This is part 5 of a series that includes Alstom, Bombardier, Talgo and the Japanese manufacturers
It is indicative of the incredible safety record of high-speed rail that over the course of more than forty years of operation in countries around the world, there has only been one major crash. Unfortunately for Siemens, the primary producer of Germany’s fast trains, that accident was of an ICE train, and it happened in Lower Saxony.
The curse of the 1998 Eschede train disaster, which resulted in the deaths of 101 people, was a major setback for the company, damaging its credibility even though the primary blame for the catastrophe lay with German national train operator DB. But Siemens’ luck has turned around in the last few years as it has secured major contracts for new high-speed trains in places like Spain and China.
History
With almost 450,000 employees, Siemens is one of Germany’s largest companies — and it has been making far more than just train cars since it was founded in 1847 in Berlin. Yet the company’s Transportation Systems division, with 19,000 employees of its own, is a major enterprise unto itself.
Like its competitors Alstom, Bombardier, and Kawasaki, Siemens is a big player in the rail business, building locomotives and train cars for cities around the world. The company’s S70, designed specifically for the American market and built in Sacramento, California, is a popular light rail train. Some of its biggest contracts for the vehicle have come from U.S. cities like Houston, Charlotte, San Diego, and Portland.
With only one high-speed rail product offered in the North America — the Alstom and Bombardier-designed Acela Express — Siemens has no foothold in the U.S. intercity rail market. Nevertheless, it has almost two decades of experience in the field.
Seeing the success of France’s TGV network, which began operating in 1981, Germany’s DB decided to invest in its own high-speed system, beginning trials with a train called the InterCity Experimental (ICE-V) in 1985. By 1991, ICE 1 trains were in operation, offering very high levels of comfort to German passengers at speeds up to 155 mph.
Siemens’ involvement in the creation of the ICE 1 was peripheral, with a focus on the trains’ advanced electrical systems. Along with Adtranz (now Bombardier), it played a bigger part in building its successor, the ICE 2 (above), which featured lower weight and faster speeds. In the early 1990s, the company hoped to become a primary producer, and it invested heavily in foreign markets to promote its product.
Siemens conducted a demonstration tour of the ICE 1 in the United States, though it lost out on the Northeast Corridor contract won by Alstom and Bombardier. In the late 1990s, it worked with Alstom to develop a “Eurotrain” for Taiwan, made up of Siemens ICE locomotives and Alstom TGV passenger coaches, but that contract was ultimately won by a competing Japanese group.
Those failures didn’t prevent Siemens from moving forward with a brand-new ICE 3 (above) for domestic use, which it introduced in 1999 with help from Bombardier. Unlike previous German high-speed trains and the TGV, ICE 3 featured electric multiple unit operation, which meant that it had small motors powering every wheel set — and no locomotives. This meant a lower overall weight, more passenger space, and faster acceleration. The advance was huge and placed Siemens’ technology at the top of the pack. DB immediately ordered a large number of the trains, and they are now used by rail systems in Austria and the Netherlands.
Today
The ICE 3 was the company’s big shot to enter into the global marketplace, and Siemens took full advantage of the opportunity. The Velaro (below), a slight evolution of the ICE 3, was designed fully by Siemens, making it the company’s first full-fledged independent entry into the high-speed market.
Velaro’s technology was attractive to train operators around the world, which saw competitor Alstom’s TGV locomotive-based trains as too cumbersome and less capacious. In addition, the Velaro trains benefitted from having no technological association with the ICE 1 that crashed at Eschede, unlike the ICE 2 they replaced.
As a result, Siemens has secured huge orders for its high-speed trains, with major contracts coming from Spain, Russia, China, and Germany. Spain’s version, the Velaro E (left), began running in 2007 and recorded the highest-ever speeds for an unmodified commercial trainset, at 250.8 mph between Guadalajara and Calatayud. Those trains now run regularly between Madrid and Barcelona at 200 mph. Germany will get fifteen similar vehicles in 2011.
The Velaros Siemens is building for Russia and China have been adopted to those countries’ larger track gauge, so they are wider and offer more seats. The Russian Sapsan (left) — whose name means “peregrine falcon” — began operations this year, can reach only 125 mph because of poor track conditions, but it could be easily upgraded to 205 mph in the corridor between Moscow and St. Petersburg. It has the distinctive trait of being able to withstand temperatures of -58 degrees celsius, thanks to specially manufactured steel, rubber, and plastics.
