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 November 20th, 2010, 05:40 AM   #3901
big-dog
Registered User
 
big-dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,080
Likes (Received): 6840

The new Jilin railway station U/C

Jilin city of Jilin Province

(expedia.com)

rendering


new station total area; 100k sqm
Cost: 954 million yuan

construction pics 11/18









by spo, home.news.cn
big-dog no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 20th, 2010, 06:09 AM   #3902
kominam
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15
Likes (Received): 0

hypermiler, where are you?
kominam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2010, 10:11 AM   #3903
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,977
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlion View Post
Tiger year according to recently news
Which means specifically 1st of February, 2011.

When Changchun-Jilin high speed railway shall open, shall Jilin railway station be completed?
chornedsnorkack está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 05:31 AM   #3904
big-dog
Registered User
 
big-dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,080
Likes (Received): 6840

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Which means specifically 1st of February, 2011.

When Changchun-Jilin high speed railway shall open,
By the end of 2010. source

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
shall Jilin railway station be completed?
Dunno for sure. From forumers it should open by Feb 2011.
big-dog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 05:32 AM   #3905
big-dog
Registered User
 
big-dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,080
Likes (Received): 6840

Chengdu East Station construction pics

Chengdu, Sichuan Province


(expedia)

rendering




pics on 11/17























from , ditiezu.com
big-dog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 01:28 PM   #3906
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1779

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
Don't be obtuse. My point is that it is not fair to criticize a system for low ridership when the system is not complete and passengers are unable to utilize it fully due to the line not being finished, connecting lines not being finished, connecting subway networks not being finished and whatever else.
While it is indeed silly to argue against the concept of HSR itself, there are many aspects of CRH that could have been executed much much better.

Take the Shanghai - Nanjing line for example. Upon opening of the dedicated passenger line they removed all the quasi-high-speed journeys (D trains) on the classic lines forcing everyone to use the new services. That would have been fine were it not for the fact that prices jumped 50% for very marginal speed reductions for most journeys, just because the journey designation was upgraded from quasi-hi-speed to hi-speed (G trains). And the mass reallocation of trains from Shanghai Station (city centre location) to Shanghai Hongqiao (parkway location) affected a lot of users. These two factors led to the sorry situation of half-empty high-speed trains and soaring demand for coach services. Then there were instances of second-class tickets being 'sold out' and passengers forced to buy first-class or standing tickets discovering carriages of empty seats on the actual train. Over time the MOR had to give in and move many journeys back to the city centre station. Unfortunately CRH is a political project and as we all know what happens once politicians start to micromanage engineering projects.

Some things are indeed temporary but even short-term mismatch of resrouces is an economic cost. And from a passenger point of view, splashing billions and trillions of ¥¥¥s should actually bring significant benefits in terms of speed, accessibility and value for money. If the new station is yet to be properly connected you don't completely remove existing services from existing stations; if the journey time increase is marginal you don't hike prices by 50%.

It's not just short-term managerial aspects that are of concern either. The new high-speed line between Shanghai and Nanjing has 33 wopping new stations, which would be like HS2 in Britain having stations in the Chilterns and Staffordshire. All these shiny new stations are underused - classic lines unable to use these stations certainly doesn't help - and the few journeys that do stop at small stations are messing up the timetable big time. These is no strategy on how to to utilise the classic line (which actually supports 200km/h running for many sections) and integrate it into the high-speed network. You'd think high-speed trains only calling at the half dozen major cities (most of these do actually have shared stations with classic lines ironically) with stopping services running on classic lines connecting to HSR would be the logical setup, but hey that's too easy.
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 02:08 PM   #3907
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,977
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
While it is indeed silly to argue against the concept of HSR itself, there are many aspects of CRH that could have been executed much much better.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
It's not just short-term managerial aspects that are of concern either. The new high-speed line between Shanghai and Nanjing has 33 wopping new stations, which would be like HS2 in Britain having stations in the Chilterns and Staffordshire.
Not really. It is densely settled Jiangnan throughout!
Compare Tokaido. The old (narrow gauge, limited to 130 km/h) Tokaido mainline has 85 or so stations on the 366 km between Tokyo and Nagoya included. Shinkansen has 342 km route, and has 13 stations (incl. termini) - all of which save two are shared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
All these shiny new stations are underused - classic lines unable to use these stations certainly doesn't help - and the few journeys that do stop at small stations are messing up the timetable big time.
And that is a big problem. Japan shows how to mix Kodama, Nozomi and Hikari trains in a dense timetable. China has not learned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
These is no strategy on how to to utilise the classic line (which actually supports 200km/h running for many sections) and integrate it into the high-speed network. You'd think high-speed trains only calling at the half dozen major cities (most of these do actually have shared stations with classic lines ironically) with stopping services running on classic lines connecting to HSR would be the logical setup, but hey that's too easy.
That is what Beijing-Shanghai high speed railway shall have when it opens next year. 8 stations between Nanjing South and Hongqiao included.

