I saw this article recently talking about the world's most advanced high-speed rail projects and although they're all impressive, I'm really inerested to find out who everyone thinks is ahead in the high-speed rail revolution?

In my opinion, China's high speed rail revolution is impressive yet I think Carlifornia's developments have outrun many.

The world’s most advanced high speed rail projects (http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurehigh-speed-rail-lines/)

planning and construction of track: China
station design: China (hands down)
train controll, signalling: ETCS (obviously)
trainsets: Alstom (Kawasaki a close second)
initiative: China, Spain

I saw this article recently talking about the world's most advanced high-speed rail projects and although they're all impressive, I'm really inerested to find out who everyone thinks is ahead in the high-speed rail revolution?

In my opinion, China's high speed rail revolution is impressive yet I think Carlifornia's developments have outrun many.

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurehigh-speed-rail-lines/ (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/I%20saw%20this%20article%20recently%20talking%20about%20the%20world%27s%20most%20advanced%20high-speed%20rail%20projects%20and%20although%20they%27re%20all%20impressive,%20I%27m%20really%20inerested%20to%20find%20out%20who%20everyone%20thinks%20is%20ahead%20in%20the%20high-speed%20rail%20revolution?%20%20In%20my%20opinion,%20China%27s%20high%20speed%20rail%20revolution%20is%20impressive%20yet%20I%20think%20Carlifornia%27s%20developments%20have%20outrun%20many.%20%20http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurehigh-speed-rail-lines/)

California haven't done anything yet?!

China have been quick and built some impressive complexes - but their integration with existing rail has been shoddy, their stations aren't central and they have the advantage of not giving a shit and the ability to bulldoze communities in order to develop. So that helps.

I would probably say Spain.

France were great, but their costs are so very high now. And their non-HS network is terrible so connections to anywhere off TGV are tricky. Pricey too.

Italy is also very well developed and journey times are high considering some classic line running and station use. Their bigger stations are termini often, meaning reversals though.

The German model is what we'll probably see in the UK/US at least in their earlier stages - where upgrading of classic lines rather than dedicated lines, has been required due to their polycentric nature, rather than radial from one or two points (Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Barcelona).

planning and construction of track: China
station design: China (hands down)
train controll, signalling: ETCS (obviously)
trainsets: Alstom (Kawasaki a close second)
initiative: China, Spain

No Japan? I think they are still ahead of the Europeans, signalling, trainset, and etc.

well you have to admit the question itself is so arbitrary it doesn't really have a good answer

---

i think considering all factors, most of these countries are doing their best and then there are countries which should do more
• Spain, Turkey and China had/have a very crappy/lacking/wrong gauge etc. network so when you have that situation you might as well go for it and build a 21st century infrastructure
• France and Italy have a dense and good traditional network so it makes a lot less sense to connect every single endpoint with brand new lines, therefore they have to stretch the investment waaay out in time, there are some lines they are only planning in the second half of the century
• Japan also has a nice traditional network but then again HSR is pretty much only justified along a single (albeit veeeery long) line from Kagoshima to Sapporo and they almost have that, plus the few lines around Tokyo and the northern coastline from Kyoto to Nagano, and the fact that they committed to a Maglev is in itself a massive point in their favor; plus their gauge-changing tech will for the first time allow european-like integration
• Taiwan and South Korea are kind of a mash, few large metropolitan areas along a single or Y shaped line, almost ready
• the german speaking countries, Germany, Switzerland and Austria are living up to their reputation as being the stingiest mofos, preventing for example a continuous line from Paris to Budapest but I digress. They have the same problem France, Italy and Japan faced: having been developed countries all the way, their traditional network is already very dense and good quality so they can't expect the same returns as elsewhere, however I still think they should at least commit to 300 kph alignments on major corridors (Stuttgart-Wien *khm*), and good on them for all the upgrades beyond 160 kph
• Portugal should just build the Lisbon-Porto-ES, Lisbon-Madrid, Lisbon-Sevilla sections

• the UK and the US are the countries I'm most mad at, because they both have the resources and the demand to build truly high speed lines, in case of the US apparently they feel completely justified at spending ONE TRILLION on a single airplane project but somehow 10% or less of that for HSR corridors would be evil socialism...

• Russia also has the potential for a great network and at least they are preparing something however I'm afraid they'll chicken out of building 300++ lines and will rather go with 250 upgrades

• as for northern Europe (Benelux, Norway, Sweden, Finland), I think they are each doing their best.. the Benelux are simply too small and yet they dedicated to a number of lines, I just wish Bruxelles had a better corridor in/around it and the Aachen-Köln section should also be for 300 kph; the Amsterdam-Rhine area connection should also be built up to 300 kph. Norway is so ridiculously rich that I don't understand the hesitation, just build single track 300 kph tunnels and be done with it already. Sweden seems to be good at long-term planning, with upgradable lines and I guess 250 kph is justified since these are mostly upgrades; however the country is certainly large enough to justify higher speeds, at least the Oslo-Malmo-Stockholm triangle. Finland should/does obviously concentrate around Helsinki, Helsinki-St. Petersburg is also OK in my book as it is.

• as for eastern Europe, for the most part the traditional rail is still crappy and demand is much less, nevertheless I think in this decade these lines would be justified, at least on a 300++ kph alignment and 230-250 trains: Polish network (Warsaw, Krakow, Wroclaw, Katowice, Lodz, -to Berlin, -to Dresden), Gdansk; Prague-Brno, Wien-Bratislava-Budapest, Istanbul-Athens

• and the countries that really should get their sh.t together already are: Brazil, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, + Canada (hello, Detroit-Quebec), Australia (Melbourne-Gold Coast) get going!!

• Saudi Arabia and Marocco are weird outliers

there :)

No Japan? I think they are still ahead of the Europeans, signalling, trainset, and etc.

More than signalling or trainset, I would push "resilience" or "reliability" - like snow proof and earthquake countermeasures. Is that part of "safety"?

Japan gets it in management. They have the most frequent trains and always on time.

Infrastructure goes to China. (7000m turn radius, elevated balastless tracks, those stations... delicious)

Trains.. I cannot decide.. :)

• and the countries that really should get their sh.t together already are: Brazil, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, + Canada (hello, Detroit-Quebec), Australia (Melbourne-Gold Coast) get going!!


Agree, but don't hold your breath on Quebec City to Detroit. The majority of people in central Canada think high speed rail is a frivolous luxury rather than basic transportation infrastructure. They're still stuck in a 1960s car mentality. I kid you not.

Agree, but don't hold your breath on Quebec City to Detroit. The majority of people in central Canada think high speed rail is a frivolous luxury rather than basic transportation infrastructure. They're still stuck in a 1960s car mentality. I kid you not.

Again, North America, not a lot of people, huge open spaces, cheaper to drive, not many large densely populated areas.

Even the Ontario Peninsula or NE USA Corridor are no where near as dense as China.

