China unveils 'world's fastest train link'

[PetalumaLoco]

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.

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."

China's 3 Gorges Dam, Environmental Disaster.

 

[acelafan]

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.

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."

China's 3 Gorges Dam, Environmental Disaster.

LOL Exactly!

 

[George Harris]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[user 1215]

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]

(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]

(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.

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]

(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.

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.

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]

(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.

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.

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.....

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]

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]

(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.

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.

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.....

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. . . .

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]

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]

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.