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 April 11th, 2012, 11:20 PM   #3881
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
You are well and truly in fantasy world now!
Re-read your posts over the last few pages, then talk about the fantasy world.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 11th, 2012, 11:50 PM   #3882
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Shenzhen North was only built last year, and surrounded by... literally a dump. The detractors in this thread may despise the overly large, greenfield stations away from the city center, but these stations are heavily used, and the areas around the stations are vibrant.
More Shenzhen (metro this case) stations surrounded by dumps. Not on greenfields - rather brownfields, or beige like the earth is...
Liyumen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcmaste...n/photostream/
Shenkang:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcmaste...n/photostream/
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #3883
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,215
Likes (Received): 1782

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Re-read your posts over the last few pages, then talk about the fantasy world.
Oh shut up. You come out of hiding every now and again just to spout your usual predictable hatred towards your so-called neo-liberal planning, spouting examples that are either completely spurious or totally irrelevant. This is the 'China HSR' thread not the 'I must grind my axe again after 6 months' thread.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 03:08 AM   #3884
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post


All we know is that he's the Stig's Anti HSR cousin.

LOL, really good one
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 08:53 AM   #3885
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Going north from Hong Kong, the following is a rough outline of the train journey:

On the Mainland side, the trains first stop off at Luohu in the Shenzhen center, then to Shenzhen North,
Which Shenzhen North?
The Sungang Station?

The passenger stations on Kowloon-Canton railway are:
in Shenzhen:
Luohu
Buji
Pinghu
in Dongguan:
Tiantangwei
Tangtouxia
Zhangmutou
Dongguan
Hengli
Nanshe
Chashan
Shilong
in Zengcheng:
Shitan
Xiancun
Shapu
Xintang
in Guangzhou:
Nangang
Jishan
Shipai
Guangzhou East
Guangzhou.
Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
then through a bunch of tiny stations in less urbanized/less developed Dongguan, then to Guangzhou East, then to the main Guangzhou station.

Dongguan's rail terminals are waiting to be refurbished/expanded. As of now the place is a mess. Dongguan is building its elevated rail system, when it starts running and connects with the intercity railway stations, the city should start to ease its reliance on the car. The Shenzhen and Guangzhou stations are heavily used. These four stations, Shenzhen, Shenzhen North, Guangzhou East, and Guangzhou are all served by multiple subway lines. Guangzhou East was built in 1990. Now it's surrounded by a business district. Shenzhen North was only built last year, and surrounded by... literally a dump. The detractors in this thread may despise the overly large, greenfield stations away from the city center, but these stations are heavily used, and the areas around the stations are vibrant. Because these cities are still overcrowded and their populations are expanding, the traditional city centers have NOT been harmed by the building of the new stations.
Kowloon-Canton Railway is also 4 tracked throughout, and was upgraded to 200 km/h already in 1998.

How has it been afflicted by Second Slowdown Campaign?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 12:20 PM   #3886
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Which Shenzhen North?

Kowloon-Canton Railway is also 4 tracked throughout, and was upgraded to 200 km/h already in 1998.

How has it been afflicted by Second Slowdown Campaign?

I should have made myself more clear. I was on the high speed rail line, Shenzhen North, the one with transfer points to the Shenzhen subway lines 4 and 5. To be honest I didn't notice much of a slowdown, maybe the relatively wide open areas of Dongguan county?

While on the HSR, I noticed the slower parallel trains running. The eastern half of the Pearl River Delta is especially heavily populated, and one of the few places that warrants a four track scheme, especially when many other areas aren't yet served at all.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 12:42 PM   #3887
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Oh shut up. You come out of hiding every now and again just to spout your usual predictable hatred towards your so-called neo-liberal planning, spouting examples that are either completely spurious or totally irrelevant. This is the 'China HSR' thread not the 'I must grind my axe again after 6 months' thread.
Touchy, touchy. Take a gander at what you've written.

I wasn't around for a long time because I was busy working. if I were around and posting things that went against your concepts, you could have accused me of wasting my life online. You were the one who initially dredged up the topic of aesthetics and its inevitable car dependency in a thread about railroads. Off base?

