# MISC | Who's the Leader in the World's High Speed Rail Revolution?



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

foxmulder said:


> Infrastructure goes to China. (7000m turn radius, elevated balastless tracks, those stations... delicious)
> 
> Trains.. I cannot decide..


But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.

Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.

Large trains stations, well you can find large trains stations in Germany that are a 100 years old. For example this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Central_Station


----------



## Peloso (May 17, 2006)

gincan said:


> But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.
> 
> Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.
> 
> ...


That's a bit like saying that New York is not the first example of great vertical metropolis because its architectural model was already invented by the city of Bologna in the 14th century.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

gincan said:


> But China hasn't really invented anything new, they have simlpy used existing technology. 7 km curve radius is industrial standard on any rail line built for speeds above 300 km/h and has been used on new rail lines i Europe and Japan since the 1990s.
> 
> Ballstless track has been used since the 1960s so nothing new, as for HSR Taipei-Kaohsiung opened in 2004.
> 
> ...



Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius? 

Balastless track is not new but China is the country using it in all of its network. 

Yes, you find large stations in other places but they are only like 1 per country and not brand new 

Also, elevated tracks adds quite a bit value, too. 

You are right, China imported a lot of technology but is there anything wrong with that? Siemens and Kawasaki earned a lot of moneyzzz from China. It doesn't change the situation on ground, right? 

By the way, I decided to choose Japan for trains  but this may change soon if crh500 breaks the record and reaches operational usage.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

foxmulder said:


> You are right, China imported a lot of technology but is there anything wrong with that? Siemens and Kawasaki earned a lot of moneyzzz from China. It doesn't change the situation on ground, right?


Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative. 

Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

aquaticko said:


> Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative.
> 
> Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.


What about operational CRH380A and under development CRH500?

Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too. 

Also, as I wrote I see China as the leader for the high speed rail infrastructure not in the trains department which can change rather quickly, though. :cheers:


----------



## Silver Swordsman (Nov 8, 2011)

aquaticko said:


> Well no, there's nothing wrong with that. But seeing as we're talking about who the "leader" is in terms of countries, it won't be China, as their sole domestically-produced train so far was the China Star, and they ceased developing that 7 years ago without any commercial derivative.
> 
> Maybe Chinese infrastructure is state of the art, but its trains are all imported. I dont think this detracts from the accomplishment as a whole, but I do think it takes China out of the running as a world leader at this point in time. Once it starts domestically developing trains like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea do, I think it will have to considered a world leader in the industry, mostly because the potential scale of future R&D investments in the industry by China hugely exceed those of the other countries.


China has already designed several trainsets that, while relying on a design base created by other countries, have made enough improvements and adjustments to claim them as their own. Not just the CRH500 and the 380A. What about the 380B and the 380D?


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

foxmulder said:


> What about operational CRH380A and under development CRH500?
> 
> Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too.
> 
> Also, as I wrote I see China as the leader for the high speed rail infrastructure not in the trains department which can change rather quickly, though. :cheers:


The CRH 380A is little more than a reskinned Shinkansen with souped-up Velaro motors underneath. (Ignore the pretty nose and concentrate on the train design: The pantograph and its farings, the doors, the roof construction, the windows, all bear the hallmarks of the original E2 derived CRH) 

Why? Because the Shinkansen has the lightest axle load of all high speed trainsets. If you couple that with the strongest HEMU motors (from the Velaro) you're bound to have a set that's a record-breaker. Which is exactly what the 380A is.

Although the CRH 500 may be able to be considered as "Chinese designed" it still bears the hallmarks of previous E2 designs. Also, I doubt we'll ever see it running at full speed in commercial service, unless CRH is happy to make gigantic losses with every run.



> China has already designed several trainsets that, while relying on a design base created by other countries, have made enough improvements and adjustments to claim them as their own. Not just the CRH500 and the 380A. What about the 380B and the 380D?


Actually, I would say that the 380A and 500 have a far better chance of being considered "Chinese" than the 380B an 380D.

About the 380B:
>This order for a total of 1600 railway cars is greater than the total production of all Velaro and ICE trains that have ever been manufactured in the past. It is planned that the trains will be produced by CNR subsidiaries, Tangshan Railway Vehicles and Changchun Railway Vehicles, *using technology from the previous technology transfer agreement.*

So it's basically still a Velaro.

And the 380D was designed entirely by Bombardier, and build in the Bombardier Sifang plant. There was very little Chinese input in either of the designs.

But in the end, no one can truly know what's what, because MOR will never reveal the exact designs of the trains and what came from who.


----------



## arnau_Vic (May 8, 2011)

where is the poll???


