# What is JR Central up to?



## Anderson (Nov 3, 2013)

I've seen them tied to the Texas Central project, and now they come up in the context of the DC-Baltimore maglev project. I can buy either project (albeit for different reasons: Texas makes sense from a straight investment perspective, while the maglev would probably assist them in recouping the R&D costs on their own maglev project), but both seem like a stretch in light of their apparent deployable cash...especially since DC-Baltimore at the start would be constrained to being a really nice commuter line and wouldn't exactly have the market scale that I think would be needed for any sort of cost-recouping (New York-Philly would probably have a better shot at that, though DC at least offers political support as a significant side-benefit).

So does anyone have a clue as to what JR Central might _actually_ be planning? Sending out feelers and seeing what actually sells?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 4, 2013)

This is sort of a secondary observation, but assuming that JR Central and their suppliers want a secondary market for their trains and a place to expand operations to:
-China is out for political reasons. South Korea probably is as well and isn't really big enough to benefit.

-Europe is out because their system is already a bit too well developed to quite justify the further investment.

-India and Latin America don't have the resources. Ditto Africa.

-The Middle East is too fractured and unstable to actually get a region-wide system on the table.

Which basically leaves the US as having (1) population, (2) resources, (3) under-developed rail capacity, (4) a pre-existing basic system, and (5) potential interest. Beyond this, it seems like a case of "we want _something_, _somewhere_".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 4, 2013)

I agree that this probably came about more from ruling out everyone else rather than choosing the US first.

However, I don't see either of these projects as likely to succeed, at least not financially.

There is a large and growing number of influential people who are against public transportation.

There's even a 24 hour news channel that's against most public transportation.

Even if you're 100% private you still need help with building facilities that provide good connections.

Where is that help going to come from today?

Public transportation works in Japan because it's part of their culture to keep public transportation clean and quiet.

American culture turns public transportation into a filthy and loud experience that's hard to sell to anyone with other options.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Nov 4, 2013)

The question in the thread title was knocking around in the back of my mind too. Obviously they see a potential market. One thing I wonder about is what amounts in subsidies do they think will be required to make their business models work. And where do they think, and in what forms, would those subsidies be?


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2013)

Anderson said:


> This is sort of a secondary observation, but assuming that JR Central and their suppliers want a secondary market for their trains and a place to expand operations to:
> 
> -China is out for political reasons. South Korea probably is as well and isn't really big enough to benefit.


JR Central's suppliers have already got a large contract involving manufacture and technology transfer for manufacture under license of E2 HSR sets with China. Well strictly speaking JR East's suppliers. But really the suppliers are the same kairetsu. So it is more like, China is done and taken care of as much as one can, since at the end of the day everything is China Rail in China.
There are significant negotiations ongoing with India for two or three major corridors. but in India things move, well.... at their own pace. There is significant potential in South America for China too. Actually South America, specially Brazil and Argentina may be easier to get into than US.

But we'll see how things go.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 7, 2013)

I would agree that Brazil and Argentina both have the population and city spacing to make high speed lines practical. Finances may be another story.

Texas makes far more sense than the Balto - DC maglev. Dallas - Houston has the city space and demand, plus about as easy terrain between as you could find anywhere. I have trouble seeing B-DC as anything other than publicity and political. I would think anybody that puts money into that would need their head examined.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 7, 2013)

George Harris said:


> I would agree that Brazil and Argentina both have the population and city spacing to make high speed lines practical. Finances may be another story.
> 
> Texas makes far more sense than the Balto - DC maglev. Dallas - Houston has the city space and demand, plus about as easy terrain between as you could find anywhere. I have trouble seeing B-DC as anything other than publicity and political. I would think anybody that puts money into that would need their head examined.


Didnt California Fall for this Scam George??? Imagine the Money that will go into HSR in the Golden State and Nothing will be Completed in any of our Lifetimes!! :help:


----------



## Anderson (Nov 20, 2013)

http://www.policymic.com/articles/74155/this-train-would-get-you-from-nyc-to-d-c-in-1-hour-but-america-will-never-build-it

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/business/international/japan-pitches-americans-on-its-maglev-train.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

It looks like I guessed right: Japan is desperate for something to offset the cost of their domestic maglev program. Hoo boy...

Edit: To be honest, I have a deadly serious question. Why doesn't Japan work with California instead, with an eye towards converting either CAHSR (which obviously has state political support) or Texas Central (which would seem to have a more workable geography) to something like this? The CA and TX systems are planned to be almost 100% new alignment (CA it seems to be 100% new alignment from Burbank to San Jose or thereabouts, while TX would be all new outside of some possible short stretches in the cities, so the net costs for converting the projects wouldn't be horrendous), and it seems plausible that either would have, in their own ways, been more affordable.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 20, 2013)

TX may be a great HSR corridor from a logical and scientific standpoint but in my view there's not nearly enough political will to get the job done right. We still have three large airlines in the area that don't want their commuter operations impacted and lots of rural communities that would throw a fit worthy of Rush Limbaugh if anyone tried to build a passenger rail corridor through their back yard. In the case of CA after they met strong resistance they kept on pushing the project anyway. In the case of TX I'd be shocked if they didn't decide to fold the project after meeting serious resistance from well connected groups and individuals. Say what you will about CA, but at least they have the will and determination to fight a battle of this size and magnitude and the wherewithal to initiate it before the federal budget was taken hostage. They also have a population familiar enough with passenger rail to ride a new network in large numbers if and when it's completed. So long as Texas has enough physical room to build another highway or pave another runway they will continue to fund those projects at the expense of passenger rail. In the interest of full disclosure I work for a subsidiary of a company which is involved in the CA HSR project, but I've also lived in TX long enough to know a pipe dream when I see one.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 22, 2013)

Anderson said:


> -India and Latin America don't have the resources. Ditto Africa.


