US DOE Awards POET Additional $6.85M for Feedstock Infrastructure for Cellulosic Ethanol
GM Highlights Engineering Advances With Second-Generation Fuel Cell System and Fifth-Generation Stack; Poised for Production Around 2015

Bombardier Sifang Wins US$4B Contract to Build 80 Very High Speed Trains for China

Zefiro
The Bombardier ZEFIRO. Click to enlarge.

Bombardier Transportation’s Chinese joint venture, Bombardier Sifang (Qingdao) Transportation Ltd., has been selected by the Chinese Ministry of Railways (MOR) to supply 80 ZEFIRO 380 very high speed trains (1,120 cars) for the country’s rapidly growing high speed rail network. The contract, including 20 eight-car trainsets and 60 sixteen-car trainsets, is valued at an estimated 27.4 billion Chinese Renminbis (US$4 billion, €2.7 billion). Bombardier’s share of the contract is estimated at 13.5 billion Chinese Renminbis, (US$2 billion, €1.3 billion).The first train is scheduled for delivery in 2012 with final deliveries expected in 2014.

The new trainsets will be an integral part of an evolving high speed rail capability in China, which is developing more than 6,000 km of new high speed lines. The trains, with maximum operating speeds of 380 km/h (236 mph), are based on Bombardier’s next-generation ZEFIRO high speed rail technology, and are powered by a Bombardier MITRAC propulsion and control system.

Eco4-zefiro
ECO4 technologies in the ZEFIRO. Click to enlarge.

A ZEFIRO train is built up using three types of cars: motorized end cars; intermediate trailer cars with and without pantograph; and intermediate motorized cars. Each train base unit has its own complete system for propulsion, 400 V AC auxiliary supply and 110V battery supply. The high voltage supply is connected between the train base units; one pantograph at a time feeds all the main transformers in an ZEFIRO EMU.

The ZEFIRO 380 trainsets incorporate elements of Bombardier’s ECO4 energy-saving technologies. Introduced in 2008, Bombardier’s modular suite of ECO4 technologies for the range of its train products includes:

  • EnerGplan Simulation Tool
  • AeroEfficient Optimized Train Shaping
  • EBI Drive50 Driver Assistance System
  • MITRAC Energy Saver
  • PRIMOVE Catenary-Free Operation
  • C.L.E.A.N. Diesel Power Pack
  • MITRAC Permanent Magnet Motor
  • ThermoEfficient Climatization System
  • Energy Management Control System
  • FLEXX Tronic Technology
  • FLEXX Eco Bogie
  • MITRAC Hybrid Technology

The ZEFIRO 380 trains will be manufactured at Bombardier Sifang (Qingdao) Transportation production facilities in Qingdao, China. Engineering will take place in Qingdao and at Bombardier centers in Europe with project management and components provided from sites in Europe and China.

Bombardier Sifang (Qingdao) Transportation is currently building the world’s fastest sleeper trains for the MOR: twenty 16-car trainsets capable of speeds up to 250 km/h (155 mph). It is also building another 20 high speed trains with conventional seating capable of similar speeds, delivering the first of these trains just 18 months after Notice to Proceed from the MOR.

Resources

Comments

ai_vin

A true high speed rail network is something we sorely need in North America. We rely too much on our highways and airports.

SJC

Half the fuel used for vehicles goes to 18 wheeler tractors. The interstate highway system was good, but it emphasized large trucks over rail.

Matthew

I'd love to see a high-speed rail system here in the U.S. (I thought the TGV in France was fantastic), but I doubt we have the population density to make a real national network viable. Maybe something up and down the coasts, possibly with an extension across to Chicago from the east, would work.

HarveyD

Matthew:

Neither the EU nor the Chinese very high sppeed rail network were (or will be) built overnight. France has been at it for over 30 years.

USA is 30+ years behind EU with high speed rail networks. An investment of about $1500B to $3000B would be required in USA for a basic coastal + a couple of cost-to-coast lines totaling up 10,000 to 15,000 Km. That's about what China will do it the next 10-15 years.

Many think that the coastal lines should come first due to the very heavy long haul traffic along the coasts.

If built over a 10-15 year period, it would be very feasable

However, financing + authorization + right of way acquisition may take 20+ years. Manufacturing + installation could be done much quicker (10-15 years?)

A good program to recycle many ex-Big-3 employees that are still around.

mahonj

I imagine the right of way issues are not such a problem in China.

Lad

High speed passenger rail(HSPR) requires a dedicated track system along with the present rail system that carries both freight and passenger. The reason HSPR has not been successful in the U.S. is because the rail companies would not take the chance without government assistance. Up until recently the airlines opposed any idea that took away from their profits and they hired lobbyists to stop the idea from progressing by invoking the same old system that even today is a blockage to innovation, buying off Congress with election money and favors.

There is a national plan to several HSPR systems within population centers in the U.S. We'll see how many of them are sculled by Congress this time.

HarveyD

Lad:

It is amazing to watch how quickly a great democracy can be derailed, from the interior, by self interest groups twisted ways. Something will have to change to stop further deteriorization.

To break the current strong links between politicians and money from self interest groups, many countries have inacted laws to use public money (at the rate of $1 to $3 per elector) to finance elections instead of relying on private donations. Alternatively, private donations can be limited to a few ($5 or $10) dollars per physical donor. Instituitions, unions, religious groups, profit and non-profit organizations, small and large firms etc cannot be donors.