Neo-liberalism refers to an ideologically driven process of privatizing state assets and deregulation. In short, it intends to starve the state. Unfortunately rail-based public transportation is both an essential service, and is a natural monopoly. Thus there are parallels between the privatizing of British Rail and the London Underground, and similar efforts to stifle funding of US public transit, along with attempts to auction off the few profitable rail lines. Unfortunately unlike government, businesses aim to maximize their profit. Everything else is subordinate. Thus deregulated, privatized rail transit generally leads to a dearth of investment, and the hiking of fare revenue from an often captive consumers.


Your editorials are disturbingly similar to the editorials of the various neo-liberal urban planning media outlets/think tanks/shills. Here are a few which publish articles on urban planning and transportation:

newgeography.com, nextamericancity.org, uli.org, theatlantic.com, stuff from abc news/disney (disney is a huge landowner/developer and also publishes books lauding its own urbanism). Here's what they all stress:

-historicist facades, small blocks, "human" scale, narrow roads staving off car dependency

-the inevitable ineptitude and corruption of central planning

-lip service to the need for public transit investment, but dire warnings of its implementation, constant criticisms of its financial affordability, and instant, grandiose and impossible expectations, etc.

Sound familiar to what you've written? The lauding of historicist facades and an idealized sentimentalism on otherwise car-dependent suburbia is a diversionary tactic of the real estate industry. The theory connecting aesthetics and behavior (in this case car dependency) is called environmental determinism. You've mentioned it, and the real estate industry swears by it. It also makes as much sense as me wearing a crown and suddenly morphing into a king. The correlation has been measured to be between zero and something statistically insignificant.

As the US real estate industry essentially funds these think tanks, the think tanks publicize what they want you to hear. Suburbia with Disney aesthetics sell. But conflating aesthetics with urbanity is disingenuous and self-serving. Strangely these guys are prevalent in the UK as well. The Krier brothers proselytize the importance of aesthetics, and are both bankrolled by the largest land developers on both sides of the Atlantic.

I get a laugh from your (repeated) comparisons between development in China and what occurs in the US. Apart from relatively wide open ground level spaces (see my earlier post, hopefully you won't argue against the laws of thermodynamics), there's really nothing in common. Let's see, china has the higher densities, continuous investment in public transit, etc. when was the last time a high capacity subway line was built in the US? I'm willing to bet that you've never set foot in the States. Many of the newer developments in the US DO look and function like newer British suburbia, as both nations have neo-liberal developer-led planning. All the aesthetics, little of the traditional investment in infrastructure.

Despite your continued connection between a mythically sprawling china and a mythically brutalist US, much of China's planning follows the practices of Hong Kong and Singapore. Both of these now-developed places have many similarities to the large urban areas of eastern China. They have humid-cooling climates, very high densities, continuous investment in public transit, relatively wide roads to facilitate the movement of vehicles, grade-separated pedestrian bridges, very large blocks, minimum density requirements, etc. Somehow I'm willing to bet you've never set foot in either Hong Kong nor Singapore. Surprise surprise, the neoliberal, developer funded editorials ignore this seemingly incomprehensible combination of brutalist aesthetics, open-ground level areas, lack of historicist architecture, inhumane scale, AND functioning urbanity with little car dependency.

Here's one final point about neo-liberalism and the Chinese MOR. Some faux reformers in China argue that the MOR should be sold off. They reason that state control of the railroads inevitably results in corruption and mismanagement. Well... they should look at privatized, essential service monopolies in other places.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #3888
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
I should have made myself more clear. I was on the high speed rail line, Shenzhen North, the one with transfer points to the Shenzhen subway lines 4 and 5.
The high speed railway goes from Longhua Station through Guangming Station in Shenzhen, Humen Station in Dongguan and Qingsheng Station in Guangzhou to Guangzhou South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
To be honest I didn't notice much of a slowdown, maybe the relatively wide open areas of Dongguan county?
There hasnīt been any. Longhua-Guangzhou South railway was opened in December 2011, after the Slowdown Campaign, and has never exceeded 300 km/h.
Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
While on the HSR, I noticed the slower parallel trains running. The eastern half of the Pearl River Delta is especially heavily populated, and one of the few places that warrants a four track scheme, especially when many other areas aren't yet served at all.
The Kowloon-Canton railway, 4 track throughout, never meets the high speed railway, being well to the east and northeast everywhere.

