Slashdot Log In
China Sets Sights On Rail Record
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 01, 2008 01:48 PM
from the amazing-they-aren't-broke-after-the-olympics dept.
from the amazing-they-aren't-broke-after-the-olympics dept.
An anonymous reader writes "China is aiming to produce the world's fastest operating conventional train for its new high speed rail link between Shanghai and Beijing, achieving speeds up to 380 km/h and cutting the travel time between the two cities from the current ten hours to under five. The new rail link is scheduled to be completed within four years. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Railways' Deputy Chief Engineer has announced that China will be able to manufacture the new trains within two years."
Related Stories
Submission: China sets sights on rail record by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Where's the fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
The project would grind to a standstill under the weight of lawsuits be environmentalists, the not in my back yard crowd, and gad flys. If it progressed it would grind to a standstill under the weight of poor project management. If it progressed it would grind to a standstill under the weight of poor engineering decisions. If it progressed it would be plagued with cost over runs. If it was finished it would cost $2,430 dollars a ticket one way and no one would use it.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm betting the Chinese aren't doing an environmental impact study. And if your current residence is where the tracks are going to be, then you just got displaced and good luck finding someone to complain to, much less someone to sue. i.e. We cant build stuff like this at all because of civil rights and they can build stuff like this all too easily because of a lack of civil rights.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Informative)
One of the big shocks of going to China is just how fast the population drops off at the edge of a city. Regardless of the occasional news bite about China's elite, there aren't any exoburbs or suburbs in practice. Even with the world's largest population, China has the kind of empty space the United States hasn't seen in ages.
Besides, China needs this kind of rail a hell of a lot more than the United States. Between the New Year and having to go to your hometown for official business (it's damn hard to change your official municipality of residence), trains in the PRC are up to their gills.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Insightful)
Building it in the median of a freeway puts it away from access by people who might walk or throw things on the tracks. It also lets people sit in their gas guzzlers and watch others pass them at 380 KPH.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Informative)
What is the average cargo rate on rail? I've found mention of a rate around $1300 to $1500 per standard shipping container, but I can't find anything more than that. There are certainly cases where I'd like to be able to take my car across the country, and even a shipping cost of $400 or so might be worth it, but I'm thinking that the cost would have to be more than that.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, search "EuroTunnel". It's not a normal car-train though, the carriages are very wide and don't travel further than the special stations at either end of the tunnel (Folkstone and Calais). Also, you stay with your vehicle, either sitting inside or you can get out and stand in the carriage. It's about 35 minutes in total, IIRC, which is much less than the car ferry. There are spaces for coaches, but lorries (trucks) have their own train.
Normal car-trains are essentially the same equipment as used to move brand new cars around, but with a passenger coach on the end. There aren't any in the UK (small country), but they are much more popular in the rest of Europe.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Informative)
There aren't any in the UK (small country), but they are much more popular in the rest of Europe.
They are very common in Switzerland, which is a much smaller country, but for different reasons.
A lot of mountain passes are open for cars maybe 4 to 5 month a year and closed due to snow and weather conditions for the rest of the year.
Loading your car on a train may be the only way to get from one place to another by car.
In other cases [wikipedia.org] it may significantly reduce the time required to get to your destination by car.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm betting the Chinese aren't doing an environmental impact study.
And that's why the Chinese are progressing so much faster than us: they don't worry about idiocy like that.
It's not that environmentalism is a bad thing; it isn't. However, only a complete moron would ever question the environmental impact of a train versus highways or airlines. Trains are more efficient than any other form of transportation for moving goods and people between two points. Of course, arguments can be made about transporting things between lots of different points (the argument for trucking vs. railroads), but we're talking about transport between two very large cities here. While planes are certainly faster, trains are cheaper (except in the USA) and far more fuel-efficient, which obviously means it's better for the environment.
There: in 5 minutes, I've done what American government would have spent 6 months and millions of dollars doing a study on. That's part of why we're failing.
As for displacing peoples' homes, we do that here all the time too. Except here, instead of just doing it for government projects (highways, etc.), we do it for private businesses who want some land but don't want to pay market rate for it. This even went to the Supreme Court, and they said it was OK. Tell me again how China is worse for civil rights (or more accurately, property rights).
