Hey America. How's it going? Oh....
Well, just thought I'd ask. And while I'm here. You know. I was wondering...um....I don't suppose you guys wanna buy some high speed trains?
Really? Obama said what? That's so cool, because my home town, Montreal, is the headquarters of Bombardier Inc., the world's leading manufacturer of high speed trains!
Bombardier has been involved in the design and manufacturing of pretty much every European and Chinese high speed train project in the last decade. I bet they could set you guys up real nice.
No pressure. Really. But since you're looking, I thought I'd run a few of our more successful models by you.
The Acela Express
As it turns out. You guys already have some of our Montreal manufactured trains. These Acela Express trains are the fastest trains in North America. The eight-section Acela Express trains operate at speeds up to 150 mph along the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston...But between you and I, compared to what we've got going in the rest of the world, these are a tad dinky.
If you're really serious about this you might want to take a look at the
ZEFIRO
There's high-speed. And then there's very high speed. Trains with Zefiro technology have been developed for speeds between 250 and 360 km/h. And offer some pretty serious specs, including:
- Extremely high reliability – proven technology
- High seating capacity
- Lowest energy consumption per passenger
- Significant potential for subsequent installation of additional equipment
- Unrivalled flexibility of applications:
- Speed range from 250 to 360 km/h
- Flexible train length up to 400 m / 16 cars
- Scalable traction power - Interoperability across national borders with proven and homologated components
- Full compliance with all new TSI standards
In October 2007, Bombardier won the largest single order ever placed in Chinese rail history--40 ZEFIRO trains--a contract valued at over 400 million euros.
Yeah, I know. You guys aren't exactly budgetted for 400 million euros. But that's okay. We've got some older models that are still pretty cool.
How about The ICE3
We built this for Germany in 1999. It's a little retro, but it can still hit 330 km/h on a clear day.
The four-system units are intended for operation on the DB AG railway network and for cross-border service with the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Switzerland as well as for operation on the European High Speed Network. The ICE 3 is a multiple unit train where 50% of the associated traction equipment is distributed under the floor over the full length of the train. AND it offers the advantage of clear view of track ahead over the shoulder of the driver in the end cars. Always reassuring when you're hurtling across little bridges suspended from suspiciously fragile looking cables.
Or maybe you'd prefer the X 2000.The first high speed tilting train.
Bombardier delivered the first X 2000 in 1990 for service on the Stockholm - Gothenburg route.
Travelling time for this route was reduced by more than 25 percent only with minor upgrading of the infrastructure. Today, X 2000 trains are running in revenue service on most major lines in Sweden.
The key to increased speeds lie in the radially self-stearing bogies whereby track forces are reduced, allowing a substantial increase in operating speed on straight track and up to 50 percent higher speed through curves. And, just in case you're wondering, microprocessor-controlled, active passenger car tilting technology assures passenger comfort in curves.
A Chinese version of the X 2000, called Xinshisu, has been in service since 1998.
Oh, you want to take another look at China.
Sure. Here's the CRH1
In October 2004, 40 trains of eight cars each were ordered by the Chinese Ministry of Railways (MOR). Running at an operational speed of 220 km/h, the CRH1 has been successfully tested at 250 km/h and has high levels of reliability - covering an average distance of 500,000 km per year.
And just in case you're wondering how long it might to take to get these babies up and running, the first vehicles of the CRH1 series were delivered in 2006- just 26 months after signing the contract - with almost 35 trains currently in service.
Anyway. This is just a sampling. We have many other fine models up and running in France and Spain.
Okay...okay...since you're twisting my arm. One last stop in Spain.
Here's the AVE S-102
These are the trains in Spain which run mainly on the plain...With a maximum axle load of 17 metric tons. In case anyone wants to know...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Erin Judge
ester bloom
Rachel Coyne
Jowita Bydlowska
Grace Hwang Lynch
Felicia Lee
Salon.com
Comments
I actually went on a snowmobile ride with the current CEO, when we were teenagers.
Allright, alright. We necked. But we were like 14 or something.
But this means I might be able to work out a special deal for you Verbal. So if you want more than 20, let me know.
why the f@%k doesn't the US already have high speed rail?
Great Post
(rated)
The first step in high speed rail in the United States (and most of the Western hemisphere) is to upgrade the tracks, and then to guarantee first right of way. Right now, all Amtrak trains must give the right of way to the freight trains, on whose rails Amtrak runs.
