Chinese High-Speed Train Sets New World Record 267
shmG writes "A new high-speed train linking Chinese cities Shanghai and Hangzhou has set a fresh world record for train speed at 416.6 kilometers per hour (259 mph) on its trial run on Tuesday. The train is expected to cut the travel time by half, to 40 minutes for covering a distance of 202 kilometers between the two cities at an average speed of 350 kilometers per hour. 'The new record of 416.6 km per hour shows that China has achieved a new milestone in high-speed train technologies,' Zhang Shuguang, deputy chief engineer of the Ministry of Railways, was quoted as saying."
booyah (Score:5, Funny)
In your face Japan!
Re: (Score:2)
In your face Japan!
You know this should probably be marked informative. I'm sure that this was as much of a motivation as cutting journey times.
Re:booyah (Score:5, Informative)
But the Shinkansen made 443 km/h in diverse tests, still about 25 km/h faster than the chinese train.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should also note that the Shinkansen has to travel over curves with a much smaller radius than either the TGV or the Chinese bullet train does. Reality is that unless you have very long stretches of straight track, the Shinkansen is still the fastest. Neither the TGV nor the Chinese bullet train can come even close to the speeds the Shinkansen does around those curves. Of course, if the Shinkansen would simply build straight tracks (not exactly as easy as it sounds, considering the geographic locatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And the maglev shinkansen version has apparently gone well over 500km/h in manned flight while I wasn't watching:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:booyah (Score:5, Informative)
And the French TGV reached 574.8 km/h in a special test run. However these were specially modified trains, while this Chinese train broke the speed record for an unmodified train
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles#Conventional_wheeled [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it is a modified mixture of technology developped by Kawasaki, Siemens, Bombardier etc. .
CC
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it is a modified mixture of technology developped by Kawasaki, Siemens, Bombardier etc. .
The train in the photo of TFA looks like a Siemens (with the usual mix of specialist providers, of course) to me, like those in service in Germany and Spain, and probably a couple other places. The caption doesn't say that the record breaker was that one, though.
Re:booyah (Score:4, Insightful)
This is only a test. Wait until it is in operation free of trouble and come back again.
If memory serves, Japan's Shinkansen has had only one accident (while braking during a very strong earthquake in 2006), and no dead people in how many years of operation now - maybe 40, maybe more.
Wake me up when the Chinese beat that record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, to all the other posts, I have to wonder if the Chinese are using a sound limit. IIRC, the Shinkansen has it's speed governed so that the sound is limited to something like 78 db in the areas surrounding the tracks. This seems to be somewhere between the noise of vacuum cleaner at 1m and a busy roadway at 5 m. Somehow, I have my doubts that the Chinese authorities will have the same concern about auditory health of those people directly affected by this new train.
Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Even their 20 year old record from 1990 is faster.
(515.3 km/h (143.1 m/s or 320.3 mph), set on 18 May 1990.)
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Funny)
China's World records are like the US World Series only in name.
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes ... but the average speed of the TGV on real journeys is a lot less - 279 km/h (173.6 mph) according to Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it stops sometime to let people in and out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes ... but the average speed of the TGV on real journeys is a lot less - 279 km/h (173.6 mph) according to Wikipedia.
Please note that while one might be skeptical of Wikipedia's information, as anyone can edit the pages, it seems that even as proficient as chinese government propagandists are at altering reality, and even as proficient as chinese government hackers are at exploiting the mountains of Window's vulnerabilities, they have not yet deciphered the arcane complexities the wiki edit, which invariably seem to require a flame war. Perhaps they are ramping up their offensive and defensive resources before an attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's because the French transit employees (like all true French workers) are on strike 2 hours out of 3.
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
That TGV record is for a test train on a specially prepared track with customized power feed and tensioning on the catenary. It's not clear from TFA, but I believe the Chinese are claiming the record for a production train on production track (ie equivalent to scheduled runs).
See e.g. this from the Wikipedia TGV article: "A TGV service previously held the record for the fastest scheduled rail journey with a start to stop average speed of 279.4 km/h (173.6 mph),[2][3] which was surpassed by the Chinese CRH service Harmony express on the Wuhan-Guangzhou High-Speed Railway in 2009."
Re: (Score:2)
That TGV record is for a test train on a specially prepared track with customized power feed and tensioning on the catenary.
