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 January 16th, 2017, 12:44 AM   #11241
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

Of course that's only about megacities. In the longer term cities of 50,000-500,000 also need efficient public transport. There must be tens of thousands of such cities in China.
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 16th, 2017, 01:43 AM   #11242
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
What is China doing with 25-75 old infrastructure?
Kowloon-Canton railway was opened in 1910. It then had 3 stations in Hong Kong.
By 1956, there were 5 stations.
By 1980, the railway was 70 years old, single track and unelectrified.
In 1980s, Hong Kong double tracked the railway, electrified it - and also added 6 stations.
As a result, Hong Kong has a rapid, electrified commuter railway with 2 tracks, 12 or so stations in 36 km, frequent passenger service - and shared with long distance rail.
What has mainland done with their section of Kowloon-Canton railway? How many passenger stations operate between Guangzhou and Nangang? Shanghai and Anting?

No, it´s too fast. 160 km/h is better to keep people off buses and private cars on roads.

Chuo Shinkansen, 505 km/h, is to open in 2027. What are Chinese building?

Um, no. The alternative was building special services where people are, remember.
But the distance home to service includes not just the rapid trip station to station, but the long and slow trips both ends to the stations in the middle of nowhere.

1- more freight transports will use the old rail infrastructures once they are free up by the new high speed rail networks which will likely reduce air polutions

2- HK is relatively slow - Shenzhen is still waiting for HK (one year and counting)

3- China has the advantage to learn from past outcomes/mistakes (people will travel more if they can)

4- China is not just catching up but their intent is to surpass

5- CRRC's intent is to dominate land transport - faster, cheaper and cleaner!

6- 2027? China is at the rising stage - Japan ("developed") is decaying

7- It's not just special services ( which suggest limited resources/scarcity ) - new "special" sprawling areas as people become wealthier

8- minor stations can be added/removed cheaply - it's the overcrowding at some of the stations that is the concern
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 02:12 AM   #11243
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Whether or not Japan is "decaying" is beyond the point. 600km/h is hugely energy inefficient for railed vehicles. Even with Japan's decades-long lead in maglev technology, they've only exceeded 600km/h in test runs. Yes, China is a fast follower, but it won't, in any case, be able to use railed trains for such high speeds. I could easily see a maglev from Beijing-Shanghai, and maybe on some other corridors, but we're probably looking at a timeline in the second half of this century for that kind of thing.

If the first two decades of the 21st century ought to be teaching us anything, it's the importance of bringing up the middle--in this case, providing comprehensive rail service in short and medium/commuter distances in major population centers--over always increasing the top--ever-faster intercity lines.

I read a report about urbanization and development patterns in the three major East Asian economies--China, Japan, and South Korea--which concluded that each has taken a different approach to handling the massive waves of urbanization which have taken place in all three countries in the past few decades, causing rapid population growth in certain areas. Japan has focused on improving transit connections within existing population centers. South Korea has constructed satellite cities, particularly around Seoul. China has tried to increase the geographic catchment area of existing cities which draw in rural migrants.

The report concluded that, by not trying to spread resources around ever-larger areas (not trying to de-urbanize), Japan's method had been most successful. Traffic congestion in the Sudogwon (Seoul) area has remained an issue as people still want to be in the city, where the economic activity is, hence the impending, ex post facto construction of the Great Train Express, a high-speed long-distance underground connecting the newly-built satellite cities to the old urban cores. China has been able to continue with a bit of dispersion of resources due to it still essentially having a command economy, and having just that many more people. However, population growth has already hit a wall, and there's the ever-looming-if-never-popping bubble of real estate development throughout city administrative areas, instead of following the value to urban cores.

Basically, you can't ignore where the median and medium of activity is and just hope to shift it elsewhere. For most people, that won't mean crossing provincial lines, as sometimes intercity is just too long. China should worry about building up where things are--in city cores--not just where they want them to be, around rural HSR stations.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 03:55 AM   #11244
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

This has been discussed to death for years on these forums. Chinese high speed rail network is a new mode of transportation. In my opinion China is trying to create an alternative to domestic air travel. Due to very large population this makes perfect sense both environmentally and also much more efficient. If one see the pictures of Chinese high speed rail stations, number of people and number of trains are nothing like anywhere else on Earth. They also want to have very high average speed. Trains are at maximum speed even when they are passing through stations. One cannot build stations like that in the city centers. There is one very good example of what happens when you want to build the station close to "old" city center: Hong Kong - Over budget and delayed. In addition, in all these cities high speed rail stations are connected to metro. Once it is connected to metro, there is nothing bad about their locations at all in my opinion.

