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 October 1st, 2013, 11:31 AM   #1581
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
So far I have not seen any serious efforts to develop something like the TGV Duplex. When China put CRH6 into service on a lot of the local commuter lines they will solve a lot of the capacity problems, as local traffic will shift away from longer distance HSR trains.
How?
CRH6 speed limit is 250 or 220 km/h. Wouldn´t it cause a serious slowdown of long distance trains?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 1st, 2013, 10:04 PM   #1582
xinxingren
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 269
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
CRH6 speed limit is 250 or 220 km/h. Wouldn´t it cause a serious slowdown of long distance trains?
How so? A slower "local" service will have stations, ie. crossing loops, closer together, letting faster trains pass. This could have a problem that the increased number of points need more maintenance and/or reduce reliability.
xinxingren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2013, 10:15 PM   #1583
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
How?
CRH6 speed limit is 250 or 220 km/h. Wouldn´t it cause a serious slowdown of long distance trains?
They will not run on 350km/h trunk lines, but rather commuter services, but because they serve smaller stations relatively close to big cities people will opt to ride that instead of jamming onto G trains. The idea is in the future when the commuter train network is developed, people traveling from Shanghai to Kunshan will ride the commuter rail served by CRH6, not a G train on the Beijing-Shanghai HSR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xinxingren View Post
How so? A slower "local" service will have stations, ie. crossing loops, closer together, letting faster trains pass. This could have a problem that the increased number of points need more maintenance and/or reduce reliability.
Yes even if they run on the same line measures can be taken to minimize slow downs, but I think the idea is still to largely separate CRH6 (S trains) from regular CRH services. And CRH6 is designed to serve large number of passengers with frequent stops, so I'd imagine it's already taken the increased wear and tear into consideration.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.

Pansori, FM 2258 liked this post
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2013, 11:04 PM   #1584
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
They will not run on 350km/h trunk lines, but rather commuter services,
"Trunk lines" and "commuter services" are not contradicting each other! One is "line" and the other "service".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
but because they serve smaller stations relatively close to big cities people will opt to ride that instead of jamming onto G trains. The idea is in the future when the commuter train network is developed, people traveling from Shanghai to Kunshan will ride the commuter rail served by CRH6, not a G train on the Beijing-Shanghai HSR.
Would they ride on some new built commuter train lines, or on existing trunk railway lines? Like the existing railway line Shanghai-Shanghai West-Anting-Kunshan-Nanjing-Beijing that already was upgraded to 250 km/h between Shanghai West and Anting in 2007?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2013, 05:30 AM   #1585
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

I realized smt when I saw the following picture regarding CRH500/CIT500.



It looks like it has different noses to test. We have seen the beak like nose (car M1) but I don't remember seeing the other one (car M6). Did we see it? Any pictures? From the drawing it looks like CRH380A nose but I am not sure.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 01:58 AM   #1586
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
"Trunk lines" and "commuter services" are not contradicting each other! One is "line" and the other "service".

Would they ride on some new built commuter train lines, or on existing trunk railway lines? Like the existing railway line Shanghai-Shanghai West-Anting-Kunshan-Nanjing-Beijing that already was upgraded to 250 km/h between Shanghai West and Anting in 2007?
Okay, "line" instead of "service." In Shanghai's example it probably will be a combination of a future new dedicated commuter rail line and existing "local" lines (upgraded conventional Shanghai-Nanjing railway and Shanghai Nanjing ICL). But definitely not on Beijing-Shanghai HSR.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 03:34 AM   #1587
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

This is kind of an update for me. I was going to ask why the CRH380C came out after the CRH380D. I got lost in what each CRH380 type was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRH380


CRH380 refers to a series of high speed rail locomotive currently in service in the high speed rail system of China:

CRH380A, introduced in 2010 by China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation Limited.
CRH380B, a Chinese variant of Siemens Velaro produced by Siemens and Tangshan Railway Vehicle.
CRH380C, produced by a joint-venture between Bombardier and CSR Sifang Co Ltd..
CRH380D, the 380km/h variant of Bombardier Zefiro.


