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 23rd, 2010, 07:22 PM   #3941
LHCHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Likes (Received): 2

I've been reading this thread for a while and feel like signing up to comment, I think what appear obvious to internet observers isn't going to be lost on MOR and city planners, in any engineering projects vast amount of reports and studies would have been written trading off pros and cons of all major decisions, and they made a decision based on those studies. People writing those reports likely have access to more information than internet observers do, so one should be careful when using the word "obviously". Now it is possible they made a mistake, if so the effects, in terms of ridership and revenue isn't going to be lost on anyone, and MOR planners will have to deal with it accordingly. As an engineer I know the last thing I want to see is some arm-chair strategist without a full picture of what I'm doing influencing high level decisions, so unless you are ready to commit to conducting extensive and rigorous engineering studies, let's just keep comments to the speculation level and focus on more pictures.
LHCHL no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 23rd, 2010, 10:02 PM   #3942
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
With due respect, I don't think you understand Shanghai very well. You seem to think that tourism and businesses don't mix, and you couldn't be more wrong. While it is true many touristy places in China are devoid of originical characters, London and Paris are examples of people living and working in culture, and that's what make those cities great.

The areas around the bund are still the most sought after locations for high-end businesses and government locations. Within the Bund - River Suzhou - Xizang Road - Yan'an road rectangle, as old Shikumens are demolished, high-rise grade A offices, hotels and high-end apartments are popping up everywhere. Far from being an romantic and touristy place, this old core is already highly developed in terms of modern business activities. Bund Centre, Shimao Plaza, Tomorrow Square, Raffles City ... are but a few examples. If you skim through this yet incomplete thread you'll find Shanghai's old core is growing faster than anywhere else.

The old core is growing, as you say, vertically and horizontally, i.e. its spreading outwards. The bund is growing both ways as Shiliupu and North Bund are being developed; the whole section between Middle Huaihai Road and Xintiandi is completely mixed use and highly business orientated (HK Plaza, PwC offices etc); the Nanjing Road axis is fattening and the Jing'an Temple area is balooning (Huamin Tower, Wheelock Square and Gerry Centre Phase Two). Detached from the old core you have Lujiazui and the Century Avenue axis stretching all the way to the Science Museum, which are all growing, and most ironically the area round Shanghai Station is undergoing a massive amount of transformation. Yes the city is growing, but very much in a concentric mannor - there is no shift! Businesses are moving IN, not out! As you can see a lot of the development are simply on the wrong side of Hongqiao, and Shanghai Station is in a perfect location to serve all of these business districts. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in removing trains from Shanghai Station.

It's not so much I want everything to be in the centre, but rather most activities are happening in the centre. People don't always realise how much the centre is being transformed because there is no hype around such developments - they happen organically. Only politicians and certain developers with vested interests want meddle with natural development patterns and make a song and dance about a shift from old to new, because they can then be seen doing something and make a fast buck from developing greenfield sites and leave the problems of vacancy and waste to the society at large. Cities grow in this concentric way for most obvious reasons - economies of scale - businesses and services feed on each other and take advantage of the invisible networks built up through decades and centuries, and a concentric pattern is the best pattern for public transport provision because of its simplicity. Those who believe it's easier to all uproot and settle into a new place are like those hardcore old Keynesian economists who think it's cheaper to alter production than reprint price tags.
I think we are drifting a little bit, last thing I want to write is in my view you are underestimating development rates of Chinese cities. You are missing the whole picture and what is trying to be achieved by 4+4 high speed rail network. It is not a part of current rail network. If you want to do that you will end up with a slow network likes in Europe. This is completely new mode of transportation and it has been built from scratch. I believe this is the only way to have a future-proof network serving 1.3 billion people with 300km/h+ average speed.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2010, 10:31 PM   #3943
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by LHCHL View Post
Now it is possible they made a mistake, if so the effects, in terms of ridership and revenue isn't going to be lost on anyone, and MOR planners will have to deal with it accordingly. As an engineer I know the last thing I want to see is some arm-chair strategist without a full picture of what I'm doing influencing high level decisions, so unless you are ready to commit to conducting extensive and rigorous engineering studies, let's just keep comments to the speculation level and focus on more pictures.
They made one undeniable mistake. Indefinite suspension of ticket sales a few days after opening a line is no sign of good planning.

