# China unveils 'world's fastest train link'



## DET63

> China on Saturday unveiled what it billed as the fastest rail link in the world -- a train connecting the modern cities of Guangzhou and Wuhan at an average speed of 350 kilometres (217 miles) an hour.
> 
> The super-high-speed train reduces the 1,069 kilometre journey to a three hour ride and cuts the previous journey time by more than seven and a half hours, the official Xinhua news agency said.
> 
> 
> 
> Work on the project began in 2005 as part of plans to expand a high-speed network aimed at eventually linking Guangzhou, a business hub in southern China near Hong Kong, with the capital Beijing, Xinhua added.
> 
> 
> 
> "The train can go 394.2 kilometres per hour, it's the fastest train in operation in the world," Zhang Shuguang, head of the transport bureau at the railways ministry, told Xinhua.


Link

1069 km = 664 miles. By air, that would be about 1½ to 2 hours, plus time for check-in, security, etc. How would that compare with a 3-hour train ride (just in terms of time for the total trip)?


----------



## Bob Dylan

While not exactly the same, it works out to more convient and pleasurable to ride the train! That's why I used to ride from WAS-NYP and WAS-BOS and vice versa instead of flying the shuttle! Just getting to/from the airport to downtown

makes it worth it, let alone the TSA (what are called in China?)hassle and now the new "get tough" rules to come!

As an aside, no reason our HSR can't be done as well if we'd just get off the pot and DO IT!!


----------



## DET63

.


----------



## jis

Interesting that the article does not mention that the 3 hour run was a test run. The normal schedule is going to be somewhat more sedate with a max speed of 350kph and an average of something closer to 300kph or thereabouts.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

jis said:


> Interesting that the article does not mention that the 3 hour run was a test run. The normal schedule is going to be somewhat more sedate with a max speed of 350kph and an average of something closer to 300kph or thereabouts.


Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.

An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.

Wikipedia rail speed records.


----------



## jis

PetalumaLoco said:


> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.


What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.
> 
> 
> 
> What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.
Click to expand...

Sadly you are probably correct jis,our politicians love to put stuff off till after the next election ie the health care bill will mostly take effect in 2014,

probably more like 2020 in the case of HSR, it usually takes 20 years to get good ideas done here thanks to the greatest (read slowest)deliberative body in the world, the US Senate!


----------



## PetalumaLoco

jis said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.
> 
> 
> 
> What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.
Click to expand...

No doubt you're right, they're not afraid to spend the money.


----------



## jis

After one takes the uninformed press fluff away, in which they seem not to know the difference between average speed and maximum speed, or between a test run and regularly scheduled commercial service, here is some concrete information:

The trainsets that are being used on the Beijing - Wuhan HSR.

The maximum commercial speed is 350kph. There is one single non-stop run which averages out at around 310kph. The other runs with one stop are end to end 253kph.

In summary, the technological installations are of German design (Siemens) and the signaling system is the ERTMS 2 (also known as CTCS 3 in China) supplied by Bombardier Transportation. The trains are of German (Siemens Velaro - CRH3) and Japanese (Kawasaki E2 Series - CRH2) design.

The ballastless track (RHEDA 2000) is German technology, actually developed by Rail One group and has been used on a number of high-speed rail lines previously. They are built with the help of Deutsche Eisenbahn-Consulting GmbH.

Also here is a map of the overall HSR plan of CR.


----------



## Shanghai

If you have ever been to Wuhan, you will likely understandy why they need a new train!!!

I think jis's comment about the status of HSR in the US by 2014 is correct.

Our Congress will probably have spent three generations of our taxpayers income

with continued spending without regard for who and how to repay the giant debt!!

China is probably paying for their HSR's with the interest from the trillions the US owes them.


----------



## DET63

According to the Travel China Guide, it appears the "bullet trains" are not air-conditioned.


----------



## George Harris

DET63 said:


> According to the Travel China Guide, it appears the "bullet trains" are not air-conditioned.


That is nonsense.

The premier trains in China have been air conditioned for over 15 years, at least.


----------



## jis

DET63 said:


> According to the Travel China Guide, it appears the "bullet trains" are not air-conditioned.


