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 30th, 2009, 12:09 PM   #1041
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,980
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaricManchurian View Post
there's still the bus which is generally cheaper, since there's competition, and even the ultra poor in China can save the 55RMB (about 4 hours' wages) over the course of a month to go somewhere if they really have to do it. Most people in China have substantial savings, and it is very rare that someone doesn't have savings or can't ask for money from their family.
Let us count the options. Picking the line Guangzhou-Changsha, because at thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...014837&page=10

HunanChina was so kind as to provide an excerpt of a timetable.

Suppose that you were in Guangzhou on a business trip or working weekdays, get done in the evening (or Friday evening) and want to return to Changsha by next morning (or Saturday morning).

You can fly. 1:30 in the air, plus time spent in airport, plus getting to and from airports. The price is said to be typically RMB800 in coach. Probably more in business class which also is an option.

You could take CRH. Morning train G1022 takes 2:15, arrives 9:15.

First class seat costs RMB499 - just 60% of airfare and gives better seat. Second class seat costs RMB312 - under 40 % of coach ticket and roughly as comfortable. But train is always more comfortable than plane, because there is no buckling for takeoff and landing.

Or you can take slow train overnight.

Except for K437/K436 (perhaps it takes a different, longer route?) the K trains have the same price. K9004 departs 23:34, arrives in Changsha 7:48, after 8:14.

The most expensive ticket is lower soft sleeper. RMB 276. It saves RMB 36 from the RMB 312 of G train, and also saves the hotel night in Guangzhou (How much is it, for ordinary Chinese?).

A bed can be has on those K trains for RMB 172 (upper hard sleeper). And hard seats are available (RMB 99).

There are even cheaper trains. Lower soft sleeper is offered on K9078 (8:20 trip) for RMB 203. And on train 1296/1297, taking 9:47, lower soft sleeper costs RMB 170 - RMB 2 cheaper than upper hard sleeper on most K trains.

Upper hard sleeper on 1296/1297 costs RMB 101 - RMB 2 more than hard seat on most K trains. And a hard seat on 1296/1297 is RMB 49.

Guangzhou-Changsha is about 600 km. How much would bus ticket typically cost?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 30th, 2009, 12:18 PM   #1042
Papagei
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
I'm not sure about their rail industry, but certainly Chinese steel makers did deliver something new for the construction of the Olympic stadium.



Hmm, someone should tell Alstom [1], Siemens [2], Talgo [3] and Bombardier [4] that they are wasting their time or telling porkies.

1 - http://www.transport.alstom.com/home...ical/products/

AGV is or has been marketed to potential rival operators to Eurostar as offering a 2 hour London to Paris time. That means 360km/h on LGV Nord. In fact, AGV does have new bogies which performed far better than expected on the record runs.

2 - Siemens now market the Velaro as being 360km/h capable: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobi...ins/velaro.htm

3 - http://www.elperiodico.com/default.a...seccio_PK=1021

4 - http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/s...ed-trains.html
Something about speed again:
There is no hard limit for speed between 349 km/h and 350 km/h. It is a gliding limit and we all know that trains like velaro have reached speeds up to 400 km/h. Beeing able to reach such a speed for 3 hours doesnīt mean the train can run it safely for decades.
The material of the trains can bear certain changing forces nearly infinitely often. If you raise the force you reach a point above which your wheel will break after x force changes. The value of x is nothing certain, you can only claim probabilities due to differences in manufacturing process. Fact is that at speeds like 350 km/h x is very low, meaning that the time after which we canīt exclude that the part breaks down went to one tenth of lower speeds.

What the suppliers did when claiming that their trains can safely run 360 km/h is simply changing conditions, not the bogies. The mentioned SF 500 bogies from velaro are more than ten years old. There is nothing new about them, they are simply beeing pushed harder and as the european railways know about that fact, they donīt do it. You CAN go 350 km/h but it is not economically useful since material is breaking down to fast. The 360 km/h is simply marketing, it is funny how all suppliers now claim their trains can do 360 km/h. Why the hell exactly 360 km/h? .
And do you really believe Spain is not running 350 km/h because the signallingsystem is not capable to control this. The upgrade for the signalling system costs as much as one single train. If China can afford and implement such a signalling system, Spain can too. But they know that it is not useful because they learned that 350 km/h is possible but not useful.