And why would anyone ever want to go to Detroit from QC?

^^ It would be part of the corridor Quebec - Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto - Detroit - (Chicago).

There are enough people that want to travel between any of these cities.


More than signalling or trainset, I would push "resilience" or "reliability" - like snow proof and earthquake countermeasures. Is that part of "safety"?
Safety and reliability are closely related, since even small accidents or even incidents can disrupt service effecting the long term reliability. On this front Japan is way ahead of any other country in the world, with a almost perfect safety record set against the highest total passenger numbers in the world.

Trains.. I cannot decide.. :)

I think Spain would be a good contender for best passenger comfort.

But it is also a good contender in the "trying to be as frustrating as an airline" category, and the "succesfull at hiding the fact that the network is actually pretty well integrated" division...

• the UK and the US are the countries I'm most mad at, because they both have the resources and the demand to build truly high speed lines,


The UK suffers the opposite problem from the US I think, in that most major cities are very close together (even compared to France, Spain, Germany, Italy) and already mostly served by pretty fast traditional rail services so the improvements in times would not be anywhere near as big as in Spain for example so it hasn't been a high priority historically.

We do have HS1 to the continent and HS2 is finally getting off the ground but it's capacity constraints that have really made it happen imo rather than a perceived urgent requirement for faster times. The capacity needs increasing so we might as well do it with HSR as traditional rail.

Japan gets it in management. They have the most frequent trains and always on time.

1-

Infrastructure goes to China.

(7000m turn radius, elevated balastless tracks, those stations... delicious)


Trains.. I cannot decide.. :)

1-
Not as far as ratio of population to the HSLs.

7000 km of HSLs seem to be a lot but they are not a lot when you take into consideration the sisze of the country, the population and the HSL network.

For instance: (data estimated)

Spain: population 46 million people , HSL about 2500km(?)
France: population 60 millions, HSLs 2200km
China : 1,3 billions, HSLs 7000 .....

I'd say Japan leads in only 2 areas now:

1. Energy Efficiency (N700 and E5/E6 are said to be the most energy efficient in the world)
2. Management (signalling, safety [earthquakes, snow, typhoons] etc)

In 2014 when the chuo maglev goes U/C I guess it could become a "pioneer" again.

1-
Not as far as ratio of population to the HSLs.

7000 km of HSLs seem to be a lot but they are not a lot when you take into consideration the sisze of the country, the population and the HSL network.

For instance: (data estimated)

Spain: population 46 million people , HSL about 2500km(?)
France: population 60 millions, HSLs 2200km
China : 1,3 billions, HSLs 7000 .....

What do the technical specifications (turn radius and balastless, elevated tracks) have to do with population? :)

In efficiency, safety and management? Probably Japan.
Speed? The French. (Although with outdated technology, hence why the AGV has been developed)
Distance? China

Am I missing anything?

1-
7000 km of HSLs seem to be a lot but they are not a lot when you take into consideration the sisze of the country, the population and the HSL network.

Humm...Foxmulder was talking about curve radius (7 000 m) and not about network lenght (7 000 km). According to wikipedia, 2 500 m radius is enough for 210 km/h but 6 000 m is requested for 350 km/h.

But a nHSL (LGV) doesn't need to be as flat as existing railways: 4 % is ok.

Infrastructure goes to China. (7000m turn radius, elevated balastless tracks, those stations... delicious)


Those stations are quite impressive, but they also make some of the flaws in the system obvious. Huge waiting areas are indications of a system that is actually not that good at quickly moving large amounts of passengers...

Those stations are quite impressive, but they also make some of the flaws in the system obvious. Huge waiting areas are indications of a system that is actually not that good at quickly moving large amounts of passengers...

Many stations are overbuilt at the moment, because they were built with a network the size of Europe in mind. As of now only a few disconnected segments is operational, so once the network is complete, even these massive stations will be crowded.

i agree, if you take a bit of time to study some of these stations, you'll quickly realize that most of them are built to serve not just as an on-line/terminal station but as THE hub station for a city the size of Berlin or Paris

meaning that these stations already have or will have a) 2-4-6 PDL/ICL directions coming and going b) local suburban rail c) subways

Xi'an North: 4 PDL directions
Zhengzhou East: 4 PDL directions
Hangzhou East: 5 PDL directions
Nanjing Shouth: 6(!) PDL/ICL directions
etc

it's like having all lines coming to Paris both converging on one point and that station having to serve as through station

Infrastructure goes to China. (7000m turn radius, elevated balastless tracks, those stations... delicious)

Trains.. I cannot decide.. :)

But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.

Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.

Large trains stations, well you can find large trains stations in Germany that are a 100 years old. For example this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Central_Station

But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.

Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.

Large trains stations, well you can find large trains stations in Germany that are a 100 years old. For example this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Central_StationThat's a bit like saying that New York is not the first example of great vertical metropolis because its architectural model was already invented by the city of Bologna in the 14th century.

But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.

Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.

Large trains stations, well you can find large trains stations in Germany that are a 100 years old. For example this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Central_Station


Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius?

Balastless track is not new but China is the country using it in all of its network.

Yes, you find large stations in other places but they are only like 1 per country and not brand new :)

Also, elevated tracks adds quite a bit value, too.

You are right, China imported a lot of technology but is there anything wrong with that? Siemens and Kawasaki earned a lot of moneyzzz from China. It doesn't change the situation on ground, right? :)

By the way, I decided to choose Japan for trains :D but this may change soon if crh500 breaks the record and reaches operational usage. :)

You are right, China imported a lot of technology but is there anything wrong with that? Siemens and Kawasaki earned a lot of moneyzzz from China. It doesn't change the situation on ground, right? :)


Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative.

Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.

Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative.

Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.

What about operational CRH380A and under development CRH500?

Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too.

Also, as I wrote I see China as the leader for the high speed rail infrastructure not in the trains department which can change rather quickly, though. :cheers:

Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative.

Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.

China has already designed several trainsets that, while relying on a design base created by other countries, have made enough improvements and adjustments to claim them as their own. Not just the CRH500 and the 380A. What about the 380B and the 380D?

What about operational CRH380A and under development CRH500?

Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too.

Also, as I wrote I see China as the leader for the high speed rail infrastructure not in the trains department which can change rather quickly, though. :cheers:

The CRH 380A is little more than a reskinned Shinkansen with souped-up Velaro motors underneath. (Ignore the pretty nose and concentrate on the train design: The pantograph and its farings, the doors, the roof construction, the windows, all bear the hallmarks of the original E2 derived CRH)

Why? Because the Shinkansen has the lightest axle load of all high speed trainsets. If you couple that with the strongest HEMU motors (from the Velaro) you're bound to have a set that's a record-breaker. Which is exactly what the 380A is.

Although the CRH 500 may be able to be considered as "Chinese designed" it still bears the hallmarks of previous E2 designs. Also, I doubt we'll ever see it running at full speed in commercial service, unless CRH is happy to make gigantic losses with every run.