Only Hongqiao and Kunshan South are shared with Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway.
chornedsnorkack está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 03:50 PM   #3908
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1779

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Agreed.

Not really. It is densely settled Jiangnan throughout!
Compare Tokaido. The old (narrow gauge, limited to 130 km/h) Tokaido mainline has 85 or so stations on the 366 km between Tokyo and Nagoya included. Shinkansen has 342 km route, and has 13 stations (incl. termini) - all of which save two are shared.
You need to have a tiered system (like the Japanese example here) rather than trying to have a one-size-fits-all model (what the Nanjing - Shanghai line tries to be), the outcome of which is inevitably utter failure. The most logical solution for smaller settlements is local stopping services connecting express services.

Quote:
And that is a big problem. Japan shows how to mix Kodama, Nozomi and Hikari trains in a dense timetable. China has not learned.
Although admittedly lack of rolling stock is also a factor.

Quote:
That is what Beijing-Shanghai high speed railway shall have when it opens next year. 8 stations between Nanjing South and Hongqiao included.

Only Hongqiao and Kunshan South are shared with Shanghai-Nanjing high speed railway.
But the Beijing - Shanghai alignment is just not suited to regional HSR operation as the stations are way too far out in the sticks. In fact having those stations will either mean under-utilised stations or a messy timetable, i.e. all the problems present on the Shanghai - Nanjing line.

The Beijing - Shanghai line should only concentrate on Beijing, Tianjin, Jinan, Xuzhou, Nanjing and Shanghai, and let regional HSLs connect to the mainline at the main stations. Services on the Beijing - Shanghai line could terminate at central stations using spurs and call at cities en route at parkway stations.

This way you could actually have a simple, integrated network with trains having clock-face timetables, and this simpler structure would mean lower construction costs as well.

Last edited by NCT; November 21st, 2010 at 03:57 PM.
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 05:40 PM   #3909
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
While it is indeed silly to argue against the concept of HSR itself, there are many aspects of CRH that could have been executed much much better.

Take the Shanghai - Nanjing line for example. Upon opening of the dedicated passenger line they removed all the quasi-high-speed journeys (D trains) on the classic lines forcing everyone to use the new services. That would have been fine were it not for the fact that prices jumped 50% for very marginal speed reductions for most journeys, just because the journey designation was upgraded from quasi-hi-speed to hi-speed (G trains). And the mass reallocation of trains from Shanghai Station (city centre location) to Shanghai Hongqiao (parkway location) affected a lot of users. These two factors led to the sorry situation of half-empty high-speed trains and soaring demand for coach services. Then there were instances of second-class tickets being 'sold out' and passengers forced to buy first-class or standing tickets discovering carriages of empty seats on the actual train. Over time the MOR had to give in and move many journeys back to the city centre station. Unfortunately CRH is a political project and as we all know what happens once politicians start to micromanage engineering projects.

Some things are indeed temporary but even short-term mismatch of resrouces is an economic cost. And from a passenger point of view, splashing billions and trillions of ¥¥¥s should actually bring significant benefits in terms of speed, accessibility and value for money. If the new station is yet to be properly connected you don't completely remove existing services from existing stations; if the journey time increase is marginal you don't hike prices by 50%.

