China's High Speed Rail

[John Picard]

High-speed railway, world's fastest train launched in China

China inaugurated on Saturday a high-speed railway with the world's fastest train running at a speed of more than 380 kmh (236 mph), the Xinhua news agency said.
China first tested the record train on December 9 when it covered the distance of 1,067 km (663 miles) between the central city of Wuhan and Guangzhou City, a business hub at the south coast, in less than three hours, reaching a maximum speed of 394.2 kmh, Xinhua said.
The previous travel time between the two cities was 10 hours.

I wish the US would do this. I abhor flying and am getting to the point I don't like driving.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLI1wjzS4ro[/yt]

 

[Geckothan]

I wouldn't want to be going at 230 mph in something that's made in China.

 

[Canadave]

I wouldn't want to be going at 230 mph in something that's made in China.

Ever flown in a Boeing 737? Then there's a good chance you've gone more than 230 mph in something with Chinese parts.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I wish the US would do this. I abhor flying and am getting to the point I don't like driving.

Unfortunately, trains are not competitive with airplanes financially. Such a project always has to be a political decision and in part publicly-funded to work. Especially super-expensive high-speed trains like this one.

 

[John Picard]

I wish the US would do this. I abhor flying and am getting to the point I don't like driving.

Unfortunately, trains are not competitive with airplanes financially. Such a project always has to be a political decision and in part publicly-funded to work. Especially super-expensive high-speed trains like this one.

If the airlines weren't on the Government Subsidy teat, the trains would be very competitive.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

In fact, high-speed rail destroys airlines over distances of 300-400 miles (500-600 km). For example, the Madrid-Barcelona route used to be the busiest air travel route in the world. The high speed rail line opened in 2008 and now has more than half of the market share. High-speed rail lines worldwide make operating profits (even the Acela line in the US, which isn't really HSR, does) - more than you can say for airlines (especially short-haul flights, which are notorious money-losers) or the most subsidized form of travel, private cars.

The Wuhan-Guangzhou route is a bit longer than optimal for HSR, but China is going all out. It may seem like they're spending a lot (and they certainly are), but the cost of not building rail is not zero. It may cost them the same or even more in the long run to expand airports and build new highways. The same is true for the US or Europe.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Unfortunately, trains are not competitive with airplanes financially. Such a project always has to be a political decision and in part publicly-funded to work. Especially super-expensive high-speed trains like this one.

Are you sure about that? Because since they started operating the Milan-Rome high-speed railroad, you can go there in the same time at half the cost and with much less hassle.

 

[tharpdevenport]

I read a long article one (maybe Popular Mechanics) about the financial feasibility of high speed trains in the U.S, including ones with little fuel cost (like mag lev trains), and it just wasn't in the stars. Maybe that's changed some with the higher prices of fuel.

 

[Shaytan]

Unfortunately, trains are not competitive with airplanes financially. Such a project always has to be a political decision and in part publicly-funded to work. Especially super-expensive high-speed trains like this one.

Are you sure about that? Because since they started operating the Milan-Rome high-speed railroad, you can go there in the same time at half the cost and with much less hassle.

It's competitive, the TGV reached 128 millions of passengers last year but it's a fact that the development of high speed train here is public.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Unfortunately, trains are not competitive with airplanes financially. Such a project always has to be a political decision and in part publicly-funded to work. Especially super-expensive high-speed trains like this one.

Are you sure about that? Because since they started operating the Milan-Rome high-speed railroad, you can go there in the same time at half the cost and with much less hassle.

It's competitive, the TGV reached 128 millions of passengers last year but it's a fact that the development of high speed train here is public.

Which is reason enough for it not to happen in the US. With other forms of travel already subsidized so heavily, it'll be a tough sell to add yet another.

 

[John Picard]

Are you sure about that? Because since they started operating the Milan-Rome high-speed railroad, you can go there in the same time at half the cost and with much less hassle.

It's competitive, the TGV reached 128 millions of passengers last year but it's a fact that the development of high speed train here is public.

Which is reason enough for it not to happen in the US. With other forms of travel already subsidized so heavily, it'll be a tough sell to add yet another.