What other mistakes have they made?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2010, 10:47 PM   #3944
FazilLanka
Registered User
 
FazilLanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kandy
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 14

Chinese Railways are gearing up on mass scale.
FazilLanka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2010, 11:20 PM   #3945
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1777

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
I think we are drifting a little bit, last thing I want to write is in my view you are underestimating development rates of Chinese cities. You are missing the whole picture and what is trying to be achieved by 4+4 high speed rail network. It is not a part of current rail network. If you want to do that you will end up with a slow network likes in Europe. This is completely new mode of transportation and it has been built from scratch. I believe this is the only way to have a future-proof network serving 1.3 billion people with 300km/h+ average speed.
What's the purpose of building a new railway system? To serve the needs of the people, and you need to take into account where people ARE. People need to travel to and from stations and they can't just apparate like in Harry Potter. 9 of 10 growing cities also have rapidly gentrifying city centres so it absolutely makes no sense to reduce service provision for existing centres. The growing footprint of cities is in fact suburbanisation - dormitory residential areas, though sometimes in amongst some specialised industrial and science parks. Alright, forget about all the rest, just answer me these question - are you still disputing Shanghai city centre's strategic importance is growing and do you still feel removing services from Shanghai Station is justified?

You cannot discount everything that's old in pursuit of the new. You'll end up with a sorry mess of a 2-tiered society. In 50 years' time will the current generation of 'new' things be considered old again then you start up something else completely new? Are we going then to see two generations of half abandoned, crime ridden old settlements and infrastructure blotted over the landscape? The pursuit of 'big' and 'new' has no rational basis and is nothing more than political dogma.

To say European networks are slow is a gross simplification. I don't need to remind you what TGV is - a comprehensive network with trains primarily serving city centres, and the network certainly isn't slow with typical top speeds of 300km/h. UK and Germany don't have dedicated high-speed lines as such, but the networks are dense, with trains operating clock-face timetables and passenger-friendly flexible ticketing. And because stations are in town and city centres you can walk to your destinations easily.

I travel up and down the UK frequently and it's just remarkable how I don't even need to take a taxi after getting off the train at the other end. My dad commutes to London (200 km away) every week, and he walks to the Beeston Station which is 20 minutes from this house, and upon getting off London St Pancras, walks for 15 minutes to get to his place of work. The train journey itself might be pathetically slow (the Midland Main Line if anyone is interested) but you save the 30-minute metro journey either end.

Of course China is building state of the art new mainline railways, with the highest operational speed on earth. However, we must ask ourselves these questions too:

1. Will there be clockface timetables and flexble ticketing and journey options?
2. Will there be a large pool of prime destinations close to railway stations that will minimise access times?
3. Are there provisions for a comprehensive network of regional network for the hundreds of towns and cities not connected with railways, and would such a network be able to integrate with the HSLs that are currently being built?
4. As the Chinese people get richer will they be able to convince themselves to leave the car at home at take the train instead?
5. Will faster raw travelling speed actually translate to a faster journeys overall door to door?

