Ari Rokeach
993547023
3-11-11
Hargadon Research Team
High Speed Rail
Technical Overview
“Much of the technology behind high-speed rail is an improved application of mature
standard gauge rail technology using overhead electrification. By building a new rail
infrastructure with 20th century engineering, including elimination of constrictions such
as roadway at-grade (level) crossings, frequent stops, a succession of curves and reverse
curves, and not sharing the right-of-way with freight or slower passenger trains, higher
speeds (250–320 km/h, 155–199 mph) are maintained….
Recent advances in wheeled trains in the last few decades have pushed the speed limits
past 400 km/h (250 mph), among the advances being tilting trainsets, aerodynamic
designs (to reduce drag, lift, and noise), air brakes, regenerative braking, stronger
engines, dynamic weight shifting, etc.”
-Wikipedia.com, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Technology
European Union DIRECTIVE 96/48/EC APPENDIX 1
1. Infrastructure
a) The infrastructure of the trans-European High Speed system shall be that on the transEuropean transport network identified in Article 129C of the Treaty:
those built specially for High Speed travel,
those specially upgraded for High Speed travel. They may include connecting lines, in
particular junctions of new lines upgraded for High Speed with town centre stations
located on them, on which speeds must take account of local conditions.
b) High Speed lines shall comprise:
Specially built High Speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than
250 km/h,
Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of
topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to
each case.
2. Rolling stock
The High Speed advanced-technology trains shall be designed in such a way as to
guarantee safe, uninterrupted travel:
at a speed of at least 250 km/h on lines specially built for High Speed, while enabling
speeds of over 300 km/h to be reached in appropriate circumstances,
at a speed of the order of 200 km/h on existing lines which have been or are specially
upgraded,
at the highest possible speed on other lines.
3. Compatibility of infrastructure and rolling stock
High Speed train services presuppose excellent compatibility between the characteristics
of the infrastructure and those of the rolling stock. Performance levels, safety, quality of
service and cost depend upon that compatibility.
-European Union council decision 96/48/EC, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002D0735:EN:NOT
Courtesy of, http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971
Defining characteristic of high-speed rail is continuous welded rail, one long
continuous rail, less vibrations and separations of track to allow high speeds. Very
strong, less friction, less maintenance.
U.S. defines high-speed rail as above 110 mph.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf
April 2009
High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
“Visions for High-Speed Rail in America”
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Railway Administration
History
Year
Country
Train
Shinkansen
Speed
km/h |
mph
1963
Japan
256 159
1965
West Germany Class 103 locomotives 200 124
Comments
First country to develop
HSR technology
Second country to
develop HSR
technology
TGV 001
Third country to
318 198 develop HSR
technology
Italy
ETR 500-X
Fourth country to
319 198 develop HSR
technology
Spain
AVE
S102 (
Talgo
350)
2002
2004
1967
1988
2002
France
Fifth country to develop
HSR technology
362
225
China
China
Star
321
Sixth country to
199 develop HSR
technology
South Korea
HSR350x
352.4
Seventh country to
219 develop HSR
technology
HSR in the U.S.
Since the 1980s, there have been several failed attempts to implement high-speed trains
in the United States. The most notable of these were the American High Speed Rail
Corporation (AHSRC) proposal to build a "bullet train" along the coastal corridor
between Los Angeles and San Diego (1981-1984), the Texas "TGV" to link Dallas/Fort
Worth, Houston, and San Antonio (1989-1994), and the Florida Overland Express (FOX)
project to link Miami-Orlando-Tampa Bay (1991-1999).
-http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx
Obama’s Initiatives
“U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced an ambitious $53 billion
program to build new high-speed rail networks and make existing ones faster
over the next six years.
Under the initiative, the Department of Transportation will choose corridors for
new projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails.
President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, to be unveiled next week,
includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money would be allocated over the
six-year time period.
Biden noted Obama's goal to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed
rail within 25 years, announced during his State of the Union address last month.
Specifically, Biden laid out plans for three types of rail -- regional rail with trains
speeds of 90 to 125 mph; core express rail corridors that would form the
backbone of the high-speed system with electric trains travelling at speeds of 125
to 250 mph; and corridors with trains travelling at up to 90 mph.”
