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 18th, 2017, 06:14 AM   #11261
flankerjun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Shenyang/Wuhan
Posts: 461
Likes (Received): 1230

Hainan ring line will speed up to 250km/h on Jan 20,although a little delayed
compared to the former plan,it is still a good news.
__________________

FM 2258 liked this post
flankerjun no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 18th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #11262
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Whatīs the distance Changsha-Zhuzhou?
I see 52 km quoted on old railway... and no intermediate stops.

~10km
Muyun (Changsha) - Jiulangshan (Zhuzhou)


~50km
Changsha Railway Station - Zhuzhounan(south) Railway Station


Changsha Railway Station





Zhuzhounan Railway Station

http://hn.rednet.cn/c/2016/12/25/4173281.htm
__________________

Transhumanista, dbhaskar, FM 2258 liked this post

Last edited by skyridgeline; January 18th, 2017 at 12:30 PM.
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 09:36 AM   #11263
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
~10km
Muyun (Changsha) - Jiulangshan (Zhuzhou)


~50km
Changsha Railway Station - Zhuzhounan(south) Railway Station
I see the distance now quoted as 58 km. And trains with all 10 intermediate stops, such as C6913, take 1:10.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 12:24 PM   #11264
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
I see the distance now quoted as 58 km. And trains with all 10 intermediate stops, such as C6913, take 1:10.
55km according to http://qq.ip138.com/train/hunan/dongjing.htm .

39 minutes ( to be 30 minutes? ) for the c6915 w/ two between stops.

Source: http://qq.ip138.com/train/C6915.htm
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 01:21 PM   #11265
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

And that shows what's wrong with Chinese railways.
I sit at the end of a 57 km railway - two tracks and electrified. Route originally opened in 1870.
Top speed 120 km/h.
These two tracks are shared with long distance passenger and freight trains.
57 km by EMU, with 11 intermediate stops, consistently takes 50 minutes.
The same route is shared by DMUs that make 3 intermediate stops (and continue beyond).
And these DMUs consistently take 40 minutes.
On another railway line, 55 km, single track and unelectrified
the 55 km route with 11 stops takes 1:06 to 1:10 for DMUs
the same route with 5 stops takes 59 minutes for DMUs.
Basically, the speed of that "Intercity HSR", of two tracks electrified supposedly 200 km/h, is matched by an 116 year old single track unelectrified line.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 11:45 PM   #11266
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
And that shows what's wrong with Chinese railways. ...
Basically, the speed of that "Intercity HSR", of two tracks electrified supposedly 200 km/h, is matched by an 116 year old single track unelectrified line.
Way too early to know if it's wrong or superior yet. It's not an "intercity" service in the traditional sense. And it's only a section. It's also integrated into the HSR (real ones )/metro/bus system (that's what is lacking in many transport systems).


Changsha

The intercity rail project will cross Changsha's Furong, Yuhua, Tianxin, Kaifu, Yuelu Districts and Changsha County, totaling about 2,500 acres of land acquisition. Twelve stations will be built in Changsha, including eight underground stations and four stations at ground level.[2]

Leifeng Dadao (Changyi Intercity Railway interchange)
Shizhengfu (City Hall) Station
Binjiang (Changsha Metro Line 4 transfer)
Kaifusi (Kaifu Temple) (Changsha Metro Line 1 transfer)
Changsha Railway Station (Changsha Metro Line 2 transfer) [ Line 2 connects to Changsha Maglev which connects to Changsha Huanghua International Airport]
Shumuling (Changsha Metro Line 3 Transfer)
Xiangzhanglu
Xiangfulu
Qiche Nan (South Bus Station)
Zhongxin Xincheng (Changsha Metro Line 1 transfer)
Dongwuyuan (Zoo)
Muyun (divided into two station areas, one each for the Zhuzhou and Xiangtan branches)


- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changs...ilway#Changsha




When this line extends further with longer stopping distances, the average speed will surely increase.

150km radius around Changsha (~30 million people) ...

Source: Google Maps
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 12:47 AM   #11267
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
Way too early to know if it's wrong or superior yet. It's not an "intercity" service in the traditional sense. And it's only a section.
Yet itīs a suburban section. Beyond the suburbs of Changsha, the 4 tracks of slow rail and HSR taken together might be enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
It's also integrated into the HSR (real ones )
And by being slow, diminishes the usefulness of HSR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
Changsha
The intercity rail project will cross Changsha's Furong, Yuhua, Tianxin, Kaifu, Yuelu Districts and Changsha County, totaling about 2,500 acres of land acquisition. Twelve stations will be built in Changsha, including eight underground stations and four stations at ground level.[2]

Leifeng Dadao (Changyi Intercity Railway interchange)
Shizhengfu (City Hall) Station
Binjiang (Changsha Metro Line 4 transfer)
Kaifusi (Kaifu Temple) (Changsha Metro Line 1 transfer)
Changsha Railway Station (Changsha Metro Line 2 transfer) [ Line 2 connects to Changsha Maglev which connects to Changsha Huanghua International Airport]
Shumuling (Changsha Metro Line 3 Transfer)
Xiangzhanglu
Xiangfulu
Qiche Nan (South Bus Station)
Zhongxin Xincheng (Changsha Metro Line 1 transfer)
Dongwuyuan (Zoo)
Muyun (divided into two station areas, one each for the Zhuzhou and Xiangtan branches)
Which of these is HSR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
When this line extends further with longer stopping distances, the average speed will surely increase.

