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 December 8th, 2015, 04:42 PM   #10441
gowallstmichael
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 48
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by allanni View Post
I'm planning to take China high speed train early next year.
You had better not take a trip in China during the Spring Festival Travel Period unless necessary.
Imagining the crowd...haha
Wish you lucky!
gowallstmichael no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 8th, 2015, 06:21 PM   #10442
stoneybee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
Likes (Received): 28

Well, not sure whether this video link has been posted here before or whether anyone has seen it.

This is the official "China Standard HSR Trainset" promotional video. It is pretty neat, so enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7IFQUkgchc

I also attached the CRH6 promotional video below for anyone interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyftTGcWii4
__________________

gowallstmichael, FM 2258 liked this post
stoneybee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2015, 06:18 AM   #10443
luhai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 647
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinan View Post
I've heard rumors that China is planning on putting back the old speed limits (from before the Wenzhou crash)

Can anyone confirm or deny?
Being in the rumor mill for a long time now, the reason is the president of China Railway Construction Corporation and representative make a statement in the March session of China's congress, "most of China's HSR is built for 350 k/m operational speed and have shown to be safe*. However, the speed has reduced in recent year, it is a waste of resources.

http://news.ifeng.com/a/20151015/45064111_0.shtml
http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2015-03-07/080231579018.shtml


在2015年3月全国两会期间,全国政协委员、中铁建总裁赵广发提出,中国很多高铁的规划、设计、建设基本都是按350公里的时速,但近两年降速了,“这是浪费”。

However, there is no statement from China Railway Corporation.


* Ironically, Wenzhou crash occurred on 250 km/h D trains going at 99 km/h.
__________________

FM 2258 liked this post

Last edited by luhai; December 9th, 2015 at 06:29 AM.
luhai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 12:37 PM   #10444
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
* Ironically, Wenzhou crash occurred on 250 km/h D trains going at 99 km/h.
Which lends credence to the argument that the real reason for the slowdown was that it was uneconomical rather than unsafe to run at those speeds.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 01:45 PM   #10445
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6911

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
Which lends credence to the argument that the real reason for the slowdown was that it was uneconomical rather than unsafe to run at those speeds.
To my best memory the slowdown was announced (or shall we say implied) before the crash anyway. Almost certainly nothing to do with safety but most likely due to reasons such as cost management and reduction of wear and tear of trains and track (where 50km/h indeed make a significant difference).

The main purpose of 350km/h services (as opposed to 300km/h) was to demonstrate that China can sustain services and technology of this kind (i.e. faster trains than elsewhere). It achieved that goal without problems. After that there wasn't much of a need to do that while reasons not to do that were pretty significant.
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 01:59 PM   #10446
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pansori View Post
most likely due to reasons such as cost management and reduction of wear and tear of trains and track (where 50km/h indeed make a significant difference).

The main purpose of 350km/h services (as opposed to 300km/h) was to demonstrate that China can sustain services and technology of this kind
I would see a few headline lines like Beijing to Shanghai getting a speed increase, not all of them. China is not quite as short on electricity now as it was back then either.

I agree with all the above bar those two observations. It was prudent to dial back speeds anyway and probably not driven by the crash itself.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 03:25 PM   #10447
flankerjun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Shenyang/Wuhan
Posts: 461
Likes (Received): 1230

Zhengzhou-Xuzhou HSR,construction began on Dec 26,2012,the day that Beijing-Guangzhou line open
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhzz View Post
Zhengzhou-Xuzhou HSR construction in Henan Province,central China.
1.

2.


---------
xinhuanet
__________________

8166UY, Norge78, FM 2258, big-dog liked this post

Last edited by flankerjun; December 10th, 2015 at 03:33 PM.
flankerjun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 04:06 PM   #10448
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjrgx View Post
not in the near term, as there are national security concerns on Hainan Strait tunnel/bridge, but Guangzhou-Maoming is already under construction (open in 2017-18), Maoming-Zhanjiang section already finished
Do we know what the concerns are? I always assumed Hainan was a pretty stable area.
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 07:12 PM   #10449
tjrgx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,044
Likes (Received): 2816

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Do we know what the concerns are? I always assumed Hainan was a pretty stable area.
South China Sea is not..... there is Chinese navy presence there in Hainan
tjrgx está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 08:01 PM   #10450
urbanfan89
Registered User
 
urbanfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,502
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Do we know what the concerns are? I always assumed Hainan was a pretty stable area.
Sanya is a major naval base, so the railway tunnel is extremely important.
urbanfan89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 09:58 PM   #10451
luhai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 647
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Do we know what the concerns are? I always assumed Hainan was a pretty stable area.
China has long refrained from put assets in Hainan because the location is extremely vulnerable to air strikes. (American Carriers, Soviet Bases in Vuetnam, American Bases the Philippines).It's there isn't a lot of infrastructure in Fujian in the oast as well.

However, in the past years, thing has changed. Either China either thinks likelihood of War has decreased or their are more confident about protecting their assets. They has so far put a space port in Hainan, a major naval base there, now this HSR route. So I don't see a bridge being put off due to security concerns, especially consdiering the expensive space port.
luhai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 11:04 PM   #10452
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by luhai View Post
China has long refrained from put assets in Hainan because the location is extremely vulnerable to air strikes. (American Carriers, Soviet Bases in Vuetnam, American Bases the Philippines).It's there isn't a lot of infrastructure in Fujian in the oast as well.

However, in the past years, thing has changed. Either China either thinks likelihood of War has decreased or their are more confident about protecting their assets. They has so far put a space port in Hainan, a major naval base there, now this HSR route. So I don't see a bridge being put off due to security concerns, especially consdiering the expensive space port.
Well, rockets launched closer to the equator at Hainan benefit from a greater speed (and therefore payload) boost when they launch.