-http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/uk-usa-transport-railidUSLNE71801520110209
In 2009, Obama launched high-speed rail by slipping $8 billion into his stimulus
package, even though few potential projects were shovel-ready enough to
provide real stimulus. Eager governors from both parties made $55 billion worth
of requests for the cash, a reflection of pent-up demand, and in last year's State
of the Union, Obama described the program as a matter of not just mobility but
also of national pride as well.
-http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2047110,00.html
California
Environmental Benefits
1. Because the electric power to the trains can be produced by sustainable and renewable
power sources like wind and solar, this system will cut air pollution and smog throughout
California.
2. Improved air quality
3. Improved energy efficiency: high-speed rail uses only one-third the energy of airplanes
and one-fifth the energy of the family car1
4. Reduced dependence on foreign oil: 12.7 million barrels less per year2
5. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 12 billion pounds less per year3
1. ADDENDUM/ERRATA to Final Program EIR/EIS for the Bay Area to Central
Valley Portion of the CHST System, California High-Speed Rail Authority, June
2008, S-11
2. The Use of Renewable Energy Sources to Provide Power to California's HighSpeed Rail, Navigant Consulting, September 2008
3. Navigant, 4
Economic Benefits
1. As many as 100,000 construction-related jobs each year that the system is being built
2. The potential for 450,000 permanent new jobs statewide created by the economic
growth high-speed rail will generate over the next 25 years
- California High Speed Rail Authority, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
“high-speed trains will travel between LA and San Francisco in under 2 hours and 40
minutes, at speeds of up to 220 mph, 800 miles of track… up to 24 stations”
The most recent ridership forecasts for the California High-Speed Train Project
estimate between 88 – 117 million passengers annually by 2030 for the entire
800-mile high-speed train network connecting Sacramento, the San Francisco
Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire, and
San Diego.
Between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
ridership projections conclude that by 2030, high-speed trains will carry 45%, air
transportation 26%, and the automobile 29% of the total transportation market
between the two biggest metropolitan areas in California.
-http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx
Amtrak in the NEC
“With the successful completion of the original phases of the Northeast Corridor (NEC)
Improvement Project offering Amtrak's maximum 150 mph Acela train service between
Washington, New York, and Boston, efforts to develop high-speed intercity passenger
rail service have expanded beyond the NEC”
- FRA, High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/31.shtml
“The announcement follows Monday's news that Amtrak, the nation's largest
passenger rail service, plans a $13.5 billion commuter-rail project connecting
New York City and New Jersey…”
-http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/uk-usa-transport-railidUSLNE71801520110209
Amtrak, which is supported by U.S. taxpayers, runs the Acela
Express, the only high-speed train in the U.S., between
Washington and Boston. The route had 3.2 million passengers in
the year ended September 2010, according to the rail operator.
-http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-08/rail-s-cash-flow-king-stakes-62-billionon-tokyo-maglev-train.html
New York is on track to receive billions of dollars in high speed rail funds.
The Obama Administration has designated the Northeast Corridor as a federallyrecognized high speed corridor.
This allows states in the area to apply for $2.4 billion in federal grants, which
were made available after the governor of Florida turned them down.
It will also allow Amtrak to be in on the planning process.
In order to be eligible for the money, states must show an ability to reduce
energy use, improve the efficiency of their transportation network, and generate
sustained economic growth.
-http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/135623/state-eligible-for-billions-inhigh-speed-rail-funds/
The Obama administration has taken back the $2.4 billion allocated to
Florida for high-speed trains and is inviting other states to apply for the
money, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Friday.
The project, which would have connected Tampa and Orlando with
high-speed trains, was rejected by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a
Republican. He said he didn't want to obligate the state to pay for what
could be expensive operating costs for the line.
In his state of the union speech in January, Obama said he wants to
provide 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed trains within 25
years.
-http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/15/florida-loses-24-billion-forhigh-speed-trains/
According to one recent study, implementation of pending plans for the federally
designated HSR corridors could result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of CO2
-(2.7 MMTCO2.) Joint 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for
Neighborhood Technology, http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf
Statistics
In operation
(km)
Country
Under construction
(km)
Total Country
(km)
China
4,840
15,478
20,318
Japan
2,118
377
2,495
Spain
1,963
1,781
3,744
France
1,872
234
2,106
Germany
1,032
378
1,410
Italy
923
92[citation needed]
1,015[citation needed]
Republic of China
(Taiwan)
345
0
345
South Korea
330
82
412
Turkey
235
510
745
Belgium
209
0
209
The Netherlands
120
0
120
United Kingdom
113
0
113
Switzerland
35
72
107
-http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article573
International Union of Railways
China, which plans to invest $451 billion to $602 billion in its high-speed rail
network between 2011 and 2015, according to the China Securities Journal.
