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."
This just makes me wonder where California's planned high-speed rail initiative is actually going. Imagine, 2-1/2 hours from SF to LA, but it seems to be a stuck project!
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
its incredible to look at projects like these in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on war instead. the best comparison I can draw is the relatively "small" investment a few billionaires began in revitalizing downtown Los Angeles. I drive down there and in just a few years there are refurbished buildings and the new nokia center just to start. One can actually walk around downtown (at least a section) without seeing old buildings everywhere. if we could have just invested a fraction of what we have spent on this war our country could be competing in projects like these.
Wow. Why aren't we in the US trying to do this?
The US would be too afraid of terrorists attacking it to risk building it.
We used to be so worried about the Communists beating us. But now it's like we don't even care. Where's the fire?
Too busy watching American Idol while the economy tanks. ;)
Seriously though, I think the biggest reason is that there isn't anyone to build it. Its too much money and too much risk of not being profitable enough or at all, and would require too much cooperation from the state and federal government (in terms of permits, granting rights of way to lay track etc) for private enterprise to attempt it.
Meanwhile the current political environment would make it impossible for the government to do a major project like this on its own. Critics on every side would dominate the debate shouting their political position that it should be privatized (republican), that its fiscally irresponsible, that the money should go towards schools, or health care (democrat) or that if the government has this kind of scratch lying around they should be reducing taxes (libertarian) instead of building world class projects like this.
I would also like to point out that many NIMBYs use the environmental laws as grounds for their lawsuits (I don't think not wanting it near you is grounds to sue), financing (lawsuits are expensive, after all and these groups are a great source of funds, and as a cover because, let's face it, no one has any sympathy for someone who just doesn't want a highway, rail road, cement plant, park, etc... in their backyard - it's selfish! Think of the greater good and all that.
Of course, the pundits love to point fingers at the environmentalists! My favourite is blaming them for the lack of refineries in the US (It's not. If an oil co wanted another refinery, they would get it. The truth is that they're operating below capacity as it is and they just don't need more and if they built more, capacity would increase, depress prices, and their margins would further decline. But, it's PC to blame the environmentalists. ).
This is the maximum speed on a test run.
The first TGVs were running at 260/270 km/h on regular service in 1981. Current TGVs on regular service run at 220 km/h on classic lines, at 300 km/h on fast lines (called LGV) and at 320 km/h on the Paris-Strasbourg line (LGV EST).
Next generation TGV (called AGV and scheduled for 2010) will probably run faster on regular service, around 360 km/h.
The great speed of the TGV is interesting, but what is more remarkable is the density of its high-speed network: check it over here
Duh, because those projects aren't ambitious enough to draw criticism from the public at large. Everyone gets stuck in traffic, so the solution is more roads!
Right?
I feel like we should start with something simple to understand and easily approachable -- a trans-continental express railway from, say, New York to LA, non-stop.
Make the trains freight-bearing, but for the sole purpose of carrying passenger's cars and vehicles, charging for weight and size. Might be something like fifty bucks, but still immensely cheaper than renting one.
Imagine driving up to a branch of this backbone, paying a fee, boarding the train, and riding it across the country, essentially "driving" crosscountry in less than a day, keeping full access to your vehicle while maintaining the advantage, if reduced due to weight, of speedy rail travel.
But it is but an idea.
I would love to know the subsidy (federal, state, local) for the highways.
I disagree, and it is because we are not effectively using a lot better technology that we have developed already.
A ton of this commuting, millions of people, doesn't have to be done if we put in good fiber optic internet more places. That would do more than any amount of better cars or commuter trains. All this commuting to go sit in an office and type at a computer doesn't need all this commuting, it can be done at home. No need to drive or ride some train then.
We need to give up this notion that having huge corporate office towers with giant lit up signs advertising to the space aliens all night long is somehow a wise idea. Those are corporate dick waving towers, that's it for the most part in the internet age. We should be working hard to eliminate the *need* for commuting, not arguing over rail or more roads, we need to eliminate millions more people driving big distances twice a day, or riding some equally expensive and time wasting train, five days a week just to type up stuff and attend meetings and show each other power point presentations.
