With more than 300 million annual riders, Japan’s Shinkansen trains (better known to westerners as “bullet trains”) carry more passengers than those of any other high-speed rail system. But unlike the equivalent French or German trains, well known as the flagships of their respective rolling stock manufacturers Alstom and Siemens, Shinkansen trains are not associated as the product of any one company. Rather, over the years they have been constructed by a series of mix-and-match consortia of industrial conglomerates. In Japan, high-speed trains are a cooperative effort.
History
The success of the Shinkansen–the term literally means “new trunk line”–probably has as much to do with its age as anything else. The first high-speed corridor in the world opened for daily service in 1964 between Tokyo and Osaka. English-speakers immediately nicknamed the trains “bullets” because of their cone-shaped noses.
The first Shinkansen, now known as the Series 0 (photo at left), was built by Nippon Sharyo, Hitachi, Kawasaki, Kinki Sharyo, and Tokyu Car Corp. Each had already had decades of experience in the rail business working alone producing distinctive models of trams, metros, and commuter cars — Kawasaki, for instance, has produced more than 85,000 rail cars itself.
Only in the 1960s, with government grants paving the way, did the companies come together to work together on the construction of a new type of fast train.
Since then, slow-speed trains have continued to be designed company-by-company, but faster, more complicated models are the result of corporate cross-pollination. As the Shinkansen train technology has evolved, with trains becoming faster and faster, the companies have retained their cooperative relationship. The new N700 Series train (photo right), for example, was built by Hitachi, Kawasaki, Kinki Sharyo, and Nippon Sharyo. In the high-speed domestic market, Japan’s railcar companies have chosen not to compete with one another.
Today
Trains running between the country’s cities are among the fastest in the world, with most lines offering services at up to 186 mph; the newest E5 (see below) and E6 trains will speed to 200 mph.
The E1 and E4 series Shinkansen have bilevel passenger compartments — a feature only matched on the world market by Alstom’s TGV Duplex. When two E4s are coupled together (below), one trainset can offer 1,634 seats, the most of any high-speed train in the world.
Compared to their European counterparts, Japanese trains have several advantages. The boxy profile of the vehicles increases interior space and allows five seats per row, compared to only four on most European trains. Electric multiple unit operation, which means engines are located above each wheel bogie, allows faster commute times. The N700 can accelerate to 170 mph in just three minutes.
Most importantly, though, the Shinkansen is ultra-dependable. Compared to the already-excellent French TGV, Japanese trains are 60 times more reliable! In 2009, the average delay from schedule for a Tokaido Shinkansen train was just 36 seconds.
Japanese rail companies know the value of their own technology, and they’ve stuck to it through the years. But with a mostly saturated domestic market, Japan’s rail companies are looking abroad for more sales. While Alstom was first in exporting its TGV technology in the mid 1990s, Shinkansen trainsets are now starting to show up outside of Japan.
Hitachi, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, and Nippon Sharyo collaborated to build the trains (below) for the Taiwan high-speed system, which opened for service in 2007. That foreign experience, however, may have been the last glance for cooperation between train manufacturers.
Kawasaki was alone among Japanese companies in developing the Chinese CRH2 train, which is capable of 155 mph. Meanwhile, Britain’s London and South Eastern Railways chose Hitachi for its new Class 395 Javelin train, which can reach 140 mph in regular operation.
Just last week, the Chinese Ministry of Railways signed an additional $6.6 billion contract with Kawasaki for 140 trains to run between Beijing and Guangzhou. The other corporations typically involved in Shinkansen projects seem to have been left out.
Japanese companies are actively working to win contracts for new high-speed rail systems planned for Brazil, Vietnam, and the United States. It seems likely that these new trains will be marked by individual companies rather than produced by an ensemble cast. Kawasaki is currently designing its own new vehicle called the efSET, which will be the first fully independently developed high-speed product from a Japanese company. In five years, there could be numerous Shinkansen-type offerings on the world market. What is quite clear, though, no matter who offers it, is that the technology is reliable, developed, and competitive
November 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
That E 5 will need to grow on me to be honest, At first glance it has a “Holy S$%t thats ugly” effect.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=260273
Love this picture and thats a pretty train. Series 500 EMU.