That's the problem. Seriously -- remove the subsidies and start building a decent infrastructure. A friend of mine, in Missouri, recently visited his mother, in Wisconsin, over Thanksgiving and took the train. He and his wife absolutely loved it. Comfortable amenities and not having to worry about traffic. The naysayers kill me because they spew this BS that the US is too sprawled. 'Scuse me Rail was the primary means of moving people and goods in the 19th Century and well into the 20th.

 

[farmkid]

I can see high speed trains being feasible on some routes in the US, but not everywhere. They could work along the Pacific coast and in the eastern states where the population is more dense, but from the Mississippi to the Sierra Nevada mountains, I just can't see it working. The cities are just too far apart to justify building the infrastructure that would be required. I'll use Salt Lake City as an example, because that's the area I'm most familiar with. The nearest cities to which routes might be built are Denver, CO; Phoenix, AZ; Las Vegas, NV; Boise, ID; and Sacramento, CA. The shortest distance of those is 350 miles to Boise, ID. There wouldn't be a lot of demand for that route, except as a stopping point on the way to Portland, OR or Seattle, WA (each another ~500 miles). It's 400 miles to Las Vegas, 500 miles to Denver, and 650 to either Phoenix or Sacramento. Most often, when someone travels by plane from SLC to any of those cities, or the other way, they are on their way to somewhere else, so those routes would really be just parts of longer routes elsewhere. Let's look at what might be a popular route, Chicago to San Francisco. That's a trip of well over 2000 miles. A high-speed train would probably stop at maybe Des Moines, IA; Denver, CO, Salt Lake City, UT; possibly Reno, NV; Sacramento, CA; and finally San Francisco. That's 4-5 stops in 2000+ miles, and there wouldn't be many people getting on or off at those other stops. That's about the same distance as a trip from Warsaw, Poland to Lisbon, Portugal. I dare say there would be more than 4-5 stops on that trip, and a lot more people making shorter trips that are part of that longer route.

Furthermore, one can make that trip (Chicago to San Francisco) for about $150 in 5 hours on a plane. I doubt a high speed train would be any cheaper and would take at least twice as long.

Another issue is the mountains and weather. A high speed train route through the Rocky Mountains and through the Sierra Nevadas would be plagued by snow problems in the winter time, not to mention the difficulty associated with building the lines through the rugged terrain. When storms that dump 4 feet of snow on 100 miles of tracks at 7000 feet elevation happen several times every winter, it's going to be a challenge to keep the tracks clear enough for a train moving at 200+ mph.

I think that people who wish for high-speed trains and say they would work in the western US have either never flown over that area or didn't pay much attention when they did. Take it from one who has lived there for many years, the intermountain west is very sparsely populated. These states have about the same population density as Canada (you know, about the same population as Tokyo spread out over the second largest country in the world). That's about 1-2% of the population density of Western Europe or China, where high-speed trains actually work. The population of eastern states is similar to Europe, so trains could be a very good idea there. The problem with trains is that the amount of infrastructure required is directly proportional to the distances between the population centers. They work where those population centers are close, but they become much more expensive as those areas get further apart, and as the terrain between them becomes more rugged. With air travel, distances and terrain between population centers don't matter when building infrastructure.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's competitive, the TGV reached 128 millions of passengers last year but it's a fact that the development of high speed train here is public.

Which is reason enough for it not to happen in the US. With other forms of travel already subsidized so heavily, it'll be a tough sell to add yet another.

That's the problem. Seriously -- remove the subsidies and start building a decent infrastructure. A friend of mine, in Missouri, recently visited his mother, in Wisconsin, over Thanksgiving and took the train. He and his wife absolutely loved it. Comfortable amenities and not having to worry about traffic. The naysayers kill me because they spew this BS that the US is too sprawled. 'Scuse me Rail was the primary means of moving people and goods in the 19th Century and well into the 20th.

Plenty of freight still moves by rail, too. I lived in Muncie, Indiana for several years. Trust me, rail is not dead! Those trains that stopped me on my way to work at least every other day weren't figments of my imagination...

I would love a decent high-speed rail system here. I would much prefer it to flying, even if it took longer.