And China needs a new naval base anyway as they've been increasing the size of the fleet. Plus China now needs to cover the South China Sea and provide a long-distance presence in the Indian Ocean, so Hainan is the closest major landmass. The ships based there have significant air defence capabilities.

And they've recently built yet another airbase on Hainan as well.

So I'd say it is a combination of better protection for Hainan and greater need for better space capabilities and railway transport. Plus I would say that the risk of a war has reduced, partly because China has become a more fearsome opponent, but which still focuses on economic development as the first priority.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 11:19 PM   #10453
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pansori View Post
To my best memory the slowdown was announced (or shall we say implied) before the crash anyway. Almost certainly nothing to do with safety but most likely due to reasons such as cost management and reduction of wear and tear of trains and track (where 50km/h indeed make a significant difference).

The main purpose of 350km/h services (as opposed to 300km/h) was to demonstrate that China can sustain services and technology of this kind (i.e. faster trains than elsewhere). It achieved that goal without problems. After that there wasn't much of a need to do that while reasons not to do that were pretty significant.
Energy consumption is velocity squared, so going from 300km/h to 350km/h results in a 17% speed increase, but 36% more electricty

And from what I recall, track wear models are based on velocity squared as well.

I also suspect that the speed increase is related to the need to provide more capacity. Aren't the trains getting full now?

And with the speed increase, I reckon it will shave off around 37min from current fastest journey time of 4h48m.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2015, 11:31 PM   #10454
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6911

Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
Energy consumption is velocity squared, so going from 300km/h to 350km/h results in a 17% speed increase, but 36% more electricty

And from what I recall, track wear models are based on velocity squared as well.

I also suspect that the speed increase is related to the need to provide more capacity. Aren't the trains getting full now?

And with the speed increase, I reckon it will shave off around 37min from current fastest journey time of 4h48m.
Speed increase won't improve capacity. Or improve it marginally.

However the boarding procedure in Chinese HSR stations is beyond absurd. It is and will remain the main capacity constraint and bottleneck if no changes will be made.
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 01:52 AM   #10455
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
I would see a few headline lines like Beijing to Shanghai getting a speed increase, not all of them. China is not quite as short on electricity now as it was back then either.

I agree with all the above bar those two observations. It was prudent to dial back speeds anyway and probably not driven by the crash itself.
They could indeed try to squeeze in some extra super fast direct connections for the extra buck to pay the costs of the extra speed.

But I guess the line capacity won't allow it easily.

Maybe going Maglev seems a better option for those kind of services.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 03:17 AM   #10456
BEE2
Registered User
 
BEE2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Likes (Received): 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pansori View Post
To my best memory the slowdown was announced (or shall we say implied) before the crash anyway. Almost certainly nothing to do with safety but most likely due to reasons such as cost management and reduction of wear and tear of trains and track (where 50km/h indeed make a significant difference).

The main purpose of 350km/h services (as opposed to 300km/h) was to demonstrate that China can sustain services and technology of this kind (i.e. faster trains than elsewhere). It achieved that goal without problems. After that there wasn't much of a need to do that while reasons not to do that were pretty significant.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a rumor saying domestic politics was involved with the speed
reduction of Chinese HSR.
BEE2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 06:11 AM   #10457
flankerjun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Shenyang/Wuhan
Posts: 461
Likes (Received): 1230

CNR Changchun,they produce a train very two days




__________________
flankerjun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 06:50 AM   #10458
luhai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 647
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pansori View Post
Speed increase won't improve capacity. Or improve it marginally.

However the boarding procedure in Chinese HSR stations is beyond absurd. It is and will remain the main capacity constraint and bottleneck if no changes will be made.
Agreed, the boarding procedure is a holdover from an era where train tickets are a scarce resource and people routinely try to sneak on trains. (Not to fault them, as it was impossible to obtain train tickets due to huge demand for transports.) Well, the problem is train tickets are still a scarce resource now, and if the control are relaxed it's hard to say if the chaos and crowded trains of the 1980s and early 1990s would not return.


I remember being about to walk onto the platform without anything, and tickets on only checked on the train itself, there was no one checks ticket on station exits as well; (1985, I believe) Later, they added ticket checks on station exists, then guests [people without pre-purchased tickets] are required to purchase platform tickets; then only people with tickets are allowed on platforms, which made it impossible to board a train without a ticket, and purchase it later on the train. i.e 补票. (Remember the problem is not trying to get money from people to pay tickets, but to keep crowd control on the trains so people will not end up in the area between carriages, hallways, luggage rails or worse.) ; then tickets are check while entering the station itself (I believe it that happen after the Kunming terror attack last year, I believe. Since I didn't need to do that in 2012, but had to in 2015). Perhaps when Chinese people are rich enough, and tickets are easier enough to obtain, there would be no need to gate people to do ticket checks all the times, but just like the ticket checks are gradually increased over a period of 30 years, I don't see the practice and scarcity issue to suddenly go away.





__________________

FM 2258 liked this post

Last edited by luhai; December 11th, 2015 at 11:11 AM.
luhai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 11:22 AM   #10459
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by luhai View Post
Perhaps when Chinese people are rich enough, and tickets are easier enough to obtain, there would be no need to gate people to do ticket checks all the times, but just like the ticket checks are gradually increased over a period of 30 years, I don't see the practice and scarcity issue to suddenly go away.
People getting richer does not diminish demand for travel. What would be needed is actual expansion in the number of train services provided, and seats available.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2015, 05:56 PM   #10460
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153


Or airline-style demand-management pricing.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon 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 09:24 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