We have the internet, a 21st century way to move ideas and data, lets use that instead, as much as possible,. way more than we are now, it is a lot cheaper than building roads or rails to move humans when there is no absolute necessity other than past historical inertia.
It is kinda scary to think that while "Oh_so_EVIL_communist_China" builds an express line between its capitol and its financial center, US is building what is essentially a carnival ride between the Pleasure Island [wikipedia.org] and Sin City.
Firstly, China hasn't been communist for a while. It's closest now to Italian Fascism out of anything, only with a bit more competition.
Secondly, Acela Express. It might not be as shiny as a 380kmph white elephant, but it was cheaper to build and it functions well enough (in that it beats flying).
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
You are missing the point. It's not that anyone isn't sure that as far as energy use and carbon emissions goes the train will be better, the point of the environmental impact study is to determine if their are any especially environmentally sensitive areas that should be routed around.
Exactly. Trains in the long run may be more environmentally sensitive than other transit modes, but rail lines to have real environmental effects that need to be considered: noise & vibration, drainage, impervious surfaces (at the stations), wildlife disruption, fire danger from sparks off the rail or electrical components, defoliants used to kill weeds along the ROW, construction disruptions, exhaust soot (for diesel-powered locos), lubricant leakage from the vehicles, grade crossings, toxic soils that may be unearthed for ROW cuts and/or tunnels, and etc.
All of these things can be overcome, but it has to be done right, otherwise you'll wind up getting sued and have to rip up your project and rebuild it again to meet the appropriate standards.
In the US, the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) regulates passenger rail. The FRA rules have made it prohibitively expensive to build high-speed rail. Until regulations change in the US, high-speed rail will either cost a fortune ($40+ billion for the California project), or it will simply not be done at all.
Between Seattle and Portland, 180 miles apart, there are 4 trains each way each day and the trip is 3 hours 10 minutes to 3 hours 30 minutes. There are six stops during the trip. It can be longer if the drawbridge on the Columbia happens to go up and your train has to wait for it, or if there is some freight rail traffic that impedes the passenger train. In the USA, boat traffic has the right of way over rail and if a cargo ship carrying woodchips or cow dung or whatever wants to go under the bridge when a scheduled passenger train would cross, the bridge opens and the scheduled passenger train must wait. This can take 20 to 30 minutes. One time when this happened the bridge got stuck open and it took nearly an hour to get it closed again.
Between Hakata (Fukuoka) and Hiroshima, Japan, 175 miles apart, and cities of similar size to Seattle and Portland, there nearly 100 high-speed trains going each way every day and the trip takes as little as an hour and five minutes. Depending on the train there can be as little as one stop in between.
The trains provide city center to city center service. In Japan it is feasible to plan business trips between cities this far apart that take place in as little over three hours; a bit over an hour there, an hour meeting, a bit over an hour back. In the US such a trip is impossible. Even if you fly, by the time you drive or take a cab out to the airport, go through security, fly the short distance and then get into town from the airport, you've wasted far more time.
I use this example from time to time as most people who live in the US have no idea how backward the US can be in certain areas.
For example, one can take a 6AM train from Hakata (Fukuoka) and be in Hiroshima at 7:05AM. The earliest train out of Seattle leaves at 7:30 and doesn't arrive until 11AM (if the train is on time, which it usually isn't). The next train out of Seattle for Portland doesn't leave until 11:20AM. Between 6AM and 11:20AM, there are 28 trains leaving Hakata (Fukuoka) for Hiroshima.
Want to meet for a business lunch in Hiroshima? Take the 10:30AM train and you'll be there at 11:36AM, take the 10:39AM train and be there at 11:49AM, or take the 11:00AM train and get there are 12:05PM.
High speed rail makes a world of difference and is so convenient. There are many distances between cities in the US where having such service would radically change how business is done and how people travel.
Alaska Air offers 20 flights between Seattle and Portland. The travel time is 50 minutes, not much better than the train time between Fukuoka and Hiroshima. The difference is that when you step off the train you are downtown. When you get off the plane, you still have a long trip into town. Having fast, dependable train service between cities would make life much easier in the US.