It's not just short-term managerial aspects that are of concern either. The new high-speed line between Shanghai and Nanjing has 33 wopping new stations, which would be like HS2 in Britain having stations in the Chilterns and Staffordshire. All these shiny new stations are underused - classic lines unable to use these stations certainly doesn't help - and the few journeys that do stop at small stations are messing up the timetable big time. These is no strategy on how to to utilise the classic line (which actually supports 200km/h running for many sections) and integrate it into the high-speed network. You'd think high-speed trains only calling at the half dozen major cities (most of these do actually have shared stations with classic lines ironically) with stopping services running on classic lines connecting to HSR would be the logical setup, but hey that's too easy.
In my opinion, once the whole network is complete together with subway lines in the cities, the whole thing will be a new mode of transport. Very fast, and covering whole China. Using old stations or old lines for new HSR would have come with its limitations. By building completely new, you are creating something future proof. In other words, there is a lot of head space for further development. If you think the potential of rail transport in China, this network has to have these new station and completely independent lines from the old network. These guarantees high speed, high capacity and a safer system.

Also, your example (Shanghai - Nanjing line) is a intercity high speed line not a part of main trunk lines. So it really does not tell much about the large scale project. It is designed to replace D trains in theory anyway.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 05:50 PM   #3910
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,505
Likes (Received): 6894

Once the Beijing-Shanghai line opens, the Nanjing-Shanghai line will be for semi-high speed and the Beijing-Shanghai line will be for real high speed. It wasn't supposed to provide the fastest transportation (though it does now), just improve connectivity in the area by a lot. The huge price increase was a bit unnecessary though.
BarbaricManchurian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 06:40 PM   #3911
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1779

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
In my opinion, once the whole network is complete together with subway lines in the cities, the whole thing will be a new mode of transport. Very fast, and covering whole China. Using old stations or old lines for new HSR would have come with its limitations. By building completely new, you are creating something future proof. In other words, there is a lot of head space for further development. If you think the potential of rail transport in China, this network has to have these new station and completely independent lines from the old network. These guarantees high speed, high capacity and a safer system.

Also, your example (Shanghai - Nanjing line) is a intercity high speed line not a part of main trunk lines. So it really does not tell much about the large scale project. It is designed to replace D trains in theory anyway.
Future proofing isn't just about building something big and shiny, it's also about improving management and increasing efficiency. Only integration will give you speed as well as convenience. The devil is in the detail. Flexible ticketing, clock-face timetable and better signalling will drastically reduce requirements for waiting room capacity, platform size and numbers.

The whole point of building HSR is to move people who live and work in existing settlements. If you have to travel on the Metro for 30 minutes either end what's the point of 350 km/h? Let me give you an example, the removal of D trains from Shanghai Station to make way for G trains from Hongqiao actually increased journey time and cost for a good majority of passengers, especially business travellers based in Huangpu, Luwan, Jing'an and Lujiazui.

You have to have an integrated and tiered system to cater from journeys of different lengths and speed requirements. The classic lines, while not offering the fastest journeys, have the best located stations especially for small settlements. These lines are best suited to providing feeder services to high-speed services. You simply can't have everyone doing everything because you end up with a mess. No system should be in isolation from any other.

The whole point about building such an expansive system is to improve travel. The benefit of higher speed and higher capacity is not realised until there is convenience, flexibility and simplicity. You need simple service patterns with clockface timetables to get the maximum number of people out of cars and planes.

Now, the Beijing - Shanghai HSR and the regional intercity lines share very few stations, so neither trains and passengers can switch between the two easily. And you can guarantee the MOR will axe inter-regional D trains to artificially boost G-train demand to make a few bucks. And if you want to travel between less busy stops your options will be extremely limited, with just a handful of trains a day.

Just consider Wuxi to Dezhou on the Beijing - Shanghai HSR. The new stations Wuxi East and Dezhou East are very far from the cities, and Dezhou will not have a metro network meaning either a bumpy ride on the buses or an expensive taxi fare. City centre to city centre is only possible through the snail-pace classic lines. What's worse is that neither option will allow you to 'turn up and go'.

