China offering to build CA HSR

george matthews wrote:

David Benton wrote:come to the shaky isles . Anything less than 6 is ho hum . i suspect Japan is the same .

Italy, Greece and former Yugoslavia have serious earthquakes. I would hope rail systems there are adapted with safety devices, as in Japan. Nowhere else in Europe is at risk.

But clearly, the design of systems in California should be fully adapted.

Oh really? So there is absolutely no risk of "serious earthquakes" in Europe in countries other than "Italy, Greece and former Yugoslavia?" What precisely is the basis for this belief?

You also seem to have some sort of belief in unspecified "safety devices, as in Japan?" Does your personal knowledge of Japanese railway construction exceed your experience in the field of seismology? I really would also like to know precisely why these unspecified anti-earthquake devices are so specific to contractors of Japanese nationality?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: You also seem to have some sort of belief in unspecified "safety devices, as in Japan?"{/quote]

It's common knowledge that JR as a whole does quite a bit of research into this stuff. The Shinkansens, at least, do in fact do emergency stops during earthquakes over a certain magnitude.

Does your personal knowledge of Japanese railway construction exceed your experience in the field of seismology? I really would also like to know precisely why these unspecified anti-earthquake devices are so specific to contractors of Japanese nationality?

Japan's in the 'ring of fire' of the Pacific rim, where such activity is common. Seismic construction's part of the building codes and design over there. It's considerably less of a consideration in Europe or the US outside of California. In the northeastern US, outside of high risk sites (nuclear, dams, reservoirs...), there's really not much in the way of codes. I doubt anyone even thinks about it rail here, I've never heard of it.

Also, a good % of the Shinkansen is elevated causeways, especially around cities. You don't see that elsewhere, but in Japan they do it because there's no room - most urban rail lines are elevated to some degree there.

the big concrete viaducts here are sitting on huge concrete pads to let them sway in a large earthquake . only relatively recent advances in prestressed concrete etc have allowed its use as structural walls etc of buildings . I have read of similiar technology in Japan .
I doubt these are factors in France / England . Well , talking to builders that have emigrated here , i know theyre not .

Are you saying Califionia has no earthquake specific building codes , that say , Eastern USA does not have ??? I'm consatnatly reading theyre preparing for "the big one" . Is New York ??

David Benton wrote: Are you saying Califionia has no earthquake specific building codes , that say , Eastern USA does not have ??? I'm consatnatly reading theyre preparing for "the big one" . Is New York ??

Cali has lots of specific codes. But outside of stuff where disaster potential's high, there isn't much in the NY region. Nuke plants and reservoirs / dams are about all I see it on up here. But normal buildings? Flood and fire's the bigger drivers.

The Shinkansen has a system that detects earthquakes and automatically puts the brakes on all trains in the area.

BiZzAr0 wrote:The Shinkansen has a system that detects earthquakes and automatically puts the brakes on all trains in the area.

Exactly. And a California high speed line would need the same.

There is a danger of earthquakes in the eastern part of the US. The New Madrid quake is often cited. But such incidents seem to be rare. France and Britain do not have such even rare incidents. Nor Australia, as these are quiescent areas.

I really would also like to know precisely why these unspecified anti-earthquake devices are so specific to contractors of Japanese nationality?

The specifications for a California system should include adaptations for earthquakes. Japanese rail engineers have a thorough training in the theory and practice of building in a similarly earthquake prone area. I think it would be wise to make use of their expertise.

george matthews wrote: There is a danger of earthquakes in the eastern part of the US. The New Madrid quake is often cited. But such incidents seem to be rare. France and Britain do not have such even rare incidents. Nor Australia, as these are quiescent areas.

Earthquakes aren't that rare for the northeast, but they generally aren't even noticed by the populace. I only found out about the last one and the epicenter was only a town or so away - when my relatives asked about it a few days after the fact.

It's just not a big factor up here...

Nasadowsk wrote:

george matthews wrote: There is a danger of earthquakes in the eastern part of the US. The New Madrid quake is often cited. But such incidents seem to be rare. France and Britain do not have such even rare incidents. Nor Australia, as these are quiescent areas.

Earthquakes aren't that rare for the northeast, but they generally aren't even noticed by the populace. I only found out about the last one and the epicenter was only a town or so away - when my relatives asked about it a few days after the fact.