China has already designed several trainsets that, while relying on a design base created by other countries, have made enough improvements and adjustments to claim them as their own. Not just the CRH500 and the 380A. What about the 380B and the 380D?

Actually, I would say that the 380A and 500 have a far better chance of being considered "Chinese" than the 380B an 380D.

About the 380B:
>This order for a total of 1600 railway cars is greater than the total production of all Velaro and ICE trains that have ever been manufactured in the past. It is planned that the trains will be produced by CNR subsidiaries, Tangshan Railway Vehicles and Changchun Railway Vehicles, using technology from the previous technology transfer agreement.

So it's basically still a Velaro.

And the 380D was designed entirely by Bombardier, and build in the Bombardier Sifang plant. There was very little Chinese input in either of the designs.

But in the end, no one can truly know what's what, because MOR will never reveal the exact designs of the trains and what came from who.

where is the poll???

Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too.

The KTX-I is based on the TGV Reseau, but the KTX-II is derived from the domestically produced HSR-350x project, and the KTX-III (or, currently, the HEMU-430x) is also an entirely domestically-produced experiment that should begin production within the next 2-3 years.

The KTX-I is based on the TGV Reseau, but the KTX-II is derived from the domestically produced HSR-350x project, and the KTX-III (or, currently, the HEMU-430x) is also an entirely domestically-produced experiment that should begin production within the next 2-3 years.

I find CRH500 as Chinese as HEMU-430x is Korean. :)

Many stations are overbuilt at the moment, because they were built with a network the size of Europe in mind. As of now only a few disconnected segments is operational, so once the network is complete, even these massive stations will be crowded.

I'm not talking about them being massive. That they build them for the future is great.
However, when I see these waiting rooms with rows and rows and rows of seats I wonder. Passengers should not have to spend more than 10 minutes at a station. If you really need that much seating for waiting passengers something's off...
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4149/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4149-18259.jpg

This you don't see in European stations. Even the ones that see huge amounts of passengers...

I'm not talking about them being massive. That they build them for the future is great.
However, when I see these waiting rooms with rows and rows and rows of seats I wonder. Passengers should not have to spend more than 10 minutes at a station. If you really need that much seating for waiting passengers something's off...
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4149/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4149-18259.jpg

This you don't see in European stations. Even the ones that see huge amounts of passengers...

I think that has to do with Chinese train travelling culture.

When I was there, we would just show up 10 minutes before our train was supposed to leave, and at that time you couldn't even get on the platform yet (basically not until the train had arrived at the platform, or slightly before that). However, the other people also waiting for our train seemed like they had been there for quite a while.

Perhaps people really don't want to miss their train, so they arrive like an hour early. Or people with standing tickets want a good seat... I dunno.
Anyway, the end result is you need a lot of space to keep all those people waiting for their train so early. In my opinion, 70% of people wouldn't need to get there so early, in which case the waiting areas wouldn't need to be so big.

I find CRH500 as Chinese as HEMU-430x is Korean. :)

It is, but it and the China Star are as far as any Chinese company has come to a production train--and of course, both are experimental. When the production derivative arrives, then China will have its first domestically-produced train.

I agree with you; technological development as regards trains can move quickly.

Those stations are NOT built "for the future", and those waiting areas are "big" because they need to, maybe some forumers haven't checked out any photos of the Chinese new year yet.

Those stations are NOT built "for the future", and those waiting areas are "big" because they need to, maybe some forumers haven't checked out any photos of the Chinese new year yet.

So maybe the Chinese railways need to figure out how to deal more efficiently with the Chinese New Year then...

Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius?

There are to many to list. You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan.

Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius?

Beijing-Shanghai HSR and the other railways designed with an operating speed 380km/h are the only lines in the world that have a maximum radius of 10,000m.

There are to many to list. You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan.

Misinformation.

Japan: 4000m
Germany: 3200m
Italy: 5500m
France: 5000m
Spain: 4000m

And these numbers are only for very few and new lines not the whole network. Moreover, the lines have "exceptions" (smaller curve radius for specific rough regions) where speed needs to be lowered.

This is why the average speed of the trains running on these lines cannot reach the maximum speed they can clock all the time.

On 350km/h standard lines in China, avarege speed was almost same as the top speed which proves the lines on Chinese network let trains run with top speed continuesly. Before cancellation, non-stop trains were covering 920km distance less than 3 hours. Now, with 300km/h speed limit and one stop, they cover it in around three and half hour. If you exclude accelerations and breaking for the stops, they run at max speed all the time.

And we are talking an entire huge network in Chinese case, not a couple lines on a network.

Still, if you have a source, please share with us. I would be very happy to read. :)

Misinformation.

Japan: 4000m
Germany: 3200m
Italy: 5500m
France: 5000m
Spain: 4000m

And these numbers are only for very few and new lines not the whole network. Moreover, the lines have "exceptions" (smaller curve radius for specific rough regions) where speed needs to be lowered.

This is why the average speed of the trains running on these lines cannot reach the maximum speed they can clock all the time.

On 350km/h standard lines in China, avarege speed was almost same as the top speed which proves the lines on Chinese network let trains run with top speed continuesly. Before cancellation, non-stop trains were covering 920km distance less than 3 hours. Now, with 300km/h speed limit and one stop, they cover it in around three and half hour. If you exclude accelerations and breaking for the stops, they run at max speed all the time.

And we are talking an entire huge network in Chinese case, not a couple lines on a network.

Still, if you have a source, please share with us. I would be very happy to read. :)

I think his original post was trying to say that it doesn't take especially advanced know-how to make the wider radius turns. It just requires a few changes when planning the route. He was probably bluffing when calling out the other lines.
However the question begging to be asked, is this even necessary?
The TGV ran at 574 km/h on a line which, according to your figures, has turn radii of only 5000 m. Yes, it may have had a little more lateral g-forces than normal, but with the height of the duplex cars, I can hardly believe they'd allow extreme lateral g's as the train would simply tip over! And even then, I highly doubt that wheel on rail technology will ever be used much above 400km/h, as it simply becomes prohibitively expensive past that point.

So maybe the Chinese railways need to figure out how to deal more efficiently with the Chinese New Year then...

That's the billion yuan question, MOR has been trying to figure it out for more than 20 years now.:lol: And the solution is simple, bigger station, more platforms, more trains.

Back to topic, CAHSR really revolutionized HSR by showing the world how painful the process can be.

Misinformation.

Japan: 4000m
Germany: 3200m
Italy: 5500m
France: 5000m
Spain: 4000m


You talk without having any knowledge, all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard, of cause exeption exists where geography don't allow it such as urban areas.

You talk without having any knowledge, all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard, of cause exeption exists where geography don't allow it such as urban areas.

Why are you trying to misinform people?

You are absolutely wrong.

None of the lines outside China let's trains go at maximum speed all time and this is because they do not have required minimum curve radius.