Nowadays the privatized (and thoroughly fucked-up) British system has a lot of those Canuck Bombardiers. Not sure how fast those go.
But Procopius. You may have a point with the rails. But it might not be as hard as you think. High speed rail has been happening in the rest of the world for close to 20 yrs. It's not like you're starting from scratch with the technology. The problem isn't so much the rails, as the obstruction of the rails by, as you pointed out, freight trains and connections. But railways cost much less to build than highways. And North America, with all its flat plains, is probably the cheapest place in the world to put down track. So it's not as pie in the sky as everyone thinks.
I'm all for it, but unfortunately, in a country where Amtrak barely gets any funding at all, I doubt the required super majority in Congress is going to support another major federal program like that. They should, but they won't. There just isn't a large enough voting bloc to support it and lobby for it.
On the other hand, there may be hope for smaller regional corridors that would largely be funded by the states. If that were to catch on, then the federal gov't may eventually fund the connections between the regional corridors.
(Great post).
When I was living in Japan one of the cleverest things I saw on a train was the ability to shift the back of the seat so that you could face forward no matter the direction - I preferred taking the local trains to the Bullet train. When I lived in London I could take either the tube or the train from where I lived and I always took the train - it was nicer and you got to see the scenery! Go Trains!
The comparison with planes is even worse to Washington. FLight times to DC are also about an hour and a half. (Because less than 30 minutes of the BOS-NY flight is in the air, most of it is on the runway in JFK). Acela is over 6 hours. You can fly to DC from Boston for an all-day meeting and fly home for dinner or you can spend all day on the train. Long weekend visiting the Capital? 2 days of train, one day of museums. Who'd do it?
High speed rail is only competitive on short, high-traffic corridors and to do it, Amtrak has to get the time to destination down. Quote me time to destination, not miles per hour.
When I was living in Japan one of the cleverest things
I saw on a train was the ability to shift the back of the seat so ...
April 16, 2009 11:09 PM
Responding specifically to the above, I live in Japan. The name of the fast train is Shinkansen. The "sen" syllable means line which means a separate track system from the slow trains. The track system is fenced in and elevated for safety. In '96 when I thought I might live back in the U.S.A., I took AmTrak West to East across the country, my homeland. Just one of the reasons that the train lost time compared to the schedule was that we stopped to let freight trains pass. Amtrak didn't own that track and did not own most of the tracks they were running on at that time. I fear that remains true now.
The key to a fast train system is to simply find two key cities where business travelers would make good use of the system and then build the tracks properly. Expand from that. That was the way it started in Japan in 1964. The government build the system, and then it went public.
Two reasons. They don't burn gasoline and no US manufacturer is positioned to provide them.
In Nov. California passed a proposition to build (or start looking at building) a high-speed train service from San Fran to LA. They've been talking about it for years, trying to determine what route it should take leaving SF - either straight down through the peninsula, to pick up all the Silicon Valley traffic, or east first then down, to pick up the lawmaker traffic from Sacramento. It's supposedly been decided (Sacramento winning), but the fact that it's still being discussed means that could delay things even further. Wheels turn slowly with two equally powerful "opponents".
Someone compared buses, trains and planes (not to mention cars), and it is an apt comparison. But the thing is, that was when fuel was cheap. Fuel is becoming expensive, so train travel could become a better value if it can take advantage of other power options. Also, about 20 years ago I rode Amtrak from NY to DC for a weekend. I was a new college graduate - that is, not making much money - but a bus would have taken forever. The increased price compared to a bus was well worth the time saved. I'm guessing the economics haven't changed much. Market the trains to that group from the very start, get them riding the trains, and maybe you'll build a loyal customer base.
A small aside, when I took that train, for the first 30 minutes I had to sit on the floor because it was packed with commuters. That's something you can't do on a plane. See some YouTube videos of Japanese trains being packed like sardines. As fuel prices go up, trains could become more profitable.
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. In the end it is going to come down to economics, or course. But I think it's also going to be a matter of security, and the economics of airlines. Trains are not an alternative to cars, at least not the kind of trains Obama is proposing. They're an alternative to planes.
Planes are increasingly expensive, not just because of fuel, but because of the amount of time and money that now goes into security. It doesn't look like this is going to change. So the investment put into rail may turn out to save money in the long run. Maybe we're entering an era where the government needs to encourage freight travel towards air and roads..and passenger travel towards trains. Maybe. I guess we'll see.
