daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 13th, 2013, 09:52 PM   #1381
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
Is that intermediate coaches weight loaded or empty?
Empty.
__________________
We are shaping the future
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 13th, 2013, 11:20 PM   #1382
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman View Post
How are the Chinese HSTs heavier than the TGV Duplex? Modern CRH380 trainsets are specifically designed to be lightweight to make 380 km/h economically feasible; unless we're focusing on the fact that CRH trains are EMUs while the Duplex is a PP model.

It seems that China has done its homework on wear and tear, and the only reason for the slowdown is electric consumption; I'd say that the 300km/h speed cap will remain until China finishes upgrading its electrical grid.
French High Speed lines meant to be used only by passenger trains have been built with a max axle load of 17 tons., whilst the new French HSLs to be built for mixed traffic (passengers and freight trains) will have a greater max load, of a least 22,5 t per axle, such as the Italian and German HSLs.

The Chinese HSls have been built with German, French and Japanese technology, they are also are ballasteles, and probably have an axle load of at least 22,5t.

The earlier Chinese CHR trains have been built by French, German and Japanese Companies and used the French, Canadian, German and Japanese technology

In spite of technology transfer the Chinese HSLs and HSts still use German, French, Japanese and Canadian components made oustside China.

The French CHR5, is a non-tilting derivative of the Pendolino, the Chinese Velaro, and has an axle load of 17 ton, the Zefiro 250 and 380 Series have an axle load of 17 tons.......


And also the TGV locos have axle loads of 17 tons.......

So, why are you saying that the chinese high speed trains are ligher that the european ones?

As a matter of fact there are not.

To refresh your memory have a look of wikipedia.

Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railway_High-speed



Some text extracted from the said article:

[...Before the introduction of foreign technology, China conducted independent attempts to domestically develop high speed rail technology. Some notable results included the China Star, but domestic Chinese companies lacked the technology and expertise of foreign companies, and the research process was time consuming. Republic of China Ministry of Railways spokesman Zhang Shuguang stated that due to historical reasons, China's overall railway technology and equipment is similar to that of developed countries' rail systems in the 1970s; high-speed rolling stock development is still in its infancy stage. If using only their own resources and expertise, the country might need a decade or longer to catch up with developed nations.[27]


In 2004, the Chinese State Council and the Ministry of Railways defined a modern railway technology and equipment policy as "the introduction of advanced technology, the joint design and production, to build China brand". The realization of the railway "leapfrog development" is the key task required to develop and utilize the technology required for high speed trains.[edit]

Technology introductionOn April 9, 2004, the Chinese government held a conference on modern railway equipment and rolling stock, in which they drafted the current Chinese plan to modernize the country's railway infrastructure.

On June 17, 2004, the Ministry of Railways launched the first round of bidding on the high-speed rail technology, but the company must be:

legally registered in the PRC, with rail EMU manufacturing capacity
able to manufacture trains with the ability to reach 200 km/h
High-speed EMU design and manufacturing technology companies, including Siemens, Alstom, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Bombardier, initially had hoped to enter into a joint venture in China, but was rejected by the Ministry of Railways. The MOR set these guidelines for joint ventures to be acceptable:

comprehensive transfer of key technologies
lowest price in the world
use of a Chinese brand
A comprehensive transfer of technology to Chinese enterprises (especially in systems integration, AC drive and other core technologies) was necessary to allow domestic enterprises to master the core technology.

While foreign partners might provide technical services and training, the Chinese companies must ultimately be able to function without the partnership.[28] Railway equipment manufacturers in China were free to choose foreign partners, but foreign firms must pre-bid and sign the technology transfer agreement with China's domestic manufacturers, so the Chinese rolling stock manufacturers could comprehensively and systematically learn advanced foreign technology.[29]

In the first round of bidding, 140 rolling stock orders were divided into seven packages of twenty orders each. After extensive review and negotiation, three consortiums won the bid:

Changchun Railway Vehicles Co., Ltd. (owned by CNR) with France's Alstom
Sifang Locomotive (owned by CSR) with Japan's Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Sifang Locomotive (owned by CSR) with Canada's Bombardier
These three consortiums were each given three, three, and one twenty order packages respectively. [29] Germany's Siemens, as a result of an expensive technology bid — the prototype vehicle cost was 350 million yuan each column, technology transfer fee 390 million euros — did not get any orders in the first round.[30][31] EMU tendered 22.7 billion yuan for technology transfer payments in the first payment, accounting for 51 per cent of the amount of the tender.

