# MISC | High Speed Rail and the law of diminishing returns



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

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.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

horlick97 said:


> 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.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

chornedsnorkack said:


> 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'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.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

Interesting read related to this topic: 


http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaug-2011/the-case-for-not-quite-so-high-speed-rail-2/


----------



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

Interesting read related to this topic:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaug-2011/the-case-for-not-quite-so-high-speed-rail-2/


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

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.


----------



## alphorn (Oct 26, 2009)

horlick97 said:


> 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

alphorn said:


> 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.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

I could discuss other topics, but with my poor English I prefer to focus on just one.


horlick97 said:


> ...
> - 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*



> 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.


----------



## Cakwan (Jun 3, 2009)

horlick97 said:


> 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.
> ...


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:lol 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)*


----------



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

horlick97 said:


> 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.





horlick97 said:


> 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.


----------

