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 Philadelphia to New York City, which currently takes about 2 hours to drive, and 1 hour and 10 minutes on Amtrak's Acela. Upgrading this corridor for 220-mph service would nearly cut the Acela's trip time in half.
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.
I would argue that the aggregate actual benefit of heavy-rail HSR between the cities doesn't justify the full expense of 220mph infrastructure and equipment (although, of course, the latter has already been 'solved' with the purchase of the Avelia Liberty sets). Building to no more than 150mph peak standards on a route with limited stops would give you a travel time only a few minutes more than an expensive toy for the rich; I would argue that even retaining much of the existing route (which for a considerable distance south of New Brunswick is already good for 170+mph) would be possible with correctly-operating negative cant deficiency (tilt) equipment. In the latter case, only a few locations would require the expensive 'viaducted' bypasses of the full-high-speed approach.
The gripping-hand issue looming in the background is, never mind ROI, actually justifying the construction expense in revenue. Getting to Philadelphia in 36 minutes... probably nowhere near where you actually have to get in such a hurry -- for a premium of hundreds of dollars is not going to give you the increased take rate necessary over, say, a 55-minute trip with better amenities and several planned stops. While I don't want to rely on conservative-institute propaganda, at least one institution has looked carefully at the various Asian HSR projects and hasn't determined that any of them is anywhere near net profitable... leaving nations with expensive national-pride projects they probably can't maintain in the necessary condition, and heavily indebted to Chinese or other financial interests.
What SHOULD have been built in this corridor was the 1890s plan (detailed right down to the ROW geology) to provide high-speed service on about 36-minute headways either way. Much of that route could be speed-extended comparatively easily with... well, just about any practical high-speed engineering construction evolved since the age of Weems... and the result would be sufficiently close to 220mph new-build HSR, with infinitely better time between trains.
All it takes is Political and Financial WILL. That does not exist anywhere in the USA.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod 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. I would argue that the aggregate actual benefit of heavy-rail HSR between the cities doesn't justify the full expense of 220mph infrastructure and equipment (although, of course, the latter has already been 'solved' with the purchase of the Avelia Liberty sets). Building to no more than 150mph peak standards on a route with limited stops would give you a travel time only a few minutes more than an expensive toy for the rich; I would argue that even retaining much of the existing route (which for a considerable distance south of New Brunswick is already good for 170+mph) would be possible with correctly-operating negative cant deficiency (tilt) equipment. In the latter case, only a few locations would require the expensive 'viaducted' bypasses of the full-high-speed approach. The gripping-hand issue looming in the background is, never mind ROI, actually justifying the construction expense in revenue. Getting to Philadelphia in 36 minutes... probably nowhere near where you actually have to get in such a hurry -- for a premium of hundreds of dollars is not going to give you the increased take rate necessary over, say, a 55-minute trip with better amenities and several planned stops. While I don't want to rely on conservative-institute propaganda, at least one institution has looked carefully at the various Asian HSR projects and hasn't determined that any of them is anywhere near net profitable... leaving nations with expensive national-pride projects they probably can't maintain in the necessary condition, and heavily indebted to Chinese or other financial interests. What SHOULD have been built in this corridor was the 1890s plan (detailed right down to the ROW geology) to provide high-speed service on about 36-minute headways either way. Much of that route could be speed-extended comparatively easily with... well, just about any practical high-speed engineering construction evolved since the age of Weems... and the result would be sufficiently close to 220mph new-build HSR, with infinitely better time between trains.
No doubt the NEC is needed. Thinking back to the Ma Bell of old, I recall that it was regulated to a 12% ROI. As a result the company focused on providing reliability and it did. It was not easy to break a phone for instance. Why not bring that same focus to the NEC, bring it up to date, and forget about Candyland?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.