Why call them CRH380's if they never plan on running them at 380km/h? Maybe it's kinda like how a street legal sports car is advertized to run at 200mph but people rarely take their car that fast.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 12:16 PM   #1588
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by xinxingren View Post
How so? A slower "local" service will have stations, ie. crossing loops, closer together, letting faster trains pass. This could have a problem that the increased number of points need more maintenance and/or reduce reliability.
Consider the headway.

If the railway is not full then a slower train can simply run sufficient distance ahead of the faster train, so that even as the express train is approaching it, the headway remains sufficient for safety.

While trains on direct track can pass switches at the full speed of 350 km/h, there are obvious physical problems doing so on diverging tracks. From
http://www.railway-technical.com/Inf...acity%20v3.pdf
dated August 2011, it is claimed that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piers Connor
No one has managed to engineer a
turnout to take a speed higher than 200km/h and even that was very expensive
This:
http://www.crbbi.com/En/News/info.php?inid=1300082376
claims that, as of December 2008, the highest speed turnout in China was built for 350 km/h on straight and 160 km/h on diverging track. Well, the Beijing-Shanghai high speed railway presumably has turnouts fit for 380 km/h on straight track, but what is the speed on diverging tracks?

A local train HAS to decelerate from the 300 km/h speed of the chasing express to at least 160 km/h while on the main tracks. And during that deceleration, the chasing express trains is eating into the headway.
And if that express train passes in the station then the local train getting out of the station again faces similar speed limits, so it has to accelerate while on main track, and it is the next express that is eating into headway. Also, if an express train is to pass a local train at station then the express train has to be followed by a previously empty train path, not by another express at a minimum headway.

But the 250 km/h speed limit of CRH6 aggravates the situation seriously, and this is what I was referring to. If a D train has a top speed of 250 km/h throughout then it is eating into the headway of chasing express train not only at the approach and exit from station, but throughout the cruise on the route between stations. So if the line is full, trains with lower top speed are a very serious problem.

Now, how about other lines?

Shanghai West-Anting is supposed to have been upgraded to 250 km/h back in 2007 already. Which trains are now actually using the line at these speeds?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 03:36 PM   #1589
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
That's because both the TGV and the ICE use 2+2 seating in 2nd and 2+1 seating in 1st. Because the Shinkansen is wider it uses 2+3 in 2nd and 2+2 for 1st, so for every row you gain a seat. As far as I can find CRH is the same.
That is correct.

The HSR trains in China and Japan are wider, so they can fit an extra seat on every row.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 03:44 PM   #1590
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
No.
Tokaido Shinkansen does not permit ANY trains that do not have 16 cars. Tokaido Shinkansen also does not permit any trains that do not have exactly 1323 seats, including exactly 200 first class and exactly 1123 second class seat, but no other classes.
This also makes direct trains Tokyo-Kagoshima impossible. Kyushu Shinkansn stations fit only 8 cars, so the 16 car trains from Tokyo physically cannot pass Fukuoka. The 8 car trains from Kagoshima freely travel to Osaka, and there is no physical obstacle to continue to Tokyo - but the 8 train cars are not allowed to pass.

How many Chinese trainsets have 1323 or more seats, like Shinkansen?
When the Tokaido Shinkansen reached capacity in terms of the number of trains they could run, the only option was to increase the seating density.

When some of the Chinese lines reach capacity in the future, we will see the same thing happen.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 07:44 PM   #1591
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by FM 2258 View Post
This is kind of an update for me. I was going to ask why the CRH380C came out after the CRH380D. I got lost in what each CRH380 type was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRH380


CRH380 refers to a series of high speed rail locomotive currently in service in the high speed rail system of China:

CRH380A, introduced in 2010 by China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation Limited.
CRH380B, a Chinese variant of Siemens Velaro produced by Siemens and Tangshan Railway Vehicle.
CRH380C, produced by a joint-venture between Bombardier and CSR Sifang Co Ltd..
CRH380D, the 380km/h variant of Bombardier Zefiro.