China’s version of the train, called the CRH3 (below) is capable of world-leading operations at 220 mph. It was produced in association with the Tangshan Railway Vehicle Company. China could prove to be a huge market for high-speed trains — indeed, Siemens received an order in March for 100 new trains, each ten cars long, that was the largest sale of high-speed trains in history. But Siemens won’t get a large percentage of the proceeds because China required Siemens to engage in a technology-transfer agreement, passing the tools for design and manufacture of Velaro to its Chinese partner, which now has the know-how to build most of the train from scratch.
Still, Velaro could be an excellent product for a place like California, which is looking for trains capable of 220 mph for its new San Francisco-Los Angeles line. For slower-speed corridors, two variants of the Velaro, the ICE T and ICE TD, could provide excellent service. Both vehicles can tilt through curves at high speeds, a necessity on some of America’s older lines. The ICE TD has the added advantage of being able to operate on tracks with no overhead catenary since it has diesel engines. Though each of the trains suffered from major manufacturing defects that put them out of service for a while, they are now back on German tracks — and they could be coming our way soon.
Note: Siemens also owns Transrapid, which makes the high-speed maglev trains used in Shanghai. We covered the history and possible future of maglev technology back in September.
PREVIOUSLY:
Part 1: Alstom
Part 2: Bombardier
Part 3: Talgo
Part 4: The Japanese
November 16th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Just a small nitpick, but China’s railways are standard gauge (1435mm), identical to Europe, while Russia is broad gauge (1520mm) and the Sapsan is built to that gauge. However, the “loading” gauge in China is bigger than Europe, allowing broader dimensions on rolling stock.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Do you actually read your articles before you post them?
You somehow imply Siemens’ involvement in the Eschede disaster (even if the “primary blame” lay with DB) and then a few paragraphs down you state (correctly) that they had nothing to do with the relevant parts of the ICE 1 at all. Not to mention that the design of the ICE 1 as delivered wasn’t at fault at all. It was shody work-arounds by DB for limitations of the ICE 1 design, limitations they themselves had caused because of DB’s unmatched expertise at cutting the wrong corners (just about every stupid decision they’d made the previous ten years came back to haunt them at Eschede).
Even the ICE 3 (as well as ICE T and TD) was still a DB project first and foremost. For the Velaro Siemens had to redesign half the train as those parts had come from Bombardier, Adtranz and Alstom. The problem with the broken axle you linked to was mostly due to the axle being half the size of the Velaro’s because that size was specified in the German railroad regulations from 1908 and god forbid the DB would pay a cent more for bigger axles just because common sense would necessitate it.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Hmm, the picture you labeled “The Velaro” isn’t “The” Velaro but the new Velaros for Germany. And apparently that new Velaro got a new nose design, different from the ICE 3 and the previous Velaros (well CHR and Sapsan are obviously wider but the design is nevertheless mostly the same).
You could have told us the reason for the redesign (noise? less sensitive to cross winds?)
November 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Oh and while I’m at it:
You say that one picture contains an ICE 2, but it’s an ICE 1. I wouldn’t really bother with this if you hadn’t linked to a page that explicitly tells you how to spot the difference between the two. =)
November 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Great piece JR! Been following along the in series. So far I like the Japanese Trains the most!
If these do manage to make their way over to California I think California should do what the Chinese did and have a tech-transfer agreement. It would enable us to build these trains here. I think they should do that with any Manufacturer that enters the market here.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“ICE 3 features electric multiple unit operation, which meant that it had small motors powering every wheel set”
Close, but no cigar. First, multiple unit simply refers to the fact that multiple cars are semi-permanently linked together into a trainset, with a fully equipped driver cab at each end. Basically, changing the length of a trainset or swapping out a damaged car is something that is only done in a maintenance yard, though it’s easier to accomplish for conventional two-bogie-per-car designs than those featuring Jacobs bogies (Alstom) or wheelsets (Talgo).
There are four types of multiple units: unpowered (cp. locomotive-drawn ÖBB railjet), diesel-mechanical (DMU), diesel-electric (DEMU) and electric (EMU). The self-propelled variants are far more common and used for all kinds of applications, from streetcars to high speed trains. EMUs typically feature either third rail pickups or pantographs. In high speed applications, the ends of the trainset invariably feature distinctive nose cones to improve the aerodynamics.
A conventional tractor-trailer trainset features a power car at either end. These are effectively dedicated locomotives whose styling is fully integrated with that of the passenger cars. Examples: Alstom TGV, Talgo 350, ETR 500, Hyundai Rotem KTX-II, SJ 2000 etc.
By contrast, the ICE3, Velaro, Alstom AGV, Bombardier Zefiro 380 and many Japanese designs feature electric motors on the axles of every other car. Thus, at most 50% of all axles are powered. The powered cars also contain the power converters (rectifiers and inverters) that deliver three-phase current of the frequency corresponding to the desired electric motor speed. This concept is variously described as distributed traction or distributed EMU to differentiate it from the older tractor-trailer paradigm.