Ariel has made the best point about this issue: Letīs wait and see. Up to now no country in the world is running 350 km/h in daily service for several years and with many trains. The Peking-Route only uses 5 trains at 350 km/h for prestige reasons and gathering experience. All other trains on that route are running slower. Weīll see... But donīt believe every marketing sentence
Papagei no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 12:31 PM   #1043
typhoon_wolf
Registered User
 
typhoon_wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 0

New message: BAD(or broken) SERVICE...

One or two CRHs on WuHan-GuangZhou high speed line had been delayed for a long time, and the passengers suffered an unhappy time.

I am figuring more information about this.
typhoon_wolf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 12:40 PM   #1044
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Papagei - Whilst the crux of your argument makes sense, the resolution of the equation is alittle bit funny. Stress on the various components increases exponentially with speed, with the main base factor being weight. I don't get how you surmise the one-tenth bit - if you could rephrase that because I dont understand precisely.

Probabilities would suggest that the statistical failure rate would increase exponentially with speed, all other factors being equal. This would also suggest that this increase in failure rate can be mitigated by adjusting other parameters, such as vehicle weight and changes in suspension design.

It would also suggest that if the maintenance regime was increased the probability of failure can be mitigated this way. Economically sensible is another matter. I would also stress that catastrophic failure is unlikely, as it is with airplanes. Small failures are picked up on before an accident can occur. So it is merely a an economic question, not a safety one.

Now the ICE3 axle weight is 16t, which compares poorly with the new Japanese ones at 11t. There is easily scope for reducing weight, the simplest of all engineering concepts in theory.

All aluminium construction, activation of primary suspension to reduce vibration on wheen and bogie, strengthening and lightening of the bogie design (Bombardier, Alstom and Siemens have gone throguh this process) are all available avenues, and things are going this way.

The Chinese don't have access to better materials than Europe, but it'll be along time before anybody takes full advantage of available materials, in the rail industry that is. It has hitherto been uneconomic to use aluminium everywhere, but this is now even being used for slow commuter train more and more for efficiency and is more viable option because of it - economies of scale.

Yes, we shall see. The Spanish need to wait for the signalling. Perhaps they need to arrange a suitable maintenance regime once the signalling allows it. The Japanese eased away from 360km/h as it was a big step, it pushed the tilting requirements quite a long way as the track is designed for 275km/h, and operationally its quite hard get the best out of it if there are still loads of 275km/h slower trains. The AVG however will be built as planned for 360km/h. I see no reason to doubt that, no concrete reason anyway.

Last edited by makita09; December 30th, 2009 at 01:01 PM.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 12:56 PM   #1045
Hopobcn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papagei View Post
(....)And do you really believe Spain is not running 350 km/h because the signallingsystem is not capable to control this. The upgrade for the signalling system costs as much as one single train. (...) But they know that it is not useful because they learned that 350 km/h is possible but not useful.
http://www.heraldo.es/noticias/el_av...za_lerida.html
Mmm i don't know if "Fomento" has learned something but they are implementing the ERTMS level 2.
A popular sentence in spain : "las cosas de palacio van despacio"
Quote:
(...) The speed increase from 300 to 350 km/h for passenger operation, however, is a decision that depends on "fomento" and for the moment is not taken. The previous ministerial team, with Magdalena Álvarez to the head, resigned over two years ago to express the benefits of the Corridor and the fleet gained. "Average speeds for all high speed lines will be 300 kilometers per hour," said Alvarez in May 2007 when the AVE between Madrid and Tarragona reached that level for the first time.
Officially, the ADIF only said Friday that the evidence level 2 traffic management system ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) are "very well", although sources said they involved railroad after nearly three years of intense work the fleet of trains ADIF no failures recorded in the Madrid-Lleida. Trials are underway in various high-speed corridors, although in Zaragoza (the first in which was introduced) where reliability is now beyond doubt. Apart from the staff of the public body technicians involved technology companies involved in the development of high speed, such as Ansaldo, Dimetronic, Siemens and Thales. (...)
Hopobcn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 01:04 PM   #1046
typhoon_wolf
Registered User
 
typhoon_wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 0

WuHan-GuangZhou high speed line is good.
Th trains are good.
But the service is not so good.

According to some news reports and the information from a Chinese railway-fans BBS:

Time: 2009-12-29 14:5?.
Train: G1048(CRH2C, from GuangZhou North station to WuHan station).

Someone smoked in the passenger area of the train and activated the smoke/fire detector.
This made the train into a "protection" status, can not depart(official information).
Then some technicians came to solve the problem.

This is just a small incident. But during the first 20 minutes, there were no information to these passengers. None of the managers came out to tell passengers the truth, and no one came out to move the passengers to another train.