I find it hard to believe that Siemens and Kawaski would take the trouble to create an unairconditioned version of those trainsets for the Chinese, and I find it even m ore incredible to believe that Chinese pride would allow such nonsense.


----------



## rrdude

Are we sure Amtrak-China is not running these new HS trains in China?

Amtrak-China?


----------



## PetalumaLoco

rrdude said:


> Are we sure Amtrak-China is not running these new HS trains in China?
> Amtrak-China?


That logo seems more like this one


----------



## rrdude

PetalumaLoco said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we sure Amtrak-China is not running these new HS trains in China?
> Amtrak-China?
> 
> 
> 
> That logo seems more like this one
Click to expand...

Which of course AT&T "stole" from Great Lakes Banc Shares..................decades ago....


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Amtrak logo stolen from...






...or maybe it's the other way round.


----------



## GG-1

PetalumaLoco said:


> Amtrak logo stolen from...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...or maybe it's the other way round.


Or just the same graphic artist and the same ad agency.

Aloha


----------



## PetalumaLoco

There was the pointless arrow...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I prefer the old one, although they are both indicative of their times. The Amtrak Pointless Arrow symbolized the coming together of many passenger lines into one.

The newer one was made at the request of an asshat named George Warrington, to symbolize "three sheets to the wind", which generally described aptly Amtak's condition after Warrington's stewardship.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> The newer one was made at the request of an asshat named George Warrington, to symbolize "three sheets to the wind", which generally described aptly Amtak's condition after Warrington's stewardship.


Wasn't the Acela marketing campaign dreamed up by Barbara whatever her name was, who Kummant finally managed to fire?


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The newer one was made at the request of an asshat named George Warrington, to symbolize "three sheets to the wind", which generally described aptly Amtak's condition after Warrington's stewardship.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Acela marketing campaign dreamed up by Barbara whatever her name was, who Kummant finally managed to fire?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was largely her baby, although I believe that Amtrak hired a marketing firm to actually do most of the work. She was probably most likely presented with several ideas and had to pick one. And IIRC, it was Barbara Richardson.


----------



## DET63

The "pointless arrow" and the flag of South Africa.


----------



## birdy

jimhudson said:


> While not exactly the same, it works out to more convient and pleasurable to ride the train! That's why I used to ride from WAS-NYP and WAS-BOS and vice versa instead of flying the shuttle! Just getting to/from the airport to downtownmakes it worth it, let alone the TSA (what are called in China?)hassle and now the new "get tough" rules to come!
> 
> As an aside, no reason our HSR can't be done as well if we'd just get off the pot and DO IT!!


Yep. Its just not that much money. We only spend 2% of the federal budget on transportation infrastructure. I notice that Kay Bailey Hutchison is beginning to work this stuff into her campaign, so maybe the pols are beginning to catch on that the public wants this. An aggressive $20 billion per year program (enough to pay for California, $10 billion Acela upgrade, and four or five good lines of your choosing) over the 6 year transportation funding cycle would be very doable both logistically and fiscally speaking. Our budget deficit at the moment is typical of our EU trading partners who seem to have the wherewithal to build and maintain a modern transportation infrastructure, and presumably somewhat self-correcting as the economy recovers.

Simply returning the effective rate of income taxation of the top 400 taxpayers (starting at about $230 million per year) from the current 17% to Ronald Reagan era rates of the mid 20's% rate, would raise about $10 billion per year. As of yesterday, we lost the first $20 billion with the temporary estate tax repeal. Since this is the railroad forum tax practitioners call 2010 the "throw momma from the train" year.


----------



## acelafan

jis said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.
> 
> 
> 
> What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.
Click to expand...

Yep! Nice article on npr.org about the new train.

While the United States has allocated $13 billion for the construction of high-speed rail over the next five years, China plans to spend $300 billion in the next decade to build the world's most extensive and advanced high-speed rail network.

 

China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize. China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.

 

"To solve the problem of public transportation in such a vast country," he argues, "rail transport is the only way to go. If we rely on airplanes and automobiles like the U.S., neither China nor the world will be able to handle such energy consumption."