The answers to these questions are uncertain at best. The Shanghai - Beijing and Shanghai - Nanjing will still have passenger-unfriendly timetables and I can't see how the smaller cities will grow to completely consume the parkway stations 15km away, and this raises serious questions how parkway cities will be able to cater for shorter regional journeys and how railways will effectively serve the current unconnected cities. And this is what happens when you blindly chase headlines of top-speed and forget what building railways are actually for.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 03:57 AM   #3946
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Ok.. let's continue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
What's the purpose of building a new railway system? To serve the needs of the people, and you need to take into account where people ARE.
Also, you have to consider where people will be. That's the point of future proofing. I am sorry, but you are again ignoring future development, really low urbanization rate in China and last 20 years of China. Every city in China developed couple folds in last 20 year. There are some extreme examples out there like Shenzhen too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
People need to travel to and from stations and they can't just apparate like in Harry Potter.
No, they will use subways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
9 of 10 growing cities also have rapidly gentrifying city centres so it absolutely makes no sense to reduce service provision for existing centres.
Reducing? They have built the largest subway system in the world for Shanghai! And it is not even finished yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
The growing footprint of cities is in fact suburbanisation - dormitory residential areas, though sometimes in amongst some specialised industrial and science parks. Alright, forget about all the rest, just answer me these question - are you still disputing Shanghai city centre's strategic importance is growing and do you still feel removing services from Shanghai Station is justified?
I dont see any problem for majority of the population because of subway system. There is limitations of Shanghai Station. Most important is its size. Shanghai Station would have been just a barrier for high speed rail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
You cannot discount everything that's old in pursuit of the new. You'll end up with a sorry mess of a 2-tiered society.
I am not discounting anything. I am not suggesting any demolition On contrary I like historical places

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
In 50 years' time will the current generation of 'new' things be considered old again then you start up something else completely new?
Absolutely, Yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Are we going then to see two generations of half abandoned, crime ridden old settlements and infrastructure blotted over the landscape?
I am lost here. Of course not, if I have to answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
The pursuit of 'big' and 'new' has no rational basis and is nothing more than political dogma.
Look around again. People work for new and better. (big is not always better but in China, it is kind of requirement.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
To say European networks are slow is a gross simplification. I don't need to remind you what TGV is - a comprehensive network with trains primarily serving city centres, and the network certainly isn't slow with typical top speeds of 300km/h.
Top speed means little.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
UK and Germany don't have dedicated high-speed lines as such, but the networks are dense, with trains operating clock-face timetables and passenger-friendly flexible ticketing. And because stations are in town and city centres you can walk to your destinations easily.
This situation might be "enough" for Europe. What China will have at the end will be faster and better. Simply because it is "new". China needs faster trains and more capacity because of demand and much longer distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
I travel up and down the UK frequently and it's just remarkable how I don't even need to take a taxi after getting off the train at the other end. My dad commutes to London (200 km away) every week, and he walks to the Beeston Station which is 20 minutes from this house, and upon getting off London St Pancras, walks for 15 minutes to get to his place of work. The train journey itself might be pathetically slow (the Midland Main Line if anyone is interested) but you save the 30-minute metro journey either end.
All you need 20 min subway trip for God's sake, you are saying he spends 20min to reach station anyway. Also, are we really comparing a small town to large cities in China?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Of course China is building state of the art new mainline railways, with the highest operational speed on earth. However, we must ask ourselves these questions too:

1. Will there be clockface timetables and flexble ticketing and journey options?
2. Will there be a large pool of prime destinations close to railway stations that will minimise access times?
3. Are there provisions for a comprehensive network of regional network for the hundreds of towns and cities not connected with railways, and would such a network be able to integrate with the HSLs that are currently being built?
4. As the Chinese people get richer will they be able to convince themselves to leave the car at home at take the train instead?
5. Will faster raw travelling speed actually translate to a faster journeys overall door to door?
IMHO, Yes, for all of them. Time will tell... Hopefully in 5-6 years, we will be seeing the numbers for the whole 4+4 network

