Today's (FRI) WSJ has an article stating that China is reducing the top speeds of its HSR network effective July 1.The new Minister of Railways in an interview stated top speeds would from max 350 Km/hr (218 MPH) to new max speeds of 300 Km/hr ( 187 MPH ). Many trains will also operate slower at 200 - 250 Km/hr (125 - 156 MPH ) Reducing energy use was one reason cited. Also being able to reduce ticket prices another cited reason. The new Beijing - Shanghai route to open later this year was scheduled to operate at 380 Km/hr.
These speeds will compare with Europe, Japan, Korea top speeds of 320 Km/hr.
I find this announcement as asking more questions than giving answers.
1. Is there a potential shortage of electric energy that China would rather use for industry? Runnning 350 Km/hr takes twice energy of 200 Km/hr?
2. Is this an attempt to lengthen the life of HSR equipment that may otherwise wear out sooner?
3. Is not enough HSR equipment being built for China?
4. Does China lack the trained maintenance skills for both ROW and rolling stock equipment?
5. Is there a fluidity problem that can be mitigated by running more trains all at the same speed?
6. Is july 1 because of time to completely redo all passenger schedules? And maybe some freight?
7. When converting to the approximate MPH speeds found the speeds much comparable to either actual or proposed Acela speeds?
8. Will we find that HSR anywhere will stay around these speeds?
9. Will Ca stop at 187 MPH?
10. Will tracks be designed for these speeds? (curvature and unbalances of new tracks)
11. Anyone any other questions?
There are lots of lines to read between here...first, it has been intimated that China's HSR is far ahead of the country's needs; second, HSR infrastructure and operations are quite new, not really settled down; three, how practical is some HSR in certain applications...is it really needed between certain city pairs, etc, or is it just to say you have it?; fourth, energy...electricity in this case...might have to be conserved, or at least cost effective for market and trip. As for questions about the US HSR, we don't know because we've not truly studied and designed any nor done market studies...Acela seems to be successful by itself, but we haven't really explored much further...so far, it is just a sexy, glamorous, concept for speeding.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
blue streak 1 Today's (FRI) WSJ has an article stating that China is reducing the top speeds of its HSR network effective July 1.The new Minister of Railways in an interview stated top speeds would from max 350 Km/hr (218 MPH) to new max speeds of 300 Km/hr ( 187 MPH ). Many trains will also operate slower at 200 - 250 Km/hr (125 - 156 MPH ) Reducing energy use was one reason cited. Also being able to reduce ticket prices another cited reason. The new Beijing - Shanghai route to open later this year was scheduled to operate at 380 Km/hr. These speeds will compare with Europe, Japan, Korea top speeds of 320 Km/hr. I find this announcement as asking more questions than giving answers. 1. Is there a potential shortage of electric energy that China would rather use for industry? Running 350 Km/hr takes twice energy of 200 Km/hr? 2. Is this an attempt to lengthen the life of HSR equipment that may otherwise wear out sooner?
1. Is there a potential shortage of electric energy that China would rather use for industry? Running 350 Km/hr takes twice energy of 200 Km/hr?
The French figured out a number of years ago that 360 kph was about the limit for speed based upon costs versus possible ticket revenue. The exact speed of course changes as the actual costs of items change. Right now with electricity demand rising quickly, the costs of electricity are pushing the economic speed down a bit. I think the Chinese push for speeds faster than the European countries was done purely for the reason of prestige, now common sense and the realization that even they cannot afford to fritter away resources has forced them to take a more pragmatic approach.
I don't think this is the problem
4. Does China lack the trained maintenance skills for both ROW and rolling stock equipment? 5. Is there a fluidity problem that can be mitigated by running more trains all at the same speed?
I don't think this is relevant.
Yes
7. When converting to the approximate MPH speeds found the speeds much comparable to either actual or proposed Acela speeds? 8. Will we find that HSR anywhere will stay around these speeds?
I believe that we will.
?
It will save money if they do.
According to several industry publications, China's electrical grid is challenged because demand for electric energy has grown faster than generation and transmission capabilities. Actually, although it probably differs in magnitude, their problem is not unlike the challenges generators in the United States face. Whether the constraints have had any impact on the industry's ability to supply power to the rail system is unknown.
China generates approximately 75 per cent of its power from coal, compared to roughly 48 per cent in the United States. It has approximately 448 GW of coal fired generation. Moreover, China has under construction the largest number of new coal fired steam electric stations of any country. They are getting flack from the environmental community for building more coal plants, in part because their plants are not as clean as America's coal fired power plants.