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are missing the point. It's not that anyone isn't sure that as far as energy use and carbon emissions goes the train will be better, the point of the environmental impact study is to determine if their are any especially environmentally sensitive areas that should be routed around.
Parent
mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
You are missing the point. It's not that anyone isn't sure that as far as energy use and carbon emissions goes the train will be better, the point of the environmental impact study is to determine if their are any especially environmentally sensitive areas that should be routed around.
Exactly. Trains in the long run may be more environmentally sensitive than other transit modes, but rail lines to have real environmental effects that need to be considered: noise & vibration, drainage, impervious surfaces (at the stations), wildlife disruption, fire danger from sparks off the rail or electrical components, defoliants used to kill weeds along the ROW, construction disruptions, exhaust soot (for diesel-powered locos), lubricant leakage from the vehicles, grade crossings, toxic soils that may be unearthed for ROW cuts and/or tunnels, and etc.
All of these things can be overcome, but it has to be done right, otherwise you'll wind up getting sued and have to rip up your project and rebuild it again to meet the appropriate standards.
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the drive to do great things in the USA has been undermined by the mindless cynicism of people like "FooGoo" who see only problems.
Guess what folks, we can (and we should) overcome every engineering, environmental and NIMBY objection if put our minds to it.
I don't care if it is a cliche, but we put a fucking man on the moon almost half a CENTURY ago and have been content to rest on our laurels ever since.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because nobody lives there. And because NASA somehow managed to put most of it's facilities in places where no one in their right minds would have ever put human habitation (I'm looking at YOU - Lyndon Baines Johnson Manned Spaceflight Facility - located in some godawful pestilant swamp south of Houston).
Just try to put a launch facility somewhere
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree about some things. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rails lines could be run along current easements.
The only thing holding up rail is the public's attachment to the automobile: sta
Re:I disagree about some things. (Score:5, Informative)
People make the mistake of thinking of the environmental crowd as just the hot earthers but there are many subgroups with different motives and methods. They run the gamut from Sierra Club and other conservation groups, to the odd preservation groups who want to create some natural snow globe with nothing ever changes, to groups like Greenpeace, ELF, and ALF. Any one of these groups can file a lawsuit.
Also, it's not just building the tracks, it's also building the power substations if its an electric train (although a super fast steam engine might be cool), the train stations, and all the other supporting infrastructure. A lawsuit for environmental reasons can be brought against any piece of the infrastructure.
Parent
Re:I disagree about some things. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would also like to point out that many NIMBYs use the environmental laws as grounds for their lawsuits (I don't think not wanting it near you is grounds to sue), financing (lawsuits are expensive, after all and these groups are a great source of funds, and as a cover because, let's face it, no one has any sympathy for someone who just doesn't want a highway, rail road, cement plant, park, etc... in their backyard - it's selfish! Think of the greater good and all that.
Of course, the pundits love to point fingers at the environmentalists! My favourite is blaming them for the lack of refineries in the US (It's not. If an oil co wanted another refinery, they would get it. The truth is that they're operating below capacity as it is and they just don't need more and if they built more, capacity would increase, depress prices, and their margins would further decline. But, it's PC to blame the environmentalists. ).
Parent
Re:I disagree about some things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Real environmentalists work behind the scenes with government and especially industry, helping them find ways to make industrial processes more efficient, less environmentally harmful, and in a surprising number of cases more profitable. Such people may be outsiders who devote their lives to making all of our lives better, they may be in-house scientists and engineers who tirelessly promote a better way to their bosses, they may be enlightened bureaucrats who work to find some balance between environmental concerns, and the needs of We the People.
Those are the people I respect, unfortunately you never see their faces on the tube, so they don't really get credit for their work. I couldn't care less about the media hounds.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know most environmental groups are theoretically for building railroads for mass transit. The problem is that most of them are agai
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:5, Funny)
And the Lord spoke to Noah and said, "In one year, I am going to make it rain and cover the whole earth with water until all flesh is destroyed. But I want you to save the righteous people and two of every kind of living thing on earth. Therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark." In a flash of lightning, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. In fear and trembling, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the ark. "Remember," said the Lord, "you must complete the Ark and bring everything aboard in one year."
Exactly one year later, fierce storm clouds covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard weeping. "Noah!" He shouted. "Where is the Ark?"
