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 September 25th, 2010, 03:24 PM   #181
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829


And where does the electricity usually come from? Not to speak about the environmental impact the construction itself has.

Finally the question is, whether Laotians do actually need a highspeed line to Thailand or China.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 25th, 2010, 04:47 PM   #182
Stainless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pyeongnae
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post

And where does the electricity usually come from?
Hydro probably. Laos has huge hydro potential and is already 97% powered by hydro while also exporting a large amount of it. China has been investing heavily in this as you would expect.
Stainless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2010, 06:18 PM   #183
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post

And where does the electricity usually come from? Not to speak about the environmental impact the construction itself has.

Finally the question is, whether Laotians do actually need a highspeed line to Thailand or China.
Ohh please, traveling with an electric powered train is the most environmental friendly solution for transport.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2010, 09:21 PM   #184
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Yes. But its not totally pollution free as he apparently thinks it is.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2010, 11:59 PM   #185
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,592
Likes (Received): 5952

High Speed rail actually is not that much better than the car in terms of energy consumption, but then its faster of course. At such huge distances like Europe-China HSR simply doesn't make sense though.

Freight rail however does! It would be a sensible choice in between ship and freight plane. Things that should be delivered faster than by ship but way cheaper than by plane.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2010, 12:08 AM   #186
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlion View Post
I found this news which was published by 2004 about China-Kazakhstan railway

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_315973.htm
2004, mmhhh ? Mot much seems to have happened since... let's look at
that proposal in more detail.

First of all, we are speaking about a freight-oriented line here, not HSR. That
makes the proposal entirely different, and possibly viable, if security and
border transit problems are solved.

Then, the article says, about 3000 km of rail line to be built. From the existing
border point Alashankou/Druzhba, no doubt. But to where ? All other
countries that share a border with Kazakhstan also use the russian gauge.
There are talks about a new north-south line through Turkmenistan, that
would connect to the Iranian network at Gorgan, would that line use the
1.435 gauge too ?

And if this to materialize, I doubt very much that the single track dedicated
to the long-distance trafic in the Marmaray tunnel will be able to carry all
that trafic.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2010, 01:14 PM   #187
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
2004, mmhhh ? Mot much seems to have happened since...
Something seems to:
http://www.china-mor.gov.cn/detail.jsp?MSG_ID=20605
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
Then, the article says, about 3000 km of rail line to be built. From the existing
border point Alashankou/Druzhba, no doubt.
There is a doubt, actually. China and Kazakhstan are actually building a second railway crossing, Urumqi-Yining-Korgas-Zhetigen-Almaty. The Chinese part is completed, open for traffic and electrified. How is the Kazakh part doing? And which shall be the preferred transit route?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2010, 07:38 PM   #188
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
There is a doubt, actually. China and Kazakhstan are actually building a second railway crossing, Urumqi-Yining-Korgas-Zhetigen-Almaty. The Chinese part is completed, open for traffic and electrified. How is the Kazakh part doing? And which shall be the preferred transit route?
I was not aware of that. Is there already something visible, for example on
Google Earth ?
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2010, 05:22 AM   #189
hakz2007
Moderador
 
hakz2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Riŋkonāda
Posts: 18,394
Likes (Received): 4871

Trans-Asian Railway Planned
Quote:
BANGKOK, Thailand (dpa) — Plans to link mainland Asia by railway have been around for decades. In 1960, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia Pacific (ESCAP) initiated the Trans-Asian Railway project to establish a 114,000-kilometer rail network between Asia and Europe.

The project was derailed by wars in Indochina, the Cultural Revolution in China, and a lack of finance for Asian mega-projects. The scheme was given a new shot in the arm, on paper anyway, in 2006 when 22 Asian governments signed a deal to cooperate on the rail link. That agreement finally went into effect in June last year after China ratified it.

More significant than the agreement itself has been China’s push to turn the rail network dream into reality, especially in Southeast Asia, which accounts for the lion’s share of the 8,000 kilometers of “missing links.

Thailand and China this year started talks about constructing a high-speed standard-gauge 850-kilometer new rail link from Nong Khai, on the Thai-Lao border, to Bangkok. A second 1,000-kilometer line, between Bangkok and Padang Besar, on the Thai-Malaysian border, would be built later.

The two lines would cost an estimated 300 billion baht (9.7 billion dollars). “The Chinese government believes this can be implemented within three years,’’ Thai Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanich said. “If there is any delay, I suspect it will be at our end, not theirs,’’ he said.