----------



## PetalumaLoco

acelafan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.
> 
> 
> 
> What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep! Nice article on npr.org about the new train.
> 
> While the United States has allocated $13 billion for the construction of high-speed rail over the next five years, China plans to spend $300 billion in the next decade to build the world's most extensive and advanced high-speed rail network.
> 
> 
> 
> *China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize.* China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.
> 
> 
> 
> "To solve the problem of public transportation in such a vast country," he argues, "rail transport is the only way to go. If we rely on airplanes and automobiles like the U.S., neither China nor the world will be able to handle such energy consumption."
Click to expand...

China's 3 Gorges Dam, Environmental Disaster.


----------



## acelafan

PetalumaLoco said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph. On 3 April 2007 a modified TGV POS train reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) under test conditions.
> An average run of 300kph is only marginally faster than the TGV has been running for years.
> 
> Wikipedia rail speed records.
> 
> 
> 
> What is impressive about the Chinese is that they plan to build some 10,000km of such routes by 2014. I am sure we in the US will still be debating whether the HSR in US should be 110mph or 125mph, with exactly zero new miles built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep! Nice article on npr.org about the new train.
> 
> While the United States has allocated $13 billion for the construction of high-speed rail over the next five years, China plans to spend $300 billion in the next decade to build the world's most extensive and advanced high-speed rail network.
> 
> 
> 
> *China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize.* China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.
> 
> 
> 
> "To solve the problem of public transportation in such a vast country," he argues, "rail transport is the only way to go. If we rely on airplanes and automobiles like the U.S., neither China nor the world will be able to handle such energy consumption."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China's 3 Gorges Dam, Environmental Disaster.
Click to expand...

LOL Exactly!


----------



## George Harris

PetalumaLoco said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the United States has allocated $13 billion for the construction of high-speed rail over the next five years, China plans to spend $300 billion in the next decade to build the world's most extensive and advanced high-speed rail network.
> 
> *China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize.* China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.
> 
> 
> 
> "To solve the problem of public transportation in such a vast country," he argues, "rail transport is the only way to go. If we rely on airplanes and automobiles like the U.S., neither China nor the world will be able to handle such energy consumption."
> 
> 
> 
> China's 3 Gorges Dam, Environmental Disaster.
Click to expand...

There are at least benefit in power generation and flood control with the Three Gorges Dam. The main environmental disaster there was how they treated the relocation of the people living in the area flooded. When I think of environmental disasters in China, I think of water pollution, air pollution, complete absence of worker safety, working hours and conditions, prison labor under horrible conditions, etc., etc. Then there is the general treatment of the population, restrictions on movement, speech, religious activities, poor quality medical services unless you are part of the elite, etc., etc.


----------



## rrdude

Yeah, but they are building nice, new, fast trains, so who cares about the people or the environment? :lol: :lol:


----------



## sunchaser

This is not a mag-lev, correct?

How can it go that fast?


----------



## rrdude

sunchaser said:


> This is not a mag-lev, correct?How can it go that fast?


Not maglev, correct.

It has very big engines, a perfect ROW, and sleek as an arrow.


----------



## George Harris

sunchaser said:


> This is not a mag-lev, correct?How can it go that fast?


At this stage of the game, no one has yet figured out where the real practical speed limit for steel wheel on steel rail systems is located.

At the time the Japanese started to design and build the Shinkansen system the "revealed wisdom" in the transportation world was that the practical limit of steel wheel on steel rail systems was somewhere above, but not very far above 100 mph for standard gauge tracks and for narrow gauge tracks somewhere above but not very far above 60 mph. Therefore, when the Japanese decided to design their original system for 200 to 220 km/h (125 to 130 mph) they, and the world, thought they were pushing the envelope.

We now have plenty of places in this world where trains run at 186 to 218 mph on standard gauge tracks and up to 100 mpjh on narrow gauge tracks.

there does not appear to be any real reason that the speed cap on tracks is at all related to track gauge. Just be sure to keep the resultant of the forces within the proper relation to the track and all is fine.

How can it go that fast? It must have enough power and it must be applied in such a way that the adhesion limit between wheel and rail is not exceeded.

