The long awaited Spanish high speed line from Madrid to Barcelona debuts this month. Using the German designed S103 Velaro trains (a derivitive of the ICE-3 used on German Railways, the trains will cover 410 miles in 2 hours 35 minutes at a maximum speed of 220mph (350kph). This will make it the fastest commercial conventional train service in the world (exceeding the French TGV Est line which runs at 200mph (320kph)). And, they expect it to be profitable by 2010, running without subsidies.
Here’s the full article from the British ‘Guardian’ newspaper (link and below).
Madrid-Barcelona link is part of 220mph network taking on the airlines
Paul Hamilos in Madrid Saturday February 2, 2008 The Guardian
'Delays and disruption, disgruntled passengers left standing on platforms, accusations of political incompetence and financial mismanagement: the development of the Spanish railway system has a number of things in common with its British counterpart. But when the new high-speed link between Madrid and Barcelona sets off later this month, those complaints will be set aside as the super-slick Ave S103 service carves its way through the Spanish countryside at speeds of nearly 220mph.
The Ave S103 is the kind of train that British commuters can only dream of, and forms the centrepiece of plans to make Spain a model for the rest of Europe, and the world leader in high-speed trains by 2010.
Its 200-metre aluminium chassis carries 404 passengers, whose reclining chairs - which can swivel to face the direction of travel - are fitted with video and music players.
“They are the future of travel in Spain and show that the train is anything but obsolete,” said
I guess the Spainards and everyone else has the honor of showing us young colonials how to go the way of high speed. By the way I dont consider the Corridor true high speed. It is a technological monument to a rusting and failing infrastructure still dominated by the B737.
Countries like Spain and France have vision - which when it comes to high speed rail seems to be totally lacking in the English speaking nations. These decisions will pay off in 20 -30 years time when oil supplies are scarce and global warming takes effect.
OK you shame-mongers, here is the breakdown of travel by passenger miles in the enlightened E.U. (European Union) in contrast with the benighted E.-U. (Etats-Unis, or United States to those who can’t speak the Academy’s French).
Europe
85% auto passenger miles
5% air passenger miles
5% rail passenger miles
5% bus passenger miles
That’s right, as many people take the bus “over there” (a mode held in low regard on these pages) as take those fancy trains.
U.S.
89% auto
10% air
1% bus
.1% Amtrak
Oh, and based on the appendices of the Vision report, those forward-thinking Europeans get that 5 percent share for trains by spending on trains a per-capita amount comparable to the U.S. Federal Highway Budget.
Yes, we could have those nice things here in the U.S. if we spent a large fraction of what we spend on a certain foreign military adventure right here at home, to replace some small percentage of total passenger miles with trains and save a percent or two of the oil that we import. Instead of wasting money overseas, we could waste the money right here on our own shores.
By the way, trains and buses have a flat-line market share but air has been gaining – in Europe.
Source? The low-cost airlines have been taking a beating over there when the competition is HSR.
Incidentally, you chose to cite the entire European Union rather than stick to the nations that actually have high-speed rail. In many former Eastern Bloc countries, and in other countries in that union where spending is greater on politicians than on infrastructure, there is no high-speed rail, which this thread is about, in case you didn’t notice, so it’s not about all modes competing against each other in all markets.
And when are you going to learn to keep emotional arguments out of your posts (words like “enlightened” and “benighted”), or is that the only way you think you can get your point across? The US still drinks over 6 million barrels of oil more per day than the EU (or 141 percent the amount of oil the EU consumes), which makes the EU look far more frugal in that respect for an entity with 163 percent of the USA’s population (EU estimated 490 million versus USA estimated 301 million).
Since you want to drag military expenditure into this (off-topic, BTW), the EU is second only to the USA in military spending, even though it is less than half ($301 trillion per year versus the USA’s $623 trillion). But the thing is, the EU doesn’t have to borrow like it’s going out of style in order to maintain that level of military spending, and they are well situated to expand such spending without resorting to the kind of borrowing the USA’s been engaged in, including the rail mode. (And yes, the EU is in plenty of overseas military ventures presently.) It’s not breaking them at all. There is no tradeoff in spending, whether for military, airports, highways or rail.
p 3.3.1 has the graph in question showing the relation between bus, air, and rail passenger miles, with bus being the leading of the three modes but with air making substantial gains to the level of bus with rail being steady.