The fastest remaining train Luohu-Guangzhou East (139 km) is D7170, taking 1:09 with stops at Zhangmutuo, Dongguan and Shilong. Most trains take 1:19 for the same stops.

On the HSR (102 km) the fastest trains are nonstop trains (0:28) which all continue beyond Guangzhou South to Changsha or beyond. Slowest G trains take 49 minutes with all stops.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 12:56 PM   #3889
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
This topic never disappoints.

Some say China is over-investing on high speed rail forgetting it has more than a billion people to move.

Some say China should double the high speed rail lines forgetting it will require another trillion dollar.

Some say Chinese trains are running too slow, cannot compete with air travel, forgetting they have the fastest average speed.

Some say Chinese trains are too fast, uneconomical, forgetting they are the most efficient way of mass transit.

Interesting, though. Fun to discuss.
It actually sounds like the stuff one hears throughout North America on a daily basis. There is a desire amongst the general public for sound public transit, yet there are countless opponents; airlines, oil companies, "austerity" driven politicians, etc

Instead of anything pragmatic, many "urban" things here consist of lifestyle stuff--drinking beer at dive bars, talking about cool movies, other useless diversions. Read the "city discussions" section of skyscraperpage. It's so absurd, I can't bring myself to post there.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 01:02 PM   #3890
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Sorry, I stayed at a hotel by the Shenzhen North station. I took the subway and used the Buji and Luohu stations to transfer to the train. Then it was off to Guangzhou East.

Mind you, this was late summer of last year, about the time of the Universiade. Missed Guangzhou South, but did get to wander through an almost-completed Shenzhen North train station.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 02:12 PM   #3891
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,215
Likes (Received): 1782

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post

The usual load of bilge.
You seem to think you possess mind-reading powers - well if you do they are exceedingly comical. Those points taken in isolation are not completely nonsensical, but they bare no relation to the discussion at hand whatsoever. You construct a straw-man and claim I promote privatisation and faux-historical aesthetics, yet I have never said such things. While I respond to other people's point once in a brief post, it is you who decides to engage in wild speculation and talk at length about neo-liberalism which is an extremely tangential subject. Alright, I'll just respond to you for once.

You seem to laud the success of Chinese planning as long as car use is a little lower than in America, even though just a 10% car use makes the roads gridlocked and fills the air with smog (car numbers in Beijing is on par with London, and car use in the former is higher). You don't care that long journey times, inadequate connections and lack of multiplicity of land use is driving more and more towards the car just because in percentage terms car-use is still a little lower. Due to that big chip on your shoulder any remote criticism of Chinese transport planning approach must come from the anti-public transport and neo-liberal brigade.

Nobody is questionning the need for metro lines to be built in cities or for HSR to be extensively built throughout the country, but these hard truths you cannot ignore -

Firstly - inadequate connections between local buses and metro and often long and circuitous walks mean that it's still quicker to take the car; and lack of bus priority on China's generous roads means people are forced onto the metro for short to medium distances which push some people into their car because the metro is too crowded.

And secondly, back on topic, even though CRH has some of the highest operational speeds in the world, remote station locations, entry procedures and lack of thought given to slow/fast services mean the Beijing - Shanghai line is hardly competitive against air, when the air-route ought to have been killed by now.

It's not just a case of 'things are at their infancy problems will be ironed out eventually', no its goes much deeper than that.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 02:29 PM   #3892
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post

Some say China should double the high speed rail lines forgetting it will require another trillion dollar.

Some say Chinese trains are running too slow, cannot compete with air travel, forgetting they have the fastest average speed.

Some say Chinese trains are too fast, uneconomical, forgetting they are the most efficient way of mass transit.
Both are true. Which is why many high speed rail lines need doubling - or efficient integration with existing rails.

For high speed trains could, and should, compete with BOTH air travel at high speed, and with buses and private cars at price, and the convenience of stopping near destination.

It is the need to meet these 2 disparate goals at 2 disparate speeds that requires double BUT mutually integrated high speed railway networks.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 02:35 PM   #3893
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,215
Likes (Received): 1782

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Both are true. Which is why many high speed rail lines need doubling - or efficient integration with existing rails.