"Lord, please forgive me," cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems.
First, I had to get a permit for construction, and your plans did not meet the building codes. I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans. Then I got into a fight with OSHA over whether or not the Ark needed a sprinkler system and approved floatation devices. Then, my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission.
Then, I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I really needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me take the 2 owls.
The carpenters formed a union and went on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or hammer. Now, I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls.
When I started rounding up the other animals, an animal rights group sued me. They objected to me taking only two of each kind aboard. This suit is pending.
Meanwhile, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the Universe.
Then, the Army Corps of Engineers demanded a map of the proposed flood plain. I sent them a globe.
Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking atheists aboard.
The IRS has seized my assets, claiming that I'm building the Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes. I just got a notice from the state that I owe them some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a 'recreational water craft'.
And finally, the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it's a religious event, and, therefore unconstitutional. I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another five or six years."
Noah waited. The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine, and the seas began to calm. A rainbow arched across the sky.
Noah looked up hopefully. "You mean you're not going to destroy the earth, Lord?"
"No," He said sadly. "I don't have to. The government already has."
Parent
Re:Where's the fire? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow. Why aren't we in the US trying to do this?
The US would be too afraid of terrorists attacking it to risk building it.
We used to be so worried about the Communists beating us. But now it's like we don't even care. Where's the fire?
Too busy watching American Idol while the economy tanks. ;)
Seriously though, I think the biggest reason is that there isn't anyone to build it. Its too much money and too much risk of not being profitable enough or at all, and would require too much cooperation from the state and federal government (in terms of permits, granting rights of way to lay track etc) for private enterprise to attempt it.
Meanwhile the current political environment would make it impossible for the government to do a major project like this on its own. Critics on every side would dominate the debate shouting their political position that it should be privatized (republican), that its fiscally irresponsible, that the money should go towards schools, or health care (democrat) or that if the government has this kind of scratch lying around they should be reducing taxes (libertarian) instead of building world class projects like this.
Parent
US has plans to do something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Between Las Vegas and Disneyland. [slashdot.org]
It is kinda scary to think that while "Oh_so_EVIL_communist_China" builds an express line between its capitol and its financial center, US is building what is essentially a carnival ride between the Pleasure Island [wikipedia.org] and Sin City.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Germany on the other hand had one nasty accident when they took a shortcut to passenger comfort without properly testing the solution first. (They put some extra rubber and steel on the wheels to reduce vibrations, but it came off derailing half the train)
Re:Why troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
Jane told the truth. Why mod her -1 Troll? Are you American moderators really that stupid?
Are you foreign posters really that limited in scope? Do you really feel the need to justify everything in military terms? Get a grip. Truth is, if we were on a quest to build an empire and needed lots of guns and tanks and bombs and things, our economy would be booming. Unemployment would be nil. As it happens, we dramatically reduced our force levels since the ending of the Cold War (too far, I'd say.)
America has some serious issues, but economic progress (or otherwise) is dependent upon a myriad of factors having nothing to do with Iraq. I assume that is what Jane Q. is referring, since I'm unaware of any other nations currently being bombed for profit (of course, a good carpet-bombing or two might improve the quality of posts here on Slashdot.)
If we want to start improving our economic outlook there are, at a minimum, going to have to be some serious changes to the patent system and our schools. Proper incentives will have to be made to encourage investment. We'll need real broadband and major telecommunications upgrades. Lots of stuff.
None of which has anything to do with bombing anyone.
Parent
Untrue (Score:5, Informative)
Heck, that measly 9 Billion in cash that was mysteriously "misplaced" in Iraq last year would sure as hell do this part of my state a lot of good. And that is only a veritable drop in the bucket.
Saying that the Iraq military action is not negatively affecting our economy is simply false. I agree with you about the patent and school systems... but if you want to fix those, right now you would have to talk to the same people who are responsible for Iraq... and the patent situation, and the schools.
Parent
Amtrak (Score:4, Insightful)
...achieving speeds up to 380 km/h and cutting the travel time between the two cities from the current ten hours to under five...
I wonder whether officials at United States' AMTRAK are reading this. I saddens me that plans for high speed commuting on AMTRAK's rails was shelved a few years ago. REsult? Top speed on AMTRAK's rails is 180 KM/hr and only on some routes.
