Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
While I thank the guest for posting the story 
; please be aware that copyright rules prohibit reposting the entire story on our board. In the future please be sure to only quote a paragraph or two in the future, and then provide a link to the full story. Many thanks!
; please be aware that copyright rules prohibit reposting the entire story on our board. In the future please be sure to only quote a paragraph or two in the future, and then provide a link to the full story. Many thanks! George Harris
Engineer
I think the distance may be 664 kilometers, not 664 miles. 664 miles is about 1000 km, and would require an average start to stop of about 330 km/h, simply not possible with a 350 km/h maximum speed.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
If its an express, running without stops, over track that permits maximum speed its entire length, without interruptions in its schedule... I think over a distance of 664 miles, it might be possible to produce that average. The longer the distance, the less time is spent, proportionally, accelerating and decelerating. Not that I need to inform you of this.
But, realistically speaking, you're probably right.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Newspaper reporters cannot tell the difference between demonstration runs and commercial service. And they tend to be a bit fast and loose with facts that they could verify if they wanted to, but mostly don't :angry:
From a Wikipedia article, that is updated by someone I personally know and trust:
From a Wikipedia article, that is updated by someone I personally know and trust:
rrdude
Engineer
Is there still talk of connecting the Chinese mainland with Taiwan via high-speed rail? Besides the physical challenges involved in creating a state-of-the-art rail link over a body of water that is, I believe, over 100 miles wide, there are the political challenges that would have to be addressed between two countries that don't officially recognize each other, even as each, to some degree, claims to be the legal government over the other's territory.
PetalumaLoco
Conductor
Google directions from the mainland to Taiwan.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It is possible that like everywhere else politicians making bombastic claims is alive and well in China too.
It looks like as everywhere else Chinese newspapers also do not proof read and do lose a few zeros in translation as in writing the distance is 1800m instead of 180000m i.e. 180km. The latter makes the venture look much more daunting the former, so it colors the story into a world of fantasy if the credibility depends on the distance being reasonably achievable.
And of course the politics of it is interesting, and also China may be rich but I think they have already achieved overstretching their budgets to a point of non-viability unless they are talking plans over the next 100 years.
I believe this is sort of true. The distance from Xiamen to Quemoy (or Kinmen) is only a few kilometers. However, while Quemoy is administered by the ROC government, it is not very close to Taiwan. It is not where the proposed high-speed railway would most likely be built.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
Big difference between China/Japan/Europe and the U.S.:
China was (and still is) a backward third world country with little auto, good rail or air service. It is natural for them to go for modern rail to reduce the need for the auto/air infrastructure and the lack of need to "upgrade" old rail as well as the much lower cost of "redeveloping" areas to put in rail.
Japan and Europe have a high density low auto usage history with cities close together much like the US northeast. The payback on passenger miles is very good. Again, without the well-developed in-city highway system like in the U.S., competition with autos is not as tough with rail.
China was (and still is) a backward third world country with little auto, good rail or air service. It is natural for them to go for modern rail to reduce the need for the auto/air infrastructure and the lack of need to "upgrade" old rail as well as the much lower cost of "redeveloping" areas to put in rail.
Japan and Europe have a high density low auto usage history with cities close together much like the US northeast. The payback on passenger miles is very good. Again, without the well-developed in-city highway system like in the U.S., competition with autos is not as tough with rail.
rrdude
Engineer
So how do you explain the success of the French? The county is the size of Texas, with a population about that of Florida. And they are not a third world county, they have roads,.......I'm not sticking up for the French, but the model works....
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Interesting! Have you ever been to Japan and Europe and seen their highway systems? It might come as a surprise to you that in many cases they are as good or better than ours. Remember that it is the German Autobahn system that essentially has no speed limit!
Afterall it is Germany that invented the notion of Autobahns. Eisenhower saw what Germany had during the war and came back and launched the Interstate Highway program. During postwar reconstruction, Germany proceeded to restore their Autobahn system and built further upon the base. The French Autoroutes are also excellent in most places. The High Speed Rail system is a relatively recent phenomenon which was built mostly after a relatively comprehensive highway system was in place in many areas (not all). In some case highways and HSR were built and continue to be built in parallel.
And as for Japan, many residents of Tokyo wish that you were right about the lack of urban grade separated limited access highways in Tokyo. If anything they are planning to tear a few down and shove them underground, especially in places like the Nihonbashi area where the entire top of the river is covered by the ring highway!
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to note: France is a little smaller than Texas (something like 550,000 sq km compared to about 650,000 sq km or so), and more than 3 times as populous as Florida (60-some-odd million compared to 18 million or so).