For high speed trains could, and should, compete with BOTH air travel at high speed, and with buses and private cars at price, and the convenience of stopping near destination.

It is the need to meet these 2 disparate goals at 2 disparate speeds that requires double BUT mutually integrated high speed railway networks.
+1. Well said.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 04:02 PM   #3894
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Nobody is questionning the need for metro lines to be built in cities or for HSR to be extensively built throughout the country, but these hard truths you cannot ignore -

Firstly - inadequate connections between local buses and metro and often long and circuitous walks mean that it's still quicker to take the car; and lack of bus priority on China's generous roads
Bus priority is the wrong approach.

Wherever buses need priority is where you need electric transport - and then not buses. Where buses are needed is the last mile in sparsely settled countryside and suburbs - and there they do not need priority.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 06:18 PM   #3895
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,215
Likes (Received): 1782

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Bus priority is the wrong approach.

Wherever buses need priority is where you need electric transport - and then not buses. Where buses are needed is the last mile in sparsely settled countryside and suburbs - and there they do not need priority.
Metro doesn't provide enough penetration to population and business centres, and not enough capacity either. For medium to short distances rail isn't always convenient, and buses can provide valuable round-the-corner links.

This is where I would indeed look to Hong Kong and Singapore, where buses provide convenient and speedy trunk services which complement their rail networks effectively. Their buses are double deckers providing plenty of seats, which make a change from the packed metro carriages.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 07:06 PM   #3896
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

of course, ignore the actual arguments, and go for the lines about

-how it looks
-how it will inevitably not work
-ask for high capacity networks, then whine about the Pearl River Delta's railway system later



Quote:
You seem to laud the success of Chinese planning as long as car use is a little lower than in America, even though just a 10% car use makes the roads gridlocked and fills the air with smog (car numbers in Beijing is on par with London, and car use in the former is higher). You don't care that long journey times, inadequate connections and lack of multiplicity of land use is driving more and more towards the car just because in percentage terms car-use is still a little lower. Due to that big chip on your shoulder any remote criticism of Chinese transport planning approach must come from the anti-public transport and neo-liberal brigade.
Re-read your comments from the previous pages. You again led a cabal of critics with the "it sure looks autocentric, thus it is autocentric" tripe.

You've never been to the States. Yet you harp on the China is almost the States myth. Hell, you've never been to Hong Kong/Singapore which DOES serve as a model. If you had personal knowledge of these places, your editorials wouldn't be so laughable.

One more thing about private vehicle use in developing countries. It's not guaranteed to go higher, though you hold it as a mantra. I had to research the history while in school. A generation ago similar developer-funded periodicals editorialized that the bourgeois in Hong Kong and Singapore would not take to their then-nascent and supposedly impractical and outlandish transit system investment. These people were too vain, the aesthetics were too dystopian, etc. Sound similar to the argument you're using now?
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 08:40 PM   #3897
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Metro doesn't provide enough penetration to population and business centres, and not enough capacity either. For medium to short distances rail isn't always convenient, and buses can provide valuable round-the-corner links.
Yes, but so can trams and trolleybuses.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 11:30 PM   #3898
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Both are true. Which is why many high speed rail lines need doubling - or efficient integration with existing rails.

For high speed trains could, and should, compete with BOTH air travel at high speed, and with buses and private cars at price, and the convenience of stopping near destination.

It is the need to meet these 2 disparate goals at 2 disparate speeds that requires double BUT mutually integrated high speed railway networks.
Well yes, there is already projects for really highly used routes so no worries, right

[IMG]http://i41.************/zv5yjl.png[/IMG]

Once the speed increases back to 350km/h (or more) it will be more competitive, too.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2012, 08:15 AM   #3899
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Well yes, there is already projects for really highly used routes so no worries, right
Thanks!
What are the selection criteria for this map?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2012, 12:58 AM   #3900
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
Thanks!
What are the selection criteria for this map?
Those are dedicated intercity lines (ICL) in China, it's a older maps so at the time only red lines were completed.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china, high speed rail

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 04:22 PM.


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