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

foxmulder said:


> Since you list South Korea, I think you have to list China, too.


The KTX-I is based on the TGV Reseau, but the KTX-II is derived from the domestically produced HSR-350x project, and the KTX-III (or, currently, the HEMU-430x) is also an entirely domestically-produced experiment that should begin production within the next 2-3 years.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

aquaticko said:


> The KTX-I is based on the TGV Reseau, but the KTX-II is derived from the domestically produced HSR-350x project, and the KTX-III (or, currently, the HEMU-430x) is also an entirely domestically-produced experiment that should begin production within the next 2-3 years.


I find CRH500 as Chinese as HEMU-430x is Korean.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

urbanfan89 said:


> Many stations are overbuilt at the moment, because they were built with a network the size of Europe in mind. As of now only a few disconnected segments is operational, so once the network is complete, even these massive stations will be crowded.


I'm not talking about them being massive. That they build them for the future is great.
However, when I see these waiting rooms with rows and rows and rows of seats I wonder. Passengers should not have to spend more than 10 minutes at a station. If you really need that much seating for waiting passengers something's off...









This you don't see in European stations. Even the ones that see huge amounts of passengers...


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

K_ said:


> I'm not talking about them being massive. That they build them for the future is great.
> However, when I see these waiting rooms with rows and rows and rows of seats I wonder. Passengers should not have to spend more than 10 minutes at a station. If you really need that much seating for waiting passengers something's off...
> 
> 
> ...


I think that has to do with Chinese train travelling culture.

When I was there, we would just show up 10 minutes before our train was supposed to leave, and at that time you couldn't even get on the platform yet (basically not until the train had arrived at the platform, or slightly before that). However, the other people also waiting for our train seemed like they had been there for quite a while.

Perhaps people really don't want to miss their train, so they arrive like an hour early. Or people with standing tickets want a good seat... I dunno.
Anyway, the end result is you need a lot of space to keep all those people waiting for their train so early. In my opinion, 70% of people wouldn't need to get there so early, in which case the waiting areas wouldn't need to be so big.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

foxmulder said:


> I find CRH500 as Chinese as HEMU-430x is Korean.


It is, but it and the China Star are as far as any Chinese company has come to a production train--and of course, both are experimental. When the production derivative arrives, then China will have its first domestically-produced train.

I agree with you; technological development as regards trains can move quickly.


----------



## Peloso (May 17, 2006)

Those stations are NOT built "for the future", and those waiting areas are "big" because they need to, maybe some forumers haven't checked out any photos of the Chinese new year yet.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Peloso said:


> Those stations are NOT built "for the future", and those waiting areas are "big" because they need to, maybe some forumers haven't checked out any photos of the Chinese new year yet.


So maybe the Chinese railways need to figure out how to deal more efficiently with the Chinese New Year then...


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

foxmulder said:


> Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius?


There are to many to list. You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan.


----------



## Silver Swordsman (Nov 8, 2011)

> Can you write what other lines have 7000m turn radius?


Beijing-Shanghai HSR and the other railways designed with an operating speed 380km/h are the only lines in the world that have a maximum radius of 10,000m.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

gincan said:


> There are to many to list. You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan.


Misinformation.

Japan: 4000m 
Germany: 3200m
Italy: 5500m 
France: 5000m
Spain: 4000m

And these numbers are only for very few and new lines not the whole network. Moreover, the lines have "exceptions" (smaller curve radius for specific rough regions) where speed needs to be lowered.

This is why the average speed of the trains running on these lines cannot reach the maximum speed they can clock all the time. 

On 350km/h standard lines in China, avarege speed was almost same as the top speed which proves the lines on Chinese network let trains run with top speed continuesly. Before cancellation, *non-stop trains were covering 920km distance less than 3 hours*. Now, with 300km/h speed limit and one stop, they cover it in around three and half hour. If you exclude accelerations and breaking for the stops, *they run at max speed all the time*. 

And we are talking an entire huge network in Chinese case, not a couple lines on a network.

Still, if you have a source, please share with us. I would be very happy to read.


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

foxmulder said:


> Misinformation.
> 
> Japan: 4000m
> Germany: 3200m
> ...


I think his original post was trying to say that it doesn't take especially advanced know-how to make the wider radius turns. It just requires a few changes when planning the route. He was probably bluffing when calling out the other lines.
However the question begging to be asked, is this even necessary? 
The TGV ran at 574 km/h on a line which, according to your figures, has turn radii of only 5000 m. Yes, it may have had a little more lateral g-forces than normal, but with the height of the duplex cars, I can hardly believe they'd allow extreme lateral g's as the train would simply tip over! And even then, I highly doubt that wheel on rail technology will ever be used much above 400km/h, as it simply becomes prohibitively expensive past that point.


