China soon to dominate world in High Speed Rail...

[K. A. Pital]

What is a "dual toilet"? German trains only have a seat.

Heh. So Chinese trains are cooler than German ones. Basically, there's the seat and then there's the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet
Which is very convenient for women (a) and, of course, (b) does not carry sanitary risks connected with sitting on a public seat in a train.

[Elfdart]

Every time I see an article like this, I die just a little inside. China has high speed rail, Japan's internet makes ours look archaic. Ex-Soviet Block nations have better healthcare then we do. India's graduates are better then ours all around.

Am I made because these other countries are doing well? No. Not at all.

I'm mad because we have the opprotunity to do those same things, better, and keep fucking it up!

High speed rail in the US has been far too long in the coming. Hell, our rail system peroid has degraded to a horrible extent. We're stuck with this highway system that consumes an obscene amount of fuel for transport that is often less convenient when the price of oil is rising, and we're stuck with a President who, other then Healthcare, dosn't seem to have a dream beyond going back to the status quo!



AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Quit your bitching. America -FUCK YEAH! still leads the world in Bombing Brown People Tech.

I have a question: Is high-speed rail used for freight as well as passengers?

[Shroom Man 777]

Every time I see an article like this, I die just a little inside. China has high speed rail, Japan's internet makes ours look archaic. Ex-Soviet Block nations have better healthcare then we do. India's graduates are better then ours all around.

Am I made because these other countries are doing well? No. Not at all.

I'm mad because we have the opprotunity to do those same things, better, and keep fucking it up!

High speed rail in the US has been far too long in the coming. Hell, our rail system peroid has degraded to a horrible extent. We're stuck with this highway system that consumes an obscene amount of fuel for transport that is often less convenient when the price of oil is rising, and we're stuck with a President who, other then Healthcare, dosn't seem to have a dream beyond going back to the status quo!



AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Quit your bitching. America -FUCK YEAH! still leads the world in Bombing Brown People Tech.

Guns are a right, as said in the constitution. High speed rail is a privilege.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[Stravo]

I read this article and yes it's awesome that high speed rail is coming and obviously needed here in the US but what breaks the heart is that all these foreign companies are jockeying to get into the potentially lucrative US high speed rail market but where is the domestic production? Why aren't American companies first in line to provide the rail? Because America doesn't build anything anymore. We rely on other countries to provide us with goods to feed the American appetite. You know what we are good at? I bet you our Wall St firms and investement banks will shuffle the shit out of the bank notes and loans associated with these projects and bundle them with some quesitonable derivatives. In other words we'll shuffle paper and gamble with the money at stake with these infrastructure projects.

China seems to be in a place where the US was post WWII. Building up the infrastructure and supplying to the rest of the world. We stopped infrastructure projects in the 70's and the Reagan revolution killed the exporting of goods so now we just move money around from one place to the next like the old 3 card monty players on Times Square.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The trouble comes when America doesn't continually improve and renew its infrastructure, thereby killing off motivation to invest in such technologies. Of course, that comes with also the failure to raise the necessary taxes to pay for such infrastructure, coupled with a whole host of related issues and there you go...

[Lusankya]

With a billion people and counting, I don't think China has a hope in hell of building 'too much' infastructure.

Not every Chinese can afford to ride the rail often enough.

They're not in danger of building too much infrastructure any time soon. Trains are regularly full, and if there's a regular public holiday then sleepers sell out on the day tickets become available. And then of course, on Chinese New Year, everything just goes insane. China has a large number of people who have migrated to cities, and come Spring Festival they all want to go back home. None of them have cars.

And while fast trains might cost a lot, hard seat tickets are pretty cheap. Shanghai to Hangzhou (a 188km journey) costs about 29 kuai (US$4.20). There's one train that costs half that. Travel is easily affordable, even for peasants. Also, if the trains aren't running to capacity, then they can just lower the fares. IIRC, the train companies are all government owned, so it's not as though they're out specifically to make a profit.

You seem to have this strange idea that train travel is expensive or some nonsense like that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You seem to have this strange idea that train travel is expensive or some nonsense like that.

Superconducting rails are not cheap and are maintenance intensive, requiring regular checks and use of nitrogen to cool the rails.

[Lusankya]

What on earth are you talking about? China's railways aren't superconductors. They're regular rails. Two parallel bits of metal that travel in a line from A to B, and have electricity lines on top of them. Does your country's railway regularly use nitrogen-cooled superconductors for even the regular slow trains?

Unless you're talking about the Maglev, which there's only one of; which only connects the airport in Shanghai to Pudong; and can be easily avoided by catching the subway instead.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What on earth are you talking about? China's railways aren't superconductors. They're regular rails. Two parallel bits of metal that travel in a line from A to B, and have electricity lines on top of them.