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
The answers to these questions are uncertain at best. The Shanghai - Beijing and Shanghai - Nanjing will still have passenger-unfriendly timetables and I can't see how the smaller cities will grow to completely consume the parkway stations 15km away, and this raises serious questions how parkway cities will be able to cater for shorter regional journeys and how railways will effectively serve the current unconnected cities. And this is what happens when you blindly chase headlines of top-speed and forget what building railways are actually for.
You expect to see everyone to have walk to stations? If the city large, they will have subways, if not trams, if not buses. Especially for large cities, this discussion is really meaningless. Even if the station is in the center, almost everyone has to take the subway to reach there anyway. It is just a matter of direction
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 04:21 AM   #3947
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT
I travel up and down the UK frequently and it's just remarkable how I don't even need to take a taxi after getting off the train at the other end. My dad commutes to London (200 km away) every week, and he walks to the Beeston Station which is 20 minutes from this house, and upon getting off London St Pancras, walks for 15 minutes to get to his place of work. The train journey itself might be pathetically slow (the Midland Main Line if anyone is interested) but you save the 30-minute metro journey either end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT
The growing footprint of cities is in fact suburbanisation - dormitory residential areas, though sometimes in amongst some specialised industrial and science parks. Alright, forget about all the rest, just answer me these question - are you still disputing Shanghai city centre's strategic importance is growing and do you still feel removing services from Shanghai Station is justified?
Another reason to not argue with NCT. It's not really an argument when the points don't make sense. Suburbanization? What city in the world has been able to not expand its footprint, especially one with ultra high densities, severe overcrowding, a growing standard of living and an increasing population? It's much easier to make that argument against the North American cities and the commuter towns outside of London's greenbelt when it comes to wasteful suburbanization. High rise dormitory towns with mixed uses and provisions for mass transit may not comport with your aesthetic sensibilities, but they are the most efficient form of development right now.

Every possible journey anywhere is compared to a provincial city with a stagnant population. What are the odds of the average commuter in a much larger city with a growing population to WALK to the city's main train station? Even with ultra high densities, it's not physically possible. It's just not a plausible argument.

Guess what? If you lived in an even smaller village, your everyday needs would be even more convenient. 'Cept of course, you're still in a village. But for a variety of reasons, people continue to live in large metropolitan areas. People living in London would most likely not be able to walk to Victoria or King's Cross or St. Pancras, whereas the folks in Nottingham have that advantage. But the larger cities have and will continue to have their appeal.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 04:23 AM   #3948
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Right now, I'm still awaiting a response by a Megan McArdle fan. Sadly she has plenty of supporters, especially amongst the Anglo-American neoliberal crowd. Imagine railing (no pun intended) against intercity trains and urban transit, yet turning a blind eye towards even more road and suburban shopping centers.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 04:32 AM   #3949
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6911

Isn't the traditional "one city center" model is being abolished in China? I mean projects like Qian Hai Water City in Shenzhen is a good example of a "New City Center" being built in the... outskirts? Same will happen with Shanghai. It can't carry on expanding at its current location. It will have to have high density center elsewhere (most probably somewhere on the current outskirts of the city or even further away).

Therefore building the central rail hub in the existing center doesn't make sense. In fact, that would be a very short sighted decision. A hub (such as Hongqiao) should be built away from the center and be well connected to it as well as have plenty of space for expanding connections to the new forming centers. China is too populous and too dynamic to afford building railway stations in the city centers like the European cities (which won't grow by another 10+ million over the next few decades) do. And building a comprehensive transportation hub in a center of a 20+ million city (which is already overcrowded) would be a plain stupidity.

It's a philosophy of urban development. The question is whether such development is a pre-planned strategy or not? Even if it is, China hasn't got any experience in this area (and neither does anyone else). One important thing is that so far China did pretty well in developing its cities. In fact, perhaps better than anyone else managed to do it over such a short period of time: from the 3rd world slums to world-class urban developments and transport in less than 30 years. I really doubt there is any reason for it to fail all of a sudden for not following the 19th century European model of railway station construction and "one city center" ideology.

Last edited by Pansori; November 24th, 2010 at 04:41 AM.
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 07:52 AM   #3950
LHCHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Likes (Received): 2

Real engineering decisions likely faces far more constraints than remote observers can see, especially if it concerns future plans on a larger scale that you can not be aware of. High speed rail construction in China isn't isolated, MOR is part of central government, and I presume its coordinated with city and regional governments to, by completion, setup a comprehensive network of rail and subway network connecting all major Chinese cities, and that network is far from completion.