The same kind of hardware could easily achieve service patterns such as

Shanghai - Nanjing stopping at all major cities, 4 tph, using regional metals;
Nanjing - Jinan calling at Xuzhou East 1 tph using the trunk line;
Jinan - Tianjin, stopping, 2 tph, using the regional metals.

With 2 changes you can do a city-centre to city-centre journey benefiting from HSR, and because there is at least 1 train per hour on each leg, you lose very little connection time, and a clockface timetable will mean your journey will be the same whether you turn up at 9:34, 12:34 or 16:34.
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 08:36 PM   #3912
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31



Three reasons for new stations to be distant from current city centers. Was told first hand by a municipal level city politician.

1. Too costly, both monetary and politically, to bulldoze through existing urbanization.
2. Stimulate the developement of a new city center. A chance to "start again new" and move away from the 1950s era city planning that in many cases are very ineffective.
3. It's what the central government have ordered and they did this for a variety of reasons that are too complicated to explain on this forum.

One thing I want to remind the fellows on this forum is that the people who had commissioned the design of this railway are also the same people who are managing 1.3 billion people in the fastest growing, and one of the most powerful, economies in the world. I'd try to look at things from their prespective before trying to sound smarter than they are.

As for the ticket prices.

The prices for travel on China's railway had been static for the most part of the past two decades, where as housing prices have inflated more than 4000% in some cases. The politicial situation in China made it very difficult to raises prices and the only way they could do this was to channel it via new servicei introduction. Hense the ticket price jumps on the introductions of the Z, D, and C trains respectively. Any of price increases mentioned had drew complaints, but these complaints had also quickly vanished because the costs were still well within the affordability of its intended target sector.

One of the reasons why slower services on the old lines were axed when new services were introduced was to ensure raidership on the new lines. This is true. But the reason why the new lines were built was so that the existing lines could be freed up to freight traffic, which currently in China move as fast as a hand pushed kattle cart and is just as dependable. If the existing service wasn't moved off the existing lines, the new lines wouldn't have served its full purpose.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower

Last edited by UD2; November 21st, 2010 at 08:52 PM.
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 10:03 PM   #3913
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post

The whole point of building HSR is to move people who live and work in existing settlements.
For me this is the issue. You cannot develop any infrastructure project for existing settlements, especially for China this will translate into failure. Or the best case scenario, you will need another project in 5 years. Do you really think you can serve whole Shanghai from a single train station? Should you serve it from a singe station? What about Shanghai in 2020?

To fine tune a system, first, you need to have a system. In my opinion most of what you are saying is accusing a network, that is under construction, not being complete. In couple of years, those shiny and large stations (they have to be large by the way and being shiny is cool too ) will be integrated by subways and you will have a very organic system. You have to give some time for network to settle.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2010, 11:40 PM   #3914
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1779

Pah, I'd be a bit sceptical of any 'politicians know best' arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UD2 View Post


Three reasons for new stations to be distant from current city centers. Was told first hand by a municipal level city politician.

1. Too costly, both monetary and politically, to bulldoze through existing urbanization.
2. Stimulate the developement of a new city center. A chance to "start again new" and move away from the 1950s era city planning that in many cases are very ineffective.
3. It's what the central government have ordered and they did this for a variety of reasons that are too complicated to explain on this forum.
In short it's politics. There's nothing technically or financially challenging about building central stations. In nine out of ten of cities and towns there are swathes of inner city slum that are crying to be redeveloped, and station building/expansion and other developments can be coordinated. In fact Suzhou, Wuxi, Changzhou and Tianjin are fine examples of just such coordinated developments.

What I was arguing was that money could even be saved by eliminating the smaller stations on the Beijing - Shanghai line so it can operate operate a simple timetable of faster services. All you need then is a bit of clever integration between the mainline and reginal lines, so passengers can connect between different services and take advantage of city-centre stations. Connecting tracks between the two lines exist to some extent, but some key links are missing, like accessing Nanjing West from the main high-speed line. Such connections would open up to a whole world of interchange opportunities, but of course one needs to wait until the phrase 'intra-modal interchange' entered the MOR vocabury.