I think his original post was trying to say that it doesn't take especially advanced know-how to make the wider radius turns. It just requires a few changes when planning the route. He was probably bluffing when calling out the other lines.
However the question begging to be asked, is this even necessary?
The TGV ran at 574 km/h on a line which, according to your figures, has turn radii of only 5000 m. Yes, it may have had a little more lateral g-forces than normal, but with the height of the duplex cars, I can hardly believe they'd allow extreme lateral g's as the train would simply tip over! And even then, I highly doubt that wheel on rail technology will ever be used much above 400km/h, as it simply becomes prohibitively expensive past that point.

No, the record probably was broken on a section where it was straight :D

Also, leading in something requires will and determination, too. Do you think anyone else apart from China will build a network with this standard and scale?

If anyone will go above current 320km/h in operation, that will be China by looking at the projects. That means leading.

If you want to reach average speed of 300km/h or more 7000m is required.

If anyone will go above current 320km/h in operation, that will be China by looking at the projects. That means leading.


I think Japan with their maglev :lol:

Why are you trying to misinform people?

You are absolutely wrong.

None of the lines outside China let's trains go at maximum speed all time and this is because they do not have required minimum curve radius.

You argue like a child, perhaps you are?

You obviously don't understand what you are talking about so I suggest we end this pointless arguing.

You cannot see a speed profile like this in any other part of the world with this speed.

http://s13.postimage.org/oei84u39z/speed_profile.png

More than 900km and all of it at top speed. (Dips are stops)

You are lying.

You cannot see a speed profile like this in any other part of the world with this speed.

http://s13.postimage.org/oei84u39z/speed_profile.png

More than 900km and all of it at top speed. (Dips are stops)

You are lying.

Which service is that?

The Brussels - Marseille TGV service probably would come close. I don't have a detailed speed profile however.

If you want to reach average speed of 300km/h or more 7000m is required.

What is also needed is a disregard for economics and efficiency. I suppose these things aren't in short supply in China either...

Which service is that?

The Brussels - Marseille TGV service probably would come close. I don't have a detailed speed profile however.

I recorded this. See the third link in my signature.

What is also needed is a disregard for economics and efficiency. I suppose these things aren't in short supply in China either...

bold things seem to have that in common

and yet, most of the time, they succeed in the end

i wonder how many naysayers were complaining about the 'disregard for economics and efficiency' when hitler/eisenhower had hilltops and forests chopped down to make way for slightly higher radii on autobahns/interstates

i know there are quite a few today...

You talk without having any knowledge, all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard, of cause exeption exists where geography don't allow it such as urban areas.

Silly argument with nobody providing any information.

Well, from the French Wikipedia, LGV Nord;

La ligne s’étend sur un total de 333 km, dont 210 km d'Arnouville-lès-Gonesse, au nord-est de la banlieue parisienne, à la frontière belge et 113 de Fretin à Fréthun. Les régions françaises traversées sont l’Île-de-France, la Picardie et le Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Le rayon minimal des courbes est de 6000 m, les plus faibles dans certains cas atteignant 4000 m. Les rampes maximales sont de 25 ‰, limitées par la géographie des régions traversées.


UK's HS2 will be built for 6km-cur-ra/400km/h, HS1 was built with 3km-cur-ra/300km/h.

The min curve radius for any given speed varies depending on the lateral acceleration criteria of the local railway authority.

The TGV ran at 574 km/h on a line which, according to your figures, has turn radii of only 5000 m. Yes, it may have had a little more lateral g-forces than normal, but with the height of the duplex cars, I can hardly believe they'd allow extreme lateral g's as the train would simply tip over! And even then, I highly doubt that wheel on rail technology will ever be used much above 400km/h, as it simply becomes prohibitively expensive past that point.

No it wouldn't tip over. Turn radii is for passenger comfort, first. Tip over is typically many 100's km/h faster than the design speed of the route. And anyway, if you watch the record video you'll see they did it over a section of very gentle curves compared to much of the rest of the line.

Silly argument with nobody providing any information..


In France, LN5, LN6 and LN7 are all built with 350km/h as design speed. Of these only LN5 or LGV Méditerranée have curves tighter than 7 km and they are located in the Marseille urban area. LN5 generally have curves with 10-15 km radius. LN 6 is prepared (curve radius, track separation etc) for future speed increases up to 400km/h.

In Spain LAV Madrid-Barcelona is built with minimum 7km curve radius but generally between 10 and 15km. Exceptions are Madrid and Barcelona urban areas. Here trains can run 350km/h uniterupted for 570km between km mark 16 and km mark 587, it is perfectly possible to run Madrid-Barcelona in 2h flat. The reasons they do not run faster than 300km/h are purely economical.

In Spain also LAV Madrid-Valencia, Córdoba-Málaga, Madrid-Valladolid (and the extensions UC to León, Zamora and Burgos) and Ourense-Santiago de Compostela are built with 350km/h as the design speed, with curve radius beween 7 and up to 20km (part of the Madrid-Valladolid line is built with specifications allowing comercial speed up to 500km/h if that would ever be possible).

The irony of all the crap this foxmulder guy is posting is that the German technical consutants hired by the chinese MOR for the construction of their HSR lines are the same consultants hired by the spanish railway adminstration for their HSR constructions and also hired by the Koreans for their HSR lines to.

In the end these are all German HSR lines by design evolving from the Hanover–Würzburg HSR line built in the 1970s and 1980s. Just google Deutsche Eisenbahn Consulting GmbH.

^^ agreed. Foxmulder is wrong.

bold things seem to have that in common

and yet, most of the time, they succeed in the end


Actually most of the time bold ideas don't succeed. But it's only the ones that do succeed that we remember...

well then, this one we will certainly remember

particularly when 5-8 years from now they will already have an ultra-high speed/capacity PDL/ICL network and they'll refocus to build European-style S-bahn in the inter-urban spaces AND to build subway network in "smaller" cities AND probably they'll also refocus to lots of trams

i can't wait when china starts to build trams in their 200-800k-ish cities
how many of those do they have? a thousand? :)

--

and, even on slower lines they are forced to use lots of tunnels and viaducts, so really, how much more 'efficient' would it be to build these pdls/icls with smaller radii? when they are already forced to put 80-90% of it on bridges/in tunnels...

In France, LN5, LN6 and LN7 are all built with 350km/h as design speed. Of these only LN5 or LGV Méditerranée have curves tighter than 7 km and they are located in the Marseille urban area. LN5 generally have curves with 10-15 km radius. LN 6 is prepared (curve radius, track separation etc) for future speed increases up to 400km/h.

In Spain LAV Madrid-Barcelona is built with minimum 7km curve radius but generally between 10 and 15km. Exceptions are Madrid and Barcelona urban areas. Here trains can run 350km/h uniterupted for 570km between km mark 16 and km mark 587, it is perfectly possible to run Madrid-Barcelona in 2h flat. The reasons they do not run faster than 300km/h are purely economical.