Anyhow..
__________________

kunming tiger, dbhaskar liked this post
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 05:12 AM   #11245
kunming tiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: kunming
Posts: 7,029
Likes (Received): 1665

none

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
This has been discussed to death for years on these forums. Chinese high speed rail network is a new mode of transportation. In my opinion China is trying to create an alternative to domestic air travel. Due to very large population this makes perfect sense both environmentally and also much more efficient. If one see the pictures of Chinese high speed rail stations, number of people and number of trains are nothing like anywhere else on Earth. They also want to have very high average speed. Trains are at maximum speed even when they are passing through stations. One cannot build stations like that in the city centers. There is one very good example of what happens when you want to build the station close to "old" city center: Hong Kong - Over budget and delayed. In addition, in all these cities high speed rail stations are connected to metro. Once it is connected to metro, there is nothing bad about their locations at all in my opinion.




Anyhow..
Right on the money with that observation.

There is strong resistance to the location of HSR in downtown areas not to mention the cost factor.

People need to stop reading studies online and get out to the places concerned before coming to any definite conclusions.
__________________

dbhaskar liked this post
kunming tiger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 06:23 AM   #11246
saiho
Registered User
 
saiho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 多伦多/多倫多
Posts: 1,360
Likes (Received): 1292

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
What isn´t normal is absence of functioning commuter rail network.

Japan has 9 cities with subways.
Japan also has 27 000 km of railways.
Tokyo metro has 304 km of lines and 274 stations.
Yet the metro stations make up just 274 out of 882 stations in Tokyo - meaning that Tokyo has over 600 non-metro rail stations.
How many non-metro rail stations are receiving passenger service in Shanghai? Beijing? Guangzhou?
When these cities and many more are literally completing +1,000 km subway networks by 2030, which is 13 years from now, is traditional metro-like commuter rail that you see in Europe and Japan even a relevant priority anymore? The short and commuter travel markets are already well covered, with intercity lines covering the regional role.

I think one of the reasons the old mainlines are not getting local passenger services is the volume of freight they move eats up capacity. Based on what I have seen in other freight dominated rail networks in the world (US and Canada) any commuter service might just be a couple hourly trains. Japan and Europe's railways hardly carry any freight so they can get these local passenger systems. China may have the density and urban forms of Japan and Europe but its railway operations seem more akin to Russia and North America. As such there the demand for a vast passenger rail system like in Europe and Japan with a desire for separate and purpose built infrastructure for everything like in North America. You are better off just making a dedicated commuter and regional system rather than mixing and upgrading with freight and long distance passenger trains.

Chornedsnorkack if you are really interested in a more commuter type system in China then keep an eye out for intercity lines using CRH6F or CRH6S trains which run at 160km/h to 140km/h and have a commuter rail like design. Many of the more "urban" intercity lines in China use these rolling stocks with a number of lines under construction.
saiho no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 07:44 AM   #11247
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
Of course that's only about megacities. In the longer term cities of 50,000-500,000 also need efficient public transport. There must be tens of thousands of such cities in China.
Not quite that, even in China.
10 000 such cities, times 50 000 minimum of the range, would be 500 millions.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 08:25 AM   #11248
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

Ok, I exaggerated for theatrical effect, but still there are many small and midsize towns/cities and my point is valid.
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 08:43 AM   #11249
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Whether or not Japan is "decaying" is beyond the point. 600km/h is hugely energy inefficient for railed vehicles. Even with Japan's decades-long lead in maglev technology, they've only exceeded 600km/h in test runs. Yes, China is a fast follower, but it won't, in any case, be able to use railed trains for such high speeds. I could easily see a maglev from Beijing-Shanghai, and maybe on some other corridors, but we're probably looking at a timeline in the second half of this century for that kind of thing.