Why call them CRH380's if they never plan on running them at 380km/h? Maybe it's kinda like how a street legal sports car is advertized to run at 200mph but people rarely take their car that fast.
They are designed and plan to run at 380km/h, and as CRH380A has demonstrated it can manage much higher speed at 486km/h. If Liu Zhijun didn't fall Beijing-Shanghai HSR will operate at 380km/h by CRH380As. So yeah it's perfectly appropriate to call them CRH380. They were originally planned as CRH400 but was reduced to 380km/h to allow more safety margins.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.

FM 2258 liked this post
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 11:17 PM   #1592
xinxingren
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 269
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
A local train HAS to decelerate from the 300 km/h speed of the chasing express to at least 160 km/h while on the main tracks. And during that deceleration, the chasing express trains is eating into the headway.
And if that express train passes in the station then the local train getting out of the station again faces similar speed limits, so it has to accelerate while on main track, and it is the next express that is eating into headway. Also, if an express train is to pass a local train at station then the express train has to be followed by a previously empty train path, not by another express at a minimum headway.

...
So if the line is full, trains with lower top speed are a very serious problem.
To maximise Return On Investment the line should be full. What is full? The Chinese might regard the PDL as a social service, and thus mix "local" and "express" trains on the same line. They've been doing this on the ordinary lines since the invention of the locomotive, so they've got some practice. A "full" line will be defined as some optimum ratio of local to express traffic, and to achieve this timetabling will have to balance the demand at the various stations, the distances apart of the stops, with the different speeds and accelaration/decelaration of the different trains.

I don't think it's really a "very serious problem" to have to slow a high speed train by 3 minutes on 500km if it means selling 1000 more tickets on another "slow" train doing the middle 200km. The line becomes "full" when increasing traffic, fast or slow, unacceptably increases travel times. Note this is a subjective measure. The solution is to fourtrack the line. Observe also that several segments of Chinese PDL are already effectively four tracked. (Or six tracked if you count the parallel standard track.)
xinxingren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2013, 11:28 PM   #1593
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by xinxingren View Post
The solution is to fourtrack the line. Observe also that several segments of Chinese PDL are already effectively four tracked. (Or six tracked if you count the parallel standard track.)
There is a difference between parallel but separate lines, and actual four tracks.

Parallel but separate lines that intersect only at a few points give few advantages for trains to switch from one line to another, like to start stopping or be passed by another train. Yes, they may overtake on an opposing track, but this has even bigger problems with line capacity!

The advantage of parallel lines, of course, is that they may serve station stops where the other line does not.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2013, 01:24 AM   #1594
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
There is a difference between parallel but separate lines, and actual four tracks.

Parallel but separate lines that intersect only at a few points give few advantages for trains to switch from one line to another, like to start stopping or be passed by another train. Yes, they may overtake on an opposing track, but this has even bigger problems with line capacity!

The advantage of parallel lines, of course, is that they may serve station stops where the other line does not.
Only having a few intersection points on a separate railway is not a big deal.
The major passenger nodes are easily determined, so as long as they interest, they account for almost all of the passenger entries/exits.

There's no point running slower train services to cater for the few passengers travelling from intermediate station to intermediate station.
That's basic railway economics, which you can see on the Tokaido.

Plus you can just have a passing set of tracks when the train in front has stopped at a station.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2013, 10:57 AM   #1595
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
Only having a few intersection points on a separate railway is not a big deal.
The major passenger nodes are easily determined, so as long as they interest, they account for almost all of the passenger entries/exits.

There's no point running slower train services to cater for the few passengers travelling from intermediate station to intermediate station.
That's basic railway economics, which you can see on the Tokaido.
And the basic railway economics is that Kodama trains do run on Tokaido.

Anyway, looking at Jiangnan again.
Shanghai-Suzhou is 84 km.
Shanghai-Beijing high speed railway has 1 intermediate station: Kunshan South.
Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway has 7 intermediate stations in the same route:
Suzhou Industrial Park
Yangcheng Lake
Kunshan South
Huaqiao
Anting North
Nanxiang North
Shanghai West
Also 8th is under construction between Suzhou Industrial Park and Yangcheng Lake, named Weiting West.