The power of organized pressure groups, to continously block essential national projects, such as offshore wind farms, high speed trains, decent basis health care, fairer income taxes, application of higher polluting liquid fuel taxes, city streets security measures, application of safe driving speeds, etc etc may have to be limited by the constituition.

kelly

HarveyD is right.

"The current strong links between politicians and money from self interest groups", AKA US government corruption, rivals the Fall of Rome.

Whether it's unaffordable $1000/month medical insurance (much more if individual/imperfect/'precondition'ed.., banker bailouts and bonuses, or simple basic mass transit - lobbies buy our politicians - no matter what they promised the voters to get elected.

ai_vin

To break the current strong links between politicians and money from self interest groups, many countries have inacted laws to use public money (at the rate of $1 to $3 per elector) to finance elections instead of relying on private donations.

You are so right. Canada has such a system and last year our Conservative PM, a Canadian Bush, Stephen Harper trigger an election by trying to remove this public money financing. [As his is a minority government he can only continue to lead if all the other parties don't vote against him.]

I'd love to see a high-speed rail system here in the U.S. (I thought the TGV in France was fantastic), but I doubt we have the population density to make a real national network viable.

As Harvey points out it would take decades to build the network and such infrastructure often invokes something like the line from that baseball movie; "If you build it they will come."

Cities that have built LRT systems have found population density increases around stops BECAUSE the stops are there. Cities that are connected to a HSR system should also see growth because people will see the system as something they want. 30 years should be enough time.

Of course those people who can't see the benefits of a HSR system wont move into these cities so the percentage of users in the popultion will increase faster than the population itself.

right of way acquisition

One way to lessen this problem is to go for an elevated system like the Transrapid monorail. It would be faster, allow free movement under the rails and have lower maintenance/operating costs.

fred

As indicated, the trainsets arent the real problem. $2-3B for 80 is NOT a big deal.

The problem is getting the political WILL and MONEY from at least a few states and the feds to come up with the guarantees to at least eliminate grade-crossings and have a better light-rail system on existing rails. There will NEVER be a dedicated HSR system here. There needs to be a dedicated LowSR/ROW system here, that HSR can operate on. So obviously, the same track widths/guages need to be used.

In the midwest, Im thinking a LS CTA line(Brown line?) connecting the airports (Ohare and Midway) then ultimately connecting with Indianapolis and Madison (Minneapolis even?), then getting SW Michigan and ultimately Detroit and Grand Rapids, Springfield and St. Louis.

But again, itll take will and money, probably a nickle maybe a dime/gal on all transport fuels in those states. Maybe even eliminate toll roads. Do WE have the testes?

fred

I forgot to include electriication...we need that anyway regardless.

Mark_BC

Well this is no fun -- too much agreement so far. Where's the Goracle, Sulleny, Stan et al to blame it all on "The Socialists"?

ToppaTom

Why would the Goracle, Sulleny, Stan et al want to blame LACK of high speed rail on "The Socialists"?


It is OUR turn to blame it on;
Racism
Fox
Talk Radio (“news .. is manipulated by .. wealthy” HAVANA May 8, 2009 (AP))
Large format NiMH patents
Those train crushes (See "Who killed the Cho-Cho")
Those 2 criminals that recorded Acorn's sincere efforts to help the needy
The previous administration
Organized, bitter McCain supporters
Tea baggers
Domestic terrorist tax protesters
Greedy capitalists
Big oil
The big 3
Big coal
Rick Waggoner
The Hummer
Brain washing (with high phosphate soap, no less)

I realize that saying we MAY not need VHS rail (like we don’t need ocean liner travel) is heresy to some, like saying it is stupid to put FV cells on you car roof.

But shouldn’t we have more than some geeks claiming they make sense before we spend trillions of those excess $$ we don’t have?

Oh, I’m sorry - I didn’t realize you were dreaming – I’ll be quiet - go back to sleep.

Henry Gibson

Nobody can have a small house on a small lot nowdays or even live in an apartment. At one time you could and probably still can see whole destroyed neighborhoods from the Chicago rail transit system trains. ..HG..

Darius

I would say that high spead rail network shall be regarded as competitor to air transport. Which one is more economical? Global worming effect could be mitigated by applying hydrogen as airplain fuel. It would might be cheaper to make airplains run on hydrogen than shifting all passangers to the trains even not taking into account travel time.

ToppaTom

Since turbofan power (thrust) and thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) both drop drastically at altitude, a fuel cell aircraft might not be as outrageous as it first seems.

Since drag drops even faster with altitude a FCAV might cruise at maybe 0.7M compared to today’s 0.85M, (460 vs.560 mph) with FC powered electric motors (after taking off with FC + batteries).

Electric model airplanes already claim power and endurance comparable to glow plug ICEs.

I am sure this has been analyzed to death so please forgive my ignorance.

But, the point, as Darius said, is that aircraft with the faster seat turnover (plus the miles that separate American cities) might be the better way now and in the future.

wintermane2000, shouldn’t you know this? Or know how to find out?

wintermane2000

Doubtful topptom while a fuel cell would be fine for small planes a jet realy needs HUGE amounts of energy.. remember they fly with something like 60 ton of fuel onboard. Thats one buttload of energy.

HarveyD

Electrically driven props can move a very large airplane, with enough of them.

Eight to ten props large air planes could be designed to lift enough FC and compressed Hydrogen for long trips. With improved props and airframes such planes could fly fast enough (500 mph?) at ideal altitudes.

The comments to this entry are closed.