On a more general note, trillians of ¥¥¥s were splashed on the gigantic structures of Hongqiao, Guangzhou South and North Xi'an. It's perfectly possible to build more conservative looking stations or expand existing ones with smaller footprints and better integration with surroundings at lower costs. The huge crowd kettling space won't be necessary the moment ticketing and station entry becomes 21st century.

Quote:
One thing I want to remind the fellows on this forum is that the people who had commissioned the design of this railway are also the same people who are managing 1.3 billion people in the fastest growing, and one of the most powerful, economies in the world. I'd try to look at things from their prespective before trying to sound smarter than they are.
In some cases it's the same politicians whose only mission in life is to score points against one another to secure contracts for their relatives and friends and line their own pockets with little red envelopes. As examples from Suzhou and Tianjin show if done the right way things CAN be made to work.

Quote:
As for the ticket prices.

The prices for travel on China's railway had been static for the most part of the past two decades, where as housing prices have inflated more than 4000% in some cases. The politicial situation in China made it very difficult to raises prices and the only way they could do this was to channel it via new servicei introduction. Hense the ticket price jumps on the introductions of the Z, D, and C trains respectively. Any of price increases mentioned had drew complaints, but these complaints had also quickly vanished because the costs were still well within the affordability of its intended target sector.
Sorry, but house prices just do not justify massive ticket price hikes, especially seeing as house price levels themselves are not justified in the first place. And changing service designation from D to G does NOT amount to new service introduction. The only people who can afford ever increasing fares are business travellers who get their expenses covered by their companies, who are actually complaining about the far-away stations. Joe average either use the limited green-skins or opt for coaches.

Quote:
One of the reasons why slower services on the old lines were axed when new services were introduced was to ensure raidership on the new lines. This is true. But the reason why the new lines were built was so that the existing lines could be freed up to freight traffic, which currently in China move as fast as a hand pushed kattle cart and is just as dependable. If the existing service wasn't moved off the existing lines, the new lines wouldn't have served its full purpose.
If the high-speed services were so great why didn't the MOR let people vote with their feet and allow a transitionary period to let people get used to the new service, and withdraw the old services gracefully?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
For me this is the issue. You cannot develop any infrastructure project for existing settlements, especially for China this will translate into failure. Or the best case scenario, you will need another project in 5 years. Do you really think you can serve whole Shanghai from a single train station? Should you serve it from a singe station? What about Shanghai in 2020?
Shanghai definitely needs more platform capacities than in Shanghai Station and Shanghai South, but I don't think Hongqiao in its current form is the right way to do it. There were opportunities to expand Shanghai Station, and Shanghai South, considering how new it was could have been designed much better, and there's still room for more platforms if there's the will. Hongqiao Station is a good idea as an complementary alternative but it should serve a secondary role.

In my wildest dream plans I actually want to extend the Nanjing - Shanghai classic line east and build a station at North Bund for terminating commuter services and freeing up capacity at Shanghai Station for more long-distance services, with a ferry service, foot tunnel and metro connections to Lujiazui, and a Zhongshan Park Station for a new line heading west serving Qingpu, Huzhou, and taking away the Wuhan and Xi'an services that currently use Shanghai - Nanjing line. With the right coordination all that could have been done no more expensive than Hongqiao and much more effectively.

Quote:
To fine tune a system, first, you need to have a system. In my opinion most of what you are saying is accusing a network, that is under construction, not being complete. In couple of years, those shiny and large stations (they have to be large by the way and being shiny is cool too ) will be integrated by subways and you will have a very organic system. You have to give some time for network to settle.
But the network around Shanghai IS practically complete. Hongqiao is already connected by line 2 but Shanghai Central is still more convenient! For a lot of people using the out-of-town station means at least 20 minutes extra travel time, and D to G doesn't even save that much time!

That's not withstanding the fact that the smaller parkway stations like Chuzhou and Xuzhou which are 10km from the city proper etc will NOT have urban rail connections.

Last edited by NCT; November 22nd, 2010 at 12:03 AM.
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 01:14 AM   #3915
fragel
Registered User
 
fragel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fragel Town, Michigan
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
What I was arguing was that money could even be saved by eliminating the smaller stations on the Beijing - Shanghai line so it can operate operate a simple timetable of faster services.
One advantage of riding HSR compared to flying is the intermediate stations. Plus, you'd expect much more pressure from local governments and people if MOR was to skip those 'small cities'.