My point with these statistics is to counter the notion that we should be ashamed or think of ourselves as 2nd class relative to our European trading partners on account of HSR. The statistics show that if Europe is the model for replacing cars with common carrier modes, we can spend a great deal of money on trains, HSR or otherwise and autos will retain the overwhelming share of passenger miles. The U.S. and Europe are not that far apart when it comes to common-carrier share, but the dominant common carrier mode in the U.S. is the airplane while until recently, the leading common carrier mode in Europe is the bus.
I think there is a market for HSR in the U.S. and at some point we will have it if the advocacy community is open-minded and flexible enough in its thinking to support where this will work. But it is not the energy-saving mobility-enhancing answer to every transportation problem, and the national shame argument is thoroughly unpersuasive outside the circle of foamerdom.
Which over 400 miles produces 26kg of CO2 per passenger compared with 7kg of CO2 per passenger for an electric train travelling at 125mph or 14kg of CO2 per passenger for a high speed electric train travelling at 200mph (figures from the UK Department for Transport)
You know? I dont wrap myself in the nationalism. But when Nations overseas with the GDP that equals the annual budget of anyone of our bloated government agencies put up a modern functioning HST with a clear sense of mission to move people from A to B with the intent on putting airlines out of the route has to be doing something right.
I would like for once the USA to get up, get out of the fantasy land of auto/air travel and get serious about moving people between cities. Amtrack isnt going to be around forever you know.
Maybe the overseas people build the HST here in the USA and we pay them money to ride it.
I am curious as to where you got these figures. Here are the official EU figures from Eurostat the Statistics Agency of the EU, for 2004 the most recent year for which final figures are available, based on Passenger-kilometers.
There are some concerns about those numbers. If the air transport was 26 kg of carbon for 400 miles, the air transport is getting about 40 MPG or about 3000 BTU/passenger-mile, which sounds about right. The accounting of AGW carbon emissions is commonly expressed in terms of weight of carbon in scientific literature – environmental activists often report the weight of CO2 which will be more than three times as great, and by that accounting, the airliner is getting 120 passenger-miles/gallon, which I seriously doubt on that stage length.
The proportional figures for the 125 MPH train do not make any sense either. They work out to 807 BTU/passenger-mile, and I have not seen any published figures putting anybody’s train in that range when you take load factors into account. My guess is that the trains are 800 BTU/seat-mile or 1600 BTU/passenger-mile at 50 percent load factor. Intercity buses are reported to be in the 1000 BTU/passenger-mile range, both here and overseas, and intercity buses edge out trains overseas and beat out our Amtrak (about 2700 BTU/passenger-mile) by a large factor.
As to automobile passenger miles in Europe being more in the 70-percent range for intercity trips, you see the same effect her in the U.S., where the longer the trip length the greater the air market share. Is comparing all auto miles to intercity common-carrier miles apples and oranges? Not really. If the policy choice is to spend a large amount of money on rail or HSR to mitigate CO2, you are replacing a small percentage of total passenger miles and getting minor reductions in CO2. To have meaningful contributions to preventing climate change, you have to have whole
Economic = LaGuardia Airport Closed Down in a winter storm. Lots of people wanting to go to chicago which happens to be fogged in. HST or maglev to rescue.
Social = No more jammed like sardines on a Greyhound visiting every single little burg for 20 hours. I for one will never ever again set foot on another greybarf bus in my lifetime.
Environmental = All Maglev or HST elevated and away from any interaction with surface traffic, wildlife etc and probably fired by Nuke plants which really only boil water at massive rates; the fuel spent goes to yucca and/or fired into the sun itself.