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
No kidding. The simple truth is that Americans were sold on the idea of needing a cars and planes to get anywhere. They can be sold on any concept you like, including train travel. Witness the TSA's new X-ray machines that subjects supposedly proudly independent Americans to naked photos for the simple infraction of boarding a domestic flight. Most folks don't argue or even ask any questions. They simply shut up and do as they're told. To make Americans ride trains you just need to buy enough government influence to make purchasing and operating a car far more expensive and difficult than alternative methods. It's really that simple. Trying to appeal to Americans with logical concerns about efficiency or the environment is a waste of time as we've all seen. There's no willingness to understand the issue and no concern for the "greater good" to appeal to. Better to just ignore their views and simply drag them into a new era whether they like it or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
The density argument is often trotted out by those opposed to rail. Yet if one looks at the Downeaster, a train that by the way isn't even high speed at 79MPH, we find that Portland, ME & the NH corridor have some of the lowest population densities around. Yet somehow they managed to find enough people to take nearly 500,000 rides on the Downeaster service last year. Portland has a population of 63,011 and a pop density of 3,029.2 people per square mile. Contrast that with for example Madison, Wisconsin where they are currently debating a train, with 223,389 people and a pop density of 3,029.8 people per sq mile.
Yet somehow at least some people in Wisconsin seem to think that no more than 3 people will want to ride this train.
leemell
Conductor
This (http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/what-the-tsas-new-bo.html) and this (http://news.spreadit.org/body-scan-images-saved-tsa-full-body-scanners-controversy/) is what they look like, not really naked pics.
rrdude
Engineer
Thanks for the update, I was generalizing, obviously..........
Of course.
An very interesting comparison is Spain and California. Spain is in the midst of one of the largest expansions of high speed rail anywhere. Spain is a little larger in area than California (about 500,000 sq km compared to 425,000 sq km), somewhat more populous (about 46 million compared to 37 million), and about the same population density (Spain 231 people per sq mi, California 234 people per sq mi).
jamesontheroad
OBS Chief
However in none of these countries (unlike the USA) does the auto industry have such strong emotional, cultural and financial ties to the federal government or national psyche. The Big Three have the politicians and people of the USA right where they want them, absolutely hooked on their products and living in a country that is hard-wired and designed into car dependence.
(retreats to bunker )
(retreats to bunker
)
PetalumaLoco
Conductor
Ah, you mean Toyota, Chevy and Ford, right?However in none of these countries (unlike the USA) does the auto industry have such strong emotional, cultural and financial ties to the federal government or national psyche. The Big Three have the politicians and people of the USA right where they want them, absolutely hooked on their products and living in a country that is hard-wired and designed into car dependence.
(retreats to bunker
(follows him into bunker...)
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I think I will just head into the bunker without even saying anything further :hi:Ah, you mean Toyota, Chevy and Ford, right?However in none of these countries (unlike the USA) does the auto industry have such strong emotional, cultural and financial ties to the federal government or national psyche. The Big Three have the politicians and people of the USA right where they want them, absolutely hooked on their products and living in a country that is hard-wired and designed into car dependence.
(retreats to bunker
(follows him into bunker...)
George Harris
Engineer
Use of public transportation of any kind is an acquired taste. Many people have no intention of acquiring it.
Is there still space in the bunker?
Is there still space in the bunker?
GlobalistPotato
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 344
Although the Chinese system is very impressive and knocks every other country's HSR system out of the water, it's something you really couldn't see coming until at least the beginning of the last decade.
During the 1990s, the Chinese government made their first plans for the current rail system we see built today. At the time, the average speed of Chinese passenger trains was around 60 km/h, or about 37 mph.
China built their first conventional HSR line back in 2005, and by 2007, China had more miles of HSR than any other country. In 2009, they introduced the fastest scheduled train in the world, the Wuhan–Guangzhou service, running at a max of 220 mph and an average of 190 mph, for a travel time of 3.5 hrs over 601 miles.
You couldn't tell someone before the last 10 years that China is going to build the fastest train network in the world. They'd laugh at you. They'd see China as a 3rd world country with a 3rd world rail system.
What I'd want to know is HOW the Chinese have been able to build this system so quickly.
What I find interesting is that the distances involved in the system are about as equal as the distances between major American cities. This could break the rule-of-the-thumb that HSR is only effective out to 500 miles.
During the 1990s, the Chinese government made their first plans for the current rail system we see built today. At the time, the average speed of Chinese passenger trains was around 60 km/h, or about 37 mph.
China built their first conventional HSR line back in 2005, and by 2007, China had more miles of HSR than any other country. In 2009, they introduced the fastest scheduled train in the world, the Wuhan–Guangzhou service, running at a max of 220 mph and an average of 190 mph, for a travel time of 3.5 hrs over 601 miles.
You couldn't tell someone before the last 10 years that China is going to build the fastest train network in the world. They'd laugh at you. They'd see China as a 3rd world country with a 3rd world rail system.
What I'd want to know is HOW the Chinese have been able to build this system so quickly.
What I find interesting is that the distances involved in the system are about as equal as the distances between major American cities. This could break the rule-of-the-thumb that HSR is only effective out to 500 miles.