If the first two decades of the 21st century ought to be teaching us anything, it's the importance of bringing up the middle--in this case, providing comprehensive rail service in short and medium/commuter distances in major population centers--over always increasing the top--ever-faster intercity lines.

I read a report about urbanization and development patterns in the three major East Asian economies--China, Japan, and South Korea--which concluded that each has taken a different approach to handling the massive waves of urbanization which have taken place in all three countries in the past few decades, causing rapid population growth in certain areas. Japan has focused on improving transit connections within existing population centers. South Korea has constructed satellite cities, particularly around Seoul. China has tried to increase the geographic catchment area of existing cities which draw in rural migrants.

The report concluded that, by not trying to spread resources around ever-larger areas (not trying to de-urbanize), Japan's method had been most successful. Traffic congestion in the Sudogwon (Seoul) area has remained an issue as people still want to be in the city, where the economic activity is, hence the impending, ex post facto construction of the Great Train Express, a high-speed long-distance underground connecting the newly-built satellite cities to the old urban cores. China has been able to continue with a bit of dispersion of resources due to it still essentially having a command economy, and having just that many more people. However, population growth has already hit a wall, and there's the ever-looming-if-never-popping bubble of real estate development throughout city administrative areas, instead of following the value to urban cores.

Basically, you can't ignore where the median and medium of activity is and just hope to shift it elsewhere. For most people, that won't mean crossing provincial lines, as sometimes intercity is just too long. China should worry about building up where things are--in city cores--not just where they want them to be, around rural HSR stations.
CRRC is already live testing maglev ( Changsha & Beijing ). 600 km/h may not be "inefficient" if the train can push ~1500 passengers in one go.

Faster is key for the CRRC if they are to attract drivers and flyers.

With faster/better communications, localization is better. Why go to the center? Where is Shenzhen's "center" in five years for example. Singapore is localizing.

A small percentage in China is a lot. Even with ~45,000km, that is less than Europe per capita wise?
__________________

JeebCheras liked this post
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #11250
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunming tiger View Post
People need to stop reading studies online and get out to the places concerned before coming to any definite conclusions.
Mmmm fresh anti-intellectualism. Glad we have people grounded in "the real world" to give us high-level analysis of "the truth".

I'm just saying that yes, China's urban forms and scale are unique, but no, that doesn't mean there aren't analogies and useful comparisons to be made. You want to see what happens to countries which build such a quantity of infrastructure because of their "unique" scale and economic potential? Look at the splendor of American roads, bridges, and rail.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 12:11 PM   #11251
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Similarly, when you're 15 stops on a metro to get to the station where you wait for 30-60 minutes (airport-style) for a train to get to another station that's 12 stops away from where you want to be, a lot of the appeal is lost.
Now if there were an express metro out to the HSR stations in 2-5 stops...
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.

Pansori, aquaticko, Swede liked this post
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 12:30 PM   #11252
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6909

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Mmmm fresh anti-intellectualism. Glad we have people grounded in "the real world" to give us high-level analysis of "the truth".

I'm just saying that yes, China's urban forms and scale are unique, but no, that doesn't mean there aren't analogies and useful comparisons to be made. You want to see what happens to countries which build such a quantity of infrastructure because of their "unique" scale and economic potential? Look at the splendor of American roads, bridges, and rail.
It's all good with the way the stations are being built in China. Metros as well. There is one thing lacking however. Urban/commuter/suburban/express/you name it rail. The like of S-Bahn, Crossrail or RER. Separate from metro but easy to transfer, very high capacity, high frequency, higher speed than metro (100-160km/h) with typically longer distances between stations than metro. There are plans and projects of such lines in some Chinese cities but I'm not too sure at what stage they are and how adequate they're going to be. I guess the idea should be that such lines connect all major railway stations and major areas within and just outside the city.
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 01:10 PM   #11253
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunming tiger View Post
Right on the money with that observation.

There is strong resistance to the location of HSR in downtown areas not to mention the cost factor.
What's the next station from Kunming towards Guiyang?
Qujing? 157 km by slow rail, 128 km by HSR?
On examination, turns out it is Jimacun, 16 km from Kunming. And there are 7 stations between Kunming and Qujing.
But these 7 seem to be served by a single daily train, 6062, which takes 3:24 for the 157 km trip.