These officials (at AMTRAK) are more interested in their allowances and benefits instead of doing what is for the common good. In the meantime, AMTRAK's technology is still stuck in the seventies as the Asians led by the Chinese "overtake" us.
No wonder that we in these United States will cease to be of any consequence on world matters as internet traffic heads to Europe and more relevant innovation comes from Asia. I am really afraid for the generation that will come after ours.
Re:Amtrak (Score:4, Insightful)
...or there's no profit to be made in something thats more expensive and longer than driving?
From Indianapolis to Chicago, it'd cost me anywhere from $10-20 to take the train. I'd also have to be on the train at 5:30 in the morning. The train takes _at least_ 4 hours.
Or I can drive to Chicago, which takes at least an hour less, for only $10 more (185 miles at 25 miles per gallon, at roughly $4/gallon) and I can leave at my leisure.
Amtrak simply does not have the infrastructure for such an endeavor. A good chunk of Amtrak's routes are owned by freight companies; Amtrak simply pays to use them. So unless you're willing to assume that cost as the passenger to lay thousands of miles of private track, that's not going to happen since that cost would probably make ticket prices compete with airline prices, but to what benefit? Flying would still be faster. The only thing you would save is the hassle of airline security (which is a good enough reason for me, to be honest).
Parent
Re:Amtrak (Score:5, Informative)
But rail is far more cost-effective to build than roads - one pair of tracks can carry the same traffic as a 6-8 lane highway, which is far more costly to construct and maintain, and requires much more land. (Not to mention all the parking lots and feeder roads.)
Trains can also run much faster (nobody is talking about people driving 100-200mph, and trains can run full speed even during commute hours when highways are slowed to a standstill). Trains use much less energy (less rolling resistance and aerodynamic resistance, for starters), emit far less pollution (using less energy, and often electrically powered), cost less to operate and maintain, and are far safer.
The only thing they lack is door-to-door convenience and arbitrary schedules. (But is there really much benefit if you're stuck in traffic and have to pay $20 for parking? On the other hand, how about letting you read or do work or sleep while on the train?) How much are we willing to pay, in dollars, pollution, wasted time, and reliance on foreign oil, for that (sometimes) convenience?
Trains also have similar benefits over airplanes for relatively short trips (anything less than about 2-4 hours, depending on the situation).
Of course, these are all THEORETICAL benefits, which are only realized if we actually make the proper investments. Since we in the USA have spent the last 75 years trying to kill trains rather than investing in them, we only rarely get to experience these benefits.
The trains we have these days are generally slow, go to only a few places, run on very limited schedules, are not particularly clean or comfortable, and have few on-board ameneties. And since they don't benefit from the same level of taxpayer support as roads do, more of their costs are passed on to the passenger, so they don't seem to have as much cost advantage to the end user.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sehsr.org/ [sehsr.org]
http://www.midwesthsr.org/ [midwesthsr.org]
http://www.thsrtc.com/ [thsrtc.com]
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ [ca.gov]
Highway subsidies (Score:3, Interesting)
I would love to know the subsidy (federal, state, local) for the highways.
C'mon, California (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't stuck, it will be on your november CA ballot as Prop 1/1A
the fire is in war (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:the fire is in war (Score:5, Funny)
Can we get a Godwin 2.0 rule, please? Anybody that mentions the Iraq war breaks the rule.
That would be nice, but after all the money we've blown on the war in Iraq, there's unfortunately no funding left to implement any new rules.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I don't think it's cost effective (leaving out the whole humanitarian costs like thousands of dead people):
Iraq War: $550 billion [wikipedia.org]
NSF Budget for same period: $28.6 Billion [nsf.gov]
Which do you think is the better investment?
Re:the fire is in war (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree....war is an investment. The technology developed though war throughout human history has benefited all of us.
Not quite sure I agree with you there. There's only a technological race when you're at war with an enemy who is at or near your technological level. Somehow I don't see UAV's and IED-proof light armored vehicles benefiting mankind as a whole. The "advances" and "research" in the current war(s) seem to be very directed at surveillance, self defense and killing people remotely.