In November 2005, the Chinese Ministry of Railways and Siemens reached an agreement, and Siemens in a joint venture with Changchun Railway Vehicles and Tangshan Railway Vehicle (both owned by CNR) was awarded sixty 300 km/h high-speed train orders.

[edit] InnovationThe introduction of high-speed trains, a foreign advanced technology, was required in order to implement China's "Long-term Scientific and Technological Development (2006–2020)". The core technology innovations necessary for a high-speed rail system to meet the needs of China's railway development resulted in the Ministry of Science and Ministry of Railways signing the "independent innovation of Chinese high-speed train cooperation agreement Joint Action Plan" on February 26, 2008.[32] Academicians and researchers from CAS, Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University, Southwest Jiaotong University, and Beijing Jiaotong University have committed to working together on basic research into improving China's scientific and industrial resources into developing a high-speed train system.

Under the agreement, China's joint action plan for improvement of train service and infrastructure has four components:[33]

1.Develop key technologies to create a network capable of supporting trains' speeds of 350 km/hr and higher


2.Establish intellectual property rights and international competitiveness

3.Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Railways will work together to enhance industry research alliances, and innovation capability

4.Promote China-related material and equipment capacity


The Chinese Ministry of Science has invested nearly 10 billion yuan in this science and technology plan, which is by far the largest investment program. The project has brought together a total of 25 universities, 11 research institutes, and national laboratories, and 51 engineering research centers. The Ministry of Science hopes to develop basic research sufficient to produce key technologies necessary to develop trains capable of 500 km per hour through the "863 Project" and "973 Project".[34]

[edit] See alsoHigh-speed rail in China
China Star
Z-series trains

.........]

Last edited by joseph1951; February 15th, 2013 at 08:21 PM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 12:04 AM   #1383
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
Is that intermediate coaches weight loaded or empty?
Most likely empty, an N700 Shinkansen train have a loaded axle load of just 11.2 tonnes.
So a Shinkansen train does a lot less damage on the track.
The Technology behind the N700 was not trasferred by the Japanese to China.

The Japanese trains buld for China use the earlier Japnese Technology which is about 20 years old..

The Japanese High speed trains must have a very light axle load because the shinkasen HSLs have been built with an extremely light axle load. Therefore the Japanese engineers could not choose to build HST's similar to TGV, i'e: with the power concentratd on two locomotives: one at the top and the other at the end of the trains,

Also N700 has some form of limited tilting technology which allows the train to negotiate curves 10-15% faster than conventional non-tilting trains.

China does not have yet acquired foreign active tilting technology.....

Last edited by joseph1951; February 14th, 2013 at 04:41 AM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 12:59 AM   #1384
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: G÷teborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
The Tecnologuy behin the N700 was not trasferredn by the Japanese from China.

The Japanese train buld for China use the earlier Japnese Technology.

The Japanese Highs speed trains must have a very light axle load because the shinkasen HSLs have been build with an extremely light axle load. Thereore the Japanese engineers could not choose to build HST's similar to TGV, i'e: with the power concentratd on two locomotives: one at the top and the other at the end of the trains,

Laso N700 has some form of limited tilting technology which allows the train to negotiate curves 10-15% faster than conventional non tilting trains.

China does not have yet acquired foreign active tilting technology.....
It doesn't matter which of the newer Shinkansen trains you look at, they all have a very light axle load, most of them (except for the bi-level ones) are around 11-13 tonnes/axle fully loaded, including the E2 model which were exported to China.
The technology of making light cars out of aluminium isn't new really, so making a light car isn't that hard.

Japan didn't go down the way that the French did with the TGV, they choose an EMU type train from the start because it's better in many ways than a loco hauled system like the TGV. No wasted space, lighter, better traction, more power, less track wear, etc.
Loco hauled train are a thing of the past, especially when you are designing a HSR system. Even the French are doing it with the AGV, even though it's way to heavy to be really good.