And most likely, that test track was completely secure. The biggest problems with TGVs right now is the possibility that someone might cut/jump the fences/barbed wires and walk along the tracks. People tend to underestimate the amount of time it takes to get off the track when they hear a bullet train coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
I guess the obvious solution is to electrify the fences with 20,000 volts.
Actually, the obvious (and cheaper) solution is simply to make sure the front of the train is fairly sturdy and won't get dented by morons walking along the track looking for their Darwin award. You might want to make it easy to clean too :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the obvious (and cheaper) solution is simply to make sure the front of the train is fairly sturdy and won't get dented by morons walking along the track looking for their Darwin award.
While this is a real design consideration, and modern high-speed trainsets incorporate deformable sections ('crumple zones', in automotive parlance) to absorb the shocks of a high-speed collision, it's still preferable to avoid impacts altogether. Even if the train isn't damaged by a collision, it's still delayed -- the line gets closed for hours while there's a police investigation, nobody can use the tracks, the passengers get grumpy....
And hitting a live person is hell for the train drivers. Post-tr
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, the catenary was especially tensed, the train was somewhat customised (bigger wheels) but the tracks were "standard" : they just choose the straightest part of the line to set up the record.
To come back to the Chinese line : how long does it take to accel
Acceleration doesn't have to be noticeable (Score:2)
eg. A tenth of a G will get you up to that speed in less than two minutes (and in total comfort).
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
575km/h is about half the speed of sound too, so assuming you hear the sound the train emitted when it was 1km away, the train will be only half a km away by the time the sound reaches your ears. And half a km at 575km/h is 3 seconds. Which is enough time to leap away, but NOT enough time to first turn and see what's going on, then get away.
For real speed, you want vactrains. Maglevs with a pressure-cabin, in an evacuated pipe. This has numerous advantages. First, there's less risk that anything will be on the line, if the line is in an enclosed pipe. Second, if there's a near-vacuum in the pipe, then it requires substantially less energy to push the train since air-resistance is the primary energy-waste at these speeds, and third, it cuts noise enormously, if the train is floating in vacuum, there's less vibration to begin with, and there's little transmission of noise to the surroundings too. (vacuum is a very good way of stopping noise!)
Re: (Score:2)
For real speed, you want vactrains. Maglevs with a pressure-cabin, in an evacuated pipe. This has numerous advantages.
if you could first solve the problem of both track and train's cost being increased by serveral orders of magnitude...
What BS (Score:2)
If train speed were limited by the ability to stop before hitting someone on the line, the limit would be about 30mph. I have driven trains as a test engineer, and at high speeds the brakes feel so feeble compared with a car that for a while it is as if they are not working at all. On descents the stopping distance can be well over a mile, which can include several curves that cannot be seen around. That is why there are "distant" repeater signals long before actual stop signals.
It is also why, in the den
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
The article's full of errors:
I've done this journey a lot of times, the last time being three weeks ago. The current high speed trains (hitting about 170kph) cost Y54 (2nd class) or Y64 (1st class). More than double the price of the existing first class would be in excess of Y130, which is bordering on exageration. The trains are always full, and there are a lot of rich Chinese and Western businessmen on this route, so I doubt they will have trouble filling seats.
What bullshit. The current high speed trains stop maybe once or twice between Shanghai and Hangzhou - why would this one stop more than that? It'd blow the average speed, and anyway, there are already slower regional trains. Trying to claim it's a two drive to Hangzhou is again exageration... especially trying to get in to Hangzhou with its absolutely abysmal traffic problems.
I wonder though, what has happened to the maglev link between the two cities that they were building. I saw an elevating track by the highway a few weeks ago which was either the maglev line, or maybe something else.
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, you're absolutely right. I was translating for occidental type people, and trying to avoid the dumb jokes some people on this website come out with
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you're absolutely right. I was translating for occidental type people, and trying to avoid the dumb jokes some people on this website come out with
Well, those jokes are all too appropriate when a "classless" society has to make facile claims like "soft seat" and "hard seat" to sell different classes of service.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, you're absolutely right. I was translating for occidental type people, and trying to avoid the dumb jokes some people on this website come out with.
Rugs are occidental, people like movies, are Western.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you're absolutely right. I was translating for occidental type people, and trying to avoid the dumb jokes some people on this website come out with.