At 15:5?, some passengers asked the service master of G1048 to open the doors for riding another train or reimburse the ticked, but the service master refused.

More information is still under translating...
typhoon_wolf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 01:18 PM   #1047
zergcerebrates
Registered User
 
zergcerebrates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Guam,Los Angeles
Posts: 2,287
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB View Post
One thing though, why is that LCD facing the camera and opposite the seating arrangement? I know there is one on the other side too but isnt this one a waste?

Also the seating is in one direction...what happens on the return journey....revolving seats? doesnt look like it though.

The seats revolve.

BTW, Great job China!
zergcerebrates no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 01:19 PM   #1048
typhoon_wolf
Registered User
 
typhoon_wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 0

...(something bad happened, but not easy to translate)

At about 17:00, the message for passengers came finally: take the G6004 train(CRH3) by G1048 tickets.

Most of the passengers from G1048 got their seat, but the passengers who took G6004 tickets had to stand during the journey. All the passengers felt been tricked, and some of them blocked the train form departing.

Then the managers and the leaders of the station or railway system came out.

...(not easy to translate)

At about 18:00, G6004 departed.

This incident caused the delay of at least 5 CRHs. But no one came out to apologize or response.
typhoon_wolf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 02:49 PM   #1049
Papagei
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
Papagei - Whilst the crux of your argument makes sense, the resolution of the equation is alittle bit funny. Stress on the various components increases exponentially with speed, with the main base factor being weight. I don't get how you surmise the one-tenth bit - if you could rephrase that because I dont understand precisely.

Probabilities would suggest that the statistical failure rate would increase exponentially with speed, all other factors being equal. This would also suggest that this increase in failure rate can be mitigated by adjusting other parameters, such as vehicle weight and changes in suspension design.

It would also suggest that if the maintenance regime was increased the probability of failure can be mitigated this way. Economically sensible is another matter. I would also stress that catastrophic failure is unlikely, as it is with airplanes. Small failures are picked up on before an accident can occur. So it is merely a an economic question, not a safety one.

Now the ICE3 axle weight is 16t, which compares poorly with the new Japanese ones at 11t. There is easily scope for reducing weight, the simplest of all engineering concepts in theory.

All aluminium construction, activation of primary suspension to reduce vibration on wheen and bogie, strengthening and lightening of the bogie design (Bombardier, Alstom and Siemens have gone throguh this process) are all available avenues, and things are going this way.

The Chinese don't have access to better materials than Europe, but it'll be along time before anybody takes full advantage of available materials, in the rail industry that is. It has hitherto been uneconomic to use aluminium everywhere, but this is now even being used for slow commuter train more and more for efficiency and is more viable option because of it - economies of scale.

Yes, we shall see. The Spanish need to wait for the signalling. Perhaps they need to arrange a suitable maintenance regime once the signalling allows it. The Japanese eased away from 360km/h as it was a big step, it pushed the tilting requirements quite a long way as the track is designed for 275km/h, and operationally its quite hard get the best out of it if there are still loads of 275km/h slower trains. The AVG however will be built as planned for 360km/h. I see no reason to doubt that, no concrete reason anyway.

The one tenth bit is just a guess since I didnīt claim to which "lower speed" I was comparing. You also can not say that the time until a wheel breaks down is going down exponantially by speed. This is a very compley issue but I think it is enough if one knows that from a certain point of stress, longterm stability is not given any more despite the fact that the system can bear the stress for several hours. For example in the TGV-Testrun of 573 km/h. Many people believe this can be reproduced in daily service. It only can if you change wheels, axles and overhead wires every day.

This leads to your next point: Yes increase in failure rate can be mitigated by adjusting other parameters, such as vehicle weight and changes in suspension design or an increase in maintenance. I alread mentioned that before.
I would say it is mainly an economic question but also a safety question. If you run 350-400km/h you can compensate the occuring problems by checking very often and replacing parts very often. But you still have the problem that the whole system is always running closer to its limit. So if something beyond normal stress happens, for example a piece of metal on the rail, your system directly breakes down. And as we in general come closer to the point of material failure it is statistically more likely that a part fails within your check interval despite the fact that you check more often. The most extreme example is overload. You can check every 2 seconds, if you are running close to overload every second wheel breaks statistically.