 

[John Picard]

I can see high speed trains being feasible on some routes in the US, but not everywhere. They could work along the Pacific coast and in the eastern states where the population is more dense, but from the Mississippi to the Sierra Nevada mountains, I just can't see it working. The cities are just too far apart to justify building the infrastructure that would be required. I'll use Salt Lake City as an example, because that's the area I'm most familiar with. The nearest cities to which routes might be built are Denver, CO; Phoenix, AZ; Las Vegas, NV; Boise, ID; and Sacramento, CA. The shortest distance of those is 350 miles to Boise, ID. There wouldn't be a lot of demand for that route, except as a stopping point on the way to Portland, OR or Seattle, WA (each another ~500 miles). It's 400 miles to Las Vegas, 500 miles to Denver, and 650 to either Phoenix or Sacramento. Most often, when someone travels by plane from SLC to any of those cities, or the other way, they are on their way to somewhere else, so those routes would really be just parts of longer routes elsewhere. Let's look at what might be a popular route, Chicago to San Francisco. That's a trip of well over 2000 miles. A high-speed train would probably stop at maybe Des Moines, IA; Denver, CO, Salt Lake City, UT; possibly Reno, NV; Sacramento, CA; and finally San Francisco. That's 4-5 stops in 2000+ miles, and there wouldn't be many people getting on or off at those other stops. That's about the same distance as a trip from Warsaw, Poland to Lisbon, Portugal. I dare say there would be more than 4-5 stops on that trip, and a lot more people making shorter trips that are part of that longer route.

Furthermore, one can make that trip (Chicago to San Francisco) for about $150 in 5 hours on a plane. I doubt a high speed train would be any cheaper and would take at least twice as long.

Another issue is the mountains and weather. A high speed train route through the Rocky Mountains and through the Sierra Nevadas would be plagued by snow problems in the winter time, not to mention the difficulty associated with building the lines through the rugged terrain. When storms that dump 4 feet of snow on 100 miles of tracks at 7000 feet elevation happen several times every winter, it's going to be a challenge to keep the tracks clear enough for a train moving at 200+ mph.

I think that people who wish for high-speed trains and say they would work in the western US have either never flown over that area or didn't pay much attention when they did. Take it from one who has lived there for many years, the intermountain west is very sparsely populated. These states have about the same population density as Canada (you know, about the same population as Tokyo spread out over the second largest country in the world). That's about 1-2% of the population density of Western Europe or China, where high-speed trains actually work. The population of eastern states is similar to Europe, so trains could be a very good idea there. The problem with trains is that the amount of infrastructure required is directly proportional to the distances between the population centers. They work where those population centers are close, but they become much more expensive as those areas get further apart, and as the terrain between them becomes more rugged. With air travel, distances and terrain between population centers don't matter when building infrastructure.

I'm sorry, but rail is what built the west. There were even attachments for locomotives that plowed the tracks. Your argument needs to be reconsidered. Again, saying that the US is too spread out or sparsely populated is bullshit. GM pushed the US Gov't into building the Interstate Highway System. Until that time, a majority of Americans used Public Transit. There is no reason why city planners in every town, across the US, couldn't modify their existing infrastructure toward a centralized system of both busses and trains.

Also note that many, many economists have argued that the US Government needs to stop bailing out the airlines (which happens like clockwork) and let one or even two DIE. Only then will prices be where they should, and equilibrium would take affect where prices would increase so that average people would look at a more cost efficient/effective solution, which would be the train.

 

[farmkid]

I'm sorry, but rail is what built the west. There were even attachments for locomotives that plowed the tracks. Your argument needs to be reconsidered. Again, saying that the US is too spread out or sparsely populated is bullshit. GM pushed the US Gov't into building the Interstate Highway System. Until that time, a majority of Americans used Public Transit. There is no reason why city planners in every town, across the US, couldn't modify their existing infrastructure toward a centralized system of both busses and trains.

Also note that many, many economists have argued that the US Government needs to stop bailing out the airlines (which happens like clockwork) and let one or even two DIE. Only then will prices be where they should, and equilibrium would take affect where prices would increase so that average people would look at a more cost efficient/effective solution, which would be the train.