I guess the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-train-wreck/2011/04/21/AFqjRWRE_story.html is piling on. Far be it for me to claim that China is under Communism or that the U.S. is under a perfect system of individual liberty and a Capitalist economic system.
But I think people would agree that China has a somewhat more centrally planned economy whereas the U.S. has a somewhat more decentralized economic decision making process. China is somewhat more authoritarian whereas the U.S. gives more of a voice to anyone with an objection.
The advantage China has with respect to HSR is that if the powers that be decide, they can just do it, and they have a showcase system that is the envy of the world. The disadvantage China has with respect to HSR isthat if the powers that be decide, they can just do it, and they are stuck with paying the bill.
Now that this news about China's HSR has come out, everyone (on the anti-train side) is going "oh, the humanity!" "Rail is 19'th century technology." "HSR is a boondogle!" "The HSR in China cannot make its schedules (with reference to this minor reduction in top speed -- just with the airlines who have reduced the fli!"ght speed of their jets to save on fuel costs, they will simply adjust the schedules to match reality)
On the other hand, the train advocacy people have been going "Oh, the humanity!" "Our trading partners are building HSR and we in the U.S. are not. We are falling so behind!"
I guess I don't have patience with the view that the China HSR is an unmitigated disaster because as people say, traffic will build over time. Our Interstates were a lot less crowded when first opened. I also guess I don't have patience with the view that the U.S. not having HSR is an unmitigated disaster either. There are pros and cons to all of such decisions. Also, the centrally planned aspect to big public works projects makes them susceptable to some amount of boondoggletude, whether it is an HSR line or a major road project.
As to the people in China reducing the top speed, that seems like a sensible adjustment to market conditions and economic reality. As I mentioned earlier, jets nowadays are not flown as fast as they were in the 1960's. The minor reduction in speed not only saves electricity, it can also save wear and tear on the tracks on the rolling stock, and maybe with a slightly slower schedule, they can lower the fare can get more customers.
But again, there is this fixation with top speed in HSR (doesn't always translate into top end-to-end speed as discussed in Trains magazine articles over the years), and I simply don't regard achievement of some top speed as an end in itself. Apart from some kind of jingoistic bragging rights, which the people in China are wise enough to forgo.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The Chinese build because they can, because they know the future will demand what they build now, and mainly because of propaganda and PR to say they did it and have it and you don't. I think there appears several major concerns that have come up: lack of enough electricity beause of reported coal shortages is prime, espcially with the problems in Japan and nuclear plants driving up the need for coal elsewhere. But also, there may be some teething problems with the equipment and the system along with not as much demand from the people despite what the government wanted and expected. The World Economy is slow compared to what was expected when these systems were planned, and so, they find people do not have to move as much in the patterns expected. But you do have to say that they are certainly ahead of the high speed railroad game and ready when it will be needed.
Over the years I have changed my mind somewhat on HSR. It is not IMHO how fast the train goes but how long the trip takes. So for less cost have the trains not go slow. Just aLLOWING the trains say NYP - Newark - PHL maintain a 135 MPH speed will reduce travel time NYP - PHL to under 1 hour. The cost will be less than trying to get Elizabeth - Trenton portion of that route to say 200 MPH!!!
Wear and tear on rolling stock and track and swiitches will be much less lowering operating costs. the other costs of electricity will also be lower!!!
For your information even the French have found that their HSR patronage has balloned for trips to Paris under 1 hour. Many ccommuters in fact!!!!!!!!!!!
One more point. If we the advocates want to see HrSR then HSR be accepted by the general public, then the general public needs to see results with reduced trip times. Right now there are several local spots that are or will achieve these modest goals.
1.Seattle = Portland
2. Sacremento - Oakland - San Jose
3. LAX - San Diego
4. CHI - STL
5. NYP - PHL
6. PHL - Harrisburg
7. CLT - Raleigh
Let us hope that these will awaken the general public to their advantages that they now do not see.
I believe the following statistic, cited in the aforementioned Washington Post essay, says it all:
"Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone."
Read that carefully.
The amount China is paying in INTEREST ALONE on the debt they incurred to build their big high-speed line is somewhere over TEN TIMES the U.S.'s annual appropriation for Amtrak's TOTAL operation.
And the total scope of China's HSR in question/operation is LESS than has been proposed by Obama & Co. for the U.S. The proposals made will amount to perhaps $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States over a decade, whether or not they actually use it. And that's just the FEDERAL part of the equation--the states would have to cough up about an equivalent amount per state/taxpayer.