On Shanghai-Beijing railway, I could only find trains stopping in 1 station, namely Kunshan without South.

But Anting without North is a named place on the Shanghai-Beijing railway - as suggested by the fact that the station on Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway is Anting North.

Does it mean that an Anting Station exists on Shanghai-Beijing railway?
Which trains stop there?

The names Nanxiang North and Weiting West likewise suggest existence of stations Nanxiang and Weiting.

Compare some other lines:
Taipei to Hsinchu is 78,1 km on Western Line.
The parallel Taiwan High Speed Rail is 66,3 km Taipei to Hsinchu, and has 2 intermediate stations - Banqiao and Taoyuan.
The Western Line has 17 intermediate stations on these 78,1 km, from Wanhua to North Hsinchu.

Tokaido Shinkansen is 76,7 km Tokyo to Odawara, with 2 intermediate stations - Shinagawa and Shin-Yokohama
Tokaido Main Line is 83,9 km Tokyo to Odawara, with 14 intermediate stations, from Shimbashi to Kamonomiya
Odakyu Line is 82,5 km Shinjuku to Odawara, with 45 (sic!) intermediate stations, from Minami-Shinjuku to Ashigara.

Compare Kanto and Jiangnan. Once you have passed Yokohama, less than 30 km from Tokyo, you will encounter only small towns and no big centres. Odawara has population of under 200 000, and is for a reason skipped by Nozomis. Whereas in Jiangnan... Suzhou is a huge centre, but Kunshan also is significant... you are not in a desert after passing Anting 29 km from Shanghai.

Just why would "almost all" passengers be concentrated in the few "major" stations? There should be huge numbers of passengers with origin or destination somewhere around the suburban/rural sprawl between Shanghai and, oh, Wuxi or Changzhou.

So how many stations would be needed between Shanghai and Suzhou to pick up and drop off the passengers of all that sprawl?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2013, 12:44 PM   #1596
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
And the basic railway economics is that Kodama trains do run on Tokaido.

Anyway, looking at Jiangnan again.
Shanghai-Suzhou is 84 km.
Shanghai-Beijing high speed railway has 1 intermediate station: Kunshan South.
Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway has 7 intermediate stations in the same route:
Suzhou Industrial Park
Yangcheng Lake
Kunshan South
Huaqiao
Anting North
Nanxiang North
Shanghai West
Also 8th is under construction between Suzhou Industrial Park and Yangcheng Lake, named Weiting West.

On Shanghai-Beijing railway, I could only find trains stopping in 1 station, namely Kunshan without South.

But Anting without North is a named place on the Shanghai-Beijing railway - as suggested by the fact that the station on Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway is Anting North.

Does it mean that an Anting Station exists on Shanghai-Beijing railway?
Which trains stop there?

The names Nanxiang North and Weiting West likewise suggest existence of stations Nanxiang and Weiting.

Compare some other lines:
Taipei to Hsinchu is 78,1 km on Western Line.
The parallel Taiwan High Speed Rail is 66,3 km Taipei to Hsinchu, and has 2 intermediate stations - Banqiao and Taoyuan.
The Western Line has 17 intermediate stations on these 78,1 km, from Wanhua to North Hsinchu.

Tokaido Shinkansen is 76,7 km Tokyo to Odawara, with 2 intermediate stations - Shinagawa and Shin-Yokohama
Tokaido Main Line is 83,9 km Tokyo to Odawara, with 14 intermediate stations, from Shimbashi to Kamonomiya
Odakyu Line is 82,5 km Shinjuku to Odawara, with 45 (sic!) intermediate stations, from Minami-Shinjuku to Ashigara.

Compare Kanto and Jiangnan. Once you have passed Yokohama, less than 30 km from Tokyo, you will encounter only small towns and no big centres. Odawara has population of under 200 000, and is for a reason skipped by Nozomis. Whereas in Jiangnan... Suzhou is a huge centre, but Kunshan also is significant... you are not in a desert after passing Anting 29 km from Shanghai.