The USA seriously needs to get its act together an build a HSR system. We need some pretty trains.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I would like to add one but a very important fact for the Japanese high speed train history.
That is there is NO accident caused by human at all since it started in 1964, for 45 years, and still building its reputation. There were some accidents that were resulted by natural problems such as earthquakes and typhoons. Even there were such problems, there has been no human casualty. This is a remarkable accomplishment.
After each accident, they have been putting strong efforts to mitigate such natural disasters and implementing the solution they have come up with. This is also unique for them to keep preventing any accidents from happening.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, I’m sure the E5 is fast, but it is a very, very silly looking train.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
As shown on the Taiwanese version of the 700 series, there’s no reason the export trains have to have the elaborate proboscis of the domestic market trains. The Japanese trains run through smaller diameter tunnels, and the noses are designed to prevent “tunnel boom”, something that is less of a problem with wider European or even wider American tunnel diameters.
On the 3+2 seating, here’s hoping that the american versions aren’t configured that way as nobody likes being in the middle seat on a 737. The E6, being a mini shinkansen, will be in a 2+2. The mini shinkansens are roughly the same width as the European trains, while the regular shinkansen are slightly wider than a normal american passenger train.
The seat width on the japanese trains (about the same as the aforementioned 737) in 3+2 configuration are also several inches narrower than the TGV (closer to business class). ADA isle-width regulations may force us to run the wider japanese trains, but in a 2+2 configuration with wider seats. I vote for that.
Also, the shinkansen are supposedly quieter than the european trains, something that would help with impact concerns in suburban and urban sections.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t narrower trains make it easier to go around curves at speed?
November 11th, 2009 at 3:18 am
At high speed, curve radius is limited only by lateral acceleration, which is proportional to the square of speed. For a speed of 300 km/h, a non-tilting train is limited to a curve radius of 4 km.
Train width is only a factor in two cases - low speeds and tilting - and in both, what matters is train width relative to track spacing, rather than absolute width. When a train tilts into a curve on a line that’s not dedicated to high-speed trains, it may get dangerously close to a passing non-tilting train. And at low speed, curve radii can get down to 150-200 meters, causing the center of a car to veer 50 cm off-track even without tilting, which could again be dangerously close to a train passing in the other direction.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
The seats may be narrower than in a TGV but the seat pitch is longer. In the E5 the seat pitch in standard class is 1040mm (about 40.5″). Most European HSR trains have 920-940mm. That’s 4″ less. (Btw. cattle class in an aircraft will get you between 30 and 33, depending on airline and route, it might go up to 34)
I’d take more legroom over more a**room any day. Although some gratuitous jokes about the size of American behinds may change my mind. =)
November 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
All of the companies you have detailed seem solid, but what about an American up-start? Could some Detroit coalition be put together, sort of as an extended bail-out for that region, maybe in conjunction with other mid-western areas? How much do the WTO’s procurment provisions limit the ability of the US to favor a domestic producer? Maybe this requires another post, or readers can provide the answer.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
huricano, you pose a question also frequently made by others, and I have yet to see a definitive answer to date in the print or electronic press by an acknowledged authority (anyone please provide a link to such an answer if it exists). My two cents worth is that basically passenger rolling stock manufacturing (and especially HSR stock) is a lost art in the US. The transit and passenger rail holocaust of the 50’s and 60’s basically killed off the once world class US rolling stock makers of the time, taking with them their highly skilled engineers and workers, who combined had hundreds or perhaps thousands of years of priceless rolling stock-related knowhow. Also, archaic, freight train dominated FRA rules inhibit domestic development of modern, lightweight passenger rolling stock. Amtrak and commuter rail authorities basically runs rolling stock built with 1950’s level technology. Foreign makers are continually improving their product offerings due to their robust and highly competitive home and international markets. US makers (if they still exist), are 30 or 40 years behind. Car makers, or any non-rail manufacturers for that matter, have a poor record in building rail rolling stock. Boeing tried in the 70’s to build streetcars (hardly high tech, especially compared to HSR), and failed. Their LRV product was highly reviled and was a costly maintenance headache for the unfortunate transit authorites that bought them.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:29 am
[...] is the 6th in a series on high-speed rail manufacturers. Previous stories looked at: Bombardier, Japanese train makers, Siemens, and [...]