Unless you're talking about the Maglev, which there's only one of; which only connects the airport in Shanghai to Pudong; and can be easily avoided by catching the subway instead.

Erm, yah, I was referring to maglev. And the article in question was about new maglevs and China's desires to dominate that field.

[Lusankya]

No it wasn't. It was about high speed trains. They're not using the maglev technology for their high speed network. They're just making regular train lines, except faster. China's not really interested in building more maglevs. They might expand it a bit around the Yangtze River Delta, but that's only because they already have a bit of a maglev there, and not because they actually want to build maglevs.

And having high speed trains will take a lot of pressure off of the rest of the train network. Currently, the train system is saturated to the point where people who would otherwise take the fast train are forced top take the slow train, and people who would otherwise buy sleepers for an overnight journey are forced to buy hard seat tickets. If China brings in faster trains, then they can have more services running per day, which will result in an increase in the capacity of the train network, and it will mean that fewer people are forced to buy a seat of a lesser quality than the one they intended. In turn, this will mean that there are more seats available for the poorer people who can't afford the better seats (because they are now no longer competing for spaces with the richer people).

The issue of how it affects even the poorer segments of China's population is entirely relevant in this discussion.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No it wasn't. It was about high speed trains. They're not using the maglev technology for their high speed network. They're just making regular train lines, except faster. China's not really interested in building more maglevs. They might expand it a bit around the Yangtze River Delta, but that's only because they already have a bit of a maglev there, and not because they actually want to build maglevs.

And having high speed trains will take a lot of pressure off of the rest of the train network. Currently, the train system is saturated to the point where people who would otherwise take the fast train are forced top take the slow train, and people who would otherwise buy sleepers for an overnight journey are forced to buy hard seat tickets. If China brings in faster trains, then they can have more services running per day, which will result in an increase in the capacity of the train network, and it will mean that fewer people are forced to buy a seat of a lesser quality than the one they intended. In turn, this will mean that there are more seats available for the poorer people who can't afford the better seats (because they are now no longer competing for spaces with the richer people).

The issue of how it affects even the poorer segments of China's population is entirely relevant in this discussion.

Look, even if the tracks aren't superconducting, high speed trains are instrinsically expensive and maintenance intensive and they need a significant ridership to justify their existence. If China wants to blow all its money on expensive tracks, it's fine by me, since their government has no qualms about losing money anyway what with the Shanghai Maglevs still not pulling enough weight in ridership as it is, much less ticket prices.

Which is the bloody original point. Not every damn fool can afford daily high speed train usage. And daily usage is what these trains need in order to be profitable. For example, the $71 to $129 price for a train ticket between Guangzhou and Wuhan is by no means cheap, and in some ways comparable to domestic flight tickets. How do they plan to go charging that sort of cash in the long run?

[Lusankya]

1) I very much doubt that getting daily usage is a problem. The reason people don't use the maglev is because it ends up in the middle of absolutely nowhere. If it went somewhere useful, like the railway station, then it likely would get regular usage, as it would be more economical than a taxi, cost-wise, for a group of less than three people, and it would be much faster. As it is, however, nobody wants to go to Longyang Rd. On the other hand, people want to travel between Shanghai and Beijing. The two situations are not comparable, as one line is useful, while the other line isn't.

2) The high speed rail will connect most of China's wealthiest cities. This means that the people in these locations can on average afford to pay more than your average Chinese person.

[Teebs]

I have a question: Is high-speed rail used for freight as well as passengers?

Some high speed lines run freight at night (at normal train speeds) and the French certainly used to run mail-TGVs (don't know if they still do), but apart from that high speed rail isn't used for freight. I don't think there's enough stuff that needs to be transported at that kind of speed to justify the costs of building suitable freight trains and such.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Look, even if the tracks aren't superconducting, high speed trains are instrinsically expensive and maintenance intensive and they need a significant ridership to justify their existence. If China wants to blow all its money on expensive tracks, it's fine by me, since their government has no qualms about losing money anyway what with the Shanghai Maglevs still not pulling enough weight in ridership as it is, much less ticket prices.

Which is the bloody original point. Not every damn fool can afford daily high speed train usage. And daily usage is what these trains need in order to be profitable. For example, the $71 to $129 price for a train ticket between Guangzhou and Wuhan is by no means cheap, and in some ways comparable to domestic flight tickets. How do they plan to go charging that sort of cash in the long run?

This same argument could be used against airlines (a brand new 747 costs $100 million IIRC), except that planes suck down prodigious amounts of jet fuel whose price is set to skyrocket over the next couple of decades as the global fuel crisis looms. High speed electric trains, OTOH, can be run off of whatever is powering the grid at a given moment, and is not very sensitive to "peak" anything. My prediction is that by the time these huge rail projects are completed in 10-20 years, the states and countries that had the foresight to start building now will be sitting pretty and the ones who didn't will suffer decades of slow growth and stifled development from limited transportation.