-http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/uk-usa-transport-railidUSLNE71801520110209
European Market Share
Statistics from Europe indicate that air traffic is more sensitive than road
traffic (car and bus) to competition from HSR, at least on journeys of
400 km and more
The rail market share rose from 49 to 72 %. For air and road traffic, the
market shares shrunk from 31 to 7 % and from 29 to 21 %, respectively.
On the Madrid–Sevilla relation, the AVE connection rose the rail market
share from 16 to 52 ; air traffic shrunk from 40 to 13 %; road traffic from 44
to 36 %, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of the combined rail and
air traffic. This figure increased to 89% in 2009, according to the Spanish
rail operator RENFE.
-http://www.aerlines.nl/issue_43/43_Jorritsma_AiRail_Substitution.pdf
In Europe, high-speed trains have also historically captured the major share of combined
air/rail traffic along routes where high-speed train journeys are under 3 hours. Currently,
with air transportation becoming more complicated and increasing air congestion (from
longer-distance flights), high-speed rail now wins 50% of the traffic where rail trip times
are 4.5 hours or less. On routes where high-speed train times or 2 hours or less, highspeed rail traditionally wins 90% of the market share over air transportation.




In France, rail held only 22% of the combined Paris-Marseille air-rail market before
TGV Mediterranean went into service (2001), but in four years that market share
rose to 65% and in 2006 it was 69% and EasyJet abandoned its Paris-Marseille
flights.
Spain’s Ave has 53% of air/rail/road traffic on the Madrid-Seville route.
Thalys train between Paris and Brussels holds 52% of air/road traffic; after the
high-speed rail line went into service, airlines discontinued flights Paris-Brussels –
the only competition remaining is road.
Eurostar has more than 70% of London-Paris market, 64% on London-Brussels.
Last month BMI discontinued its London-Paris flights." (www.prenewswire.com)
-http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx
Operated by Japan Railways Group,
JR Central is Japan's most profitable and highest throughput high speed
rail operator, carrying 138 million high speed rail passengers in 2009,
considerably more than the world's largest airline.[8] Japan recorded a total
of 289 million high speed rail passengers in 2009.[8]
-http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-08/rail-s-cash-flow-king-stakes-62billion-on-tokyo-maglev-train.html
In Japan, the 343-mile Tokaido high-speed train line connecting Tokyo to Osaka
currently carries over 145 million passengers annually. The entire Japanese
high-speed train network (1,350 miles) currently carries over 335 million
passengers a year. In France the TGV network, consisting of over 1,160 miles of
new interconnected high-speed lines, carries over 100 million passengers each
year.
- http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx
The Tōkaidō Shinkansen (network of railways) is the world's busiest highspeed rail line. Carrying 151 million passengers a year (March 2008),[1] it
has transported more passengers (over 4 billion, network over 6
billion)[2] than any other high speed line in the world.[3
-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20090326/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_fast_trains
-http://english.jrcentral.co.jp/company/company/achievement/transportation/index.html
Japan’s HSR train manufacturing is highly collaborative.
In Japan, their high-speed train, "the Shinkansen", has been a very effective competitor
with air transportation. In the market between Tokyo and Osaka (the two major
metropolitan area in Japan), the Shinkansen accounts for about 88% of the market
share. Throughout Japan, where the Shinkansen trip time is about 2.5 hours, it has
about 75% of the market in comparison with air transportation. It is not until distances
exceed 620 miles that air travel gains a higher market share.
-http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx
Alstom Transport develops and markets a complete range of systems,
equipment and service in the railway industry. With a market share of 18%
and sales of 5.3 billion euros, the company is number 1 in very high-speed
trains, number 2 in tramways and metros, and is among the leaders for
electrical and diesel trains, information systems, traction systems, power
supply systems and track work. Alstom Transport is present in 60 countries
with 26,000 employees.
Manufactured V150, TGV
TGV is operated by SNCF, French national rail operator.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom
Train Manufacturer:
Siemens
Makes many versions of the Valero Train
Valero E, Spanish version, ordered by RENFE
Valero CRH3C, Chinese version,
Valero RUS, ordered by Russian Railways (Monopoly)
Valero D, ordered by Deutsche Bahn
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro
RENFE is state owned, 100% market share
China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation Limited (CSR)
manufactured the China Star trains.