The EU doesn’t use Intercity figures, although for Air you can take them to be only Intercity. For all other modes they are all inclusive (commuter, driving to the Mall etc.)
There is the non all-weather aspect to air transportation, but given the situation on the Donner Pass, rail isn’t completely all-weather either. While the Donner Pass is historically famous for not being all-weather and trains generally have an edge, there are other weather conditions in other places that can shut trains down.
As to the complaining about being jammed like sardines on an intercity bus, there is a very strong intercity bus component to how they get people out of automobiles in Europe, and the vaunted California Capitol Corridor relies on a feeder bus network. People in the train advocacy community need to get a better outlook on buses as part of an integrated public transportation system if we are to move in the direction of Europe in terms of providing alternatives to cars.
On the subject of sardine packing, the New Tokaido Line runs 5-across seating in coach. When people think of space as an amenity on trains, thoughts run to a Sunset Limited consist described on another thread, where there were 2 locomotives, 8 cars, and 50 passengers have the run of the train with a diner and lounge car. A fuel-efficient environmentally-friendly HSR will not operate at those seating densities and load factors.
Finally, there are good things to be said about nuclear power, but whether we build nuclear power, continue to rely on coal, or continue th
I am not a very good or strong debator but you have made a point about people density and Donner Pass.
1- Donner. If I have personally never been to that area I will not know of the land, terrain, weather and other facts of life on that particular spot. However I have seen Donner, Emigrant, Syskiyou and other passes in the northwest and it aint the Corridor Dorthy!
If one could actually weather proof Donner, it will be a engineering achivement.
2- People density.
I recall the Intercity of the late 80’s in the east of England while riding to and from London. At the time it was considered high speed and it had a great impact on my thinking towards HST. We had a passenger car that featured 4 people seating around a table and in the middle of the train was a drink car. Beverage, coffee or whatnot… That car had a bit of open space to serve a dozen people or so at a time without overcrowding.
I would spend a week in and out of London towards Suffolk, Ely, Mildenhall etc on that train and in the Tube downtown London and didnt feel overly crowded. But the Tube certainly was small and required some patience compared to say… the Washington DC Metro that had huge amounts of space.
The worst over crowding that I have ever seen was that where a million or so people wanted OUT of washington DC in the 90’s after the Fireworks/Concerts events down at the Mall. Metro Center would be so packed as you did not have much room to expand your ribcage to breathe. The 13 car train that showed up was filled to full volume in about 15 seconds and standing room only with overloaded traction motors cooking for 5 stops or so.
Metro did a good job that night but normal travels on trains dont see too many people because of the dominance of the Auto or Plane.
Little Rock has about 6 arrivals and/or departures per hour. Usually 737’s These planes came from… one example… southwest… had one that was San Fran, Las Vegas, Little Rock, Baltimore. And then Baltimore, Midway, Little R
Cost benefit analysis - the fudge for the knowing the price of everything against the value of nothing.
The UK Dft and the Treasury reckoned that Oil prices will start falling from 2012 and will be $25/ barrel because of fuel efficency…hmmm…that has to be factored into any CBA analysis of new electrification/ lines in the UK.
Also what people miss is of course is that for every person taken off the roads then the roads will become statistically safer; a fatal accident in the Uk costs appx £1m in ambulance, fire brigade and police call out - how much it costs if time was to notionally valued in delay to the drivers journey - not sure though the latter is applied to railway journey’s in the UK.
Never seems to be factored in. On occasions you wonder if those who start pointing out to study x and study y showing why a line is not value for money are like Nero; fiddling whilst all around burns. Sure build more roads; but look at the cost of land use and the environment; sure pay cash for for airlines but look at the cost in emissions and - wait - the roads needed to transport those passengers.
If we’re considering operating high-speed passenger rail on a mountain railroad built in 1868 by the Central Pacific, then we’re not aiming too high, I think.
And if we’re talking about exceptionally heavy snow, then nothing can move in that (e.g. the TGV between Grenoble and Paris was cut off by several feet of snow back in 2005); however, rail can and does continue to operate in snowy conditions that defeat air and road, which is the point, if I’m not mistaken.