There's also the idea of diminishing returns. Before the world wars science was just about ready to explode all on its own anyway. Huge fields of potential knowledge were on the brink of being discovered - from biology and antibiotics, which allowed surgeons (together with their new-found anesthetics) to become bolder and bolder in experimental techniques to advance the field of medicine, to the whole plastics industry, to the need for sophisticated computing devices to crack enemy codes or do the tedious math required to predict the results of nuclear fission reactions.
Nowadays we are full of plastics, we have supercomputers, and our rate of advance has slowed somewhat as we explore entirely new fields - molecular biology, nanotechnology, etc. Yes we will probably make another "quantum leap" in terms of knowledge in these fields, and our current fields of knowledge will advance incrementally, but it's not necessarily war that will trigger it this time. There's no pressing need to build a "more efficient transistor before the enemy gets one".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See. This is the perfect use for rail. (Score:3, Insightful)
Non stop between cities.
If you start adding stops in between the two end points, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what the top speed is, the average speed will suck badly.
There is already one of these in operation (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing-Tianjin_high-speed_rail [wikipedia.org]
Airlines (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose this train actually achieves the stated 236 miles per hour. Without making any stops at all, you're still looking at about 13 hours to get from New York to San Francisco. With five or six stops (that's not even one per state), it would approach 20 hours. This is a 6-hour flight. Anywhere farther than 600 miles is going to be faster by air.
For trips less than 250 miles, it's just not worth the hassle of getting to a major rail hub, parking your car (or taking transit and transfering), waiting to board the train, arriving at your destination with no ground transport and having to rent a car, etc.. It's easier to just jump in your car and drive there. Cheaper, too.
Those are best-case scenarios. In reality, the Acela takes 8 hours to get from Boston to Washington, DC -- a flight I've made in about an hour and fifteen minutes.
Cost: Anyone with $50 or $100 million can start their own airline, leasing a few planes and plying low-volume routes to make money for expansion.
Good luck getting a high-speed rail built for less than $50 billion. With that kind of money, you could outright buy 40 or 50 brand-new airliners and hire people to fly them. That lets you provide service to a lot more than just two cities.
Capacity: It would take over a decade and untold billions of dollars to build a track. That's ignoring all the right-of-way and environmental headaches. Once built, the track can't exactly be picked up and moved if peoples' travel habits change. Air routes change all the time, based on passenger demand.
Airspace is already there, and it's free. The only real limit on capacity is landing slots, and big airports like LAX can land over a thousand flights a day.
Security: In flight, the only external threat to an airliner would be from ground-to-air missiles. Those aren't exactly easy to come by. You can't make one in your tool shed. Airliners are very delicate, but they're also very hard to reach, six miles above ground and moving along at mach 0.8..
High-speed rails travel a fixed route at predictable times. You could destroy one pretty easily using an IED. Even a small fuel-fertilizer bomb would be sufficient -- moving at hundreds of miles per hour, anything which gets the train slightly off-kilter is going to cause massive casualties. Patrolling thousands and thousands of miles of rail, 24 hours a day, is impractical and expensive.
Re:Airlines (Score:4, Insightful)
Speed: There is a very narrow range of trip lengths for which high-speed rail makes sense.
Depends on where you live:
For trips less than 250 miles, it's just not worth the hassle of getting to a major rail hub, parking your car (or taking transit and transfering), waiting to board the train, arriving at your destination with no ground transport and having to rent a car, etc.. It's easier to just jump in your car and drive there.
If you already have local rail infrastructure, or parking in the city is difficult, then rail is a big win. To pick an extreme example, you suggest that it's easier to go by car for journeys less than 250 miles. It's 211 miles from London to Paris. In Europe, where towns are smaller, more crowded, parking is difficult, and public transport infrastructure exists, it's worth going by train.
As for cheaper, well, that's a problem. The problem is that the roads receive massive subsidies, so they're free to use. Not much way around that, except to give comparable subsidies to rail too. ...cost...
Yeah, it's expensive. Sufficiently so that only a government is large enough to finiance something the size of a rail or road network.
Security: In flight, the only external threat to an airliner would be from ground-to-air missiles. Those aren't exactly easy to come by. You can't make one in your tool shed. Airliners are very delicate, but they're also very hard to reach, six miles above ground and moving along at mach 0.8.. High-speed rails travel a fixed route at predictable times. You could destroy one pretty easily using an IED. Even a small fuel-fertilizer bomb would be sufficient -- moving at hundreds of miles per hour, anything which gets the train slightly off-kilter is going to cause massive casualties. Patrolling thousands and thousands of miles of rail, 24 hours a day, is impractical and expensive.