In Spain also LAV Madrid-Valencia, Córdoba-Málaga, Madrid-Valladolid (and the extensions UC to León, Zamora and Burgos) and Ourense-Santiago de Compostela are built with 350km/h as the design speed, with curve radius beween 7 and up to 20km (part of the Madrid-Valladolid line is built with specifications allowing comercial speed up to 500km/h if that would ever be possible).

The irony of all the crap this foxmulder guy is posting is that the German technical consutants hired by the chinese MOR for the construction of their HSR lines are the same consultants hired by the spanish railway adminstration for their HSR constructions and also hired by the Koreans for their HSR lines to.

In the end these are all German HSR lines by design evolving from the Hanover–Würzburg HSR line built in the 1970s and 1980s. Just google Deutsche Eisenbahn Consulting GmbH.

Ohhh, this is so cute.

You are hilarious :)

You decided to abandon you fist claim that Japan, Germany and Italy have 7000m curves, too. That's good, progress.

Stop lying to people. The lines you are mentioning all have "exceptions" which have much tighter turns than 7000m.

AV Madrid-Barcelona has a substantial stretch (Calatayud-Zaragoza) with a much tighter curve radius so you can never run a high speed train from Madrid to Barcelona in 2 hrs.

LGV Méditerranée has 4000m not 7000m.

Even the record breaking strange (i.e the straightest piece of railway in France) have 6250m turn on it.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zqcvf7.jpg

The point Chinese 350km/h network do not have even those exceptions, if we omit those then Chinese network will have a min curve radius of 10,000m. :) It is pretty well known that especially Beijing-Shanghai railroad was planned to have 380km/h operation soon (since names of CRH380A/B trains), before all those political scandals.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zqcvf7.jpg



Uhh, that map is from the previous record attempt, in the 1990's.

Oh and, from: http://www.adif.es/en_US/infraestructuras/lineas_de_alta_velocidad/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa.shtml
-------------------
Infrastructure

The construction design used was highly demanding so as to allow the development of maximum speeds of 350 km/h on commercial services and to guarantee interoperability in line with European regulations.

International gauge, compatible signalling system, standard electrification
Minimum 7000 m radius bends on the general track
Ramps under 2.5%
Maximum 140 mm slope
Junctions suitable for 350 km/h
------------------------------
Am I missing anything here?

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zqcvf7.jpg



Uhh, that map is from the previous record attempt, in the 1990's.

Oh and, from: http://www.adif.es/en_US/infraestructuras/lineas_de_alta_velocidad/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa.shtml
-------------------
Infrastructure

The construction design used was highly demanding so as to allow the development of maximum speeds of 350 km/h on commercial services and to guarantee interoperability in line with European regulations.

International gauge, compatible signalling system, standard electrification
Minimum 7000 m radius bends on the general track
Ramps under 2.5%
Maximum 140 mm slope
Junctions suitable for 350 km/h
------------------------------
Am I missing anything here?


From your source:

"The track is designed for speeds of up to 350 km/h in nearly 86% of the route, although Renfe Operadora runs commercial services at 310 km/h, after the entry into service in 2011 of ERTMS Level 2."

14% is what I wrote above.

Ohhh, this is so cute.

You are hilarious :)

LOL, and you are dumber than f***.


You decided to abandon you fist claim that Japan, Germany and Italy have 7000m curves, too. That's good, progress.

This is what I wrote:
all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard.

You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan I forgot to mention Taiwan but I guess you don't even know that country exist, I'll give you a hint, Chinese Taipei :lol:

Stop lying to people. The lines you are mentioning all have "exceptions" which have much tighter turns than 7000m.

This is what I wrote:
of cause exceptions exists where geography don't allow it such as urban areas.

You see, in the civilized world where there are basic human rights, governments can't simply bulldozer huge swaths of land displacing hundreds of thousands of citizens without their consent.

And as I stated, these exceptions you find in urban areas because in Europe and the civilized part of Asia, trainstations are located as close as possible to the city center. Not like in China where you often find youself having to take a 40-50 minute taxi ride to reach the city centre or commercial district.

AV Madrid-Barcelona has a substantial stretch (Calatayud-Zaragoza) with a much tighter curve radius so you can never run a high speed train from Madrid to Barcelona in 2 hrs.

Actually you can, it has already been done during test runs.


http://i48.tinypic.com/1zqcvf7.jpg

The point Chinese 350km/h network do not have even those exceptions, if we omit those then Chinese network will have a min curve radius of 10,000m. :) It is pretty well known that especially Beijing-Shanghai railroad was planned to have 380km/h operation soon (since names of CRH380A/B trains), before all those political scandals.

And now you post a map of a line I have not even mentioned :lol:

You know, even the the Chinese ruling elite in Bejing could not bulldoze completely as they pleased so you still have slow curves on Beijing-Shanghai railroad right after Beijing south railway station, they certainly aren't 7000 meters, more like 700 meters :cheers:

From your source:

"The track is designed for speeds of up to 350 km/h in nearly 86% of the route, although Renfe Operadora runs commercial services at 310 km/h, after the entry into service in 2011 of ERTMS Level 2."

14% is what I wrote above.

Um, just to sort of try to wrangle this argument back to my original point, as Gincan wote; tests were conducted long that stretch at very high speeds, enabling the two hour running time. It also means that for anything up to 350 km/h, turn radii of some amount under 7000m are fine. It's basically a moot point to claim that 7000m radii turn are a necessary advancement to run at such speeds.

7000m was probably designed so that the trains could run at 400 km/h plus without major infrastucture upgrades, but as we've come to realise, 350 km/h is about as fast as you can go economically.

Can anyone tell me what China has done that is truly revolutionary in high speed rail.

The only thing I can think of is the speed in which the network is being built, but then again it's all done with conventional construction methods. Building a line more straight isn't really revolutionary either, it's just using the geographical advantages of a flat country. Upgrading existing foreign High Speed Train technology also isn't that revolutionary, it didn't yet result in game changing trains. The operating speeds at the start where revolutionary, but since that was a failure it didn't cause a revolution. And when it comes to safety, reliability, economical operation China is miles behind other countries.

China is using the most of all the technology on offer but has yet to do something that will really change the game.

they haven't. The high speed rail revolution can be jointly attributed to the countries of Japan and France, the companies Siemens, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, some other Japanese one, Alstom, and then loads of others involved in signalling and hardware and design such as Arup and that German one previously mentioned.

I think the thread itself misunderstands the complexity and depth of the high speed rail industry across the globe.