One foreseeable obstacle is the State Railways of Thailand (SRT), which runs the country’s existing rail network at a massive loss. It is highly politicized, prone to strikes, and historically opposed to any attempts at privatization. “If the SRT is given no role in the project, I will oppose it as an advisor to the SRT labor union and the head of the New Politics Party,’’ said Somsak Kosaisuk, a politician who formerly headed the SRT’s labour union.

Another likely problem for the Thai-China rail project is the Lao link. Having a high-speed rail link between Nong Khai and Bangkok makes little economic sense unless there is a similar link between Laos and southern China. Such a link is under discussion.

In August, senior railway officials from China visited Vientiane to discuss the project with the Lao Railway Authority, which manages the country’s current rail network – a 3.5-kilometer link between the Thai-Laos Friendship Bridge and Dongphosy town, outside Vientiane. China and Laos have signed an agreement to conduct a feasibility study on a medium high-speed (200-kilometer-per-hour) rail link between Boten, Luang Namtha province, and Vientiane, a distance of about 400 kilometers. The link would provide a connection for freight and passengers with Kunming, the capital of China’s Yunnan province.

The cost of construction would be prohibitive. “I understand they are looking at three different routes but all of them would be mountainous, and potentially very expensive,’’ said one Vientiane-based aid expert. “But the Lao government is taking the project extremely seriously, as part of their aim to turn Laos from a landlocked to land-linked country,’’ he added.

A lot will depend on whether Laos sees sufficient economic returns from the railway for providing the link between its two economically much more active neighbors, China and Thailand. “Laos is the weakest but most important link,’’ said Nipon Poapongsakorn, president of the Thailand Development Research Institute, a think tank. “Unless there is a benefit for Laos it will just become a transit for goods and passengers. What will they get from this programme other than pollution?’’
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/278806...ailway-planned
__________________
CAMARINES SUR: SSC CAMSUR | PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION | PORTS AND SHIPPING
ASIA'S BEST THREAD: ASEAN REGIONAL NEWS THREAD
VISIT: CAMARINES SUR
hakz2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2010, 06:03 AM   #190
manrush
Agenda 21 Advocate
 
manrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Urban New England
Posts: 4,150
Likes (Received): 499

If money and national pride were not issues, then perhaps Japan could be linked to mainland Asia by way of Sakhalin.
manrush no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2010, 08:53 AM   #191
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by manrush View Post
If money and national pride were not issues, then perhaps Japan could be linked to mainland Asia by way of Sakhalin.
Also breaks of standards. Seikan Tunnel uses narrow gauge (being upgraded to dual narrow/standard to allow Shinkansen trains to use the tunnel), The mainland uses Russian broad gauge and Sakhalin uses narrow gauge (to be regauged to Russian broad gauge).

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 05:22 PM   #192
Awesome.e
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,866
Likes (Received): 33

Beijing to London is CRAZY! how long is travel time? no ways!
Awesome.e no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 07:39 PM   #193
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heusdens View Post
The good thing of this project is that it enabled to get rid of intra-continental flights. I think we should get rid of airliners for intra-continental flights as soon as we can, since the amount of energy needed to fly is terrible high. Only inter-continental travel should use airliners.
Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.

Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 07:49 PM   #194
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.

Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.
We´ll see in 2012. Beijing-Guangzhou is 2200+ km. Considering that Guangzhou-Wuhan (968 km) takes over 3 hours on commercial HSR, Guangzhou-Beijing will be close to 8 hours. Airplanes take about 2 and a half hours. Let´s see how the ticket prices will compare, and how the sales do.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 08:41 PM   #195
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
We´ll see in 2012. Beijing-Guangzhou is 2200+ km. Considering that Guangzhou-Wuhan (968 km) takes over 3 hours on commercial HSR, Guangzhou-Beijing will be close to 8 hours. Airplanes take about 2 and a half hours. Let´s see how the ticket prices will compare, and how the sales do.
Sure, but even there one can't generalize conclusions from Chinese market to other Asian markets, let alone European markets.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #196
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.

Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.
High speed rail has totally outperformed and eliminated all air traffic for
journeys that, on rail, take 3 hours or less. Flights on Paris-Brussels,
Paris-Lyon are now a thing of the past.

This is because time spent in airports more or less compensate the time
won by the higher speed of the plane.

If the journey exceeds 3 hours, the plane becomes the speed winner again.
Hence a "modal split" that becomes more and more in favor of the plane when
the distance increases. For journeys longer than a day, trains only survive
for the niche market of people wanting to embark in a "cruise on land", which
is quite a minority compared to those simply wanting to displace themselves
from A to B. This is why night trains are slowly disappearing in all countries
where the economy performs enough to allow people to buy flight tickets.