Come back when 4+4 plus peripheral is completed and then we can judge weather it was good planning, we are only looking at one piece of a much larger machinery, and sometimes individual pieces in these machines don't work that well by themselves until the whole machine is built
LHCHL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 08:13 AM   #3951
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
No, they will use subways.
Impractical.
Look at Shanghai Metro line 2. From Pudong to Hongqiao, 62 km, takes 100 minutes. From Hongqiao to Nanjing, 300 km, 73 minutes. You would be better off flying these 362 km, could take less than 173 minutes. From Hongqiao to Hangzhou, 158 km, 40 minutes.
When shall the extension of maglev between Longyang Road and Hongqiao start actual construction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Reducing? They have built the largest subway system in the world for Shanghai! And it is not even finished yet.
Yes, counting the lines called "subway". If you compare with suburban commuter rails of Tokyo, though...

Quote:
Suburbanization? What city in the world has been able to not expand its footprint, especially one with ultra high densities, severe overcrowding, a growing standard of living and an increasing population?
Some have not done much of it. Such as Hong Kong or Singapore.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 08:39 AM   #3952
greenlion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 30

BST Official News about CRH1-081A, 082A and 083A (second stage of CRH1A)

http://en.bsp.cn/info/content.asp?infoId=572



Spet.21, 2010, BST’s first 250km/h 8-consist EMU completed its type test of overall performance and adaptation test on main line. The results show that each indicator meets the requirements.

Sept.10-12, CRH1081A EMU headed for Qinshen line and completed dynamics test, current collection test, interior and railway noise test, etc. The maximum running speed was 278km/h. Sept.17-21, the traction, braking and automatic passing neutral section tests were done on Jiaoji Line with maximum running speed 252km/h.Sept.27, the coupled EMU (CRH1082A and CRH1083A) conducted current collection test and running resistance in Fuzhou EMU depot of Nanchang Railway Administration.

During the testing period, Engineering, Method, QA, After sales and other departments jointly participate the test, especially all the tests on Jiaoji Line were done at night, while our people overcame all kinds of hardships and tackled all the problems in a timely manner so that the tests were finally finished as scheduled.

By Sept.30, BST has delivered 5 EMUs to Nanchang Railway Administration.
greenlion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 02:11 PM   #3953
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1777

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Ok.. let's continue...

Also, you have to consider where people will be. That's the point of future proofing. I am sorry, but you are again ignoring future development, really low urbanization rate in China and last 20 years of China. Every city in China developed couple folds in last 20 year. There are some extreme examples out there like Shenzhen too.

No, they will use subways.

Reducing? They have built the largest subway system in the world for Shanghai! And it is not even finished yet.
Yes reducing, Hongqiao Hub is not getting its dedicated subway lines to the centre, so train passegners have to share capacity with commuters who on their own would pack the metro trains to the rafters. This linear travel pattern between Hongqiao and city centre will only increase, putting impossible pressure on lines 2 and 10. Those 2 lines just will not cope with the 20-30 16-car trains arriving into Hongqiao every hour. The good people of Beixinjing and Tianshan are already struggling to get onto the metro trains in the morning peaks as they are full from the first stop of Hongqiao.

It's just not efficient for people of Pudong and central Shanghai to use subways all the way to Hongqiao! You do realise overall journey time is longer using Hongqiao than Shanghai Central for people in Central, North, East and South Shanghai don't you?

And unfortunately, while semantically Shanghai has the largest subway system, in terms of total urban rail Shanghai is totally dwarfed by the likes of Tokyo and even London.

Ironically Shanghai Station will become better connected with higher capacity as lines 3 and 4 are getting remodelled, and 12 and 13 due to open soon. What will be better is extending the HSR itself into the centre, so people can spread out upon getting off, and more can walk and use buses because of shorter distances. The metro system are already working at full capacity so it makes sense to maximise other options too. Shanghai Station is in a mix-use area with a lot of fluidity - a lot of people get off the metro trains here as it is a business destination in its own right. This means the passengers getting off the mainline trains will suffer less overcrowding.

Quote:
I dont see any problem for majority of the population because of subway system. There is limitations of Shanghai Station. Most important is its size. Shanghai Station would have been just a barrier for high speed rail.
Now this doesn't make any size at all. Shanghai Station still has a lot of untapped potential, which could be easily realised by adding platforms either side and better station management. The Old North Station not far away, currently used as sidings, could be restored to passenger use, the opportunities are endless. Of course there is nothing wrong in having a Hongqiao station for air passengers and people of Western Shanghai.

