EMUs vs Loco pulled trains: Why did Japan make the decision it did?

[rpierce000]

http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr27/pdf/f40_ina.pdf

 

I was looking for something else and came across this fascinating, to me, paper on why Japan chose to go with EMU/DMU technology when much of the rest of the world went with a locomotive pulling unpowered cars.

 

This site, www.jrtr.net, seems to be a trove of Japanese train information, I will certainly be going back there again. Even if you do not read the above article, I would give the site a look.

 

Bob Pierce (as himself)

[disturbman]

Interesting article for sure but right from the beginning there is slight approximations in language and a clear Japanese bias.

 

Until the 1950s, the very idea of developing EMU train was considered quite revolutionary.

 

I guess he meant "developing EMU for IC train" because EMU had been in production since the beginning of the 20th century (Paris had EMU subway trains since 1908).

 

The Shinkansen was so successful that it motivated countries like France and Germany to build high-speed rail.

 

As far as I'm aware, the creation of the TGV in France was mostly driven by internal reasons. I'm not sure how much Japan's Shinkansen influenced the SNCF to start the project...

 

That said, Europe is more and more equipped with EMUs and is slowly abandoning the loco hauled passenger trains.

[The_Ghan]

Hmmm,

 

It is an interesting article but does seem to portray Japanese engineering as heroic.  I suggest that these four factors also played a major role:

 

1. Single government/geography:  When it comes to railways prefectural governments don't play much of a role, or so I believe.  In Australia, each state developed their railways independently.  In Europe, many express services aren't only intercity, they're international.  Different countries, I presume, have different solutions to electric power that may result in cross border incompatability;

 

2. Population density:  The high concentration of people along south east Honshu means a faster return on investment, which in turn means the expense of electrification becomes less of an issue;

 

3. Distance:  As per population density above, distance is another important factor.  Imagine electrifying Sydney-Perth, a distance of 4,000km for just a handful of trains per week?  I can't!

 

4. Access to crude oil based products:  Unless I'm mistaken, the loss of WWII and the scant supply of oil in Japan in the years that followed would have been lingering in the back of the minds of the average middle-aged Japanese railway engineer.  By the 1960's many countries were developing nuclear power plants, I don't know where Japan was up to back then, but I'd imagine things were well under way.  The USA and Australia both had substantial oil interests.  We could churn out the diesels with little regard for the cost of fuel.

 

Just a few things that come to mind.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[KenS]

The focus of the article is on the history of how the EMU came to be so widely accepted in Japan.  For that, I think it does a fairly good job.  There's a bit of bragging there, but heck they invented the Shinkansen; bragging rights go with that. 

 

I think part of the context here is "long-distance train", which is why they aren't considering subway EMUs a precursor.  It's not saying that the EMU was new, but that use of it for "trains" (by which they mean long-distance trains) was new.

 

The article unfortunately glosses over the motivation for use of EMUs with a simple "more efficient operations (faster turnaround, etc)" statement, which makes it sound like they were trying to eliminate time spent at a station to move the loco to the other end, something that commuter lines address with push-pull operation, and higher speed trains address with loco-on-each-end designs.   There's much more to EMU efficiency than that, and I'm sure they knew or at least expected more than just dwell-time reduction, but the article doesn't get into that aspect.

 

I'd agree with The_Ghan's four drivers also.  Another one to consider is environment: locomotives do better in snow than EMU/DMU trains.  If you have snow, you'll need specialized plows sooner if you run light multiple-unit trains than plow-equipped locos.  Lighter cars will also derail more easily on iced-up grade crossings than a heavy loco (although I've actually heard of a loco derailing on ice in a grade crossing). One of the arguments I've heard against DMUs here in the northeast is that unexpected storms can strand DMUs much more easily, although I think that's a specious argument with push-pull commuter trains, as the non-loco end is no heavier than a loco. Western Japan's climate eliminated those kind of concerns on the early Tokaido and Shonan routes.

[cteno4]

the jrtr books are great, but unfortunately out of stock right now. the rr technology book is a great little piece to understand most of the mechanical/engineering details of modern japanese railways.

 

jeff

[rpierce000]

Where do you get the books Jeff? I would love to read more!

 

Bob

[cteno4]

i bought them straight from the jrtr site when they still had them. unfortunately the history book is currently mia, i think i may have loaned it to someone and never got it back. i really need to do a checkout for stuff like that as i just forget about it!

 

i can send it out for a couple of weeks if you want to parouse it.

 

jeff