Quote:
Sorry, but house prices just do not justify massive ticket price hikes, especially seeing as house price levels themselves are not justified in the first place.
I agree house price is too controversial to be compared to train fare. However, fare for most old conventional trains were priced in the 90's, and definitely lagged behind income level and other common commodities. When the D-trains were introduced I remember there were similar complaints about how MOR was robbing people. I suspect that MOR made the HSR fare higher at the beginning because they were afraid of not being able to raise it in the future.

Quote:
If the high-speed services were so great why didn't the MOR let people vote with their feet and allow a transitionary period to let people get used to the new service, and withdraw the old services gracefully?
I second this. I understand how eager MOR is to convert the old conventional lines into freight lines, for they have been subsidizing the passenger service with profit made on freight lines all the time. If it is impossible to make the HSR fare lower during the transitional period, then they should probably keep the low-fare service. well, this is against MOR's interest, and no wonder it is reluctant to do so.

Quote:
Hongqiao Station is a good idea as an complementary alternative but it should serve a secondary role.
If it only serves a secondary role, I don't see any reason why it needs to exist then.

Quote:
In my wildest dream plans I actually want to extend the Nanjing - Shanghai classic line east and build a station at North Bund for terminating commuter services and freeing up capacity at Shanghai Station for more long-distance services, with a ferry service, foot tunnel and metro connections to Lujiazui, and a Zhongshan Park Station for a new line heading west serving Qingpu, Huzhou, and taking away the Wuhan and Xi'an services that currently use Shanghai - Nanjing line. With the right coordination all that could have been done no more expensive than Hongqiao and much more effectively.
I seriously doubt your dream plans could be achieved with the money they put on Hongqiao traffic hub. Not even with doubled money.



I'd say there are problems and complaints at this stage, but mostly regarding services and ticketing system. let's see if things will be improved given some period of fine-tuning.
__________________
女口果人尔能句多王里解这句言舌,京尤言兑日月人尔有匕匕车交严重白勺斗又鸟目艮。

Last edited by fragel; November 22nd, 2010 at 01:20 AM.
fragel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 02:46 AM   #3916
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Two things, Shanghai-Nanjing PDL was built specifically to remove the majority of D trains from the existing Shanghai-Nanjing line which was a timetable nightmare due to different levels of trains. If most trains running on the old line are standard speed ones it'll be able to increase the frequency of freight trains. There is a huge supply and demand gap for cargo on the old line. Second, I don't understand why people always complain about Hongqiao station being too far from city center, it situates in a densely populated area of Shanghai, and it only took about 25 minutes of subway ride to get there from People's Square.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 12:40 PM   #3917
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1779

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
Two things, Shanghai-Nanjing PDL was built specifically to remove the majority of D trains from the existing Shanghai-Nanjing line which was a timetable nightmare due to different levels of trains. If most trains running on the old line are standard speed ones it'll be able to increase the frequency of freight trains. There is a huge supply and demand gap for cargo on the old line. Second, I don't understand why people always complain about Hongqiao station being too far from city center, it situates in a densely populated area of Shanghai, and it only took about 25 minutes of subway ride to get there from People's Square.
The PDL had the potential of working fantastically if the authorities bothered to put in a transitory period and priced the new service in a way that reflected actual time savings (which isn't that much for most journeys). What is stupid is that

Hongqiao Station isn't situated in a densely populated area of Shanghai. The areas to its west are completely rural, and it's separated from the urban area by 2 runways. 25 minutes from the centre is too long, considering it's only 10 to Shanghai Station. The time saving of a typical stopping G train compared to D train might not even be that. Apart from people from Changning District, Shanghai Station is the more convenient for most travellers.

The natural demand distribution is such that a fair majority would find Shanghai Station more convenient, so the timetable should reflect that, as the MOR has found out the hard way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragel View Post
One advantage of riding HSR compared to flying is the intermediate stations. Plus, you'd expect much more pressure from local governments and people if MOR was to skip those 'small cities'.
But now the small cities get an irragular timetable instead of the potential turn-up-and-go service possible with a speed downgrade (which actually translates to overall faster and more convenient travelling).