150km radius around Changsha (~30 million people) ...
But thatīs not the question. You see the demonstration that a single track unelectrified line with 100 km/h top speed beats the average speed despite having even shorter stopping distance.
Like C6915: it covers 20 km in 8 min - and is then stuck for 12 minutes covering the last 5 km. Why?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 03:50 AM   #11268
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Yet itīs a suburban section. Beyond the suburbs of Changsha, the 4 tracks of slow rail and HSR taken together might be enough. [1]

And by being slow, diminishes the usefulness of HSR. [2]

Which of these is HSR? [2]

But thatīs not the question. You see the demonstration that a single track unelectrified line with 100 km/h top speed beats the average speed despite having even shorter stopping distance.
Like C6915: it covers 20 km in 8 min - and is then stuck for 12 minutes covering the last 5 km. Why? [3]
1- They are also using this line as a feeder line for the real HSRs,metro and a bus station.

2- Slow for this section. Fast but lacking stops/connectivities is useless too.

3- It's 10 minutes. Don't know why so slow there but they are to speed up the run time from 39 minutes to 30 minutes once they are comfortable. Again, you're focusing on a section which is expected to be slow.
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 04:38 AM   #11269
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

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.
That spur railway line was built in a time when automobiles and associated infrastructure was rare. The only way to get around for regular people is walking, railed vehicle or horse. There was a business case for the construction and existence of the railway. Today it is much more economical to be connecting these rural areas in China with buses. I would love to have rail connect every settlement in China but I also know that to construct such a system today would be a huge waste of national resources when more cost effective alternatives exist. Perhaps China Railways should be “grasping the large and letting the small [settlements] go”.
saiho está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 10:24 AM   #11270
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
1- They are also using this line as a feeder line for the real HSRs,metro and a bus station.
Then specify the station which feeds HSR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
2- Slow for this section. Fast but lacking stops/connectivities is useless too.
That's my point. Fast but lacking stops is useless. Slow is useless. The example of Europe shows that fast with a lot of stops is possible - and that's what China does not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyridgeline View Post
3- It's 10 minutes. Don't know why so slow there but they are to speed up the run time from 39 minutes to 30 minutes once they are comfortable. Again, you're focusing on a section which is expected to be slow.
Not that slow. 12 minutes for 5 km counting dwell time in 1 station. Well, I live near a rail line which consistently has 9 minutes for 6,3 km including dwell times for 2 stations - both for EMUs and DMUs.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 01:42 PM   #11271
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,524
Likes (Received): 1214

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Then specify the station which feeds HSR.

That's my point. Fast but lacking stops is useless. Slow is useless. The example of Europe shows that fast with a lot of stops is possible - and that's what China does not have.


Not that slow. 12 minutes for 5 km counting dwell time in 1 station. Well, I live near a rail line which consistently has 9 minutes for 6,3 km including dwell times for 2 stations - both for EMUs and DMUs.

Speed and stops ... tradeoffs.

Post 11262 route map has been updated. Line 2 (possibly line 4 in the future?) connects to Changsha Railway Station South/Maglev.


Map source: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/cn/changsha/changsha.htm

Last edited by skyridgeline; January 19th, 2017 at 01:49 PM.
skyridgeline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 02:27 PM   #11272
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
That spur railway line was built in a time when automobiles and associated infrastructure was rare. The only way to get around for regular people is walking, railed vehicle or horse. There was a business case for the construction and existence of the railway. Today it is much more economical to be connecting these rural areas in China with buses.
Look at rural and small town Germany or Switzerland. Yes, most of the railway lines were originally built when cars were absent or rare. BUT the trains now running on these lines are recently built and designed - built and designed in times when buses and cars were an alternative. Consider, for example, Haller Willem:
https://zierke.com/web-page/dissen-osnabrueck
In 1983, there were 4 trains daily serving the route. Now, it is 18.