[Cecelia5578]

Look, even if the tracks aren't superconducting, high speed trains are instrinsically expensive and maintenance intensive and they need a significant ridership to justify their existence. If China wants to blow all its money on expensive tracks, it's fine by me, since their government has no qualms about losing money anyway what with the Shanghai Maglevs still not pulling enough weight in ridership as it is, much less ticket prices.

Which is the bloody original point. Not every damn fool can afford daily high speed train usage. And daily usage is what these trains need in order to be profitable. For example, the $71 to $129 price for a train ticket between Guangzhou and Wuhan is by no means cheap, and in some ways comparable to domestic flight tickets. How do they plan to go charging that sort of cash in the long run?

Not every damn fool can afford daily airplane fares that range from $71 to $129.

In California, the proposed HSR route will run from SF to San Diego, and is supposed to compete with people who either fly (those airports don't just pay for themselves, along with the cost of fuel) or drive (again, fuel costs are only going to become worse in a Peak Oil future). Obviously not everyone who flies or drives between the Bay and SoCal does so for an everyday work commute, and the airlines don't seem to have a problem filling expensive seats everyday.

Its obvious that a HSR system does have maintenance costs, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that highways and air travel also have their own maintenance costs, as well as the elephant in the room-Peak Oil.

[Admiral Valdemar]

China is simply going to have to stop this soon anyway, regardless. They can either continue growing at over 7% per annum, and face an energy crunch (sorry folks, there's literally not enough coal production in the world today to match China growing that fast), or they'll simply burn out their economy as the stimulus package runs dry along with their ENORMOUS real estate bubble.

I applaud them bringing about such amazing infrastructure in such a short time, while the US and other Western nations focus more on financial bullshit and neglect things like rail in favour for cheap air travel. But this party will not continue at this pace one way or another. The Party must know this, as they also know that uplifting is the only reason people aren't rioting in the street.

We knew this wasn't going to keep up forever, it's just a pity they haven't made more inroads into sustainability of what they do have, rather than ZOMG!1 Expand for your life!

[ray245]

China is simply going to have to stop this soon anyway, regardless. They can either continue growing at over 7% per annum, and face an energy crunch (sorry folks, there's literally not enough coal production in the world today to match China growing that fast), or they'll simply burn out their economy as the stimulus package runs dry along with their ENORMOUS real estate bubble.

So what? Since China has more to lose as a poor third world nation than as a relatively wealthy first world nation in the event of peak oil and all that, and they will be screwed even if they don't try and build up their economy thanks to the first world nations, it is better for them to continue to invest in infrastructure and build up their economy.

And it's not like China is ignoring things like building nuclear power plants. Whether they are fast enough is another issue altogether.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So what? Since China has more to lose as a poor third world nation than as a relatively wealthy first world nation in the event of peak oil and all that, and they will be screwed even if they don't try and build up their economy thanks to the first world nations, it is better for them to continue to invest in infrastructure and build up their economy.

And it's not like China is ignoring things like building nuclear power plants. Whether they are fast enough is another issue altogether.

China is going to aim to add 20 MW of solar and 100 MW of wind over the next few years. That, alone, will make them the biggest green energy provider on Earth, and they also have a dozen nukes planned, but they'll add a pitiful amount to the sum total and will not be the greatest of providers given the drought problems affecting hydro there which can also hit nuclear. China, and the world's, biggest provider is coal and it ain't going away any time soon. They can't focus on CCS to deal with the smog without drastically slowing build out and increasing cost, but neither can they keep increasing imports at their present rate (IIRC, around 9% annually). Australia will be unable to cope with that, and they already sell 60% of their product to China alone. Everyone else is relatively minor next to the Australian export market, though other limiting factors will be logistical.

They're not going to just give up, but they could do with maybe toning down the massive shopping malls and housing build outs which are ghost towns right now, and when the stimulus wears off, will remain that way. If they want to try and become America circa 1950s at a time when energy is going to cost a premium, well, their call. It's not like the first world will get off when China slows down, as they've been effectively driving the global economy for years, along with India. Austerity measures all round?

[[R_H]]

Quit your bitching. America -FUCK YEAH! still leads the world in Bombing Brown People Tech.

I have a question: Is high-speed rail used for freight as well as passengers?

I can't speak for China, but I know that in Germany you can use the ICE (high-speed rail) as a courier.

[Sea Skimmer]

High speed rail only works by keeping axle loadings very low, as little as 16 metric tons for the fastest TGV lines, so large scale freight use would never work well. The heavier trains would just crush the track. In addition while high speed track is built with wider curves, it also has much steeper grades. Those grades would absurdly fuckover freight traffic unless you have hoards of locomotives hooked up. You could make track that would support both heavy freight and high speed trains, but it'd easily cost as much as a maglev line per mile because of the very deep foundation work it would require. Not to mention routing to both have wide turns and shallow grades could just become plain impossible in some areas without elevating the whole line or else burying it.

In comparison typical American freight track can support about 35 metric ton axle loads. This is also why none of the current proposals for high speed rail in the US are all that fast. We aren't going to pay for entirely new rights of way, and in most areas we need the rights of way that already exist to be duel use. Acella has its own track but not right of way so speed is limited for example, and the only way you could give it its own right of way would be to bulldoze paths through a half dozen major cities and hundreds of towns. China doesn't mind doing that, but American has things called voters, and they matter.

[Teebs]

In addition while high speed track is built with wider curves, it also has much steeper grades. Those grades would absurdly fuckover freight traffic unless you have hoards of locomotives hooked up.

I'm sure I read somewhere that ICE 3 trains were the only ones in the world with sufficient power-weight ratios to operate safely/properly on the Cologne-Frankfurt line due to the gradients.

In comparison typical American freight track can support about 35 metric ton axle loads. This is also why none of the current proposals for high speed rail in the US are all that fast. We aren't going to pay for entirely new rights of way, and in most areas we need the rights of way that already exist to be duel use. Acella has its own track but not right of way so speed is limited for example, and the only way you could give it its own right of way would be to bulldoze paths through a half dozen major cities and hundreds of towns. China doesn't mind doing that, but American has things called voters, and they matter.

How come European countries with similar population densities can manage?

[Sea Skimmer]

How come European countries with similar population densities can manage?

They do it painfully slowly and for vast amounts of money. The amount of TGV style really high speed (300+ kph) rail in Europe is actually just not that big. France has been building high speed rail in Europe a lot longer then anyone else and they still only have about 1,700km of track, a lot of which is not rated for more then 220kph and built out of existing lines. In comparison the route of the Accela Express in the US, with dedicated track but not right of way is already 752km, and it doesn't link much. Most high speed rail projects in Europe are not more then incrementally faster then conventional trains.

Also the high density of Europe is an advantage. They have a generally high density, but urban centers tend not to blend into each other the way they do in the US north east corridor when literally no space is left for anything else. Meanwhile the rest of the US has plenty of land... but the shear distances and lack of people mean even a 300kph train is not that attractive, and you need to build a very long route to accomplish anything useful in linking places. This is besides inherent political and lifestyle differences, and Amtrack being exceptionally shitty because it has to share track with freight lines, and the freight lines will make passenger trains wait on sidings for 25mph coal trains to pass. This is not good for gaining long term support for projects which must span several decades. One of the reasons the US highway system did work and gain support was that even short pieces of highway are useful to local residents as well as long distance travelers. A noisy short piece of high speed rail meanwhile is basically worthless.

All and all, 40 years (more if you count the early R&D for TGV) to build what you see below is not awful, but not anything to be blown away by either when you remember that the US is about 4000km wide in comparison. It would take all the high speed track in Germany, France and Spain built or under construction combined just to make one line across the US.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ce_TGV.png

It would take 1.5 times the track in Japan to do the same. But then Japan is a special case anyway, since the shape of the country is ideal for rail traffic and they thought nothing of running up the highest debt ratio on earth in ordered to fund blasting so absurdly many tunnels to make it work, as well as elevating track through the urban areas.

So all and all, TGV style trains are just not going to happen in the US on any large scale, and outside a few routes the money is far better spent doing incremental upgrades to track and signals, as well as short bypass routes, to improve existing lines. Most Amtrack locomotives and rolling stock are already rated for 130-150mph, which is enough to classify as high speed by the current 200kph standard. Its just the track doesn't allow it.

[Ford Prefect]

They're just calling it 高速铁路, which in English is "High Speed Railway". They're unlikely to change this name to anything cooler.

To be fair the Japanese word 新幹線 (Shinkansen) means "New Trunk Line" which is not particularly inspiring either.

Yes, yes, I know that. But shout it. Go on, give it a try.

Fun, isn't it.

[Garibaldi]

I never get tired of Valdemar's apocalpyticism.

The "China real estate bubble" is vastly overstated. In any case, the government is already taking steps to reign in speculation and bring down prices.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I never get tired of Valdemar's apocalpyticism.

The "China real estate bubble" is vastly overstated. In any case, the government is already taking steps to reign in speculation and bring down prices.

Great, so that addresses nothing of my primary concern, that being electricity. The real estate bubble (which still exists and is still stimulus funded, much like those ghost shopping malls and highways) would just be a convenient way to slow the party down over there before they hit a more fundamental problem with simply supplying energy for their expansion.