This thread’s about high-speed rail, not commuter rail. If
The point of these three pictures being that for people who are not foamers, those three common-carrier modes (HSR, bus, and airliner) are pretty much the same thing: a lot of seats packed into a small cabin where you get to sit an extended period of time next to strangers with colds. The HSR mode has you in those seats for a shorter period of time, and the airliner has you in them for shorter time yet in exchange for taking your shoes and belt off and offering a smiling face to the TSA dude who mimes how you have your thumbs through the belt loops so the pants you bought big enough in the hips with the oversized waist doesn’t slide down as you walk through the metal detector.
Effective HSR may require integration with feeder networks, requiring a feeder infrastructure including all modes of common-carrier transportation, including transit and intercity buses and especially the air transportation network. To follow the European model of substituting less energy intensive common carrier transportation for those energy intensive cars, we have to get as many people to ride those awful cramped buses as we get to ride those nice comfy trains.
HSR is a common-carrier mode of transportation, and to the extent that people find common carrier transportation does not serve their needs, they will select cars, as they do in the U.S. and do almost as much in Europe. Many of us are tired of airplanes, especially since they have become long-distance mass transportation rather than a specialty service catering to an elite group of travelers or “jet set”; when HSR gets adopted, there will be initial excitement but eventually it will have all of the glamor of jet travel. We need to emphasize how trains can serve specific transportation needs rather than the foamer-cool factor of riding trains. The diner-lounge-sleeper room-to-stretch-your-legs mode of train transportation that is so popular in the foamer community is not what you are going to
Oh sure, let’s make trains to move people in assigned seats and roll em, packed to the max with little legroom and no defense against the seat mate with bad cold or flu.
I started off with trucks built around the late 50’s early 60’s and boy… to go to California wasnt going to happen in those rigs. Some of those cabs give you just enough room to do your job.
The newer rigs feature human space, sleeper, table, desk, chairs, storage space etc etc etc. With thought towards the human that must occupy this space for extended times provides for a happier human.
I still like the older rigs and have to recall how to drive them from time to time at work. Maybe I can teach a new driver who only understands automatic transmissions how a double under actually worked or the 13 speed reverse gears are set up. (Dont get me started on 50 mph reversing games)
Yes I still remain with the Tavern Car, Beverage Car and whatever that goes into a train. It will make the ride a bit easier and maybe more productive with other features.
The pictures comparing the 737 to the other modes are quite striking. The bus does not have to suffer altitude, temperature and humidity changes and the Train does not really need consideration against aircraft construction.
It is a goal of travel to become routine, safe, day in and day out without a thought towards accidents or weather. When people want to go from A to B they want to go without worrying about it.
Yes bus drivers speed. That is another reason I dont ride buses anymore. I prefer to drive myself. Part of that problem is that Desiel engine on the bus. I have totally cannot sleep if that engine is going through it’s power band very aggressively due to a speeding driver. I follow the wheels and frame every single moment until I get there and boy am I tired.
Once in a while I get a stable and happy driver content to set the vehicle up at a steady speed and keep it there. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Dreamland for me. Most of the time, the
You don’t see the difference between train, plane and bus? (And can’t get away from epithets, still?)
All right; we’ll do a more direct comparison. 700-series with Amfleet and ATSF Hi-Level/Superliner. (The double-deckers are 10’ 2" wide; the lower pic is of a refurbished ATSF.)
None of the above are “cramped” on the interior, if this visual comparison represents real-world dimensions (disclaimer: I have not had the opportunity to ride any Bullet Train, but I’ve been on Superliners and Amfleets). Therefore, I don’t know what frame of reference you are coming from.
BTW, using a misophobic stance (this is the correct word versus “germphobic”) means that you won’t choose any mode of transportation other than walking or driving; no bus, no train and most assuredly no plane. Cruise ships? Maybe…plenty of space to keep away from potentially infectious strangers. Always grow your own food, eat at home and eschew restaurants, too? [;)]
