new Jakarta-Surabaya line. Basically, it is an island nation that does not need to connect to any other system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
Having said that, i would hv preferred the Malaysian railway to have gone for regauging to standard gauge (instead of remaining at the present meter gauge ) when they started doing the double tracking earlier. This is to anticipate future linking up to the Chinese railway eventually.
Eventually.
Malacca Strait and Sunda Strait are not too deep nor wide. There are thousands of km of Thailand and Laos separating Malaysia from 1435 mm railhead in China.
Japan had double track, electrified 130 km/h top speed, 90 km/h average speed Tokaido Main Line before they opened Shinkansen. Tokaido Main Line still exists - very few 1067 mm lines in Japan have been regauged after 52 years.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 09:26 AM.


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