Just why would "almost all" passengers be concentrated in the few "major" stations? There should be huge numbers of passengers with origin or destination somewhere around the suburban/rural sprawl between Shanghai and, oh, Wuxi or Changzhou.

So how many stations would be needed between Shanghai and Suzhou to pick up and drop off the passengers of all that sprawl?
You're getting stuck in the detail, and missing the bigger picture.

Most passengers will want to enter or exit at one of the main interchange points, because that's where most of the people live or can get to easily.

Then you have passengers from smaller stations travelling to one of the main interchange points for work or leisure. They are not normally travelling from one smaller station to another.

So in order to maximise the overall passenger benefit, it makes sense to skip some stations and reduce journey times for the vast majority of passengers.

It's simple to model the expected passenger flows.

And why are you looking at really short commuter rail lines less than 100km long?
Everywhere in the world, they always make a loss. Particularly since Chinese cities are being built up around the automobile which means that cars will normally be cheaper, faster and more comfortable than the train.

China has already had this discussion with the World Bank and other expert organisations. Rail is better suited to longer-distance trips which are profitable. Whilst buses and cars are faster, cheaper and more flexible for short trips.

As you said yourself, it's a sprawl between Nanjing-Shanghai which means fewer passengers. And given the short distances involved, that means it will usually be faster to drive than take the train.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2013, 03:49 PM   #1597
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,978
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
Most passengers will want to enter or exit at one of the main interchange points, because that's where most of the people live or can get to easily.
Not live. Most people live somewhere in the suburban/rural sprawl far from main stations - penthouses near station are too expensive for most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
Then you have passengers from smaller stations travelling to one of the main interchange points for work or leisure.
Most work is again, somewhere in sprawl. Land in CBD is too expensive for factories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
They are not normally travelling from one smaller station to another.
The origin and destination are often in sprawls, of different cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
So in order to maximise the overall passenger benefit, it makes sense to skip some stations and reduce journey times for the vast majority of passengers.
For some trains. It is also important to mix express and stopping trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
And why are you looking at really short commuter rail lines less than 100km long?
Because that is where CRH6s are vital. And CRH6 is a high speed trainset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
China has already had this discussion with the World Bank and other expert organisations. Rail is better suited to longer-distance trips which are profitable. Whilst buses and cars are faster, cheaper and more flexible for short trips.
Yet China has built short distance railways, too. Like the newbuilt Shanghai Metro line 22 - 56 km.
Yet its performance is a joke.
32 minutes nonstop is not that bad, but 60 minutes with 6 stops... absurdly slow.
Compare Helsinki-Hyvinkää. 59 km. An old railway - route opened back in 1861. Just 29 km is quadruple track - the rest is double track, has to be shared with express trains and freight.

R trains travel Helsinki-Hyvinkää in 41 minutes, with 5 intermediate stops. There is one R train per hour departing each hour 5:19 to 23:19.
H trains still complete the trip in 49 minutes - and manage 9 intermediate stops - 2 minutes extra per stop. Again, 1 train each hour, same schedule 5:48 to 22:48.
Only T trains take 64 minutes, and make 20 intermediate stops. They only run early at night, 23:31 to 1:31.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
As you said yourself, it's a sprawl between Nanjing-Shanghai which means fewer passengers.
Enough to need trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
And given the short distances involved, that means it will usually be faster to drive than take the train.
Only if trains are poorly organized.
The H trains I just quoted sustain 86 km/h average with 5 stops in 59 km.
Cars are limited to what, 40...70 km/h on streets. Buses are limited to the same top speeds and also have to make intermediate stops.

Which is why CRH6 is important. With top speeds 160...250 km/h it could outrun the cars even on 120 km/h expressways, and with good acceleration and dwell times it could limit the time lost at stations to be caught up with.
__________________

FM 2258 liked this post
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2013, 11:52 PM   #1598
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Not live. Most people live somewhere in the suburban/rural sprawl far from main stations - penthouses near station are too expensive for most.