The tilt on the N700 isn't really nuclear physics, it's just adjustable air suspension. All you need is some regulation system, a compressor and a few valves, not hard at all

Yes they do, I'm pretty sure that they have copied everything that they could from the Swedish X2 train that was sold there years ago.

You give people too little faith, just because you don't have a specific technology, doesn't mean that you have to import it. Most of these stuff isn't that hard to invent yourself, I mean China have 1/7:th of the worlds population, I'm pretty sure that they have some people that are engineers or something and know these things.
__________________

Pansori liked this post
loefet está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 02:01 AM   #1385
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

joseph, you are starting to dilute the discussion a little bit.

You are really wrong about axle load of CRH trains. Highest axle load is on CRH3 (Velaro E based model) has maximum 17 tons. Others are considerable lighter.

Also, tilting technology might help to increase speed but so far it is really not need to run trains at 350km/h or even above that demonstrated numerous times in operation and in the tests especially when you have min curve radius of 7000m on the network. Tilting tech is used to increase speed beyond what the infrastructure can sustain otherwise.
__________________

Pansori, Silver Swordsman liked this post
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 03:52 AM   #1386
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
joseph, you are starting to dilute the discussion a little bit.
1-
You are really wrong about axle load of CRH trains. Highest axle load is on CRH3 (Velaro E based model) has maximum 17 tons. Others are considerable lighter.

Also, tilting technology might help to increase speed but so far it is really not need to run trains at 350km/h or even above that demonstrated numerous times in operation and in the tests especially when you have min curve radius of 7000m on the network. Tilting tech is used to increase speed beyond what the infrastructure can sustain otherwise.
1-
CRH3 velaro has a weight of 17 tons per axle exactly like the TGV locomotives.......... in 1991 a TGV on reduced formation of 2 loco and six carrigaes reached the speed of 515 km/h.

The IC Velaro IC3 chinese version, reduced to 6 carriages is the one that has reached 487 km/h, (although the German have guaranteed their trains up to 300 km/h in revenue service..). Zefiro HS Trains are not considerably lighter the the Chinese Siemens Velaro.


The active tilting mechanism can be useful to increase up 37% the train speed on very twisted routes , such as conventional routes wich have curve radii of 300~1000 metres. Obviously, this device is of no use on HSLs designed for 350+ speed limits, but it is useful in conventional slow routes where it can incease commercial speed of up to 25-35%.with little or no modification in the infrastructure.

Infortunately China broke all the international patenting agreements with the foreign suppliers and, for the forseable future, it will not receive any substantial transfer of rail technology..



Futhermore, in 2011 China had roughly only 91000 km of railways lines and only a fraction of these lines were HSLs. China , like many other Countries, needs a small percentage of HSLs and more conventional railway lines ( with top speeds around 160-200 km/h) to be used fo medium and long distance for passengers and freight trains.

Furthermore of these 91000 km of lines only 42 000 are electrified.Like or not, in order to move efficiently and economically almost 1,4 billion people the Chinese government will have to invest proportionally more in new 160~250 km/ conventional mixed traffic pax/and goods lines than in 350-500 (?!) km/h HS lines.

To put things in prospective let's compare the German population and rail network ratio with China :
Germany has roughly 81,5 million inhabitants and about 41700 km of lines of which about 17,000 km of lines are electrified, while China has about 1. 37 billions inhabitants, 92 000 km of railways lines of which 42 000 are electrified.


Clearly to have the same densitity/population rail -network ratio of Germany, China needs to increase its rail network about 17-18 folds and most of the new rail lines will have to be conventional lines. Conventional lines with a top max speed of 220 km/h can be used efficiently for both passengers and freight trains.

China does not have sufficient energy reserve to sustain a massive road trasportantion system which can provide , let's say, 75 cars for every 100 people. China produces most of its electricity from coal of poor quality, very little from nuclear stations, and does not have large natural reserve of petrol.

Therefore this nation has to develop a very efficient and large rail network, and I am sure it will do so... and it will do it very well.

But this has nothing to do with the technical possibility of running conventional HS trains at speed above 380~ 500 km/h in the near future.