From an economic point of view there are many other factors which keep you away from running 350 or 380 km/h. The rails wear out much faster, the overheadwire wears out faster, energy consumption grows by square, sound pressure level extremely grows. All those factors lead to the experience that current high speed rail systems are most efficient between 250 and 300 km/h. You get more ticket income by increasing speed but there is an optimum beyond which the travel time hardly changes at higher speed but costs explode. This is why we might see 350 km/h in some minor cases of prestige and long distance trips but the majority of high speed connections wonīt go beyond 300 km/h. If you really wanna go 400-500 km/h you need a maglev and even maglev doesnīt solve all problems. Maglev doesnīt have a safety or maintenance problem at 500 km/h but energy consumption also for maglev grows at the square of speed.

And what does it mean if AGV is built for 360 km/h? None of the problems I mentioned has been solved by AGV. It simply means that the train is certified and allowed to run 360 km/h. It is still economically not useful and it will stay a curiosity that someone uses the 360 km/h. We donīt need faster trains and all that prestige nonsense. We need more efficient trains at 300 km/h and cheaper rolling stock and infrastructure.

Just a hint: If you compare axle load of japanese trains and european trains, be careful to compare on the same basis. European trains are comparing fully loaded while japanese compare empty trains. Japanese trains are intented to run 20 years while european trains have to run 30 years. In japan, high speed trains are running on dedicated tracks while in europe they are sharing old tracks in bad condition with freight rail. All those factors lead to differences.
Papagei no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 03:52 PM   #1050
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papagei View Post
The one tenth bit is just a guess since I didnīt claim to which "lower speed" I was comparing. You also can not say that the time until a wheel breaks down is going down exponantially by speed. This is a very compley issue but I think it is enough if one knows that from a certain point of stress, longterm stability is not given any more despite the fact that the system can bear the stress for several hours. For example in the TGV-Testrun of 573 km/h. Many people believe this can be reproduced in daily service. It only can if you change wheels, axles and overhead wires every day.
Yes but there is no point in any system below which performance is assumed as you appear to be suggesting. A TGV that only runs at 160km/h (as the TGVs out of Gare Du L'Est did for years beofre LGV Est was constructed) still need to be checked for stress fractures and fatigue.

I am saying that the probablility of time to failure decreases (or rate of wear increases) inversely proportionally to the exponential increase in speed [all other things being equal].

There are no absolutes in engineering, only in operational detail. Every elkement will be risk assessed and the total system designation will be within the sensible risk cause by the weakest element in the system.

Again I don't quite follow what you mean by checking the wheel every 2 seconds, but the safety issue is such that even if running at higher speeds does increase the likelihood of catastrophic failure at high speeds I suggest that a maintenance regime can be formulated to keep the risk of this the same - after all it could happen on trains that run at only 200km/h and must be factored in on risk assessment.

Yes the economic issue I accept, extra energy consumption and wear is the barrier - the same barrier that engineers faced at 100km/h in the 1850s. Nonethesless it is a real one. New contact bar technology is reducing wear on contact cable, and this area of the industry is moving forward quite rapidly. Rail wear is not moving so fast, nonethelss it is a combination of unsprung weight and suspension stiffness that dictates most of the wear to the railheads and wheels. Whilst not returning the same gains as other areas, advances in wheel latheing maintenance techniques, as well as more rigourous wheel and track geometry regimes, especially using laser guidance for accuracy, are eeking this forward, getting cleaner motion and reducing wear at a given speed.

We don't know what it means that AGV is built for 360km/h, and your opinions about the redundency of the specifications are not enough for me to depart form the recieved wisdom on the matter.

Re axle weights, I will verify later but I believe I'm quoting unladen weights for both. Even still, a fully laden axle weight for a latest 700 series is no more than 14t, with 100 per car and lots of luggage.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 04:00 PM   #1051
Papagei
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Well you are right, as time goes on technology advances and one day we will be able to run 350-400 km/h in an economically viable manner.

I was just saying doing this with todays technology (which is also the technology China has acesss to) is not useful and not as safe as running slower.
Papagei no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 04:25 PM   #1052
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papagei View Post
And what does it mean if AGV is built for 360 km/h? None of the problems I mentioned has been solved by AGV. It simply means that the train is certified and allowed to run 360 km/h. It is still economically not useful and it will stay a curiosity that someone uses the 360 km/h. We donīt need faster trains and all that prestige nonsense. We need more efficient trains at 300 km/h and cheaper rolling stock and infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papagei View Post
Well you are right, as time goes on technology advances and one day we will be able to run 350-400 km/h in an economically viable manner.

