Trial runs for Indonesia’s Jakarta to Bandung 220-mph high-speed line began this week. Service on the 88-mile corridor are expected to launch this August, making it the first high-speed train in Southeast Asia. Trains will be able to carry up to 601 passengers, with stops at four stations and making 68 trips per day. The shortest trip time will take about 36 minutes, a massive improvement from the current 3-hour long train trip.
The Jakarta to Bandung project is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The project cost a little over $7 billion and is being built and operated by Kereta Cepat Indonesia China, a joint venture between China Railway International Co. Ltd and a consortium of Indonesian state companies. Financing for the project came from the China Development Bank and Indonesia’s state budget.
This project is part of a much larger effort to improve transit and intercity rail throughout Java island, the geographic and economic center of Indonesia. After this initial high-speed line launches, Indonesia plans to conduct a preliminary study for a Bandung to East Java high-speed corridor.
Wondering what this high-speed line would look like in America? One comparison is
And just how much would need to be spent to save 35 minutes? I’m reasonably certain that the area between New York and Philadelphia is much more built up than the route in Indonesia. And just how would the existing suburban service on this route (SEPTA and NJ Transit) be accomodated.
Believe me, it’s been done. The problem, as noted, is that the necessary direct route involves an almost insane amount of construction on viaduct, and routing that eliminates Newark and a couple of other areas to produce the necessary end-to-end timing. In particular, the approach at the Philadelphia end cannot use any of the existing ex-PRR (or ex-Reading Bound Brook, although there are some advantages that way) routing – it would need to be all new through some very expensive areas.
The Chinese realized early enough that this was the principal way to even approach cost-effectiveness for 220mph equipment, and accordingly built all the necessary equipment and skill necessary to construct overhead trackage quickly and expediently. While their result can be somewhat lacking in esthetics, there is no real reason why some of the design couldn’t be made considerably less obtrusive for what wouldn’t amount to dramatic increase in overall project cost.
The other half of the issue is politics – everyone wants the benefit of the service, no one wants the onus of having any part of it but the kiss 'n ride approach anywhere near them. You saw this with Gateway to the extent that a local politician objected to tunnelling deep under her constituents’ district.
Naturally this line would have to be inherently grade-separated, which in practice would involve berming rather than tunnelling (as with Interstate highway construction). This of course ought to involve much less cost for ROW, proper drainage and vaults, and structure for two reasonably-separated (about 30’ for 220mph) tracks, and there are few difficult grades east of the Watchungs where a second-spine would run. But there is still a Chinese wall between (minimized) under- or overcrossings. And even without the boodling, the California HSR gives us precisely the kind of structure required… and the expenses to be expected.
Believe me, it’s been done. The problem, as noted, is that the necessary direct route involves an almost insane amount of construction on viaduct, and routing that eliminates Newark and a couple of other areas to produce the necessary end-to-end timing. In particular, the approach at the Philadelphia end cannot use any of the existing ex-PRR (or ex-Reading Bound Brook, although there are some advantages that way) routing – it would need to be all new through some very expensive areas.
The Chinese realized early enough that this was the principal way to even approach cost-effectiveness for 220mph equipment, and accordingly built all the necessary equipment and skill necessary to construct overhead trackage quickly and expediently. While their result can be somewhat lacking in esthetics, there is no real reason why some of the design couldn’t be made considerably less obtrusive for what wouldn’t amount to dramatic increase in overall project cost.
The other half of the issue is politics – everyone wants the benefit of the service, no one wants the onus of having any part of it but the kiss 'n ride approach anywhere near them. You saw this with Gateway to the extent that a local politician objected to tunnelling deep under her constituents’ district.
Naturally this line would have to be inherently grade-separated, which in practice would involve berming rather than tunnelling (as with Interstate highway construction). This of course ought to involve much less cost for ROW, proper drainage and vaults, and structure for two reasonably-separated (about 30’ for 220mph) tracks, and there are few difficult grades east of the Watchungs where a second-spine would run. But there is still a Chinese wall between (minimized) under- or overcrossings. And even without the boodling, the California HSR gives us precisely the kind of structure required… and the expense