Regards

Last edited by joseph1951; February 14th, 2013 at 04:54 AM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 04:44 AM   #1387
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-
CRH3 velaro has a weight of 17 tons pe axle exactly like the TGV locomotives.......... in 1991 a TGV on reduced formation of 2 loco and six carrigaes reached the speed of 515 km/h.

The IC Velaro IC3 chinese version, reduced to 6 carriages is the one that has reached 487 km/h, (although the German have guaranteed their trains up to 300 km/h in revenue service..). Zefiro HS Trains are not considerably lighter the the Chinese Siemens Velaro.


The active tilting mechanism can be useful to increase up 37% the train speed on very twisted routes , such as conventional routes wiche ha curves of 500-600 metrs radii. Obviously it is of no use on HSLs desgined for 350+ speed limits.

However, in 2011 China had roughly 91000 km of railways lines and only a fraction ot these lines were HSLs. China , like many other Countries needs a small percentage of HSLe and more conventional lines ( with top speeds arount) 160-200 km/h) to be used fo medium and long distance fo passengers and freight trains.

Furthermore of these 91000 km of line only 42 000 are electrified.

Like or not, in order to move efficiently and economically almost 1,5 billion people the Chinese government will have to invest more in new 160-220 km/ conventional mixed traffic pax/and goods lines than in 350-500 (?!) km/h HS lines.

To put things in prosepctive let'cs compare teh German population and rail network with China:
Germany has rougly 81,5 million inhabitant and about 41700 km of lkine of about 17,000 km of line are electrified, while China has about 1, 37 billions inhabitants 92 000 km of railways lines of which 42 000 are electrified.

Clearly to have the same densitity/population railk network ratio of Germany China needs to increase its rail networlk about 17-18 folds and most of the new rail network will have to be made of conventional rail lines. Conventional lines with a top speed of 220 km/h can be used for both passengers and freight trains.

China does not have sufficient enbergy reserve to sustain a massive road trasportantion system
let's say of 75 cars for 100 people. China produces most of its electricity from coal of poor quality, very little from nuclear stations and does not have large natural reserve of petrol. Therefore this nation has to develop a very efficient and large rail network, and I ma sure it will do so, but this has nothing to do with the technical possibility of running trains at speed above 400-500 km/h ....


Regards
Why did you say "....probably have an axle load of at least 22,5t." then?

None of the CRH trains have axle load close to 22.5t figure.

And as I wrote that's the heaviest axle load you can find and it belongs to CRH3.

CRH2 family and CRH380A models have much lower figures (all less than 15t).

487 km/h one is CRH380BL and it is different than vanilla CRH3 because it is tested to run and 380km/h in operation. By the way, it is a 12-car model not 6.

Also, why do you ignore CRH380A which reached 486km/h without any modifications with 16 cars?

Tilting tech is a last-ditch effort to achieve higher speed in an unsuitable line. If you have means of it, it is always better to go with larger turn radius anyway.

Future proofing is an essential part of any infrastructure investment so if a route deserves to have a 200km/h rail in China today, it is probably a better idea to built a 350km/h line anyway for ten years from now. In the future Chinese population will be even more motile then today. However, as a rail fan, I will support almost any rail project anyway
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 11:38 PM   #1388
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post
I took several rides the past 2 weeks and I was wondering how to increase the conventional line capacity in China. 16 to 20 car trains are the current maximum. To increase pax would require lengthening trains to 24/32 cars or loading them as double decker elevators are loaded or increasing the number of trains.
Increasing the number of trains. The problem for passengers are that the few trains which run are often not at the time passengers need them - a few passengers do need to travel at that time, but those who do not find a train to their destination at their time resort to buses, or private cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post
The N, K and L trains often average 66 to 72 kph, a speed
chosen for maximum fuel efficiency in a society with lots of spare time and little money. Offering cheap transport to those who need it is great, but those speeds are literally from the 19th C. and need to be greatly improved. If the cheapest seats on N, K or L sets could be on trains traveling at an average of 140+kph (a clean double) then throughput could be increased.
What are the speeds of competing buses? Of competing private cars?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 03:21 PM   #1389
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Increasing the number of trains. The problem for passengers are that the few trains which run are often not at the time passengers need them - a few passengers do need to travel at that time, but those who do not find a train to their destination at their time resort to buses, or private cars.