For most business travellers Hongqiao and Shanghai Central present a difference of 30 and 10 minutes on the metro connection, and this 20 minutes is important for business travellers, and I doubt the approach into Shanghai Central takes longer than the approach to Hongqiao. Those banks and other multinationals are not going to suddenly relocate en mass to a souless cultureless new centre under flight paths. While prime business districts in central Shanghai are best serviced by Shanghai Station what sense does it make in forcing them onto a slower journey through Hongqiao?

Quote:
I am not discounting anything. I am not suggesting any demolition On contrary I like historical places

Absolutely, Yes!

I am lost here. Of course not, if I have to answer.

Look around again. People work for new and better. (big is not always better but in China, it is kind of requirement.)
I'm sorry, but that is utterly nonsensical. Shanghai's city centre will not be just 'some historical place' - it will be a prime business location with centuries-old business networks, otherwise what are they building all those shiny glass towers for? This prime business district needs the best transport access it needs, and that means having national rail access on its doorstep.

It takes decades for a business centre to mature - a large pool of workers, business networks, cultural supplements, and so on. And it's not just about building the damn things - time is needed to nurture the market. It will be at least 50 years before Hongqiao fully matures, yet in those 50 years those relying on the existing, mature central business network loses out on substandard transport access. In 50 years time Hongqiao will be obsolete again so the process starts all over again. Business nomadism doesn't work. It's makes much more long-term sense to build on what you have.

If a place doesn't serve its intended function then it will decline, and become derelict and crime ridden. You cannot increase the physical footprint of cities forever - you need farmland to grow food and forests to soak in urban carbon dioxide. That's why the only brownfield sites you can have are the highly-functional, high-quality ones.

Quote:
Top speed means little.

This situation might be "enough" for Europe. What China will have at the end will be faster and better. Simply because it is "new". China needs faster trains and more capacity because of demand and much longer distances.

All you need 20 min subway trip for God's sake, you are saying he spends 20min to reach station anyway. Also, are we really comparing a small town to large cities in China?
Indeed, top speed means little - simplicity and accessibility are much more important. Compared with a parkway station, an access journey to a city centre station takes a smaller amount of time, and a higher proportion of passengers would come on foot.

20 minutes is the lower end of access travel time - for people working and living on the other side of town this figure baloons to 60 minutes, whereas the most you'd expect with a city centre station is 30 minutes. And what if the metro is down? Shanghai metro especially line 2 are increasingly prone to temporary closures because it just cannot cope with demand. Now walking and buses are completely out of the question, and the taxi bill would be far too extortionate.

Quote:
IMHO, Yes, for all of them. Time will tell... Hopefully in 5-6 years, we will be seeing the numbers for the whole 4+4 network

You expect to see everyone to have walk to stations? If the city large, they will have subways, if not trams, if not buses. Especially for large cities, this discussion is really meaningless. Even if the station is in the center, almost everyone has to take the subway to reach there anyway. It is just a matter of direction
City centres for medium-sized cities are actually completely walkable - business travellers into Birmingham, Manchester, Wuxi and Changzhou actually walk to their city centre offices. For residents in the suburbs it usually means 1 bus/tram without change.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #3954
Jaroslaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,479
Likes (Received): 80

NTC is quite right about the poor integration of China's HSR into its urban centers, as I myself have observed first-hand. One reason for this poor planning is quite simply the graft and corruption (on international measures, China is one of the most opaque economies in the world) related to land speculation. New stations are built on distant greenfield sites because that drives profits for the connected few when farmland is rezoned for high density redevelopment. The same principle has been observed with the development of HSR in Taiwan and in Korea (Cheonan Asan Staion), but China has taken this to a new degree.

As for the claims that China is "unique," that what worked for Europe will not work for China, I've heard it twenty years ago about Japan, and we know how that ended. Rules of urbanity, just like the rules of economics or gravity, apply everywhere equally.
Jaroslaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 06:29 PM   #3955
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

China urbanization 40%, Britain 90%. World average is 70%. Population of China is 1.3 billion. Even now, it has more than half a billion urban population. I have no question mark in my mind that planning for current would have been a big failure.