Most work is again, somewhere in sprawl. Land in CBD is too expensive for factories.

The origin and destination are often in sprawls, of different cities.

For some trains. It is also important to mix express and stopping trains.

Because that is where CRH6s are vital. And CRH6 is a high speed trainset.

Yet China has built short distance railways, too. Like the newbuilt Shanghai Metro line 22 - 56 km.
Yet its performance is a joke.
32 minutes nonstop is not that bad, but 60 minutes with 6 stops... absurdly slow.
Compare Helsinki-Hyvinkää. 59 km. An old railway - route opened back in 1861. Just 29 km is quadruple track - the rest is double track, has to be shared with express trains and freight.

R trains travel Helsinki-Hyvinkää in 41 minutes, with 5 intermediate stops. There is one R train per hour departing each hour 5:19 to 23:19.
H trains still complete the trip in 49 minutes - and manage 9 intermediate stops - 2 minutes extra per stop. Again, 1 train each hour, same schedule 5:48 to 22:48.
Only T trains take 64 minutes, and make 20 intermediate stops. They only run early at night, 23:31 to 1:31.

Enough to need trains.

Only if trains are poorly organized.
The H trains I just quoted sustain 86 km/h average with 5 stops in 59 km.
Cars are limited to what, 40...70 km/h on streets. Buses are limited to the same top speeds and also have to make intermediate stops.

Which is why CRH6 is important. With top speeds 160...250 km/h it could outrun the cars even on 120 km/h expressways, and with good acceleration and dwell times it could limit the time lost at stations to be caught up with.
I think you're really confused about the spatial geography involved. Serving everyone with a direct train from their homes to their workplace has a cost, which is why stations have feeder connections.

The optimal railway route would actually have the FEWEST number of stations required in order to run at full capacity - because each extra station imposes a time and cost penalty for the overall system.

And you're confused about why the CRH6 is important. It's not the top speed that is important, because even old conventional trains can reach 160km/h. It's the fact that it is an EMU trainset which has much better acceleration/deceleration performance - which means stopping at an extra station imposes less of a penalty in terms of time and line capacity.

And why on earth are you bring Line 22 into this? It's was converted from a railway line with some spare capacity, and now carries both passenger and freight trains.

And your comments on buses and cars don't make sense. You have to take into account BRT and express bus lanes, as well as expressways where cars can travel at 120km/h.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2013, 01:31 AM   #1599
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
They are designed and plan to run at 380km/h, and as CRH380A has demonstrated it can manage much higher speed at 486km/h. If Liu Zhijun didn't fall Beijing-Shanghai HSR will operate at 380km/h by CRH380As. So yeah it's perfectly appropriate to call them CRH380. They were originally planned as CRH400 but was reduced to 380km/h to allow more safety margins.
It almost seems like a sore subject on this thread when I talk about running faster than 300km/h because the issue of wear and tear on the trains and high speed infrastructure comes up as the reason the CRH380 doesn't run at 380km/h, trains run at 300km/h on lines designed for 350km/h and lastly the CRH500 is just a concept because running it at 500km/h will be completely unfeasible due to physics and maintenance costs do to running so fast.

I hope another speed up campaign comes up. It's too bad what happened with Liu Zhijun caused the momentum of High Speed rail in China to slow down.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2013, 01:23 PM   #1600
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by FM 2258 View Post
It almost seems like a sore subject on this thread when I talk about running faster than 300km/h because the issue of wear and tear on the trains and high speed infrastructure comes up as the reason the CRH380 doesn't run at 380km/h, trains run at 300km/h on lines designed for 350km/h and lastly the CRH500 is just a concept because running it at 500km/h will be completely unfeasible due to physics and maintenance costs do to running so fast.

I hope another speed up campaign comes up. It's too bad what happened with Liu Zhijun caused the momentum of High Speed rail in China to slow down.
There's two sides to it.

First is how much extra it costs to run at 380km/h.

The other side is how much they can charge for these trains, which is dependent on how high wages are. And remember wages are almost certainly going to double well inside of the next 5years.
Restless 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 04:46 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