What are the speeds of competing buses? Of competing private cars?
If you change one aspect of the system - move the NNNN train time from 225am arrival to 900 am - then a cascade occurs all down the line affecting hundred's more stations, trains and connections.

The avg speed on a long distance bus in the daytime is 92kph, overnight sleeper buses average 72-76 kph, and autos average 60 kph on the trips I have taken.

There is always a reason to stop. The Chinese cannot stay on a road trip and cover for distance and time efficiently. They have to eat constantly. They speed up to 110 and then after 15 minutes drop down to 70kph to save fuel. Or there is construction, another toll gate, or a bridge collapse, or bad weather, heavy traffic, the bus crawls outside the bus station to get more passengers - there is always something that gets in the way of fast, efficient travel.

Which is why the CRH are so awesome.

All of these speeds were timed by me on real trips I took myself.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 03:45 PM   #1390
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

For everyone: the worldwide standard axleload for high speed trainsets is 17 tons. Of course, there are trainsets with lower axle loads. Anything above 17t will pound the rails too much at high speeds.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 08:40 PM   #1391
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by PredyGr View Post
The unsprung mass has stronger effect on the deterioration of track geometry than the axle load. If i remember correctly the effect is 10x compared to that of the axle load.

So i think the gap between PP and EMU is larger, from track friendliness point of view.

Of course the design parameters of the bogie affect the interaction between rail and wheel, so it's not an easy task to find which trainset is more gentle to the track than the other.
Precisely........
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 12:10 AM   #1392
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
Most of the passengers on the line do not ride end to end, so it's a bit pointless to require 380km/h speed, a better time table with better coverage of stops is a better way to serve more people.
Agreed - the timetables are in need of improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
On lines such as Beijing-Shanghai or Beijing-Guangzhou I think it's doable to run a very limited number of almost direct trains daily with 380km/h speed to serve people who really need to be there fast.
There already are 8 pairs of express trains on Beijing-Shanghai having 1 stop (Nanjing, 2 of them - G1-G4) and 2 (Nanjing and Jinan, 6 of them - G11-G22). These all take 4:48 and 4:55 respectively. All other G trains make at least 5 stops and take at least 5:18.

Since the express trains already have to somehow pass the ordinary G trains anyway... if these 8 express trains were sped up to 320 km/h, while leaving the ordinary G trains at 300 km/h, would this cause a big disruption of the ordinary G train operations?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:21 AM   #1393
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar View Post
For everyone: the worldwide standard axleload for high speed trainsets is 17 tons. Of course, there are trainsets with lower axle loads. Anything above 17t will pound the rails too much at high speeds.
Some HSLs have a maximum axle load of 17t and a max incline of 35-40 per thousand, and in curve a supraelevations of the external tracks to 160- 170mm, whilst some other HSLs (also used or planned for mixed traffic) have axle load of 22,5t, and inclines between 12,5 to 18 per thousand and a supraelevation of 105 mm.

Some of them use ballast and some of them are ballastless.

Above speeds of 350 km/h you also have to increase the distance between tracks.

China has a surface of over 9,7 million kmq2, 1.37 billioni inhabitants, and at 2011 it had only 92000 kms of railway tracks..........

In order to moderrnise its trasport system China has to invest heavily in rail and road transport systems.

Clearly this Country has given top priority in investing in a modern railway systems, probably because a decent and modern rail system is more energy efficient and more econoomically sustainable than a road system which contemplate massive use of private cars, such as the USA model of private transport system.

But an efficient model of pubblic rail transport system includes:
1-
Development of metropolitan systems (undergound systems) and urban - commuter rail systems.
2-
Intercities, medium and long distance rail networks. for day a night services (with top operating speed in the region of 160-250 km/h).
3-
National network for freight trains + intercontinental network for freight trains (Eurasian links).


The HSLs rail network will only trasport a minority of rail passengers and the majority of rail passengers will have the needs to commute daily from one side of a Metropolis to another side, and/or to make occasionally medium and long distance journeys (by night or day).