LNER4472 I believe the following statistic, cited in the aforementioned Washington Post essay, says it all: "Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone." Read that carefully. The amount China is paying in INTEREST ALONE on the debt they incurred to build their big high-speed line is somewhere over TEN TIMES the U.S.'s annual appropriation for Amtrak's TOTAL operation. And the total scope of China's HSR in question/operation is LESS than has been proposed by Obama & Co. for the U.S. The proposals made will amount to perhaps $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States over a decade, whether or not they actually use it. And that's just the FEDERAL part of the equation--the states would have to cough up about an equivalent amount per state/taxpayer.
You have raised the central question. How are we going to pay for HSR? I have yet to see a realistic plan to fund the proposed HSR projects in the United States. Most of the proponents speak in fuzzy terms about public/private partnerships or something akin thereto, but so far the private part of "partnership" is missing.
The U.S. federal debt ($14.3 trillion) is equal to 97 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. It has not been this high since the end of WWII. Moreover, unfunded liabilities total more than $55 trillion. Given these dour numbers, where is the U.S. going to get the money to build the HSR rail systems dreamed of by many rail enthusiasts?
Here is another sobering thought. According to International Monetary Fund estimates released today (April 28, 2011), China's economy (GDP) will surpass the U.S.'s by 2016, which is considerably sooner than its heretofore most recent estimate (2022). This will have serious ramifications for the U.S. Amongst other things, it will put significant pressure on the dollar and could very well ends its reign as the world's reserve currency. This would ripple through the U.S. economy like a bullet train, for sure, but not one that is likely to stay on the tracks. The train wreck could be very ugly.
Sam1 Here is another sobering thought. According to International Monetary Fund estimates released today (April 28, 2011), China's economy (GDP) will surpass the U.S.'s by 2016, which is considerably sooner than its heretofore most recent estimate (2022). This will have serious ramifications for the U.S. Amongst other things, it will put significant pressure on the dollar and could very well ends its reign as the world's reserve currency. This would ripple through the U.S. economy like a bullet train, for sure, but not one that is likely to stay on the tracks. The train wreck could be very ugly.
One effect/problem is that China has so far wanted to hold down the value of the Yuan, if the Yuan were to become the new "Reserve" currency, they may not be able to continue doing that.
One other reason for going a bit slower is that the signalling system may not be designed for the higher speed, but for prestige reasons the Chinese Railways decided to push the safety envelope. None of the European Systems can handle faster than 320 kph, based upon signal block lengths of 1 km. and with the train equipped with Eddy Current emergency brakes. ETCS can handle higher speeds within the current design, but none of the current software is setup for higher speeds.
beaulieu Sam1: Here is another sobering thought. According to International Monetary Fund estimates released today (April 28, 2011), China's economy (GDP) will surpass the U.S.'s by 2016, which is considerably sooner than its heretofore most recent estimate (2022). This will have serious ramifications for the U.S. Amongst other things, it will put significant pressure on the dollar and could very well ends its reign as the world's reserve currency. This would ripple through the U.S. economy like a bullet train, for sure, but not one that is likely to stay on the tracks. The train wreck could be very ugly. One effect/problem is that China has so far wanted to hold down the value of the Yuan, if the Yuan were to become the new "Reserve" currency, they may not be able to continue doing that. One other reason for going a bit slower is that the signalling system may not be designed for the higher speed, but for prestige reasons the Chinese Railways decided to push the safety envelope. None of the European Systems can handle faster than 320 kph, based upon signal block lengths of 1 km. and with the train equipped with Eddy Current emergency brakes. ETCS can handle higher speeds within the current design, but none of the current software is setup for higher speeds.
Sam1: Here is another sobering thought. According to International Monetary Fund estimates released today (April 28, 2011), China's economy (GDP) will surpass the U.S.'s by 2016, which is considerably sooner than its heretofore most recent estimate (2022). This will have serious ramifications for the U.S. Amongst other things, it will put significant pressure on the dollar and could very well ends its reign as the world's reserve currency. This would ripple through the U.S. economy like a bullet train, for sure, but not one that is likely to stay on the tracks. The train wreck could be very ugly.
The IMF recognizes the flaws in using exchange rates to compare GDPs. Accordingly, their estimates adjust GDPs for Purchasing Power Parities (PPP).
The scuttlebutt is that the Chinese HSR program has been beset by shoddy workmanship and substandard materials and has participated mightily in the long tradition of corruption and kickbacks. Plus, the tickets cost too much and they retired the more affordable trains on the HSR lines so people are choosing to drive and take the bus, instead.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.