NCT, you failed to understand much of what I wrote, it might be my fault explaining it but anyway I dont want to repeat myself again. What most of you saying does not make any sense for me either.

Jaroslaw, please be more specific about your experience. Tell us which line did you use? What was the problem?
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 06:38 PM   #3956
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Impractical.
Look at Shanghai Metro line 2. From Pudong to Hongqiao, 62 km, takes 100 minutes. From Hongqiao to Nanjing, 300 km, 73 minutes. You would be better off flying these 362 km, could take less than 173 minutes. From Hongqiao to Hangzhou, 158 km, 40 minutes.
When shall the extension of maglev between Longyang Road and Hongqiao start actual construction?

Yes, counting the lines called "subway". If you compare with suburban commuter rails of Tokyo, though...



Some have not done much of it. Such as Hong Kong or Singapore.
???

If subway is impractical, what is practical?

Also, your example (Pudong airport - to Nanjing) is really for a low percentage of potential passengers. In any case, they have a plan to connect Pudong to Hongqiao .
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 07:11 PM   #3957
highway35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Impractical.
Look at Shanghai Metro line 2. From Pudong to Hongqiao, 62 km, takes 100 minutes. From Hongqiao to Nanjing, 300 km, 73 minutes. You would be better off flying these 362 km, could take less than 173 minutes. From Hongqiao to Hangzhou, 158 km, 40 minutes.
Who would take a metro line from Pudong to Hongqiao? How can we use this as a reason to be against the location of Hongqiao Railway Station?

Also, NCT is talking to himself and wouldn't listen to other people's arguments. Shanghai is a huge city and and still expanding. Doesn't matter where you build a train station, there will be people who are bound to find that station is inconvenient. Forget about city center argument, Shanghai needs many train stations, but that's not an argument against Hongqiao.
__________________

cheehg liked this post
highway35 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 07:26 PM   #3958
highway35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaroslaw View Post
NTC is quite right about the poor integration of China's HSR into its urban centers, as I myself have observed first-hand. One reason for this poor planning is quite simply the graft and corruption (on international measures, China is one of the most opaque economies in the world) related to land speculation. New stations are built on distant greenfield sites because that drives profits for the connected few when farmland is rezoned for high density redevelopment. The same principle has been observed with the development of HSR in Taiwan and in Korea (Cheonan Asan Staion), but China has taken this to a new degree.

As for the claims that China is "unique," that what worked for Europe will not work for China, I've heard it twenty years ago about Japan, and we know how that ended. Rules of urbanity, just like the rules of economics or gravity, apply everywhere equally.
With all due respect, you're not reading the discussion carefully. You sounded to me like one of those clueless foreigners with preconceived notions coming to China. All your senseless accusations about China are cliche and are pretty irrelevant to the discussions here.

Let me boil down the arguments here to you: China is a rapidly growing economy that is undergoing the largest urbanization in human history. The Chinese railway network planners have to make all kinds of trade-offs, in order to serve the current city residents and to shape and anticipate the future developments. The national railway network is incomplete, cities' metro systems are largely under construction and yes, the networks might not be always optimized for the exiting urban patterns which will be quite different 10, 20 years from today.

Always keep in mind, we're talking about a very dynamic and fast-moving country with a huge population. You simply can not compare it to very mature and established cities in more developed countries. In that sense, China is "unique:" the largest, the fastest, the most dynamic, the most ambitious, the capability to plan and execute on large scale and with a vision.

Last edited by highway35; November 24th, 2010 at 07:34 PM.
highway35 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 07:33 PM   #3959
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
If subway is impractical, what is practical?
Look at it this way: Shanghai is over 62 km across (subway line 2). It takes 100 minutes to travel all the way - average speed 37 km/h. Which is far slower than the 250 km/h average speed of HSR lines.

What is needed is a network of lines through the Shanghai urban area, that could make reasonably frequent stops yet travel at over 100 km/h including stops. So maximum speed at least 200...250 km/h.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Also, your example (Pudong airport - to Nanjing) is really for a low percentage of potential passengers.
Pudong airport was supposed to be developed as the new international hub of Shanghai.