In order to increase rail capacity in the long distance standard trains, wich now crawl behind freight trains at about 66-80 km/h, it is not necessary to lengthen the passenger trains to 32 carriages but it is better to run trains at 200-220-km/h on newly built lines, and these trains can be made of two 6,5~ 7MW locos (top and tail traction) enclosing 14-16 double deck carriages...

On two track modern railway lines equipped with some very modern train control systems, such as the ERTMS 2 o Ertms 3rd level, it is possibile to run 20 thp/per direction (ERTMS 2) or 40 tph/ per direction (ERTMS Level 3).... and up to 500 km/h!


MOR is also investing heavily in freight lines and freight rolling stock (such very powerful Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo Alstom and Siemens built locomotives of about 10.000 kW rating and 120km/h max speed).

The MOR seems to be inclined to act in the way I have just described: it has authorised the construction of CRH6 trains with have top speed varying from 160- to 200/250 km/h, and also acquired a huge number of powerful electrical locos.

Therefore, for the near future I will expect to see and increase in commercial speed and in frequency of services in freight trains and in long distance and commuter trains, and a very small increase in the top commercial speed (320-330?) of the HSTs on some High Speed lines.
__________________

Pansori liked this post

Last edited by joseph1951; February 16th, 2013 at 02:23 AM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 10:02 AM   #1394
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Future proofing is an essential part of any infrastructure investment so if a route deserves to have a 200km/h rail in China today, it is probably a better idea to built a 350km/h line anyway for ten years from now. In the future Chinese population will be even more motile then today. However, as a rail fan, I will support almost any rail project anyway
Building a lot of 200 km/h railway lines now is essential precisely for future proofing.

200 km/h lines are cheaper to build - and, importantly, can support much more stations than the 350 km/h lines.

For the price of 100 km 350 km/h line, with just 2 stations (one per 50 km), China might build 200 or 300 km of 200 km/h lines, with a station each 10 km, and thus 20 or 30 stations instead of 2.

Because what China lacks is lots of branch lines through suburbs and small towns, having stations with actual, fast and frequent service.

And for future proofing, it is important to build them now. If it is delayed then China will need to hack railway corridors through newly built suburbs and demolish a lot of valuable newly built homes. It is better to build railways through empty countryside and let suburbs grow up around tracks, stations and underpasses already in place.
__________________

cfredo, Silver Swordsman liked this post
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 04:04 PM   #1395
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Building a lot of 200 km/h railway lines now is essential precisely for future proofing.

200 km/h lines are cheaper to build - and, importantly, can support much more stations than the 350 km/h lines.
For the price of 100 km 350 km/h line, with just 2 stations (one per 50 km), China might build 200 or 300 km of 200 km/h lines, with a station each 10 km, and thus 20 or 30 stations instead of 2.

Because what China lacks is lots of branch lines through suburbs and small towns, having stations with actual, fast and frequent service.

And for future proofing, it is important to build them now. If it is delayed then China will need to hack railway corridors through newly built suburbs and demolish a lot of valuable newly built homes. It is better to build railways through empty countryside and let suburbs grow up around tracks, stations and underpasses already in place.

Quote
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 07:08 PM   #1396
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Building a lot of 200 km/h railway lines now is essential precisely for future proofing.

200 km/h lines are cheaper to build - and, importantly, can support much more stations than the 350 km/h lines.

For the price of 100 km 350 km/h line, with just 2 stations (one per 50 km), China might build 200 or 300 km of 200 km/h lines, with a station each 10 km, and thus 20 or 30 stations instead of 2.

Because what China lacks is lots of branch lines through suburbs and small towns, having stations with actual, fast and frequent service.

And for future proofing, it is important to build them now. If it is delayed then China will need to hack railway corridors through newly built suburbs and demolish a lot of valuable newly built homes. It is better to build railways through empty countryside and let suburbs grow up around tracks, stations and underpasses already in place.


Keep in mind one critical data: A Chinese rail passenger travels around more than 400km in a single rail journey. Hence, I believe for intercity travel high speed is much more suitable.