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

K_ said:


> So maybe the Chinese railways need to figure out how to deal more efficiently with the Chinese New Year then...


That's the billion yuan question, MOR has been trying to figure it out for more than 20 years now.:lol: And the solution is simple, bigger station, more platforms, more trains.

Back to topic, CAHSR really revolutionized HSR by showing the world how painful the process can be.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Can anyone tell me what China has done that is truly revolutionary in high speed rail.

The only thing I can think of is the speed in which the network is being built, but then again it's all done with conventional construction methods. Building a line more straight isn't really revolutionary either, it's just using the geographical advantages of a flat country. Upgrading existing foreign High Speed Train technology also isn't that revolutionary, it didn't yet result in game changing trains. The operating speeds at the start where revolutionary, but since that was a failure it didn't cause a revolution. And when it comes to safety, reliability, economical operation China is miles behind other countries. 

China is using the most of all the technology on offer but has yet to do something that will really change the game.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

they haven't. The high speed rail revolution can be jointly attributed to the countries of Japan and France, the companies Siemens, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, some other Japanese one, Alstom, and then loads of others involved in signalling and hardware and design such as Arup and that German one previously mentioned.

I think the thread itself misunderstands the complexity and depth of the high speed rail industry across the globe.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

China is not flat...


----------



## PredyGr (Jan 11, 2005)

```
speed 350km/h
Minimum radius of curvature (m)*:            
        - reccomended                                             7143
        - normal                                                  6250
        - exceptional                                             5556

* from data given by SNCF
```
source UIC

The radius of curvature it's not the only parameter that determines the max. permissible speed of a line. Some other parameters are: maximum cant, cant deficiency, excess of cant and a few others. So, comparing different lines with min. curve radius as basis will not give conclusive results. For example a mixed traffic line and a passenger only line can both have a maximum design speed of 300kmph. The latter can be designed with min. curve radius of 3350m with a max cant of 170mm as is the case with the KRM. The mixed traffic line will have a considerable larger min. curve radius because of the limitations imposed by the freight traffic and the freight rolling stock, cant, length of the transition curves, etc. The design of a new line is extremely complicated.

IMHO the high speed revolution was the opening of the tokaido shinkansen, since then mostly is evolution. So again IMHO, the leaders in high speed rail evolution is Japan and France.

I consider revolutionary rolling stock, the NGT project from DLR


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

gramercy said:


> China is not flat...


A big part of the Eastern coastal areas is very flat, the Beijing - Shanghai line. The only bump is between Jinan and Taian, and that part of the line could even be constructed in a very straight line. And the big mountainous areas are all at the edges of the country. All in all it's not the most challenging country to construct new lines especially between the important cities. Only it's size is what makes it remarkable, but that's not really a problem if you have almost unlimited resources.


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

This thread is a flamebait thus should be closed.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

hmmwv said:


> This thread is a flamebait thus should be closed.


Not quite yet. It COULD be an interesting discussion about the technologies on offer when it comes to HSR, however, as is all too evident, it has also become a contest as to who has the bigger, who can go the fastest blahblahblah. How about celebrating revolutionary developments rather than saying "BLAHBLAH IS FASTER THAN BLAHBLAH". 

I would also, very much urge members to NOT resort to personal attacks and to contact me if any occur (as I cannot read every post in every thread). I have been alerted to this thread and will keep my eyes on it from now on.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

^^On that train of thought (pardon the pun), I'm curious if anyone has any information or thoughts on the upcoming >360kmh operating speeds planned for the next generation of high speed trains, having in mind specifically the CRH500 trains, the KTX-III, the L0 series shinkansen, and the Talgo Avril. 

Granted, most if not all of these will likely end up operating at the 350kmh threshold due to concerns of economy and efficiency, but what comes after that? Will we see a prolonged period of logistical adjustments to compensate for this performance ceiling? It seems more likely to me than a rapid switchover to maglev.

Obviously, geo- and demographical constraints will make ever-higher traditional HSR speeds easier and/or more plausible for some countries than others, and we're not here to focus on the geographic and demographic facts of a nation. Why not try to keep this discussion about trains instead?


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

^ The L0 won't run below 500 km/h, otherwise the maglev would have been pointless to build. It should run 505 km/h which I have no doubt will be sped up over time (since it's 0, the first series after all).



Svartmetall said:


> I would also, very much urge members to NOT resort to personal attacks and to contact me if any occur (as I cannot read every post in every thread). I have been alerted to this thread and will keep my eyes on it from now on.