Quote:
If [Hongqiao] only serves a secondary role, I don't see any reason why it needs to exist then.
It's still a good alternative for Hongqiao Economic Zone (Line 10) and residents in the western suburbs who'll be connected to Hongqiao Station by lines 5 and 17. What I'm fundamentally against is forcing other people to spend ages on urban transit to come to Hongqiao to take a train.

Quote:
I seriously doubt your dream plans could be achieved with the money they put on Hongqiao traffic hub. Not even with doubled money.
The station at North Bund and Zhongshan Park need not be architecturally extravagent, and these areas have been undergoing are undergoing such redevelopment that given some coordination a lot of money could be saved. Land value in the surrounding brownfield sites would increase giving the authorities a lot of profit. The return on investment on inner-city brownfield sites are much higher than peripheral greenfield sites in Hongqiao that are just struggling to take off.
NCT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 02:34 PM   #3918
yaohua2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 453
Likes (Received): 7

- wrong thread -

Last edited by yaohua2000; November 22nd, 2010 at 03:49 PM.
yaohua2000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 05:56 PM   #3919
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,977
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragel View Post

I second this. I understand how eager MOR is to convert the old conventional lines into freight lines, for they have been subsidizing the passenger service with profit made on freight lines all the time.
Plus, express trains on freight lines clog them up. Slow, stopping passenger trains that move at the pace of freight trains or let them pass at passenger stations are much easier to fit on old lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragel View Post
If it only serves a secondary role, I don't see any reason why it needs to exist then.
A big problem with Hongqiao is that it is a terminal station. Compare the Shinkansens at Tokyo, where Shinagawa station 6,8 km from Tokyo and Ueno Station 3,6 km from Tokyo are very important secondary stations, where most express trains stop. Splitting the arriving passengers between a suburban station and a central station would help with handling masses of people and cars.
chornedsnorkack está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2010, 06:04 PM   #3920
stoneybee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
The PDL had the potential of working fantastically if the authorities bothered to put in a transitory period and priced the new service in a way that reflected actual time savings (which isn't that much for most journeys). What is stupid is that

Hongqiao Station isn't situated in a densely populated area of Shanghai. The areas to its west are completely rural, and it's separated from the urban area by 2 runways. 25 minutes from the centre is too long, considering it's only 10 to Shanghai Station. The time saving of a typical stopping G train compared to D train might not even be that. Apart from people from Changning District, Shanghai Station is the more convenient for most travellers.

The natural demand distribution is such that a fair majority would find Shanghai Station more convenient, so the timetable should reflect that, as the MOR has found out the hard way.



But now the small cities get an irragular timetable instead of the potential turn-up-and-go service possible with a speed downgrade (which actually translates to overall faster and more convenient travelling).



It's still a good alternative for Hongqiao Economic Zone (Line 10) and residents in the western suburbs who'll be connected to Hongqiao Station by lines 5 and 17. What I'm fundamentally against is forcing other people to spend ages on urban transit to come to Hongqiao to take a train.



The station at North Bund and Zhongshan Park need not be architecturally extravagent, and these areas have been undergoing are undergoing such redevelopment that given some coordination a lot of money could be saved. Land value in the surrounding brownfield sites would increase giving the authorities a lot of profit. The return on investment on inner-city brownfield sites are much higher than peripheral greenfield sites in Hongqiao that are just struggling to take off.
Just keep in mind the following two things when you think everything that MOR does is wrong, and dream up your fantasy plan.

1) Hongqiao was never a green field site. It used to be Shanghai's main airport and everyone loves that location versus the new Pudong airport.

2) As other members have pointed out before, the people that designs the new CRH/HSR structure are the same people that managed to move 25% of world rail traffic volume with less than 9% of world track length. The Chinese railway network remains the most heavily utilized and probably the most efficient railway system in the world. Personally, I would give them more credit than any armchair strategist.
stoneybee no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china, high speed train, rail, tgv

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 01:55 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