It is true that rail was an essential component to the colonization of the west. It was used for hauling goods across the country, as it still is. People at that time, however, were moving west with all of their belongings and staying there. It made sense to use a form of transportation with a high cargo capacity. Today, however, when someone flys from say, St. Louis to LA, they are going for a meeting or to visit DisneyLand. For short trips like that, cargo capacity is not very important, but travel time is. Why would someone today take a high speed train for such a journey when they can fly in half the time or less? HSR is considered to be competitive with or beat air travel for trips less than about 500 miles. In the western US, 500 miles might get you from one relatively large city to the next, but if you want to go to the next one beyond that, you're going to fly.

If population density isn't an issue, please explain to me why the only countries with real HSR networks have population densities 50-100 times that of the western US. A few countries with lower population densities (5-15X that of the western US) have limited lines running between two close major cities. If it's just a US thing, why haven't any other countries with similar challenges to the US built HSR lines? Such lines are ONLY found in places with much higher population densities and much closer cities than the western US.

 

[John Picard]

I'm sorry, but rail is what built the west. There were even attachments for locomotives that plowed the tracks. Your argument needs to be reconsidered. Again, saying that the US is too spread out or sparsely populated is bullshit. GM pushed the US Gov't into building the Interstate Highway System. Until that time, a majority of Americans used Public Transit. There is no reason why city planners in every town, across the US, couldn't modify their existing infrastructure toward a centralized system of both busses and trains.

Also note that many, many economists have argued that the US Government needs to stop bailing out the airlines (which happens like clockwork) and let one or even two DIE. Only then will prices be where they should, and equilibrium would take affect where prices would increase so that average people would look at a more cost efficient/effective solution, which would be the train.

It is true that rail was an essential component to the colonization of the west. It was used for hauling goods across the country, as it still is. People at that time, however, were moving west with all of their belongings and staying there. It made sense to use a form of transportation with a high cargo capacity. Today, however, when someone flys from say, St. Louis to LA, they are going for a meeting or to visit DisneyLand. For short trips like that, cargo capacity is not very important, but travel time is. Why would someone today take a high speed train for such a journey when they can fly in half the time or less? HSR is considered to be competitive with or beat air travel for trips less than about 500 miles. In the western US, 500 miles might get you from one relatively large city to the next, but if you want to go to the next one beyond that, you're going to fly.

If population density isn't an issue, please explain to me why the only countries with real HSR networks have population densities 50-100 times that of the western US. A few countries with lower population densities (5-15X that of the western US) have limited lines running between two close major cities. If it's just a US thing, why haven't any other countries with similar challenges to the US built HSR lines? Such lines are ONLY found in places with much higher population densities and much closer cities than the western US.

Again, you're missing the big picture. Just because people settled out west doesn't mean that made rail obsolete. Almost every city in the US had street cars up until the 1940's and even 1950's. Those lines were all pushed out to make way either for parking space or streets for vehicles. Politicians were more focused on generating revenue from gasoline taxes, parking fees, and the like over the convenience to move people from point to point. The automotive companies and labor unions put a lot of pressure on politicians to kill Public Transit in the name of the mighty automobile. What has this given us? Traffic jams, air pollution, and a lot of wasted space devoted to parking lots and parking garages.

As much as I disagree with many of President Obama's actions and policies, the one I like is his proposal of several transportation hubs across the US that link many high speed trains. If the US would take a more intelligent approach toward it's towns, cities, and States, there is absolutely no reason why the personal automobile could be rendered obsolete and ineffective. Where I live, in Oklahoma, people would LOVE each town to have a rail, or subway system, that would connect the outer areas with OKC and/or Tulsa so they wouldn't have to drive anymore. I would love to take the train to OKC, and perhaps another train to another location, followed by a bus that would stop near my work. Hell, 95% of the population of this State alone could benefit from walking a few miles each day.