Rugs are occidental, people like movies, are Western.
Wait, now we are also getting touchy about what oriental-type people call us?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The article's full of errors:
...
What bullshit. The current high speed trains stop maybe once or twice between Shanghai and Hangzhou - why would this one stop more than that? It'd blow the average speed, and anyway, there are already slower regional trains. Trying to claim it's a two drive to Hangzhou is again exageration... especially trying to get in to Hangzhou with its absolutely abysmal traffic problems.
You're right that no sane train operator would have all trains stop at all stations, but it's also pretty likely that even all-stops trains will be faster than driving. Modern HSR tends to be very light and have very good acceleration, so with good operating practices, a single stop need not add more than about 5 minutes of delay including deacceleration/acceleration time.[1] This HSR goes at 350km/h, so the total time taken by the train, including 9 intermediate stops could easily be 80 minutes or less -
Re: (Score:2)
A tech article full of falsehoods and exaggerations? A US business that doesn't understand how trains work? I'm shocked.
Seriously, though, you do make good points. I would also add that the biggest impediment to high-speed rail in the US is figuring out how to relocate people who live or work along the incredibly straight tracks that bullet trains require. Population reshaping, however, is something China is good at.
Re: Roller coaster speeds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
African or European?
Re: (Score:2)
That's wrong, too (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
From whom was it fleeing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong!??? Maybe not. Test mode vs operational mode?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15928 [larouchepac.com]
My personal view is that an operational speed, actually in production and use, is really the defining number. I am not quite sure how to classify this number, but it looks more interesting. The reason is largely societal. The French apparently built some good gizmos, but were not really committed enough to make them "real". The Chinese on the other hand likely think of rail as a key strategic element, not just in e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
They're probably going to buy the German ICE because those nasty Frogs collaborated with the Nazis.
Uh, hang on a minute...
416.6 km/h isn't a new record. (Score:2, Informative)
A TGV test train reached 574.8 km/h in April 2007. The new record is the average speed of 350 km/h.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And even this is not a record, as the spanish Velaro E has made 404 km/h in regular operation.
Re:416.6 km/h isn't a new record. (Score:4, Informative)
To complete this: 350 km/h is the regular speed for the Velaro E on the relation Madrid-Barcelona.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. 350 km/h was the estimated regular max speed for the AVE in Spain, but it seems that it is slower due to problems with the track ballast, so now it's going to max speed of "only" 300km/h to avoid damaging the trains.
news in spanish [eleconomista.es], yahoo translation [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese CHR3 _is_ the Velaro E.
Re:416.6 km/h isn't a new record. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if our intercity trains did 300kph! (Score:4, Informative)
Here in the UK we're lucky if our intercity trains get much over 200km/h [wikipedia.org] so I'd be happy with a mere 300km/h on the regular London to Glasgow route.....
Re:I'd be happy if our intercity trains did 300kph (Score:5, Informative)
Lucky bastard, here in California we get 120km/hr. And anything faster is going to be 9 billion dollars, and over a decade, just to build the first 25 mile stretch along existing right-of-ways.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And ironically, that was also built by Chinese people. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Not irony.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people like you that make me bother not even using the word irony anymore.
Re:I'd be happy if our intercity trains did 300kph (Score:5, Informative)
In both cases the problem is the track ...
In the UK the track goes around a lot of corners and is far from straight, and to take out the bends would cost huge amounts (especially through towns/cities)
In the US your track is very poor quality (a legacy of the speed it was built and the huge extent of the network) and the cost of upgrading is huge ...
The very fast trains in Japan/France/China all benefit from the local governments simply forcibly buying the land required at cost (or less) and getting on with it ...
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK the track goes around a lot of corners and is far from straight
That's oversold; tilting trains can deal with this, as Bombardier has demonstrated.
Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
All tilting does is make it more comfortable for the passengers. It doesnt redice the centripetal forces on the bogies and track which will become severe at very high speed. Also signalling needs to be upgraded for very high speed running to take account of greater stopping distances amongst other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Informative)
No, the net horizontal force on the wheels would be the same. The vertical force should be equalised between them though.
The only way you can decrease the horizontal force is to camber the actual track, which they do.