The unpowered cars of a distributed EMU house either primary transformers or battery packs. This keeps axle loads at or below 17 metric tonnes, the de facto international limit for high speed trains. For a given speed rating, train and track maintenance overheads are roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle load. The axle load limit is also why there is no bi-level distributed EMU capable of very high speed just yet.
Pantographs cannot support the extremely high currents that would be drawn by high speed trains off a legacy 3000V OCS at speeds in excess of 250km/h - 155mph (cp. Italy). Note that pantograph contact induces mechanical vibrations in the OCS, which could interfere with the operation of a second active pantograph at the rear of the train. In most cases, operators therefore prefer to make do with just one pantograph per train or at least, per trainset. On the other hand, electric motor windings and the power semiconductor devices needed to control them are currently limited to 1500-3000V. This discrepancy is why high speed trains need heavy on-board transformers at all.
Afaik, the primary function of the on-board battery packs is to provide ride-through in phase break sections of the OCS. There may be others.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
How come Siemens shows none of this at Spaceship Earth at Epcot?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Rafael, what you say about MUs being permanently coupled isn’t true. Rapid transit systems invariably use EMUs, but many have variable train lengths - for example, the New York City Subway runs shorter trains at night on some lines. The noses are not aerodynamic, and in fact many models have no difference between an end car and a middle car.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:24 am
It should be noted that numerous trainmakers were involved in the creation of the ICE 1, but Siemens was the lead contractor in consortium for both the power heads and the cars. Its involvement was far from being “peripheral”.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Aren’t some of the Eurostar trainsets long enough that they can run with two pantographs up?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@ Alon Levy -
it is quite possible to have flexible consists composed of self-propelled rail cars, at least if the grid voltage is low enough to permit its direct application to the power electronics and motor windings, without any on-board transformer in the circuit. That way, you get distributed traction even though the consist is not a multiple unit at all.
For trains with moderate top speeds, there’s only moderate value in aerodynamic design. Subways and commuter/regional trains have to stop frequently. Unless brake energy is actually recuperated, a large fraction of total fuel consumption is due to acceleration.
The end cars of a subway train are always different in that they feature driver cabs. However, I believe you were referring to the aerodynamic properties. See above.
@ цarьchitect -
Eurostar trainsets are 394m long, the longest such beasts in the world.
At 300km/h (186mph), a distance of ~360m (~1200ft) between pantographs may well be sufficient to guarantee reliable contact for the one in the rear. It depends on the details of the OCS design, the mass-spring system of the pantograph handlebar etc. Usually, HSR trainsets are more like 200m (660ft) long. Two may be combined into a single train, possibly with an active pantograph at each end.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
bigbug: They may have been the lead contractors for the power heads but their involvement was mostly limited to the electronics.
AFAIK they bought one of the companies that built the middle cars since, but the other two are owned by Bombardier and Alstom and the Alstom comp was the lead contractor.
Rafael: There’s no reason you can’t have motors on more than half the axles, e.g. in most modern Shinkansen designs.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Adding to Bleh’s comment re. powered axles, the N700 Shinkansen design has 14 powered cars (all four axles motored) and two trailers per 16 car trainset, and the 8 car trainsets have all axles motored. JR Tokai is pitching this design to the U.S. and other potential markets.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:30 am
[...] rail manufacturers around the world. Previous stories looked at: Bombardier, Japanese train makers, Siemens, and [...]
November 28th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
In my opinion, I think that Siemens is a leading company in transportation system and electronics, world-wide. You can be sure that this company is very responsible in their innovation and they got excellent results in train technologies. Just to mention, Siemens has already leading the edge of those next automatic subways and trains (driver-less) that will appears in our modern cities. If you travel, maybe you will see that : Lille and Paris (France), NY or Barcelona !
December 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I keep read sites that talk about becoming hassle free or adding more features, and seeing your information is encouraging, because it is not so easy as they say it is..
January 19th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Deacon said:
“If these do manage to make their way over to California I think California should do what the Chinese did and have a tech-transfer agreement. It would enable us to build these trains here. I think they should do that with any Manufacturer that enters the market here.”
Siemens already has a plant in Sacramento that makes light rail vehicles. Presumably the same plant would be expanded/modified for high speed trains.
Alstom has a plant in upstate New York that would probably do the same thing.
I doubt any tech transfer agreement would fly. And what American company would they partner with? GM? Ford? Ha.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
No. Gm sold its loco division in a management buy-out that reverted to its original name - EMD. Probably General Electric, who might be able to provide body-shells and power systems.