Also, is airline travel really that convenient? With this latest attempt of a terror attack, security measures are going to get tightened, which irks business travelers, who are the cash cows of the airline industry. When business travelers start migrating to smaller, privately held businesses after 9/11, the airline industry suffered. There is fear that this latest attack will do the same. Assuming another attack is actually successful, and security really clamps down, you'll see business travelers all but spurn the major airlines. The amount of time right now to be at the airport sucks just for domestic and I'm not looking forward to my International Flight next year.

Ask any family about how convenient or enjoyable it is to fly to destinations and you'll get some ugly stories. People in the US have forgotten how to relax when traveling and still think of trains as inefficient. If we had high speed rail hubs across the US, people would be more inclined to want to relax while traveling. In my younger days I lived to drive across the country in a few days, whereas now I'd rather jump on a train and arrive refreshed and relaxed.

Get rid of all the highway systems and parking lots. There is a lot of land that could be reclaimed for better use. Do away with the air pollution and make life more convenient. It can be done, and although I've been a car guy my whole life, I am growing to despise the automobile as a vehicle that has actually pushed us back rather than having brought us forward.

I should also add that China is larger than the Continental US is is able to construct a High Speed Rail System. That speaks poorly of the US.

 

[farmkid]

So why do we want HSR? Do we think it will be cheaper than air travel? More energy efficient? Because the cool kids in Europe have it?

First of all, I looked up some data (I don't remember where exactly at the moment) and learned that rail is more energy efficient, but not astoundingly so. The DOE's calculations showed that rail uses about 90% as much energy per passenger mile as air travel. Another much more optimistic calculation based on the energy usage of France's TGV and assumptions of ridership estimated energy usage at about 30% that of air travel. The actual numbers depend greatly on ridership, length of trip, and a number of other variables.

As far as cost is concerned, the initial investment is very expensive. According to a recent report by the GAO, California's proposed HSR link from San Francisco to Los Angeles (a little less than 400 miles) will cost about $40 billion, or $100 million per mile. Of course, lines through the vast deserts of the western states will not cost near that amount because land will be cheaper and there won't be many stations to build, but the cost is still very high. Here's a summary of the experience of other countries from that GAO report:

In the countries we visited, the central government generally funds the majority of up-front costs of their country’s respective high speed rail projects, and they do so without the expectation that their investment will be recouped through ticket revenues. The public sector’s ability to recover its financial investment has varied on the basis of how revenues have grown, but transportation officials in Japan and Spain told us that a public subsidy was generally necessary because ticket revenues are insufficient to fully recoup the initial investment. In Japan, while two early lines developed in the 1960s and 1970s may have fully repaid the initial investment and debt related to their construction, three of the high speed rail lines built since the 1987 privatization have been able to recover 10 percent, 52 percent, and 63 percent of their construction costs through ticket revenues. Spanish officials told us the original high speed line in Spain between Madrid and Seville has been profitable on an operating cost basis but has not covered all of its costs, including the original construction costs. A Spanish academic researcher told us that future lines might not cover even their operating costs.

It's not self-sustaining in countries with much more favorable conditions for it than the western US. It certainly won't be here.

I can't find it now, but I read another scholarly article on the subject the other day. The subject was asking about the feasibility of HSR in the US, and comparing the US to countries where HSR is a reality. One part of it talked about the population density issue and said that the eastern coast and California are barely at or just below the population density necessary to make it work. That puts the western states well below and not even close to that threshold. As I said earlier, it could work and is worth pursuing on the coasts, where there would be enough riders to make it viable. In the west, however, it would not work. Many many miles of tracks would have to be laid in order to have enough routes that people could even get where they wanted to go, and even then, there just aren't enough people traveling on those routes to make it work. If you think government support of the car and airline industry is bad, that would be pocket change compared to the money the government would have to put into a HSR system to keep it running in the western US.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ None of the above means much considering none of our popular travel methods are "self-sustaining," either.

Airlines are supported with bailouts and bankruptcies. Aircraft manufacturers make the big bucks on defense contracts, not civilian planes.

Roads are supported by myriad taxes. Auto makers are propped up by taxpayers.

Amtrak is supported by public funds, too, of course. And even if freight trains are profitable (and I think they are, if not by much), the original rails were most likely laid down with public money.