Re: (Score:2)
The very fast trains in Japan/France/China all benefit from the local governments simply forcibly buying the land required at cost (or less) and getting on with it ...
Not to mention the high-speed urban renewal projects enacted by that famous urban planner Curtis Lemay [wikipedia.org], which put the respective governments in a position to modernize.
(to be fair, Japan's rail network sucked well into the 1960's. But, having large portions of infrastructure leveled certainly helps avoid "legacy infrastructure" issues.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get that idea? In the UK the trains are limited to 125mph because of *signalling*. The GWML for example was built extremely well (by Brunel over 170 years ago no less) and is capable of speeds of 140mph and over. The problem is telling the trains when to stop and slow down. The proposed project to electrify the Great Western Main Line would also introduced in-cab signalling which would make the higher speeds a reality.
Not a chinese train (Score:2, Insightful)
Judging from the picture in TFA I'd say it's a Siemens train. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro .
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from the picture in TFA I'd say it's a Siemens train. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro [wikipedia.org] .
Hunh, I wonder what sort of industrial control system [slashdot.org] they use to run it.
*wince*
Re: (Score:2)
here [skyscrapercity.com]'s pictures of the train in question. It certainly involves a lot of foreign tech but still, the fastest production train in the world is an achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, china has a long history of stealing things and then taking credit for it. For example, they claim that they have the fastest maglev. In reality, it is Germany that does. The problem is that China has come up with a new one. What does it look like? JUST LIKE GERMANY's.
Really? No one's going to call him in this astonishingly racist post?
Back here on planet Earth, one could easily find that both designs are produced under license, from Transurban and Siemens. No "stealing" involved.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay, before that, we spent about a thousand years stealing from them.
In the meantime, we in the USA... (Score:2, Insightful)
...still squabble as to whether we even need such a train. Sad to know that in this field, we as a country, are still stuck in the 1950s with so many of our folks against any move to the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, where America is lacking is that we are not looking at Cargo and doing it across all of North America. Basically, we should be putting a high speed rail on the common cargo routes, rather than common human routes. Even now, AmTrack is talking a pure east coast route, where the s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rail in the US will continue to do what it does best - move bulk cargo cheaply. Any more just isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe train speed laws at the state and municipal levels are preempted by Federal law, so it doesn't really matter if those laws exist, they can be safely ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
"High Speed" rail normally means over 180mph or so, and is so far for passengers only.
What's the average speed of a freight train in the USA? When I visited they mostly seemed to go very slow, 30mph perhaps, so there's big improvements that could be made without the cost of a high speed line. The are fast freight trains here in the UK, mail and parcels trains might travel at 110mph, containers at 90mph, and even coal might travel at 75mph. Keeping it fast allows it to fit in with passenger services -- the p
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, where America is lacking is that we are not looking at Cargo and doing it across all of North America. Basically, we should be putting a high speed rail on the common cargo routes, rather than common human routes.
Can't do it, signalling and track loads on cargo lines are not useful for high-speed trains. To get anything near "high speed" you need separate lins.
Cargo in general is dying in the US. Since delivery over the last mile generally requires a semi-trailer to haul the container, it's typically cheaper in the long run to build a new container port than it is to trans-ship through trains. Then you ship the containers to the port and truck them the last 400 km or so. This doesn't work for mid-west areas, but the
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, where America is lacking is that we are not looking at Cargo and doing it across all of North America. Basically, we should be putting a high speed rail on the common cargo routes, rather than common human routes.
Can't do it, signalling and track loads on cargo lines are not useful for high-speed trains. To get anything near "high speed" you need separate lins.
Cargo in general is dying in the US. Since delivery over the last mile generally requires a semi-trailer to haul the container, it's typically cheaper in the long run to build a new container port than it is to trans-ship through trains. Then you ship the containers to the port and truck them the last 400 km or so. This doesn't work for mid-west areas, but the amount of cargo flowing there is limited to the point that it's not a serious consideration.
The same is not true in Canada where the coastal loading areas are seriously limited, basically to Halifax, Vancouver and a few ports on the St. Lawrence while the main industrial areas are all inland 1000's of km away. As a result the railways up here are making money hand over fist, and they're slowly but surely buying up the US companies. Soo Line cars are very common in Oshawa.