Last edited by chornedsnorkack; January 16th, 2017 at 02:24 PM.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 02:06 AM   #11254
saiho
Registered User
 
saiho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 多伦多/多倫多
Posts: 1,360
Likes (Received): 1292

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
What's the next station from Kunming towards Guiyang?
Qujing? 157 km by slow rail, 128 km by HSR?
On examination, turns out it is Jimacun, 16 km from Kunming. And there are 7 stations between Kunming and Qujing.
But these 7 seem to be served by a single daily train, 6062, which takes 3:24 for the 157 km trip.
But is more trains really needed? The old railway line between Kunming and Qujing hits no major population centers and just passes some small villages (villages by international standards not ridiculous Chinese ones with half million people). Heck between Kunming and Qujing there is no large population centers only Malong (with a population of maybe 100,000) which is missed by both low and high speed railways anyways so upgrading the old one serves no purpose.
saiho no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 02:29 AM   #11255
saiho
Registered User
 
saiho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 多伦多/多倫多
Posts: 1,360
Likes (Received): 1292

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
I'm just saying that yes, China's urban forms and scale are unique, but no, that doesn't mean there aren't analogies and useful comparisons to be made. You want to see what happens to countries which build such a quantity of infrastructure because of their "unique" scale and economic potential? Look at the splendor of American roads, bridges, and rail.
America's problem is not that they built too much infrastructure, is that they are not maintaining it. The quantity of infrastructure built during that expansionary period allowed them to not build anything today and still sort of get away with everything.
saiho no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 07:56 AM   #11256
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
But is more trains really needed? The old railway line between Kunming and Qujing hits no major population centers and just passes some small villages (villages by international standards not ridiculous Chinese ones with half million people). Heck between Kunming and Qujing there is no large population centers only Malong (with a population of maybe 100,000) which is missed by both low and high speed railways anyways so upgrading the old one serves no purpose.
By international standards, a settlement of 3000 people in a concentrated area is not a village. Even in China, I expect that in a settlement of such size a large fraction of people would not be walking to fields every day.

An example of what the station and traffic densities are in Germany:
https://zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/44reactivate.html

I sit in Europe at the end of a 146 km long rail line which is single track, unelectrified, built by 1900 (later regauged), top speed 120 km/h.
It has 4 trains per day. Trip times 2:18 to 2:25. And 15 to 22 intermediate stops.
Served by DMUs, mostly 3 car DMU.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 01:09 PM   #11257
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan "Intercity" Railway



The maximum operating speed: CRH6F:200 km/h
Starting acceleration: CRH6F: km/h/s = 3.88
Reduce speed: CRH6F: km/h/s = 3.6 (normal)
Marshalling capacity: CRH6F:1998

Source: http://www.et97.com/view/2686437.htm


Source: Google Maps, Wikipedia, english.rednet.cn
__________________

Last edited by skyridgeline; January 19th, 2017 at 01:26 PM. Reason: route map updated
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 01:24 PM   #11258
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
Ok, I exaggerated for theatrical effect, but still there are many small and midsize towns/cities and my point is valid.
Sure.
China has something like 15 000 townships, 19 000 towns and 6700 subdistricts.
Meaning average population of 30 000 or so.
I suspect that a lot of townships, towns and subdistricts possess population concentrations of several thousands of people, which function in urban manner.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 08:23 PM   #11259
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
America's problem is not that they built too much infrastructure, is that they are not maintaining it. The quantity of infrastructure built during that expansionary period allowed them to not build anything today and still sort of get away with everything.
"Sort of" getting away with everything won't continue indefinitely, and no one is willing to make happen what needs to happen to pay for maintenance and improvement--raise taxes. Think of it as getting a child used to having his way with everything; when he grows up, he's going to have to learn that it's not his way or the highway (pun intended). Best to build conservatively (be disciplinarian with the child, to continue the metaphor), have it all work well, and then learn later on what's really needed.

Here's to hoping China doesn't end up having to learn the same lesson.
__________________

stingstingsting liked this post
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 08:35 PM   #11260
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan "Intercity" Railway
What´s the distance Changsha-Zhuzhou?
I see 52 km quoted on old railway... and no intermediate stops.
chornedsnorkack 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 07:45 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