Frankly, what you are describing is commuter rail not intercity railway. You can build that type of railroad around Shanghai or Beijing but not between them.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 10:24 PM   #1397
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Keep in mind one critical data: A Chinese rail passenger travels around more than 400km in a single rail journey. Hence, I believe for intercity travel high speed is much more suitable.
This is consequence, not cause, of China having a sucky commuter rail!

A Japanese rail traveler travels around less than 20 km in a single rail journey. And yet high speed IS more suitable for intercity travel, and Japan had longest high speed railways for intercity travel till 2011. Because Japan has BOTH Shinkansens but ALSO the huge commuter rail networks around Tokyo, Osaka etc.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 10:48 PM   #1398
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
This is consequence, not cause, of China having a sucky commuter rail!

A Japanese rail traveler travels around less than 20 km in a single rail journey. And yet high speed IS more suitable for intercity travel, and Japan had longest high speed railways for intercity travel till 2011. Because Japan has BOTH Shinkansens but ALSO the huge commuter rail networks around Tokyo, Osaka etc.
You are interpreting the data wrong. It is definitely not the consequence. A typical Chinese passenger is a student or worker traveling from a large city to his home town houndreds kms away. It is apple and oranges. Japanese data is skewed for two reasons and so is really not suitable to compare it to China. 1) It includes commuter rail numbers 2) distances in Japan are shorter because of the size of the country.

Commuter rail type of network with stations every 10km is a terrible idea for intercity travel. Commuter rail is to commute to your job every day from suburbs or close towns to a big city, they cannot substitute for intercity travel.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 11:33 PM   #1399
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
You are interpreting the data wrong. It is definitely not the consequence. A typical Chinese passenger is a student or worker traveling from a large city to his home town houndreds kms away. It is apple and oranges. Japanese data is skewed for two reasons and so is really not suitable to compare it to China. 1) It includes commuter rail numbers
Precisely. Because Japan HAS commuter rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
2) distances in Japan are shorter because of the size of the country.
Slightly. Japan is smaller, but narrow, therefore the length is not quite that small. Kagoshima to Tokyo is 1326 km by Shinkansen. The Shinkansen trunk line Kagoshima to Aomori is 2000 km - slightly shorter than Beijing-Guangzhou, but not by much. Students and workers STILL have 1000+ km from Tokyo to their hometowns in Kyushu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Commuter rail type of network with stations every 10km is a terrible idea for intercity travel. Commuter rail is to commute to your job every day from suburbs or close towns to a big city, they cannot substitute for intercity travel.
On Tokaido corridor... Taking just Tokyo-Nagoya:
Shinkansen - 342 km, 11 intermediate stops
Main Line - 366 km, I get 85 intermediate stops unless I lost count
Of the 11 Shinkansen stations, 9 are shared with Main Line, and just 2 are not.

Which means that the Main Line can be used to get on train in smaller places, and to connect to Shinkansen for long distance travel.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2013, 03:04 PM   #1400
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

China MOR appears to be doing what you suggest.

They are building a 4+4 grid of 300kph+ long distance lines and then augmenting these with many, MANY 200kph+ lines that are intercity, intracity, medium distance and the less traveled routes.

This phase of the plan there are gaps which could be filled in with 200 to 250kph ballastless lines that could be tweaked up in speed in the future.

Some possibilities to fill in the gaps in the system include:

Xian - Wuhan
Fuzhou - Nanping - Ganzhou - Chenzhou - Kiuzhou - Nanning
Chengdu - Leshan - Zhaotong - Kunming
ZhangJiaKou - UlanQab - Hohhot - Baotou-Bayan Nur
Datong - Ulanqab
Datong - ZhangJiaKou
Yinchuan - Zhongwei - Langzhou
Taiyuan - Yulin - Yinchuan
Datong - Ordos - ShiZuiShan
Wuhan - Fuyang - Xuzhou
Jinan - Weifang - Yantai - Weihai
Weihai - Qingdao - Rizhao - Yanchang - Shanghai
Fuzhou - Nanping - Changsha
Xiamen - Ganzhou - Changsha
Guilin - Chenzhou - Ganzhou - Nanping
__________________

:jax: liked this post

Last edited by China Hand; February 19th, 2013 at 06:32 PM.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium