Slashdot Mirror
China Sets Sights On Rail Record
An anonymous reader writes "China is aiming to produce the world's fastest operating conventional train for its new high speed rail link between Shanghai and Beijing, achieving speeds up to 380 km/h and cutting the travel time between the two cities from the current ten hours to under five. The new rail link is scheduled to be completed within four years. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Railways' Deputy Chief Engineer has announced that China will be able to manufacture the new trains within two years."
Agreed. And the question in the discussion is: where's the appropriate middle ground?
I'm betting the Chinese aren't doing an environmental impact study. And if your current residence is where the tracks are going to be, then you just got displaced and good luck finding someone to complain to, much less someone to sue. i.e. We cant build stuff like this at all because of civil rights and they can build stuff like this all too easily because of a lack of civil rights.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
> The trains will be powered by the bodies of dead slave laborers ....
USAtoday says:
North America's four major rail networks -- Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific and Canadian National -- all own lines that were built and operated with slave labor.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-railroads.htm
People make the mistake of thinking of the environmental crowd as just the hot earthers but there are many subgroups with different motives and methods. They run the gamut from Sierra Club and other conservation groups, to the odd preservation groups who want to create some natural snow globe with nothing ever changes, to groups like Greenpeace, ELF, and ALF. Any one of these groups can file a lawsuit.
Also, it's not just building the tracks, it's also building the power substations if its an electric train (although a super fast steam engine might be cool), the train stations, and all the other supporting infrastructure. A lawsuit for environmental reasons can be brought against any piece of the infrastructure.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
There is already one of these in operation between Beijing and Tianjin, operating at a top-speed of 350 km/h, which is apparently already a record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing-Tianjin_high-speed_rail
True, when we spend less than perhaps 5% as much on rail infrastructure as we do on highways, it stands to reason that the roads may win in some instances.
But rail is far more cost-effective to build than roads - one pair of tracks can carry the same traffic as a 6-8 lane highway, which is far more costly to construct and maintain, and requires much more land. (Not to mention all the parking lots and feeder roads.)
Trains can also run much faster (nobody is talking about people driving 100-200mph, and trains can run full speed even during commute hours when highways are slowed to a standstill). Trains use much less energy (less rolling resistance and aerodynamic resistance, for starters), emit far less pollution (using less energy, and often electrically powered), cost less to operate and maintain, and are far safer.
The only thing they lack is door-to-door convenience and arbitrary schedules. (But is there really much benefit if you're stuck in traffic and have to pay $20 for parking? On the other hand, how about letting you read or do work or sleep while on the train?) How much are we willing to pay, in dollars, pollution, wasted time, and reliance on foreign oil, for that (sometimes) convenience?
Trains also have similar benefits over airplanes for relatively short trips (anything less than about 2-4 hours, depending on the situation).
Of course, these are all THEORETICAL benefits, which are only realized if we actually make the proper investments. Since we in the USA have spent the last 75 years trying to kill trains rather than investing in them, we only rarely get to experience these benefits.
The trains we have these days are generally slow, go to only a few places, run on very limited schedules, are not particularly clean or comfortable, and have few on-board ameneties. And since they don't benefit from the same level of taxpayer support as roads do, more of their costs are passed on to the passenger, so they don't seem to have as much cost advantage to the end user.
One of the big shocks of going to China is just how fast the population drops off at the edge of a city. Regardless of the occasional news bite about China's elite, there aren't any exoburbs or suburbs in practice. Even with the world's largest population, China has the kind of empty space the United States hasn't seen in ages.
Besides, China needs this kind of rail a hell of a lot more than the United States. Between the New Year and having to go to your hometown for official business (it's damn hard to change your official municipality of residence), trains in the PRC are up to their gills.
Cars on an interstate highway can clime a MUCH steeper grade than any conventional train, even a high-speed train with all axles powered. It can also turn sharper corners. So, in MOST areas, particularly out west, following the exact run of the highway is impracticable.
Our current economic situation has EVERYTHING to do with Iraq. Do you even realize how much it is costing us? Do you even know where the money is going?
Heck, that measly 9 Billion in cash that was mysteriously "misplaced" in Iraq last year would sure as hell do this part of my state a lot of good. And that is only a veritable drop in the bucket.
Saying that the Iraq military action is not negatively affecting our economy is simply false. I agree with you about the patent and school systems... but if you want to fix those, right now you would have to talk to the same people who are responsible for Iraq... and the patent situation, and the schools.