China is not flat...

speed 350km/h
Minimum radius of curvature (m)*:
- reccomended 7143
- normal 6250
- exceptional 5556

* from data given by SNCF
source UIC

The radius of curvature it's not the only parameter that determines the max. permissible speed of a line. Some other parameters are: maximum cant, cant deficiency, excess of cant and a few others. So, comparing different lines with min. curve radius as basis will not give conclusive results. For example a mixed traffic line and a passenger only line can both have a maximum design speed of 300kmph. The latter can be designed with min. curve radius of 3350m with a max cant of 170mm as is the case with the KRM. The mixed traffic line will have a considerable larger min. curve radius because of the limitations imposed by the freight traffic and the freight rolling stock, cant, length of the transition curves, etc. The design of a new line is extremely complicated.

IMHO the high speed revolution was the opening of the tokaido shinkansen, since then mostly is evolution. So again IMHO, the leaders in high speed rail evolution is Japan and France.

I consider revolutionary rolling stock, the NGT project from DLR

China is not flat...
A big part of the Eastern coastal areas is very flat, the Beijing - Shanghai line. The only bump is between Jinan and Taian, and that part of the line could even be constructed in a very straight line. And the big mountainous areas are all at the edges of the country. All in all it's not the most challenging country to construct new lines especially between the important cities. Only it's size is what makes it remarkable, but that's not really a problem if you have almost unlimited resources.

This thread is a flamebait thus should be closed.

This thread is a flamebait thus should be closed.

Not quite yet. It COULD be an interesting discussion about the technologies on offer when it comes to HSR, however, as is all too evident, it has also become a contest as to who has the bigger, who can go the fastest blahblahblah. How about celebrating revolutionary developments rather than saying "BLAHBLAH IS FASTER THAN BLAHBLAH".

I would also, very much urge members to NOT resort to personal attacks and to contact me if any occur (as I cannot read every post in every thread). I have been alerted to this thread and will keep my eyes on it from now on.

^^On that train of thought (pardon the pun), I'm curious if anyone has any information or thoughts on the upcoming >360kmh operating speeds planned for the next generation of high speed trains, having in mind specifically the CRH500 trains, the KTX-III, the L0 series shinkansen, and the Talgo Avril.

Granted, most if not all of these will likely end up operating at the 350kmh threshold due to concerns of economy and efficiency, but what comes after that? Will we see a prolonged period of logistical adjustments to compensate for this performance ceiling? It seems more likely to me than a rapid switchover to maglev.

Obviously, geo- and demographical constraints will make ever-higher traditional HSR speeds easier and/or more plausible for some countries than others, and we're not here to focus on the geographic and demographic facts of a nation. Why not try to keep this discussion about trains instead?

^ The L0 won't run below 500 km/h, otherwise the maglev would have been pointless to build. It should run 505 km/h which I have no doubt will be sped up over time (since it's 0, the first series after all).


I would also, very much urge members to NOT resort to personal attacks and to contact me if any occur (as I cannot read every post in every thread). I have been alerted to this thread and will keep my eyes on it from now on.

Thanks

speed 350km/h
Minimum radius of curvature (m)*:
- reccomended 7143
- normal 6250
- exceptional 5556

* from data given by SNCF
source UIC

The radius of curvature it's not the only parameter that determines the max. permissible speed of a line. Some other parameters are: maximum cant, cant deficiency, excess of cant and a few others. So, comparing different lines with min. curve radius as basis will not give conclusive results. For example a mixed traffic line and a passenger only line can both have a maximum design speed of 300kmph. The latter can be designed with min. curve radius of 3350m with a max cant of 170mm as is the case with the KRM. The mixed traffic line will have a considerable larger min. curve radius because of the limitations imposed by the freight traffic and the freight rolling stock, cant, length of the transition curves, etc. The design of a new line is extremely complicated.

IMHO the high speed revolution was the opening of the tokaido shinkansen, since then mostly is evolution. So again IMHO, the leaders in high speed rail evolution is Japan and France.

I consider revolutionary rolling stock, the NGT project from DLR


I've never heard of this before, and a quick Google gave me results that are mainly in German. Is this a serious study? (I.E: Likely to go towards a production run?) Has it been commissioned by anyone? Are there any early projected stats? (Top speed, capacity, weight, acceleration, etc..)

Entirely new developments in HSR rolling stock don't come around very often.

LOL, and you are dumber than f***.
This is what I wrote:
all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard.
You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan I forgot to mention Taiwan but I guess you don't even know that country exist, I'll give you a hint, Chinese Taipei :lol:
This is what I wrote:
of cause exceptions exists where geography don't allow it such as urban areas.
You see, in the civilized world where there are basic human rights, governments can't simply bulldozer huge swaths of land displacing hundreds of thousands of citizens without their consent.
And as I stated, these exceptions you find in urban areas because in Europe and the civilized part of Asia, trainstations are located as close as possible to the city center. Not like in China where you often find youself having to take a 40-50 minute taxi ride to reach the city centre or commercial district.
Actually you can, it has already been done during test runs.
And now you post a map of a line I have not even mentioned :lol:
You know, even the the Chinese ruling elite in Bejing could not bulldoze completely as they pleased so you still have slow curves on Beijing-Shanghai railroad right after Beijing south railway station, they certainly aren't 7000 meters, more like 700 meters :cheers:

Hi there, disinformation effort is in its full swing, huh? :)

Chinese 350km/h network has no "exceptions" and that is the point. All lines you are referring has much tighter turns than 7000m and that is why trains cannot go at full speed all the time.

You are using circular reasoning to claim these lines have min 7000m curve radius because trains can go 320km/h :D Yes, they can go 320km/h when there is no exception but there are. capisce?? :cheers:




Also to return to the point I made (i.e. China is the leader when it comes to infrastructure); sometimes pictures can explain it much better than words:

Which line does look like have more potential??

Madrid-Barcelona
http://s18.postimage.org/5kfu6wn4p/800px_AVE_Tarragona_Madrid.jpg

LGV Méditerranée
http://s18.postimage.org/hatroafx5/800px_TGV_Duplex.jpg

Beijing–Shanghai
http://s18.postimage.org/npsskymmx/CRH380_A.jpg

^ The L0 won't run below 500 km/h, otherwise the maglev would have been pointless to build. It should run 505 km/h which I have no doubt will be sped up over time (since it's 0, the first series after all).


I kind of stuck the L0 in there as I'm not aware of any upcoming traditional trains from the Japanese companies that exceed a 350-360kmh design speed. The Chinese plan to ramp train speeds up to 380kmh was dropped after the former MOR head resigned (was removed?).

But the desired operational speed of HS2 in the UK, the CAHSR in the US, and the HEMU-430x in Korea all exceed the 350kmh threshold. Is anyone aware of how these three systems intend to circumvent the massive energy consumption increase that comes with doing so, or are they simply taking into account the extra cost in their operating budgets?

^ There isn't really any need in Japan to run faster than 320 km/h really. Most lines have frequent enough stops and Japan is quite dense so they don't want too fast speeds due to tunnel boom and other noise pollution (often times there's houses right up next to the shinkansen line).