Really? [economist.com] This Economist article makes it sound like what's happening is just the opposite of what you said:
"Rail’s share of the freight market, measured in ton-miles, has risen steadily to 43%—about the highest in any rich country. [...T]he fastest-growing part of rail freight has been “intermodal” traffic: containers or truck trailers loaded on to flat railcars. The number of such shipments rose from 3m in 1980 to 12.3m in 2006"
Re: (Score:2)
I have a British source [tssa.org.uk] saying some rail freight is viable over distances as short as 19 miles (they're not making it up, my room at university overlooked the line that train uses. There were also trains of waste/recycling, which prevented lots of inner-city driving.)
Re: (Score:2)
China is different country, with a different geography, and a different history of development. China, for example, doesn't have a highway system comparable to ours. The percentage of Chinese who drive is much smaller than the percentage of Americans who drive. Also, at least at one time, we had a robust domestic airline industry, negating the need for trains.
So, yes, whether we need such trains here remains an open question. If they were built, who would use them, and for what?
The infrastructure needs of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In the meantime, we in the USA... (Score:5, Insightful)
So all roads in the US are toll roads? ... or it's OK for the state to cough up for roads, but not for train tracks?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...it's OK for the state to cough up for roads, but not for train tracks?
I'd say that's a fair argument. Given our sprawling city/suburb layout, fast trains just don't make sense. For good or bad, most of the US was designed around ubiquitous automobile ownership - freedom of the road and all that. Until there is decent intra-city public transportation, taking a fast train between cities leaves you stranded at the station.
Re:In the meantime, we in the USA... (Score:4, Insightful)
And taking an airplane between cities leaves you stranded at the airport, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the USA things need to be profitable for companies who build something, or to the economy in general if the government (the people) is expected to pay for it.
So, by extension of your reasoning going to the moon and NASA's activities have been profitable for the USA? The last time I checked, NASA was seeking government permission to profit from its activities.
Dude, your argument falls apart!
Re: (Score:2)
The usual numbers for the NASA profit result are 1000% percent, I often hear. This is economic spin-off, not image. There is a difference between a limited entity making a "profit" and the economy in general making a "profit". But you did not even notice that reference point in the part you actually quoted.
Assuming you are not a total ideologue, did the early 19th century canals, which we still use, generate a "profit". Perhaps the problem is that you define "profit" as something that can be only assoc
Re: (Score:2)
It was profitable for the country's image.
Didn't know that 'image' can now be taken as a basis for profit. With this kind of reasoning, I now see why America is in trouble financially - engaging in activities that take 'image' instead of hard earned money for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was profitable for the corporations involved. The country's image is utterly irrelevant.
Re:In the meantime, we in the USA... (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase "European/Chinese economic system" makes no sense. European economies are extremely different from the Chinese.
Unlike what some may believe, there aren't only two economic systems, the US Capitalist and the Other. Even if both the European and the Chinese invest more public money in infrastructure than the US (do they?), it doesn't mean they have a similar system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, that's the optimal thing.
<quote><p>However time and time again governments (which account for a vast chunk of total spending) have proven themselves to be incapable of this.</p></quote>
First , it very much depends of the timeframe you're placing yourself in, or of the expenses you're talking of. For instance "government" overhead for managing medicare i
Re: (Score:2)
For instance "government" overhead for managing medicare is apparently very small compared that of privately runned health insurance companies.
Medical overhead is reported in percentage terms. However, the average cost per person on Medicare (usually old people with lots of medications, etc) is substantially higher than the average person on private insurance. A quick search finds this [managedcaremag.com]:
In 2003, says the study, the average medical cost for a Medicare beneficiary per year was $6,600. The average medical cost for someone with employer-sponsored health insurance was $2,700.
So Medicare could be half as efficient per person as private insurers and still be more efficient per dollar.
All I can say is..... (Score:2)
......Wheeeeee!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what's the average speed of a TGV on a real journey with passenger cars attached...?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trick question, without deviating from the Millenium Falcon's route, it would still be something less 12 parsecs.
Source:
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea train is best train!
Yes, because it can get you out of North Korea.
Re:CRH3 (Score:4, Insightful)
There was a joke during the early days of the space race where an American says to a Russian "Our German rocket-scientists are better than your German rocket-scientists".
It seems that in the race for the fastest train this has been replaced by "Our German rail-engineers are better than your German rail-engineers".