SNCF tries to "T bone" Texas Central's HSR plans

[Shinkansenfan]

While the CAHSR has been discussed extensively in another thread, it may be possible that the Texas Central HSR may come to fruitiion first. This HSR line is proposed to link greater Dallas with greater Houston.

But not if SNCF has their way. They have called for the good citizens and elected officials to embrace their competing plan, which has stirred the pot.

Texas Central issues strongly worded rebuttal to SNCF’s bullet train critique - News

15 March 2018 | By Joe Quirke 2 Comments

Last week, the American arm of SNCF, France’s state-owned rail company, issued a response to a federal environmental impact assessment that criticised a planned high-speed rail link between the Texan cities of Dallas and Houston.
Texas Central, the developer of the bullet train, has responded by sending a rebuttal of the claims to GCR, saying that the French firm was acting in “its own self-interest” and was “seeking to find a home for its trains in Texas”.

The firm adds that SNCF’s plans ignore “Texas law, public sentiment and provide an ill-informed and thinly veiled attempt to appeal to the US government”.

Debt and ownership

SNCF said “the concept of private financing, while seductive, is virtually impossible to achieve with the financial debt-service burden of infrastructure that costs $45m per mile to build”.

It also said the proposed railway would place “huge risks on the shoulders of local, state and federal taxpayers”. Alain Leray, SNCF America’s president, commented: “The project has been designed around the best interest of a single company, not what is best for Texans or the state’s rail transportation future.”

Texas Central replies that “railroads in Texas are privately owned and operated, and meet the needs of the market, not top-down government plans”, and that SNCF was in no position to criticise as it was awarded more than $16bn in annual funding and was, furthermore, “under investigation at home for increasing the debt burden to the state, failed efficiency and safety results”.

The International Railway Journal reported last month that that SNCF’s increasing revenues were “insufficient” to offset its total debt of $57.5bn.

Edouard Philippe, France’s prime minister, said the scale of SNCF’s debt was “alarming”, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle and that “whether or not they take the train, the French are paying more and more for a public service that works less and less well”.

High speed?

In SNCF’s dissection of the plans, it argued that if a lower speed options were chosen instead of high speed, trains could use existing infrastructure.

Image courtesy of SNCF

Texas Central responds that SNCF’s comments about the differences between high-speed and medium-speed technology is at odds with “its own principles for high-speed trains”.

It quotes a 2009 SNCF document that said: “High-speed lines must be designed exclusively for high-speed trains for the following reasons: additional safety constraints, operating challenges in optimising timetables, extra costs of cab signalling equipment for conventional infrastructure and rolling stock, reduced allowances on super-elevation and gradients and shallower track curves.

“Meeting these requirements is best done by placing high speed rail on separate dedicated tracks that prohibits mixed traffic.”

Network issues

SNCF was also critical of Texas Central’s plan as it eliminated the opportunity for competition because it would use Japan’s Shinkansen technology, which is not compatible with the rest of the rail system in the US.

Texas Central replied: “The European system is a monopolistic system in and of itself and the Japanese system happens to be perfectly fit for the Texas market because it is the safest in the world.”

SNCF also suggested that instead of Texas Central’s high-speed line between Houston and Dallas, a “T-bone” design (pictured) should be used, connecting Houston, College Station, Dallas, Fort Worth, Waco, Temple, Georgetown, San Marcos and San Antonio, thereby joining more people with less track.

It said the project as it currently stands would create an extra $1bn in GDP, but that Texas Central had made no mention of the projected economic benefits of SNCF’s T-bone layout, nor mentioned the cities that would be neglected while only linking Houston and Dallas.

Texas Central replies that the estimated economic growth was “exactly what drew Texas Central to this market and why we are designing a high-speed train system to connect these two economic engines with thousands of travellers in between every day”.

It added: “There is nothing stopping any other company competing for this very same corridor. Unfortunately, a lot of companies around the world are used to responding to government-led opportunities and Texas Central was drawn to this market because of the market.

“It’s an example of a company trying to skip to the front of the line and not do the due diligence and hard work that Texas Central has done over the last many, many years, with people on the ground here in Texas.”

The company conclude that “people who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it”.

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/texas-central-issues-strongly-worded-rebuttal-sncf/

 

[LeeLivery]

You'd think considering the mess California is in, the joke that is the "high speed" Brightline in Flordia and the stupidly expensive 7th Ave Subway line, they'd want all the European advise possible. But again they'll learn the hard way. Not saying SNCF doesn't have self-interest and problems themselves, but SNCF knows HSR, Americans don't have a clue.

 

[daikilo]

Seems a bit strange that any SNCF subsidiary should make such public statements even if the points are probably valid. I can't really see what they have to gain unless they have done it on behalf of someone else like a Texas business group or it wasn't intended that it became public.

 

[AngusH]

I agree, it doesn't seem obvious to me why they've done this in such a critical way.
It seem to be more damaging to high speed rail as a concept than the company in particular.

Perhaps they absolutely believe that this scheme won't work and feel that the risks of a scheme failing are worse than not having it built at all?

The Amtrak Acela vehicles were also vaguely TGV derived ... but it doesn't seem like enough of a connection?

I'm also not clear why the Shinkansen is absolutely incompatible with other systems?
Is it just US rules on crash resistance and mixed usage tracks?

I assume that it would be more technology transfer to new vehicle design, rather than a purchase of identical units anyway?

 

[daikilo]

I agree, it doesn't seem obvious to me why they've done this in such a critical way.
It seem to be more damaging to high speed rail as a concept than the company in particular.

Perhaps they absolutely believe that this scheme won't work and feel that the risks of a scheme failing are worse than not having it built at all?

The Amtrak Acela vehicles were also vaguely TGV derived ... but it doesn't seem like enough of a connection?

I'm also not clear why the Shinkansen is absolutely incompatible with other systems?
Is it just US rules on crash resistance and mixed usage tracks?

I assume that it would be more technology transfer to new vehicle design, rather than a purchase of identical units anyway?

To be fair to SNCF, they may well be right about the triangle, but I would have thought an even better Y would be by connecting the legs at Austin, albeit with slower journey times.

The Acela were actually built jointly by Alstom and Bombardier and have tilt which TGVs do not. The Avelia which will replace them also has tilt and is purely Alstom, being derived from the AGV. Either way, they are not SNCF, although I can see why the latter may be looking for a bigger market for them.

 

[AngusH]

Looking at the distances in google maps, it looks like the direct route is maybe 240 miles, the route via fort worth and temple is maybe 330 miles. (Admittedly by reasonably direct roads, not rail).

It looks like that would be noticeably longer. (possibly 35% longer)

Usual reservations about back of envelope estimations and the like, obviously, but I'm increasing dubious of the SNCF claims.