With that said the Hokkaido Shinkansen has a plan to run at 360 km/h (half of it will open by 2015, the other half 2035). The best cases for faster speeds on Japan will be on Tohoku and Hokkaido Shinkansens (not as dense, noise pollution isn't as big of a concern), I hope the Tokaido will increase to 300 km/h eventually, next year the Tohoku will increase to 320 km/h, but I think they can raise it more since they will use the same type of train as the Hokkaido Shinkansen which should run at 360 km/h. BTW the E5 can take a 4000m radius curve at its current maximum service speed of 320km/h.

Chinese 350km/h network has no "exceptions" and that is the point. All lines you are referring has much tighter turns than 7000m and that is why trains cannot go at full speed all the time.


What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.

Only the LGV Sud-Est has bits that are poor alignment and therefore are restricted to 270km/h. Guess what? The French realised that was a mistake so they didn't do that anymore.

Precisely what point are you trying to make anyhow? China is amazing because its trains could go for 1000km without slowing whereas nowhere else in the world is this possible? Even though it will be possible soon if it isn't already? I mean, even if Paris - Brussels TGVs need to slow to 250km/h past Lille, that would slow the train by about 90 seconds - and that would be the only retardation. Whoop de do.

And no, posting individual pictures of individual corners on various high speed lines does not make your point at all.

Which line does look like have more potential??


This explains nothing. It only shows that France and Spain are happier to use tried-and-tested technology.
With proper maintenance, all three lines have exactly the same potential. And no, ballast does not magically fly up when a train passes over. The railway engineers would have spotted and rectified it a long, long time ago if that were the case. The benefits of ballastless track lie in that it requires less maintenance, thus making it slightly cheaper in the very long run.

Look at the speed, then certainly the Chinese stay in the forefront.Quality of these is not clear!China's high iron sitting comfort good.Shortly before the Chinese travel back!

What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.

That's the other way around. It's the Paris-Brussels direction which is
straight, and you need to take a curve to exit the line before you enter
Lille. And yes indeed, the whole high speed line between Paris and Brussels
can be travelled at max speed, without any slow down in between.

Look at the speed, then certainly the Chinese stay in the forefront.Quality of these is not clear!China's high iron sitting comfort good.Shortly before the Chinese travel back!

Ow geez a Google Translate 50-cent army message :ohno:



Anyway, I agree with a previous post:

The Japanese revolutionized rail with their first implementation of HSR. Everything after that, no matter how great (France, Germany, Spain, China) has just been evolution.

Is this a serious study? (I.E: Likely to go towards a production run?) Has it been commissioned by anyone? Are there any early projected stats? (Top speed, capacity, weight, acceleration, etc..)

Entirely new developments in HSR rolling stock don't come around very often.
The NGT is a research project covering different rail specific topics. The aim is the coordination and the common presentation of the different rail vehicle research activities in the NGT as integration platform.

Some known stats : Top speed: 400km/h, axle load:16t

About the bogie
This ambitious concept of a passenger running gear has a realization horizon of approximately 10 years.

A description of the project:
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10467/740_read-916/

DLR will demonstrate at innotrans 2012 a 1:1 mock up of the medium car
http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/4/dlr-zeigt-11-mock-up-vom-next-generation-train/browse/1.html

What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.

Only the LGV Sud-Est has bits that are poor alignment and therefore are restricted to 270km/h. Guess what? The French realised that was a mistake so they didn't do that anymore.

Precisely what point are you trying to make anyhow? China is amazing because its trains could go for 1000km without slowing whereas nowhere else in the world is this possible? Even though it will be possible soon if it isn't already? I mean, even if Paris - Brussels TGVs need to slow to 250km/h past Lille, that would slow the train by about 90 seconds - and that would be the only retardation. Whoop de do.

And no, posting individual pictures of individual corners on various high speed lines does not make your point at all.


I am an unbiased citizen of Earth. Which planet are you from? :)

LGV Nord has a min turn radius of 4000m so it is not up to standard of Chinese 350km/h network. I am sorry to let you down but it is the hard cold fact.

This explains nothing. It only shows that France and Spain are happier to use tried-and-tested technology.
With proper maintenance, all three lines have exactly the same potential. And no, ballast does not magically fly up when a train passes over. The railway engineers would have spotted and rectified it a long, long time ago if that were the case. The benefits of ballastless track lie in that it requires less maintenance, thus making it slightly cheaper in the very long run.

If you guys look at the pictures I send and see no difference, it just surprises me. There are quite a lot of fundamental differences among these mentioned lines.

1) Chinese network is mostly elevated which has quiete a lot of advantages:

a) Required footprint of the lines decreases. (You can tell from the pictures that Beijing-Shanghai line's foot print is less than half of those in Spain and France)

b) It is inherently safer for people who lives around.

c) It creates a foundation to increase minimum horizontal and vertical curve radius of line since elevation imperfections of the geography becomes less of an issue. This in turn translates into a higher potential maximum speed.

2) The minimum curve radius is 7000m without any exceptions: The advantage of this obvious, you can go at top speed all the time. This is why Chinese lines even though they are limited to 300km/h right now still have the highest average speed.

3) It uses ballastless track:

a) It requires significantly less maintenance. There are many reasons for this, will not go into details. a simple google search gives nice information.

b) It is more stable so do not require solutions to stabilize it like this:

http://s14.postimage.org/s0bjneash/stabil.jpg

So, again it presents the potential for higher speeds.

Only disadvantages of these standards is the cost. It is more expensive to build.

Moreover, when one considers the sheer scale of the Chinese network build with these standards, it is easy to claim, in high speed rail infrastructure, China is the leader.

I have to say ballastless tracks is certainly better suited for very high speed trains, it allows the tracks to be positioned more precisely and prevent unwanted debris from being thrown when a train passes by. Yes TGV is able to go fast on the ballast tracks but I'd imagine the maintenance requirement is quite strict too. I rode the TGV from Paris to Aix-en-Provence a couple of years ago and in sections it went to above 300km/h but the ride was shockingly uncomfortable.

1) Chinese network is mostly elevated which has quiete a lot of advantages:

a) Required footprint of the lines decreases. (You can tell from the pictures that Beijing-Shanghai line's foot print is less than half of those in Spain and France)

This is a fair enough point, however it's an extremely inefficient use of resources.

b) It is inherently safer for people who lives around.
Wenzhou train crash. How close was it to utterly destroying the nearby houses? Because it's falling from a height, it can travel further. Also this is an utterly baseless claim.

c) It creates a foundation to increase minimum horizontal and vertical curve radius of line since elevation imperfections of the geography becomes less of an issue. This in turn translates into a higher potential maximum speed.
Or you know, elevate the track in the valleys, and tunnel through the mountains. (Which is exactly what every HSL in the world does, btw). Having it on viaducts the entire route is just wasteful when on a large area of flat land.

2) The minimum curve radius is 7000m without any exceptions: The advantage of this obvious, you can go at top speed all the time. This is why Chinese lines even though they are limited to 300km/h right now still have the highest average speed.
This point has been proven wrong multiple times, stop bringing it up. The highest average speed is because it has the longest distances between stops.