And if there are ever changes coming in that equation, it won't come from
the train side, as travelling at ground altitude at speeds higher than 350 km/h
becomes totally anti-economic. Remember, at that speed, air resistance
becomes the predominant energy dissipation factor, and it grows like the
third power of speed... The change might come from the plane side if the
price of energy becomes too prohibitive. Then, mankind might have to trade
time for money again.

In China, high speed lines and planes obey the same physics laws as in
Europe. But the country is not ruled by free market, so the government
in place might be tempted to use the taxes lever to maintain a better
competitive position for the rail on longer distances. But even if that happens,
expecting that the HSR network built in China will totally eradicate air traffic
is ludicrious at best.

Realism dictates that for travel, each transportation means has its own
niche of profitability, the factors being distance, population density and
mean population revenue. Outside their niche, they can survive but are
condemned to remain marginal.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 10:48 PM   #197
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
High speed rail has totally outperformed and eliminated all air traffic for
journeys that, on rail, take 3 hours or less. Flights on Paris-Brussels,
Paris-Lyon are now a thing of the past.

This is because time spent in airports more or less compensate the time
won by the higher speed of the plane.

If the journey exceeds 3 hours, the plane becomes the speed winner again.
Hence a "modal split" that becomes more and more in favor of the plane when
the distance increases. For journeys longer than a day, trains only survive
for the niche market of people wanting to embark in a "cruise on land", which
is quite a minority compared to those simply wanting to displace themselves
from A to B. This is why night trains are slowly disappearing in all countries
where the economy performs enough to allow people to buy flight tickets.

And if there are ever changes coming in that equation, it won't come from
the train side, as travelling at ground altitude at speeds higher than 350 km/h
becomes totally anti-economic. Remember, at that speed, air resistance
becomes the predominant energy dissipation factor, and it grows like the
third power of speed... The change might come from the plane side if the
price of energy becomes too prohibitive. Then, mankind might have to trade
time for money again.

In China, high speed lines and planes obey the same physics laws as in
Europe. But the country is not ruled by free market, so the government
in place might be tempted to use the taxes lever to maintain a better
competitive position for the rail on longer distances. But even if that happens,
expecting that the HSR network built in China will totally eradicate air traffic
is ludicrious at best.

Realism dictates that for travel, each transportation means has its own
niche of profitability, the factors being distance, population density and
mean population revenue. Outside their niche, they can survive but are
condemned to remain marginal.
Well, if you average more than 300km/h, you will cover ~1000km in three hours. You should consider the fact that most domestic flights are shorter than that distance. So, I expect to see domestic flights in China in a big trouble.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 10:56 PM   #198
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Well, if you average more than 300km/h, you will cover ~1000km in three hours. You should consider the fact that most domestic flights are shorter than that distance. So, I expect to see domestic flights in China in a big trouble.
300 km/h average ? This is also fantasy. 200 km/h would be far more realistic.
That makes a 600 km journey, and in a bit country like China, 600 km is not
much. I would say that HSR in China is going to make the life of people who
alreadu use rail much better, make a good dent in the car and bus travel
market, but I bet it will leave most of the air trafic almost untouched.
As I said in another discussion already, the main competitor of HSR is the
private automobile, not the plane.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 11:03 PM   #199
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

US "way of life" #1's fan, Suburbanist, also forgets oil is more and more scarse and expensive and there are more consumers every year.

unless someone discovers how to fly with a litium battery, in a few years will be back to Hindemburg!
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2010, 11:23 PM   #200
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
300 km/h average ? This is also fantasy. 200 km/h would be far more realistic.
300 km/h was reality in January. Seriously. The fastest trains, 12 express trains Guangzhou-Wuhan, cover 968 km in 3:16, making 296 km/h. But the last 46 km through Guangzhou are slow - when Guangzhou South was not yet open, the 922 km trip to Guangzhou North took under 3 hours, at over 300 km/h average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
That makes a 600 km journey, and in a bit country like China, 600 km is not
much.
968 km is a lot. And we are still at 3:16.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
I would say that HSR in China is going to make the life of people who
alreadu use rail much better, make a good dent in the car and bus travel
market, but I bet it will leave most of the air trafic almost untouched.
It has already stopped air traffic on Xian-Zhengzhou.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
As I said in another discussion already, the main competitor of HSR is the
private automobile, not the plane.
Cars often go to destinations which are too small for HSR stations. Quite simply, driving 1000 km does not compete well against HSR.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 02:05 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