High Speed Rail proponents take note: THIS is the right way to develop a HSR project

[Anonymous]

From the TRAINS Newswire for 12/05/05:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Beijing backs plan for silk railroad link to Europe

BEJING - Work has begun on a high-speed rail link that is expected to rejuvenate the ancient Silk Road trade route between East and West, according to a story in The Australian, one of that country’s national newspapers. The 2,500-mile rail link to the western borders of Kazakhstan will become the fastest land route between Asia and Europe.

When completed in 2010, the $5 billion Iron Silk Road project will take freight, and eventually passengers, from China to Europe via Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Turkey in just 10 days, its proponents say. The Eurasia Land Bridge will also strengthen China's hand as it battles with Russia and the U.S. for influence in Central Asia.

Looking at a map of the world, the railway seems logical enough. Kazakhstan sits at Central Asia’s very heart, a huge expanse of flat desert and grassland stretching all the way from China to the Caspian Sea.

"Building here is easy; you won't see a mountain for hundreds of kilometres," said Kanat Zhangaskin, vice-president of Kazakhstan's national railway company. "It makes perfect sense to reopen this ancient trade route."

At the moment, most of the estimated $280 billion of goods traded between China and Europe is transported by sea, which usually takes 40 days, or on the Trans-Siberian railway, which takes 15 days. The Chinese government is trying to move manufacturing to its western hinterland to remove a dangerous income disparity with its eastern seaboard and exploit new markets in Central Asia.

The only snag in the plan is the route west from Kazakhstan. The favored route now is to duck south into Turkmenistan, through Iran, and into Turkey, which offers the added advantage of a potential link to the Persian Gulf. That depends to a large extent on the questionable political stability of Iran and Turkmenistan. But Zhangaskin is not deterred. He argues that Kazakhstan needs the railway for itself to transport oil and minerals to China's vast markets.

-------------------------------------------------------

Interesting, in that I have been promoting HSR predicated on moving freight first, then taking on passenger operations as the system develops. It seems the vice-president of Kazakhstan's national railway feels the same way! Freight pays the bills, e.g. subsidizes the passengers. That's how to make HSR a reality!

[Anonymous]

Too bad we can't seem to get that message through to many politicians in our own US Government [:(].

NOTE: This is not a pro- or anti-Amtrak statement, but just that the ongoing controversy among Capitol Hill politicians, especially in the White House moreso than Congress, over Amtrak funding is proof of their misconception about the business of railroading in general.

[jeaton]

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

[CShaveRR]

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

[edblysard]

Hey, not bad...
All you have to do is give up your civil rights and civil liberties....tolerate sub human working conditions, possible excution if you dont fullfill your quota of work, limited number of children you can have, less than minimum wage pay, and letting the goverment decide where you live and what you do for a living, plus the really neat thing, you dont have to worry about who to vote for, they chose for you...really a good trade off....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Speed is relative innit.. Even high speed trains have a relatively low average speed due to all the stops.
So how long does it take a car to get from Syracuse to San Diego??

[jsoderq]

All you have to do is look at the politics of the countries along the route to see it ain't ever gonna happen. Just some hype from politicians and journalists.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Speed is relative innit.. Even high speed trains have a relatively low average speed due to all the stops.
So how long does it take a car to get from Syracuse to San Diego??

Roughly 10 days for a multilevel and 20 days for a box car.

[Anonymous]

Why does a ML get there faster then a box car????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Hey, not bad...
All you have to do is give up your civil rights and civil liberties....tolerate sub human working conditions, possible excution if you dont fullfill your quota of work, limited number of children you can have, less than minimum wage pay, and letting the goverment decide where you live and what you do for a living, plus the really neat thing, you dont have to worry about who to vote for, they chose for you...really a good trade off....

Hmmm, are you talking about China's treatment of it's citizens, or China's treatment of Montana farmers via it's proxy BNSF?[}:)]

And what does any of that have to do with the proper way to develop HSR? Are you saying only repressive Communist nations are capable of HSR development?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Well, considering that the average "network velocity" of freight cars on North American railroad lines is typically in the 18 to 23 MPH range, 50 MPH isn't bad. However, I do agree that a true high speed rail system could probably do a little better than that even.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drfizzix

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Well, considering that the average "network velocity" of freight cars on North American railroad lines is typically in the 18 to 23 MPH range, 50 MPH isn't bad. However, I do agree that a true high speed rail system could probably do a little better than that even.

The avg speed of non-NEC Amtrak trains is about 50mph, though.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Speed is relative innit.. Even high speed trains have a relatively low average speed due to all the stops.
So how long does it take a car to get from Syracuse to San Diego??

Roughly 10 days for a multilevel and 20 days for a box car.

Multilevels have much fewer O/D pairs as they are only loaded and unloaded at a handful of places around the country. So, the blocking and train service allow "long haul" blocking where they move from origin to desination without much intermediate classification, if any. The multilevel blocks will move in dedicated multilevel trains, or in blocks in merchandise and intermodal trains, depending on volume. Most intermediate switching is block swaping which is much less time consuming and cheaper than individual car classification (either humping or flat switching)

[PNWRMNM]

All,

I read the original article. It makes no claim that the line is to be a high speed line.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by drfizzix

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Actually, Jay, the way I read the article, it appears that the ten days and 2500 miles are referring to two different end points. The 2500 miles takes you to the western border of Kaz-however-you-spell-it. From there you go through all of those countries around the southern end of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea until you get through Turkey to Europe (presumably over slower railroads) in ten days from the start.