The last factor, adhesion is why most of the high speed trains are emu's (electric multiple units) with motors on somewhere between 75% and all of the wheels. If you try to go too fast with the usual locomotive and coach set-up, it will require more power than the wheels can deliver to the train. Wheel spin literally gets you no-where.

For acceleration, the magic factor is power to weight ratio. For steady state high speed, it is power available versus train resistance. At hgh speeds the biggest component of train resistance is aerodynamics, and that term increases with teh square of the velocity. Thus, with any given amount of power, there is a maximum speed achievable with the train. Increasis that maximum, and decreasing energy consumption, it the primary reason for making trains as aerodynamically slick as possible.

There are other factors but I think this is enough to get the picture.

Of course, if you wan to run real fast, the track has to be very prrecisely located and maintained to close tolerances. Achieving the level of near perfection in alignment and maintenance is the primarly reason that most truly high speed track is on a concrete base, not ties and ballast. (es, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.


----------



## VentureForth

> *China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize.* China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.


Interestingly, it's America's oversensitivity to the environment that has stalled progressive development.

You'd think that this is the sort of boost that the US needs - steel wheel technology and massive infrastructure development would bring huge relief to the US Steel industry.

But, who has THAT sort of vision and can get things done?


----------



## Neil_M

George Harris said:


> (es, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.


Despite your misgivings, they seem to have managed quite well since 1981 with just ballast.

If it was such an effort, you do wonder why they have not changed the way they do it. Perhaps it is not a much an effort as you make out, after all the French are just bone idle,cheese eating surrender monkeys. (But with nice cheese and fast trains, and great food, and wine, and a football team that wins every so often, and great culture, and the best fish soup in the universe!)


----------



## George Harris

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> (es, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your misgivings, they seem to have managed quite well since 1981 with just ballast.
Click to expand...

It is not misgivings, but knowledge of the reality. Of course it can be done, but with a maintenance labor some two to four times that required for track on concrete slab.

For that matter, a lot of things can be made to work in the railroad world given enough effort. The question is optimization, or more simply, getting the biggest bang for your buck (or pound in your case).

If you wanted to get completely rediculous, you would probably be able to run the TGV trains at full speed on 90 lb/yd rail on wood ties (call that 45 kg/m rail on timber sleepers in English-English and metric units), but you would probably need about four times as many people working on the track to keep it safe and reasonably comfortable as you would with the current 60km/m welded rail on concrete ties, and then of course your traction motor life woudl be considerably shortened due to the additional jolts.


----------



## Neil_M

George Harris said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> (es, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your misgivings, they seem to have managed quite well since 1981 with just ballast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not misgivings, but knowledge of the reality. Of course it can be done, but with a maintenance labor some two to four times that required for track on concrete slab.
> 
> For that matter, a lot of things can be made to work in the railroad world given enough effort. The question is optimization, or more simply, getting the biggest bang for your buck (or pound in your case).
> 
> If you wanted to get completely rediculous, you would probably be able to run the TGV trains at full speed on 90 lb/yd rail on wood ties (call that 45 kg/m rail on timber sleepers in English-English and metric units), but you would probably need about four times as many people working on the track to keep it safe and reasonably comfortable as you would with the current 60km/m welded rail on concrete ties, and then of course your traction motor life woudl be considerably shortened due to the additional jolts.
Click to expand...

So if it is so "inefficient", why do they persist with it? Most of the inspection and maintenance would be mechanised anyway, and only done at night time given the traffic levels on those lines, and day time work is very limited due to safety reasons due to the high speeds. You may well have practical experience in this field, but I simply fail to believe that in a era of cost cutting in all forms of rail transport, the French are pressing ahead with ballast over concrete just because concrete is used by their arch enemies, the Germans.

The French have been at the HSL game since 1980, and yet the latest route to Eastern France is still ballasted.

They must have a good reason for doing it, and you need to have a good reason to convince me they ain't got a clue about how to run a high speed railway.

Please don't say its just an anti French bias.....