It's just not a big factor up here...

I gather that the New Madrid fault will probably move again, but probably the frequency is unknown.

BiZzAr0 wrote:

kaitoku wrote: No wonder JR Central is steering clear of this project and is instead concentrating on Desert Xpress.

They're concentrating on the Florida HSR the most and I doubt they're not interested in California. I haven't even heard of them being interested in the Desert Xpress.

Quote from a recent NYT article:

“Florida is at the top of our list,” the JR Central chairman, Yoshiyuki Kasai, said during an interview. “Our marketing partners in the U.S. have been in close contact with the routes we have targeted.”

Among those routes are one in Texas and one between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/busin ... rains.html

Finally, the technology involved in HSR is not exactly cutting edge. We're talking about a refinement of 19th century railway technology here.

Ah yes, the tired old "trains are soooo 19th century technology" argument. A favorite among the right wing and/or the generally ignorant, or those that have never seen anything except an Amtrak train (granted I understand the sentiment in THAT case). Funny no one ever mentions that today's automobiles are basically refinements of the Ford Model T, and are therefore old tech, which is also false. Technology is always evolving, often in a manner not visible to the general public. In the railway field, there have been developments in car building technology, such as light weight aluminum bodies and stir welding, in traction control, such as inverter control and dynamic braking down to 0 mph, in motive power design, such as hybrid diesel railcars using batteries, in bogie construction, such as bolsterless bogies and high speed wheelsets, in traffic control, such as digital ATC and wireless moving blocks, the list goes on. Most if not all of this development and implementation has occured outside the U.S. Just because it was not developed in the U.S. doesn't mean its not "high tech" or just updating of old tech and not worthwhile. Today's high speed trainset is not your great (great) grandfather's Casey Jones steam train.

kaitoku wrote: Just because it was not developed in the U.S. doesn't mean its not "high tech" or just updating of old tech and not worthwhile.

Sadly, most of it *was* developed in the US, or pioneered here. Budd made some MUs in the 50's that are still lightweight by today's standards. Rectifier locomotives and MU cars were used here, first (though on 25hz - Japan and France beat us to 50/60hz). Hollow axles were used on steercars at the turn of the century. Low boarding was seen back then too ('accelerator' cars). The PCC was so successful it was widely copied in Europe. Articulation was used on mainline trains at least as early as the 30's. I believe the Talgo was actually first assembled at least partly in the US (the US was an early market for it). DMUs were first widely used here, as were multisystem EMUs (New Haven, circa 1910). Stainless appeared early on here, as did aluminum (I believe the LIRR's double decker prototypes were). Continuous cab signaling was pioneered in the US. AC inverters were tested back at least as far as the 1970's (the Reliance inverter tests on Cleavland's RTA). Etc etc etc.

There was a time when US railroads actually were pretty cutting edge. That hasn't been the case for well over 1/2 a century, though.

goodnightjohnwayne, a geologist would LOL at what you said about earthquakes.

Here's a nice map of earthquakes: World Seismicity (>5.5, 1977-1992).

LOTS of earthquakes in certain regions, with scattered earthquakes outside of them.

Earthquake-hazard maps for Europe:
Europe
Europe: earthquake hazard map - Maps - Professional Resources - PreventionWeb.net

France is not nearly at risk from big earthquakes as Italy.

lpetrich wrote:goodnightjohnwayne, a geologist would LOL at what you said about earthquakes.

Here's a nice map of earthquakes: World Seismicity (>5.5, 1977-1992).

LOTS of earthquakes in certain regions, with scattered earthquakes outside of them.

Earthquake-hazard maps for Europe:
Europe
Europe: earthquake hazard map - Maps - Professional Resources - PreventionWeb.net

France is not nearly at risk from big earthquakes as Italy.

Yikes , you can't even see NZ under the red and green blobs . lol . i Quess high speed rail is out of the question here . oh wait , you cant see Japan either .
*goes to stand in the doorway *

On the BBC world service radio I have just heard a Chinese engineer claim he is working on a 500 km.h train, having already designed a train faster than anything in Japan (adapting Kawasaki's technology).

Chinese company has won a contract in Saudi for a HSR line.