AGV: New Super-Duper-Fast Train From France
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada 
on 02. 5.08
Photo: REUTERS/Regis Duvignau
French President Nicolas Sarkozy made a speech, all kinds of bigshots stood around smiling. The event had all the pomp and circumstance of royalty coming to town, but this isn't about some monarch; it's the unveiling of the extremely fast AGV (Automotrice Grande Vitesse), Alstom's new train.
It's such a big deal for Alstom because the company was this close to bankrupt not long ago. They even compares the AGV to Airbus' A380 in importance and technological innovation. So what's the big deal?
Photo: Alstom Transport/P Sautelet
The AGV can travel 1,000km (600 miles) in three hours, making it competitive with airplanes in many situations (especially if you take into account longer boarding times with planes). It has a top speed of 360km/h (224mph) and is powered by engines that are located under each carriage instead of locomotives at the ends, freeing up space for more passengers (between 300 and 700 seats, depending on configuration). The AGV will also be 20% more efficient than previous generation high-speed trains.
Italy's Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori (NTV) is said to have already bought 25 AGV trains for 650 million euros ($957.5 million). They are scheduled to start operation in 2011-2012. Germany's Deutsche Bahn AG might also order some AGV; it made a pan-European call for bids for 15 high-speed trains and the AGV could be what it's looking for. Also, France's Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais (SNCF) is thinking about renewing it's aging trains by 2013...
If we expect people to travel more efficiently, we need to give them attractive alternatives to the dirtier forms of transportation. This is a step in the right direction, and we hope that the US will pay attention.
::France unveils super-fast train, ::Alstom Unveils New High-Speed Train
See also: ::Spain's New High-Speed Rail Service Challenges the Airlines, ::Europe's High-Speed Train Networks Continue to Expand, ::Eurostar to Cut Emissions by 25% and Offset The Rest, ::Eurostar vs. Planes: It's Not Just About the Green, ::Taking the Train to New York: The Only Way to Fly
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- What is the Cheapest and Greenest Way to Travel?
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
- Mister Miyagi's Guide to Going Green: 5 Questions to Always Ask to Think Green and Be Green
- Top 10 Things to Bring On Your Cross-Country Bus Trip
- Find Your Dinner at the Farmers' Market: Peas and Prosciutto
- Twitter Your Way to World Environment Day (Plus Other Fun Ways to Celebrate!)
the problem is that in France the high-speed trains (tgv) make the short lines disappear.
It's easier and faster to travel from Paris to Marseille (700 km in 3,5 hours with tgv) than Marseille to Nice (200 km, 3 hours with normal speed train, 5 hours when failures due to the old railway line...)
Agreed with Jeff: but this is due more to a lack of political will to continue investing in 'normal' (not high-speed) train lines.
TGV makes money for the SNCF (the state-owned railway operator) while normal speed trains make a lot less. Therefore, SNCF prefers to invest in TGV rather than in normal lines. Unfortunately.
Except for a very small number of short lines in the US, almost all passenger train service has been a money loser for railroad companies in the last 100 years and it was only done for PR. Amtrak is the result of the private sector tired of losing money when they were already losing to trucks.
Today Amtrak is doing better, but not great. To have something like the TGV in the USA would require esentially all new railroad tracks for both their greater curves and the fact that the railroads cannot handle any additional traffic. Today, the US rail system is transporting more tonnage that it has ever done in its history (including WWII) but with far less trackage than they have ever had.
I would love a high-speed train, but nobody is going to build it privately in the USA.
-Lego
Why can't we have them in Britain? I feel mournful... On the other hand, it would be silly to purchase a load of these things and upgrade miles of track only to have new maglev (magnetic levitation) trains come on the market in a serious way shortly afterward. Still, there's no doubt in my mind that Britain's claptrap network will have to give way to something new at some point. Maglev or something like the AGV, either one would bring a sigh of relief.
To be honest, The airlines are always swamped anyway, but I can see why they wouldn't want a high speed train network in the states. However, it would require that Amtrak be fully deregulated and somehow, you would have to get companies like Norfolk & Southern in the mix.
Considering that high-speed rail can cost aproximately $50 million per million or more, even relatively short lines in the US such as the northeast corridor could easily reach into the tens of billions of dollars. It would probably be a better investment to uprgrade existing service, including Acela express (which over most of its length runs far below its maximum speed).
Considering that high-speed rail can cost aproximately $50 million per million or more, even relatively short lines in the US such as the northeast corridor could easily reach into the tens of billions of dollars. It would probably be a better investment to uprgrade existing service, including Acela express (which over most of its length runs far below its maximum speed).
What is the USA waiting for???? The price to come down?? We need to start building a strong mass-transportation infrastructure.
http://www.buildlinggreenstructures.com
the problem is that these super fast trains are supercostly...who will be pay?
Here is the issue - the US government, i.e our taxes pay for roads, and the infrastructure for you to drive your car (with the exception of limited toll highways). Ditto for the airlines - guess who is paying for airports, airport security, airport parkings (oh yeah, you drove your car there), and spending money so that airlines stay afloat. Now, why is it that a railroad couldn't benefit from the same $$? Or I have a better idea - mileage tax (regardless of fuel consumption - this is not a gas tax!): When you get your car(s) inspected every year, the mileage is recorded and you pay a tax based on the miles driven, which is put directly back into road building and maintenance. You pay to get an airline ticket, why not pay to use the roads (all the roads, not just a small portion of turnpike), to get from A to B? Now there could be a reduction in your taxes and you can decide before your next trip if you want to drive, fly or take the train... Airline traffic is too busy and all major airports are looking at increasing capacity. Automobile traffic is getting worse, gas is getting more expensive (still cheap here, though), so we need an alternative transportation mode. Until I can say 'beam me up, Scotty', the train may be the only alternative... You won't go from NY to LA, but corridor lines on the East and West Coast, with connections between some East Coast and Mid-West cities would be feasible. Plus you could go from city center to city center... decreasing the need for more infrastructure (roads) between airports and d'town areas. And you can save hours in waiting at the airport. Working on a train is more productive than on an airline, and internet access is easier, cheaper and faster to implement... time (and productivity) is money. Oh, and by the way, we live in a beautiful country - if you take the train, you can actually take it in, not fly over it!
The US has plenty of money to spend, it's all about what you can get political support to spend it on. We are spending 275 million dollars a DAY in Iraq. At 50 million dollars a mile we could build 5.5 miles of high speed track a day or 2007 miles a year. Which would you rather have have? High speed rail or the Iraq war? Italy has contracted to buy TWENTY FIVE new AGV trains from Alstom for LESS than one biliion dollars. Thats equivalent to 36 days of spending in Iraq. It's all about priorities baby...
It would probably be a better investment to uprgrade existing service, including the express (which over most of its length runs far below its maximum speed).
Cool train! Hurrah for the railways. I am such a big fan of trains, I think they are the answer to all our transportation problems.
I would love to see a Maglev train between SF and LA... :)
Rail is a perfect way to evacuate people in advance, upon warnings of a Hurricane. Light Rail between New Orleans and Baton Roouge has been planned or discussed for20 years or longer.
Looks like Katrina would have taught Louisiana a lesson.
Martha Baton Rouge