The railway Changsha-Zhuzhou was built in 1916. How many stations existed on the line then? Remember, stations were needed to, for example, take water for boilers.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 07:24 PM   #11273
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
. Today it is much more economical to be connecting these rural areas in China with buses.
Possibly, but the Beeching cuts followed a similar logic, and now new railways are being built on former routes. Why? Because it turns out that buses are a terrible substitute for railways.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 08:27 PM   #11274
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
Look at rural and small town Germany or Switzerland. Yes, most of the railway lines were originally built when cars were absent or rare. BUT the trains now running on these lines are recently built and designed - built and designed in times when buses and cars were an alternative. Consider, for example, Haller Willem:
https://zierke.com/web-page/dissen-osnabrueck
In 1983, there were 4 trains daily serving the route. Now, it is 18.
My point is these small scale lightly used rural railways are not cost effective to newly construct when a private company can just run a couple of buses. Europe had the luxury of building those lines when the technology for cars was not cost effective. Now they are just make use of the lines they aready have China does not have very many lines like this. It’s the capital cost of building new railway lines that makes serving these rural areas not cost effective compared to the bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
The railway Changsha-Zhuzhou was built in 1916. How many stations existed on the line then? Remember, stations were needed to, for example, take water for boilers.
The new intercity railway has a more direct alignment with stations closer to population centers than the old line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
Possibly, but the Beeching cuts followed a similar logic, and now new railways are being built on former routes. Why? Because it turns out that buses are a terrible substitute for railways.
I'm not taking about closing existing lightly used rural railways I am talking about expanding them to serve more lightly populated and highly dispersed rural areas or using up valuable mainline capacity to serve small villages that it passes by. It just doesn’t make sense to construct them in this day and age in China when there are other priorities.
saiho está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2017, 12:17 AM   #11275
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
My point is these small scale lightly used rural railways are not cost effective to newly construct when a private company can just run a couple of buses. Europe had the luxury of building those lines when the technology for cars was not cost effective. Now they are just make use of the lines they aready have China does not have very many lines like this. It’s the capital cost of building new railway lines that makes serving these rural areas not cost effective compared to the bus.
Do not forget the capital cost of newly building roads for the buses to run on.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2017, 05:54 AM   #11276
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
Do not forget the capital cost of newly building roads for the buses to run on.
Yes but roads can be used for other modes such as walking, cycling or sending medical, military etc. with no operation cost just maintenance. The reality is constructing small rural lines/interurbans where they don't exist really does not have a good business case today when cheaper alternatives exist. China will not end up like Europe with a network of surviving lightly used lines anytime soon nor should it. Most likely China will have a network dominated by of high performance corridors. With expansion being done by the margins, gradually expanding to serve less and less populated or active settlements.
saiho está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2017, 09:36 AM   #11277
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiho View Post
The new intercity railway has a more direct alignment with stations closer to population centers than the old line.
Which is also odd. In Europe, stations on old lines tend to be close to population centres because population centres grew up around stations of old lines. For example, Shenzhen - it was a city pre-1978 (with about 20 000 people) but it was not a city pre-1910 (the old county seat of Baoan County was elsewhere). Or Shijiazhuang - it was just a village, as per its name, before it became a station of Beijing-Hankou railway, and a node with branchpoint of Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan railway.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2017, 11:32 PM   #11278
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
Which is also odd. In Europe, stations on old lines tend to be close to population centres because population centres grew up around stations of old lines. For example, Shenzhen - it was a city pre-1978 (with about 20 000 people) but it was not a city pre-1910 (the old county seat of Baoan County was elsewhere). Or Shijiazhuang - it was just a village, as per its name, before it became a station of Beijing-Hankou railway, and a node with branchpoint of Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan railway.
The railway played a role in developing those villages into towns but other factors played a larger role in them into cities the way they are. Shenzhen became a SEZ and Shijiazhuang became a provincial capital. China boomed when there really is not any dominant transport mode unlike Europe in the industrial revolution when rail was the dominant mode and North America after the World Wars when road transport was king. The correlations between settlement distribution / development and railways are much less pronounced in China.
saiho está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2017, 04:45 AM   #11279
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,926
Likes (Received): 18188

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Which is also odd. In Europe, stations on old lines tend to be close to population centres because population centres grew up around stations of old lines. For example, Shenzhen - it was a city pre-1978 (with about 20 000 people) but it was not a city pre-1910 (the old county seat of Baoan County was elsewhere). Or Shijiazhuang - it was just a village, as per its name, before it became a station of Beijing-Hankou railway, and a node with branchpoint of Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan railway.
That's because China did not develop into the modern age the same way the Europeans did.

Shenzhen is a particularly bad example since it only has a very recent history, being an artificially-created city.
__________________

Norge78 liked this post
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2017, 07:28 AM   #11280
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
That's because China did not develop into the modern age the same way the Europeans did.

Shenzhen is a particularly bad example since it only has a very recent history, being an artificially-created city.
"Artificial" is the wrong choice of word.
foxmulder 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 07:48 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