But from what I know about Bombardier, their energy is right now going into trains. They've suffered huge loses in their plane division. And my guess is they are now currently trying to really cement their dominance in trains. They may even be negotiating with the U.S. government right now to get things set up as cheaply and quickly as possible. My bet is they are.
When I was in college, airfares Boston-Philly were $250 and about an hour's flight. Amtrak was 8 hours (all an uncomfortable night) and 80$. I think only students took the train. They were never close to full. People Express (first budget airline) came in and offered plane tickets for $100.
I don't know the airfares, but I'm pretty sure that the cost/time benefit today is not much better.
But.... as an old guy who remembers steam locomotives, the most enjoyable ride I've ever had in a train was a trip in vintage cars pulled by real live steam through the Columbia Gorge one beautiful autumn day. Probably not the best thing for the environment but certainly a trip to remember.
btw... didn't Bombardier make our light rail cars here in Portland, Or? That's not high speed, but it's been very successful.
I'm spending an artificially-long weekend vacation in Montreal in about three weeks. I've only passed through Montreal before; I've never actually been there. And I really did want to travel there by train. I looked into Via Rail rates from Kitchener to Montreal, and for my wife and I it would cost at least twice as much as driving their would, including gas and parking. The time spent riding in the train would be about the same as travelling by car, but the train trip would also include a stopover of about 2 hours in Toronto.
So we're just going to drive. I was willing to sacrifice the flexibility of driving to be able to take the train. For example, since we're driving, we'll drive by the Expo grounds and the Olympic stadium and, after we leave Montreal, we're going to swing up to Ottawa and Gatineau on the way home and visit Gatineau National Park and the tulip festival in Ottawa. But, as I said, I was willing to sacrifice that sort of flexibility to take the train, but not to also pay twice as much for the privilege.
Do snowmobile users call them "snow machines" in your neck of New York? In spite of Sarah Palin's insistence that everyone call by that Alaskan term, I think almost everywhere, including the places where the main modern kinds of snowmobiles were invented, Canada and the Upper Midwest US, call them snowmobiles. "Snow machines" are the machines that make snow to spray on ski hills.
To answer your question. Probably, yes. If there's a light, quiet, well functioning subway, or train in your town, odds are Bombardier built it.
DonOntario. Yes you're right. Train travel sucks right now. Certainly compared to cars. There's no competition, until they either improve the speed, or bring down the cost. It is a nice ride from Montreal to Toronto. Not as stressful and boring as the 401.
You guys should drop by Exporail too. If you're out by the Olympic Stadium, you HAVE to do the botanical gardens. Second biggest in the world, and just beautiful. There will no doubt be masses of tulips and the butterfly exhibit will probably still be on...In the spring they hatch masses of different species of butterflies in a large greenhouse.... And drive up into Mont Royal park. You get a great view of the city.
Sorry. Looking at the map posted yesterday of all the "high speed rail corridors" proposed for the US, I can see even less urgency to build a bullet train FROM TEXARKANA TO LITTLE ROCK.
Don't get me wrong, I love trains and we definitely need bullet trains along heavily travelled routes between major cities. But somebody please tell me why Little Rock needs a bullet train.
I'm going to throw out a couple of hypotheticals about Little Rock. If its an area that is expanding in population and needs more highways, the Feds might have decided that it's cheaper to build rail than road, which it is.
Or it's rail, or investing in airports. All I know is my cousin married a guy last year whose family was from Little Rock, and they had a hell of a time making it just to Florida. Maybe it was just a coincidence that their flights were held up forever. Or maybe it's the norm?
You tell me.
But I'm guessing that high traffic corridors are already reasonably well served. It's the increasing traffic places that are a problem. No?
Also, loved the comment you left on Ablonde's latest concerning how to get an EP and Cover on OS.
It was the most likely one of all the reasons why which has lead me to not dump so much on the OS editors. Unfortunately, I'm down at the very bottom, the one who writes long and detailed narrative fiction. But I wouldn't have it any other way!
So thank you for that wonderful comment!! It really did change my attitude for the better.
No one can say anything here to make me disbelieve that if trains got faster, cheaper and more plentiful, we’d all use them more. A lot more. And BTW - Bombardier Inc. is one cool company.
Rated & Cheers!