In fact both India and Brazil are eying up HSR options, so it's not a total no-go.

Argentina was planning a line too. That project has been stopped, but I expect it will return when the economy recovers sufficiently.

As for Africa, Egypt is looking into it. With all the major cities arranged more or less in a straight line anlong the Nile valley and the population to justify it, that one makes sense. South Africa may be another country that has both the distances and financial means to support HSR, but I'm not aware orf any current proposals.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 22, 2013)

Anderson said:


> http://www.policymic.com/articles/74155/this-train-would-get-you-from-nyc-to-d-c-in-1-hour-but-america-will-never-build-it
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/business/international/japan-pitches-americans-on-its-maglev-train.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&
> 
> ...


One problem with Maglev is that there is a lock-in between system and supplier. The original supplier effectively locks out any competitors from future equipment repacements, upgrades or extensions by using patented core technologies and proprietory interfaces that are intentionally incompatible to what others make. Suppliers may thus be willing to sell the initial system under value in the knowledge that they will recover that money and more through future work. Fearing that, customers for major projects tend to be very wary of such technology. Only conventional wheel on rail is truly open to all bidders, and until Maglev makers agree on some common and unprotected standard, Maglev will not make major inroads.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 22, 2013)

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.policymic.com/articles/74155/this-train-would-get-you-from-nyc-to-d-c-in-1-hour-but-america-will-never-build-it
> ...


Sooner or later the patents will run out, then it could be a free-for-all for anybody with the equipment and know how to put it together.


----------



## jis (Nov 22, 2013)

Patents are typically a minor problem In complex systems just knowing what is in the patents is hardly enough to be able to build anything that really works. It takes years to get from a proof of concept that can be scrapped together using the info in the patent, to getting something that can actually be sold to anyone. The entry cost is steep, and it is the trade secrets that matter more than patents, and it is trade secrets that create the locking more than patents.


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Jan 26, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> TX may be a great HSR corridor from a logical and scientific standpoint but in my view there's not nearly enough political will to get the job done right. We still have three large airlines in the area that don't want their commuter operations impacted and lots of rural communities that would throw a fit worthy of Rush Limbaugh if anyone tried to build a passenger rail corridor through their back yard...


They claim to already have public support from the communities along the line and so far the airlines are staying out of the fight. Probably because of the costs of a service that consists of taking off at full throttle until it reaches cruising altitude, then noses over for the final approach. The airlines are starting to talk favorably about dropping any service equivalent to drag racing between stoplights and focusing more on long haul routes where they can rack up the fare money without pouring all their profits out the exhaust.

And with 7 million people at each end of the line plus however many are at intermediate stops, there's a lot of potential traffic to make money from.

With the activist judge in California, it seems likely that Texas might beat us out with the first actual American HSR.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 26, 2014)

Tokkyu40 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > TX may be a great HSR corridor from a logical and scientific standpoint but in my view there's not nearly enough political will to get the job done right. We still have three large airlines in the area that don't want their commuter operations impacted and lots of rural communities that would throw a fit worthy of Rush Limbaugh if anyone tried to build a passenger rail corridor through their back yard...
> ...


The "drag race between stoplights" issue is part of why, from what I can tell, the airlines have more or less gotten out of the way o the Acela and CAHSR (and, I believe, the Xpress West project as well). They also seem to be, at the very least, not opposed to the FL project(s) [FEC and its predecessor projects].

If nothing else, allowing HSR to grab short/intermediate distance traffic frees up slots at airports. Flights in the 200-400 mile range (LA-Vegas, LA-SF, Orlando-Miami, New York-Washington) aren't moneymakers like they might have been in the past, but airlines are stuck sinking resources (cash, planes, and slots) into them to make sure nobody can claim a monopoly (it's a pretty classic prisoner's dilemma, just with more than two players). With HSR in the picture, that guarantees a competitor and/or allows a non-air service to take over some of the feeder operations, freeing up space for the more profitable long-haul flights.

Edit: I wonder...I'm not familiar with the Dallas area like I probably should be, but how much space might there be around Love Field? I know Southwest wants to be able to use that airport to its maximum but has been foiled by the Wright Amendment and the successor legislation...


----------



## George Harris (Jan 26, 2014)

Love field is effectively non-expandable. It goes back to WW2 or earlier and is completely surrounded by the urban area. That is a major factor leading to the construction of DFW in the first place.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 26, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Love field is effectively non-expandable. It goes back to WW2 or earlier and is completely surrounded by the urban area. That is a major factor leading to the construction of DFW in the first place.


I know it's not expandable. What I'm wondering is, given that one of the DART lines runs nearby, whether that area could be used for a train station that would allow transfers to/from DAL.


----------



## cirdan (Jan 27, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Love field is effectively non-expandable. It goes back to WW2 or earlier and is completely surrounded by the urban area. That is a major factor leading to the construction of DFW in the first place.


The space required to expand airport capacity is a different ballgame to the space required for rail. I think space shouldn't be an issue. Costs would, however.

I guess DFW would be easier to do rail-wise, as there are already plans to run a commuter train on the Cotton Belt line from Fort Worth. If that could be co-used by HSR, the neighborhood impact would be quite marginal.


----------