Well, no. Firstly, airliners are suprising resilliant, they've survided anti-aircraft missile hits. Secondly, there have been accidents involving high speed trains. They look like a real mess, but the number of deaths is usually very low. Besides, if they were such an easy target, then why have they not been targeted already?
Parent
Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
-Grey [silverclipboard.com]
Current absolute record on rail: 574 km/h (Score:4, Informative)
The record on rail, 574 km/h, belongs to the [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record#Record_of_2007 [wikipedia.org] . Maglevs go faster but compete in a different category :)
However, the fastest the TGV can go in commercial operation is around 320 km/h, so the Chinese train will top it by some 40 km/h. Kudos to the engineers!
Examples to compare (Score:4, Interesting)
Between Seattle and Portland, 180 miles apart, there are 4 trains each way each day and the trip is 3 hours 10 minutes to 3 hours 30 minutes. There are six stops during the trip. It can be longer if the drawbridge on the Columbia happens to go up and your train has to wait for it, or if there is some freight rail traffic that impedes the passenger train. In the USA, boat traffic has the right of way over rail and if a cargo ship carrying woodchips or cow dung or whatever wants to go under the bridge when a scheduled passenger train would cross, the bridge opens and the scheduled passenger train must wait. This can take 20 to 30 minutes. One time when this happened the bridge got stuck open and it took nearly an hour to get it closed again.
Between Hakata (Fukuoka) and Hiroshima, Japan, 175 miles apart, and cities of similar size to Seattle and Portland, there nearly 100 high-speed trains going each way every day and the trip takes as little as an hour and five minutes. Depending on the train there can be as little as one stop in between.
The trains provide city center to city center service. In Japan it is feasible to plan business trips between cities this far apart that take place in as little over three hours; a bit over an hour there, an hour meeting, a bit over an hour back. In the US such a trip is impossible. Even if you fly, by the time you drive or take a cab out to the airport, go through security, fly the short distance and then get into town from the airport, you've wasted far more time.
I use this example from time to time as most people who live in the US have no idea how backward the US can be in certain areas.
For example, one can take a 6AM train from Hakata (Fukuoka) and be in Hiroshima at 7:05AM. The earliest train out of Seattle leaves at 7:30 and doesn't arrive until 11AM (if the train is on time, which it usually isn't). The next train out of Seattle for Portland doesn't leave until 11:20AM. Between 6AM and 11:20AM, there are 28 trains leaving Hakata (Fukuoka) for Hiroshima.
Want to meet for a business lunch in Hiroshima? Take the 10:30AM train and you'll be there at 11:36AM, take the 10:39AM train and be there at 11:49AM, or take the 11:00AM train and get there are 12:05PM.
High speed rail makes a world of difference and is so convenient. There are many distances between cities in the US where having such service would radically change how business is done and how people travel.
Alaska Air offers 20 flights between Seattle and Portland. The travel time is 50 minutes, not much better than the train time between Fukuoka and Hiroshima. The difference is that when you step off the train you are downtown. When you get off the plane, you still have a long trip into town. Having fast, dependable train service between cities would make life much easier in the US.
Re:And best of all.. (Score:5, Informative)
> The trains will be powered by the bodies of dead slave laborers ....
USAtoday says:
North America's four major rail networks -- Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific and Canadian National -- all own lines that were built and operated with slave labor.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-railroads.htm [usatoday.com]
Parent
Re:And best of all.. (Score:5, Funny)
However, the trains were fueled by coal/diesel.
Parent
Re:The French TGV is Faster (Score:5, Interesting)
The first TGVs were running at 260/270 km/h on regular service in 1981. Current TGVs on regular service run at 220 km/h on classic lines, at 300 km/h on fast lines (called LGV) and at 320 km/h on the Paris-Strasbourg line (LGV EST).
Next generation TGV (called AGV and scheduled for 2010) will probably run faster on regular service, around 360 km/h.
The great speed of the TGV is interesting, but what is more remarkable is the density of its high-speed network: check it over here [wikipedia.org]
Parent