----------



## George Harris

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> (es, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your misgivings, they seem to have managed quite well since 1981 with just ballast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not misgivings, but knowledge of the reality. Of course it can be done, but with a maintenance labor some two to four times that required for track on concrete slab.
> 
> For that matter, a lot of things can be made to work in the railroad world given enough effort. The question is optimization, or more simply, getting the biggest bang for your buck (or pound in your case).
> 
> If you wanted to get completely rediculous, you would probably be able to run the TGV trains at full speed on 90 lb/yd rail on wood ties (call that 45 kg/m rail on timber sleepers in English-English and metric units), but you would probably need about four times as many people working on the track to keep it safe and reasonably comfortable as you would with the current 60km/m welded rail on concrete ties, and then of course your traction motor life woudl be considerably shortened due to the additional jolts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it is so "inefficient", why do they persist with it? Most of the inspection and maintenance would be mechanised anyway, and only done at night time given the traffic levels on those lines, and day time work is very limited due to safety reasons due to the high speeds. You may well have practical experience in this field, but I simply fail to believe that in a era of cost cutting in all forms of rail transport, the French are pressing ahead with ballast over concrete just because concrete is used by their arch enemies, the Germans.
> 
> The French have been at the HSL game since 1980, and yet the latest route to Eastern France is still ballasted.
> 
> They must have a good reason for doing it, and you need to have a good reason to convince me they ain't got a clue about how to run a high speed railway.
> 
> Please don't say its just an anti French bias.....
Click to expand...

And the Japanese who have been doing this stuff a lot longer than the French put most of theirs on concrete base.

Neither of which really proves which one is the better one for cost or any other reason. The numbers work out to favor slab. Given the choice to accept Japanese analysis or French analysi as being difinitive on an issue, I would go with Japanese every time, and that is beacuse I ahve experienced both. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your perogative.


----------



## jis

rrdude said:


> It has very big engines, a perfect ROW, and sleek as an arrow.


Strictly speaking many little engines spread out all along the length of the train since both CRH2 and CRH3 are distributed power semi-permanently coupled units. This provides better adhesion and avoids many of the issues around slack etc.


----------



## George Harris

George Harris said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> (yes, I know the track on which the TGV's operate in France is primarily ballast, but the effort required to keep the track where it ought to be is tremendous.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your misgivings, they seem to have managed quite well since 1981 with just ballast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not misgivings, but knowledge of the reality. Of course it can be done, but with a maintenance labor some two to four times that required for track on concrete slab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it is so "inefficient", why do they persist with it? . . . I simply fail to believe that in a era of cost cutting in all forms of rail transport, the French are pressing ahead with ballast over concrete just because concrete is used by their arch enemies, the Germans. . . .
> 
> Please don't say its just an anti French bias.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Japanese who have been doing this stuff a lot longer than the French put most of theirs on concrete base. Neither of which really proves which one is the better one for cost or any other reason. The numbers work out to favor slab. . . .
Click to expand...

Back to the beginning point of this thread: The Chinese high speed railway and the speeds they have achieved:

*The Chinese high speed tracks are concrete based track.* From the pictures, appears to be of the German Rheda type.

As to the French not doing something for no better reason that it is the way the Germans do it: That is a possibility.

JIS: The common name for trainsets having many little engines - actually electric motors mounted on the bogies, usually on somewhere between 75% and 100% of the axles, and powered from the overhead wire, is EMU. That is, Electric Multiple Units. Most transit systems use this principle. Shall we say that the motor gearing and speed limits are a little different?


----------



## Neil_M

George Harris said:


> Back to the beginning point of this thread: The Chinese high speed railway and the speeds they have achieved:
> *The Chinese high speed tracks are concrete based track.* From the pictures, appears to be of the German Rheda type.
> 
> As to the French not doing something for no better reason that it is the way the Germans do it: That is a possibility.


The Japanese system features a lot of lengthy viaducts and tunnels does it not? Slightly different terrain to rural France, where the idea is to build to the curves of the route rather than tunnel or bridge your way through it.

Slab track makes a lot more sense in those kind of locations than ballast, I agree, and lowers the height of the track as well.

Even so, I am sure the French feel that doing it with ballast suits them just fine, maybe when the US has some proper high speed rail we can see how you do it.....


----------



## George Harris

Neil_M said:


> maybe when the US has some proper high speed rail we can see how you do it.....


OK, but I think I know the answer. Take a visit to the California High Speed Train Prooject website and look at some of the terrain.


----------