OK, then 12,000 miles in 10 days. That's 50 mph. Still not HSR.

$5B for 2500 miles of railway isn't going to buy HSR, either.

Sounds more like a traditional North American design.

Well, considering that the average "network velocity" of freight cars on North American railroad lines is typically in the 18 to 23 MPH range, 50 MPH isn't bad. However, I do agree that a true high speed rail system could probably do a little better than that even.

The avg speed of non-NEC Amtrak trains is about 50mph, though.

Well, I was speaking primarily about freight traffic. Obviously 50 MPH average speed for passenger service is not any better than current diesel-powered passenger service [:(].

[samfp1943]

If anyone in the Asian area is capable of governmental arm twisting, it is the Chinese. The line as laid out would presumably go thru Istanbul in Turkey, and what in effect could eventally happen would be a new Orient Express route all the way from London to what ever terminus in China they would want it to be.
Don't forget the Chinese just completed the highest railway in the world to Tibet and they have closed a $300 million plus deal for motive power. The Chinese seem to be rolling into global prominence with their own brand of economic mercantilism..{they are keeping the money in their country for the most part.}

[martin.knoepfel]

Besides the Transsiberian Railroad, there is already a rail-link between China and Kazakhstan, through the Dzungarian Gate. The problem: to go from China to Europe, you have to change trucks twice, because the former Soviet Union runs on broad gauge. China is standard gauge for mainlines.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

Besides the Transsiberian Railroad, there is already a rail-link between China and Kazakhstan, through the Dzungarian Gate. The problem: to go from China to Europe, you have to change trucks twice, because the former Soviet Union runs on broad gauge. China is standard gauge for mainlines.

I think the article indicated that they [Chinese] wanted to build a new railway line, guess that would do away with the gauge variance, or they could dual gauge the lines where appropriate, much like was done by the Denver and Rio Grande where they had some dual guage interchange, although they also had truck changing operations for standard gauge cars that went into their narrow gauge operations. It was cumbersome but it worked for them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

All,

I read the original article. It makes no claim that the line is to be a high speed line.

Mac

First sentence, first paragraph of the news story:

"Work has begun on a high-speed rail link..........."

[Murphy Siding]

I read this as 5 billion dollars to go from 15 days transit time on the Trans-Russian railroad, to 10 days on the Trans-a whole lot of unstable countries railroad. [xx(]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

[PNWRMNM]

FM,

You are correct as to the first line. The body of the article however does not describe a high speed line as we typically use the term, 125 MPH or better. The article does not discuss engineering specs but I suspect they will operate at about 100 KMPH, or 60 MPH for freight trains.

Mac

[jeaton]

I made an error. Since the dateline for the Trains Newswire item was Bejing, I assumed without careful reading that the item was discussing a railroad in China. The article in The Australian, the acknowledge source of the Trains Newswire, was datelined Dostyk, Kazakhstan, by Jeremy Page, and is actually a report on the plans of Kazakhstan to build the 2500 mile rail line from their border with China to their western border.

It is the author that characterizes the link as high speed rail in his opening sentence and the line is not described as such by any of the persons quoted in the article. At a proposed cost of $2 million per mile, it is not likly to be more than a 70 MPH railroad for freight service.

China supports the link and the Chinese government has ordered state owned companies to invest billions into the project. China is also putting $750 million into thier own line to the Kazakhstan border.

By the way completion of the link to Europe would require development of routes through Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Turkey or Russia and Ukraine. The former provides a link to the Arabian Gulf states, but, to say the least, raises some political stability issues. The latter may be more doable, but China is still not completely comfortable with Russia. If that route met its huge potential, China might find itself vulnerable to unvaforable action on the part of Russia.

By the way, the article states that China traffic to Europe via the Trans-Siberian has about a 15 day transit time.

[Flint Hills Tex]

If I understood the original message correctly, Dave wasn't questioning the feasability of the project. Rather, he was trying to make a point, that by designing the road primarily for freight, the Chinese will easily be able to subsidize HSR passenger service. I disagree with Dave that the Chinese are "on the right track" for developing HSR service. As both Germany and France prove, dedicated HSR passenger service can be run both profitably and efficiently. I live in Germany, where well over 90% of our rail network is under caternary. Diesel is only used in yards, on branchlines, or for heavy duty hauls such as ore or coal unit trains. Freight service here reaches mainline speeds of 75 mph, while tests for HSR passenger service are being made for regular 190 mph speed limits. The DB (German Railway) has dedicated lines for HSR, meaning no freight traffic, yet they are making a profit despite heavy competition with commuter airlines. I predict that the freight situation will turn around within the next ten years, as German highways are already clogged with trucks.

Since we are talking about Kazakhstan, however, I agree that their top speed will probably not exceed 100 km/h. The problem with the routing Russia and the Ukraine could be solved through the mediation of Kazakhstan, so to speak as a "neutral" middle man. Besides, Chinese-Russian relations are in détente, opening up all kinds of (scary) possibilities.

[Tulyar15]

Just as an aside, the French have a number of postal TGV trains, used for parcels and mail traffic. In Britain, EWS operates parcels trains at 110mph, using adapted passenger equipment.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

I have a few questions:

So, if I evolve, I'll be able to run my high speed train through central Asia, any time I want? Will I have to cook my meals on board or can I order out? Will the cabin have to be pressurized? And, will this count toward my RR merit badge?