No matter how you slice it, your transit system is going to be taxpayer-funded in some way. Transportation is, after all, a means to an end--not an end in itself. It's about moving people and goods, and those are the real drivers of the economy. You want your workers to be able to get to work, and you want to be able to move goods from one place to another. Even if you have to subsidize the transportation, you have net gains in the long run from what that transportation allows.

 

[John Picard]

^ None of the above means much considering none of our popular travel methods are "self-sustaining," either.

Airlines are supported with bailouts and bankruptcies. Aircraft manufacturers make the big bucks on defense contracts, not civilian planes.

Roads are supported by myriad taxes. Auto makers are propped up by taxpayers.

Amtrak is supported by public funds, too, of course. And even if freight trains are profitable (and I think they are, if not by much), the original rails were most likely laid down with public money.

No matter how you slice it, your transit system is going to be taxpayer-funded in some way. Transportation is, after all, a means to an end--not an end in itself. It's about moving people and goods, and those are the real drivers of the economy. You want your workers to be able to get to work, and you want to be able to move goods from one place to another. Even if you have to subsidize the transportation, you have net gains in the long run from what that transportation allows.

Correct, but AmTrack is the typical Government fiasco. The AmTrack line along the Eastern Seaboard is very, very profitable but the rest of it sucks up the profits.

Case in point: In Oklahoma, he have the Heartland Flyer, a train that runs from Oklahoma down to Dallas. Great idea, but poorly executed for the following reasons:
1) The Flyer does not exceed speeds in excess of 40mph
2) The Flyer shares the same tracks as regular freight
3) The Flyer has to stop at every piss-ant town along the way to Dallas

farmkid keeps missing the big picture. Back in the 1800's, trains moved both cargo and people across the continent as well as in the cities and between cities. There were different railroad systems that were PRIVATELY OWNED but Government regulated and the trains ran on time. Government needs to foster an environment where businesses can go in and make it profitable. I'm not suggesting there only be one HSR track in the entire US. There is no reason why we cannot have HSR from major city to major city, and then smaller lines from city to city, and then lines within the cities a-la the New York Subway system, the London Tube, or even the Chicago "L". I find it very difficult to believe that in the 1800's the density existed to make train lines profitable, but today it doesn't exist. With efficient train systems, urban sprawl, which is a great plague on the US, can be curtailed. Out cities and towns need to be designed and modified in a much more intelligent and efficient fashion. By doing so will make HSR and other public transit options much more viable. Right now, people scoff at public transit because the routes are few, ill timed, and don't run on efficient schedules all because of funding issues.

Stop building new roads. Period. Start working toward a more intelligent future with more efficient transportation. And, like Robert Maxwell stated, stop the subsidies to the airline industry and see who flies as well as how many airlines go out of business.

 

[farmkid]

I'm not missing the big picture. I understand it and I would prefer to have more public transit options. I would like to have the option of HSR to get from one city to another. However, for the reasons I cited, I don't believe it could work and be feasible. Yes, 100+ years ago people used trains to travel across the country. There weren't planes or cars back then, so rail was really the only option. Once air travel became common, the trains disappeared because flying was so much faster for cross-country trips. Cars took over the shorter routes because you could get from the little town where you live to the little town where your brother lives 100 miles away in one trip, instead of finding a way to the train station 10 miles away, taking three different trains, then finding a way to get the 15 miles to his home. Trains stuck around in Europe and Japan because the advantages of planes and cars either didn't apply or weren't as big.

Public transit works fine in urban areas where there are enough people to support it. It doesn't work so well in rural areas, which is most of the west. This afternoon, for example, I'm taking my family to see some Christmas lights in a neighboring city (about 80 miles away) and then stopping by my cousin's wedding reception on the way home. The trip will take about 3-4 hours. Even if there were trains between here and there, there's no way I could do it on public transit. If I didn't have car, the trip wouldn't happen. What you want is for us to abandon all of those small towns and have everyone move to the cities.

I've read a few studies on the feasibility of HSR in the US, and the conclusion is the same in every one. It might work between SF and LA in California, and along the east coast, but that's it. Everywhere else, there just aren't enough potential riders.