I was just saying doing this with todays technology (which is also the technology China has acesss to) is not useful and not as safe as running slower.

You are contradicting yourself. Alstom has said that AGV is designed from the ground up to offer the energy use and economics of a 300km/h TGV when travelling at 360km/h. It will be able to travel safely at 360km/h on any railway designed originally for 300km/h. That's exactly the "one day" you talk about in the second post.

See more here: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/s...he-market.html
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 05:24 PM   #1053
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
AGV...It will be able to travel safely at 360km/h on any railway designed originally for 300km/h.
Alignment and signalling permitting of course. The train might be safe but the passengers may fall over if walking about hitting a 300km/h corner at 360km/h without tilt support.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 05:27 PM   #1054
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papagei View Post
Well you are right, as time goes on technology advances and one day we will be able to run 350-400 km/h in an economically viable manner.

I was just saying doing this with todays technology (which is also the technology China has acesss to) is not useful and not as safe as running slower.
Well its a general rule of thumb that engineering tends to be at its most efficient at two-thirds to three-quarters of 'the limit'. This is probably no doubt true of the AGV as well, even though it is as energy efficient at 360km/h as a previous gen was at 300km/h. Nonetheless the efficiency at operational speed is the important bit.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 07:58 PM   #1055
worldrailfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 0

HunanChina,

thanks for your scheduale post.

I wonder why this link http://www.chinatraintickets.net/china-trains/
never shows G6xxx trains you are listing?
worldrailfan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2009, 08:04 PM   #1056
altachlo87
Registered User
 
altachlo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Georgetown, Penang
Posts: 65
Likes (Received): 5

well, china's railways is developing in outrageous speed! within 20years, china will be a leading nation in this field i presume! anyhow, this is absolutely good.
altachlo87 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2009, 01:01 AM   #1057
Papagei
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
You are contradicting yourself. Alstom has said that AGV is designed from the ground up to offer the energy use and economics of a 300km/h TGV when travelling at 360km/h. It will be able to travel safely at 360km/h on any railway designed originally for 300km/h. That's exactly the "one day" you talk about in the second post.

See more here: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/s...he-market.html
Unfortunately this is not that "one day" I was talking about. If you really wanna go on you need single suspended wheels. But the wheels and Bogies in AGV are of the same technology we already know. Maybe the bogies are slightly more lightweight but they are far away from a "breakthrough".

Just citing your linked article from railwaygazette:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railwaygazette
The AGV's trailer bogies are 'more conventional', and wheelsets and axles are similar to those on the TGV Duplex.
As I said, important components are simply beeing pushed harder. This means that the new train needs an increased maintenance regime in this field.

Of course AGV is a great train and it certainly will be more efficient than TGV (which was anything but efficient ) but the claims about higher speed are relatively useless for customers.
Papagei no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2009, 02:20 AM   #1058
HunanChina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Changsha
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by worldrailfan View Post
HunanChina,

thanks for your scheduale post.

I wonder why this link http://www.chinatraintickets.net/china-trains/
never shows G6xxx trains you are listing?
You're welcome

It's a latest scheduale(Version 2009.12.28), maybe that link is Version 2009.12.26, they have some different. The Wuhan-Guangzhou line is into commercial service just in a couple of days, some adjustment is necessary.

PS:G6XXX just from Changsha to Guangzhou or from Guangzhou to Changsha.
HunanChina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2009, 02:37 AM   #1059
HunanChina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Changsha
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
The definitions are:

"Hard sleeper" - actually it is upholstered. No door between aisle and compartment, and 6 beds in a compartment, 3 on each side. The lower beds are most expensive and upper beds are cheapest.

"Soft sleeper" - compartments have doors, and 4 beds in compartment, 2 on each side. Again upper beds are cheaper.

"Deluxe soft sleeper" - only 2 beds in compartment. But those are lower and upper bed, not 2 beds both lower, On the side opposite of the beds there are chairs or something. Very few trains have these.

But I think that Beijing-Hong Kong trains do have deluxe soft sleeper. Do those stop in Changsha?

Beijing-Hongkong(T98 九龙-北京西) have deluxe soft sleeper? I have no ieda, but I sure it stop in Changsha.
I just know the Z18 from Changsha to Beijing have deluxe soft sleeper(VIP soft sleeper).
HunanChina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2009, 03:39 AM   #1060
worldrailfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 0

HunanChina,

Where do you find that scheduale.The link I sent you will not show G6xxxx those trains even between those 2 cities you are listing.
worldrailfan 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 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