But what are the people travelling longhaul from Nanjing, Hangzhou etc. going to do? HSR to Hongqiao, then subway Line 2 to Pudong? That is 100 minutes extra. Fly a short-hop flight from Nanjing or Hangzhou airport right to Pudong airport terminal and then connect to the longhaul flight? That adds an inefficient short hop flight. Fly direct longhaul flights from Nanjing or Hangzhou airports? Also inefficient. HSR to Hongqiao airport, then longhaul flight out of Hongqiao? That makes Pudong airport a waste.

The HSR networks straight out off Hongqiao terminal allow people from remote parts of Jiangnan to travel straight to Hongqiao airport quickly and conveniently. Beats any airport express.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
In any case, they have a plan to connect Pudong to Hongqiao .
How? Transrapid extension, something else or both?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2010, 07:57 PM   #3960
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,211
Likes (Received): 1777

Quote:
Originally Posted by highway35 View Post
Who would take a metro line from Pudong to Hongqiao? How can we use this as a reason to be against the location of Hongqiao Railway Station?

Also, NCT is talking to himself and wouldn't listen to other people's arguments. Shanghai is a huge city and and still expanding. Doesn't matter where you build a train station, there will be people who are bound to find that station is inconvenient. Forget about city center argument, Shanghai needs many train stations, but that's not an argument against Hongqiao.
Quite right, but it is an argument against mass withdrawal of services from Shanghai Station isn't it?

You are also quite correct that whatever location you choose to build a station, there will be people who find it inconvenient. You can however maximise convenience for the maximum number of people. The shorter average distance you have travel to reach the station, the more option people can choose (buses, cycling, walking etc), the better on the whole. And you have to plan for extreme cases too - and parkway stations produce much more severe extreme cases than central stations.

The Pudong - Hongqiao case isn't irrelevant, as taking the Metro is the only viable public transport option. There are a number of industrial parks in Pudong and they generate a lot of demand for HSR travel. It makes much more sense for those to change onto Line 4 at Century Avenue to release capacity on Line 2 going through Lujiazui, People's Square and Jing'an Temple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
China urbanization 40%, Britain 90%. World average is 70%. Population of China is 1.3 billion. Even now, it has more than half a billion urban population. I have no question mark in my mind that planning for current would have been a big failure.

NCT, you failed to understand much of what I wrote, it might be my fault explaining it but anyway I dont want to repeat myself again. What most of you saying does not make any sense for me either.
I have tried to be very specific and provided many evidence for increasing importance of Shanghai city centre and the folly in removing rail services from Shanghai Station. It is also clear that the existing and growing business districts and existing population are collectively worse off as a result of MOR's attempt to beef up Hongqiao. I have also clearly explained why 2 metro lines into central Shanghai just will not cope with 30-odd 16-car trains arriving into Hongqiao each hour, and that a city centre location with more choice will be much superior, especially if it already exists.

Not once have you managed to provide any evidence, or any reasoned argument, to support your claim that Shanghai's centre of mass will shift, or to support your assertion that removing services from Shanghai Station is beneficial. You are hooked up by the fancy notions of 'change' and 'new' and have no understanding of how cities work and how people interact.

The only way planning for current would be failure, is if the existing settlements are declining, but the evidence clearly suggests the contrary. If the existing is not declining then infrastructure provision for the existing must improve. I have also explained why the existing simply cannot be allowed to decline as China cannot afford derelict brownfield sites taking up valuable land.

I'll give you another contradiction in your argument. Perhaps you haven't realised, but Shanghai's Metro network is (thankfully) very much centred on the old core - all major lines penetrate the Inner ring road and the circular line (Line 4) tracks the inner ring road. Huangpu, Jing'an and Luwan have the highest Metro density and 4 lines will run parallel between Jing'an Temple / Changshu Road to People's Square/Huangpu, the 4 lines being 1, 2, 10 and 14. So, are the Metro and national HSR networks planning for two different futures for Shanghai?
NCT 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 03:29 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