3) It uses ballastless track:

a) It requires significantly less maintenance. There are many reasons for this, will not go into details. a simple google search gives nice information.
Correct.

b) It is more stable so do not require solutions to stabilize it like this:
This solution only really exists in Japan, and it is to stabilize the ballast in the event of an earthquake.



So, again it presents the potential for higher speeds.

Only disadvantages of these standards is the cost. It is more expensive to build.

Moreover, when one considers the sheer scale of the Chinese network build with these standards, it is easy to claim, in high speed rail infrastructure, China is the leader.

I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.

I have to say ballastless tracks is certainly better suited for very high speed trains, it allows the tracks to be positioned more precisely and prevent unwanted debris from being thrown when a train passes by. Yes TGV is able to go fast on the ballast tracks but I'd imagine the maintenance requirement is quite strict too. I rode the TGV from Paris to Aix-en-Provence a couple of years ago and in sections it went to above 300km/h but the ride was shockingly uncomfortable.

The big advantage of traditional ballasted track is that it is much easier to correct it again if for some reason the foundation moves. With ballast less track you are essentially building your whole line on a bridge. Since that is what the Chinese do anyway, it makes sense for them.
However, if you are going to build a line at grade the picture changes.

As to the TGV becoming uncomfortable, that's more due to the fact that SNCF cares somewhat less about passenger comfort than many other railways...

Granted, most if not all of these will likely end up operating at the 350kmh threshold due to concerns of economy and efficiency, but what comes after that?

There is still a lot to be gained by further improving network integration. I am going to London from Lausanne soon, and will lose 1 1/2 hours changing stations in Paris. If for example SNCF were to build a TGV tunnel under Paris (an idea that comes up now and then), with a new underground station in the middle trips that now require a change of station in Paris would become more convenient.
France also plans a high speed connection across the south (Bordeaux - Toulouse - Montpellier).
These are just two examples of possible incremental improvements to the system that would reduce trip times for quite a large number of passengers, without having to increase train speed times beyond what is economically practical.

Track geometry is not really an innovation for HSR. Ballastless tracks are, but they pale compared to what really made HSR feasible: rolling stock and signaling. Without modern in-cab signaling, HSR would be extremely dangerous (e.g., train engineers relying on visual signs to proceed, limit speed, stop, deploy brakes etc).

Ballastless tracks have lower maintenance costs and downtime. They are more noisy though, albeit the mains source of trains travelling 250km/h+ is air displacement, not friction deflection on the ground.

Now I'm curious to know at which average speed Maglevs start being more appealing as they can deal with steeper grades. Given enough power, TGV tracks could host trains travelling at 600km/h on 5000m curve radii without risks of tipping over. But that would be tricky for passengers unless seat belts were deployed on seats. But the wear and tear would be dramatic and the component safety for mechanic parts would be raised to some akin to airlines.

I think higher commercial speeds will be only attainable with maglevs. It is a disgrace Germant ditched their early 1990s plan for a network of maglev tracks there.

TAlking of maglevs, I have a question: what is, at current technology state, the minimum time interval between two trains travelling at maximum power on a same maglev track in the same direction?

I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.

Also remember that China is where Europe and the US were in the 19th century.

During the early and mid 19th century Europe and the US build railroads at a tremendous pace. That is because both were industrialising rapidly at that time. Also then it was not uncommon for large stations to be built outside cities, just like it is in China now. The cities later expanded to engulf them. One can expect that the same will happen in China.
China has the advantage of being able to do this at a moment where the state of the art has advanced so that 300kph trains are normal. But they have this advantage because they arrived late at the party...

Given enough power, TGV tracks could host trains travelling at 600km/h on 5000m curve radii without risks of tipping over. But that would be tricky for passengers unless seat belts were deployed on seats.

Am I right in assuming that you are in favor of higher speeds because it would provide an excuse for forcing passengers to wear seat belts?

(In fact, if the superelevation is adjusted seat belts wouldn't be needed)

LGV Nord has a min turn radius of 4000m so it is not up to standard of Chinese 350km/h network. I am sorry to let you down but it is the hard cold fact.


The LGV Nord is designed for 350km/h - THAT is a cold hard fact.

If you go back a few pages you'll see that I stated that different authorities have different specifications as to what the minimum curve radius is required depending on their own decision as to the maximum lateral force the passengers should experience.

Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats. So, stop holding on the this 7km figure, as it doesn't make your point, whatever it is.

That's the other way around. It's the Paris-Brussels direction which is
straight, and you need to take a curve to exit the line before you enter
Lille. And yes indeed, the whole high speed line between Paris and Brussels
can be travelled at max speed, without any slow down in between.

Thanks yes I knew this, I just didn't make it clear. I know the speed through Lille is 240km/h, but what is the linespeed of the direct line to Brussels? Is it full speed?

Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats.

Wouldn't that just be a matter of having sufficient super-elevation?

Of course, extreme super-elevation then becomes a problem for slower trains...

Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats. So, stop holding on the this 7km figure, as it doesn't make your point, whatever it is.



Care to show some PROOF to back up your claim?

This is a fair enough point, however it's an extremely inefficient use of resources.

No it is not. If it is arable land then it is probably better use of the resources. Or if land is too expensive because it is on an urban area. Japan is even planing to build its maglev line in tunnels mostly because of the cost of land acquisition. So it is a choice you should make for better use of the land.


Wenzhou train crash. How close was it to utterly destroying the nearby houses? Because it's falling from a height, it can travel further. Also this is an utterly baseless claim.


You didn't get my point. I prefer to have a house next to an elevated line if I had livestock for example. There is zero possibility that something can walk on lines. :) (Germany accident... poor animals :( )


Or you know, elevate the track in the valleys, and tunnel through the mountains. (Which is exactly what every HSL in the world does, btw). Having it on viaducts the entire route is just wasteful when on a large area of flat land.


It is not wasteful. It is better planing, especially for China.


This point has been proven wrong multiple times, stop bringing it up. The highest average speed is because it has the longest distances between stops.


huh?? When did that happen? :) All lines mentioned as having 7000m min curve radius in reality have tighter ones. Sorry :D



This solution only really exists in Japan, and it is to stabilize the ballast in the event of an earthquake.


Earthquake is one of the reasons why a more stable track is better. Overall, if you have resources, there is no excuse not to use ballastless track.


I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.

Technology came from Germany but they did not plan or design vast portions of the network. Right now, China is pretty much have the full capability to build the cutting edge high speed lines.






The LGV Nord is designed for 350km/h - THAT is a cold hard fact.

That does not change its minimum curve radius. It is 4000m on LGV Nord. Trains can go 1000km/h if they can. It is not the point.

Okay, this discussion is now being rehashed again and again. I think I am going to have to lock this thread as we've reached a bit of an impasse.