Chinese Ministry of Railways operates.
All international railways are state owned, except in U.S,
Future of HSR in the U.S.
On Thursday, American Railcar Industries, a St. Charles, Mo.-based
freight car manufacturer owned by investor Carl Icahn, announced a
joint venture with Columbus, Ohio-based US Railcar to again
manufacture passenger cars in the United States, at least initially at
facilities in Arkansas.
The same day, the US rail division of German conglomerate Siemens
AG announced that it had completed purchase of 20 acres of land
adjacent to its existing 34-acre light-rail manufacturing plant in
Sacramento, Calif. That new land would be the site for manufacturing
high-speed-rail passenger trains traveling at up to 220 miles per hour.
In December, freight locomotive giant GE announced plans to build a
next-generation passenger locomotive capable of hitting 124 miles
per hour. It is also developing even faster electric-powered
locomotives in a joint venture with China's Ministry of Railways. At
least 80 percent of the content for those trains would be from US
suppliers and all final assembly would be in the US.
Spanish high-speed train manufacturer Talgo announced last
summer would set up an assembly plant that would employ 80
workers in Wisconsin to meet a $47 million deal with the state to
supply two trains.
-http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0219/Companies-to-build-high-speedrail-cars-in-the-US
International Examples of HSR
Japan France Germany UK
Date of initiation
1964 1981
System length (route-miles)
1,360 1,180 798
70
Top operating speed (mph)
188
186 186
199
1988
China US
186
2003 2007 1969/2000
HSR ridership (millions)
300 100
67
8
-http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf
High Speed Rail Map Europe 2011
High Speed Rail Map Asia 2011
588
457
125/150
No Data
11
High Speed Rail U.S. proposed
Since December 18, 1991, eleven high speed rail corridors have been
authorized. Five corridors were authorized under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and six were authorized under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) . To date the
Department of Transportation has designated ten of these corridors and
numerous corridor extensions. Some of the designations were specifically
mandated by Congress. The corridor designations and extensions (including a
clarification of the California corridor) are listed below in chronological order from
the initiation of the program on December 18, 1991 to the latest extension
approved on December 4, 2004. No changes have been made since that date.
July 2, 2009. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced extension of
the California High-Speed Rail Corridor to Las Vegas, Nevada.
-http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/618.shtml
Emission Scopes:
Defined by the GHG protocol: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the
most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to
understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a
decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and
environmental groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and
effective programs for tackling climate change.
It provides the accounting framework for nearly every GHG standard and program in the
world - from the International Standards Organization to The Climate Registry - as well
as hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
The GHG Protocol also offers developing countries an internationally accepted
management tool to help their businesses to compete in the global marketplace and their
governments to make informed decisions about climate change.
-
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
Described by ACUPCC in their Implementation Guide: To help delineate direct and
indirect emission sources, improve transparency, facilitate fair comparisons, and provide
utility for different types of organizations and different climate policies and goals, the
GHG Protocol defines three “scopes” for GHG accounting and reporting purposes:
Scope 1 refers to direct GHG emissions occurring from sources that are owned or
controlled by the institution, including: on-campus stationary combustion of fossil fuels;
mobile combustion of fossil fuels by institution owned/controlled vehicles; and "fugitive"
emissions. Fugitive emissions result from intentional or unintentional releases of GHGs,
including the leakage of HFCs from refrigeration and air conditioning equipment as well
as the release of CH4 from institution-owned farm animals.
Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions generated in the production of electricity consumed
by the institution.
Scope 3 refers to all other indirect emissions - those that are a consequence of the
activities of the institution, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the
institution. (such as food or paper production and transport, or products consumed on
campus like textbooks, t-shirts and mugs with school logos, etc.)
-
http://www2.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/pdf/ACUPCC_IG_Final.pdf
There are many schools of thought on how responsibility for emissions
should be assigned. Bastianoni et al. (2004) [3] describe three different
approaches to emissions accounting: direct geographical, ecological
footprint, and carbon emissions added.
-
http://www.campusclimatenetwork.org/wiki/Emission_scopes
Another useful website:
http://www.co2benchmark.com/wri-ghg-protocol-scope-definitions