Thanks


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

PredyGr said:


> ```
> speed 350km/h
> Minimum radius of curvature (m)*:
> - reccomended                                             7143
> ...



I've never heard of this before, and a quick Google gave me results that are mainly in German. Is this a serious study? (I.E: Likely to go towards a production run?) Has it been commissioned by anyone? Are there any early projected stats? (Top speed, capacity, weight, acceleration, etc..)

Entirely new developments in HSR rolling stock don't come around very often.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

gincan said:


> LOL, and you are dumber than f***.
> This is what I wrote:
> _all lines built for speeds in excess of 300km/h have 7 km curve radius. This is as I stated industrial standard._
> _You find them in Spain, France, Korea, Italy and Japan_ I forgot to mention Taiwan but I guess you don't even know that country exist, I'll give you a hint, Chinese Taipei :lol:
> ...


Hi there, disinformation effort is in its full swing, huh? 

*Chinese 350km/h network has no "exceptions" and that is the point.* All lines you are referring has much tighter turns than 7000m and that is why trains cannot go at *full speed all the time*. 

You are using circular reasoning to claim these lines have min 7000m curve radius because trains can go 320km/h  Yes, they can go 320km/h when there is no exception but there are. capisce?? :cheers:




Also to return to the point I made (i.e. China is the leader when it comes to infrastructure); sometimes pictures can explain it much better than words:

Which line does look like have more potential??

Madrid-Barcelona









LGV Méditerranée









Beijing–Shanghai


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

ukiyo said:


> ^ The L0 won't run below 500 km/h, otherwise the maglev would have been pointless to build. It should run 505 km/h which I have no doubt will be sped up over time (since it's 0, the first series after all).


I kind of stuck the L0 in there as I'm not aware of any upcoming traditional trains from the Japanese companies that exceed a 350-360kmh design speed. The Chinese plan to ramp train speeds up to 380kmh was dropped after the former MOR head resigned (was removed?). 

But the desired operational speed of HS2 in the UK, the CAHSR in the US, and the HEMU-430x in Korea all exceed the 350kmh threshold. Is anyone aware of how these three systems intend to circumvent the massive energy consumption increase that comes with doing so, or are they simply taking into account the extra cost in their operating budgets?


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

^ There isn't really any need in Japan to run faster than 320 km/h really. Most lines have frequent enough stops and Japan is quite dense so they don't want too fast speeds due to tunnel boom and other noise pollution (often times there's houses right up next to the shinkansen line).

With that said the Hokkaido Shinkansen has a plan to run at 360 km/h (half of it will open by 2015, the other half 2035). The best cases for faster speeds on Japan will be on Tohoku and Hokkaido Shinkansens (not as dense, noise pollution isn't as big of a concern), I hope the Tokaido will increase to 300 km/h eventually, next year the Tohoku will increase to 320 km/h, but I think they can raise it more since they will use the same type of train as the Hokkaido Shinkansen which should run at 360 km/h. BTW the E5 can take a 4000m radius curve at its current maximum service speed of 320km/h.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

foxmulder said:


> *Chinese 350km/h network has no "exceptions" and that is the point.* All lines you are referring has much tighter turns than 7000m and that is why trains cannot go at *full speed all the time*.


What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.

Only the LGV Sud-Est has bits that are poor alignment and therefore are restricted to 270km/h. Guess what? The French realised that was a mistake so they didn't do that anymore.

Precisely what point are you trying to make anyhow? China is amazing because its trains could go for 1000km without slowing whereas nowhere else in the world is this possible? Even though it will be possible soon if it isn't already? I mean, even if Paris - Brussels TGVs need to slow to 250km/h past Lille, that would slow the train by about 90 seconds - and that would be the only retardation. Whoop de do.

And no, posting individual pictures of individual corners on various high speed lines does not make your point at all.


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

foxmulder said:


> Which line does look like have more potential??


This explains nothing. It only shows that France and Spain are happier to use tried-and-tested technology. 
With proper maintenance, all three lines have exactly the same potential. And no, ballast does not magically fly up when a train passes over. The railway engineers would have spotted and rectified it a long, long time ago if that were the case. The benefits of ballastless track lie in that it requires less maintenance, thus making it slightly cheaper in the very long run.


----------



## leipility (Jul 20, 2012)

Look at the speed, then certainly the Chinese stay in the forefront.Quality of these is not clear!China's high iron sitting comfort good.Shortly before the Chinese travel back!


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

makita09 said:


> What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.


That's the other way around. It's the Paris-Brussels direction which is
straight, and you need to take a curve to exit the line before you enter
Lille. And yes indeed, the whole high speed line between Paris and Brussels
can be travelled at max speed, without any slow down in between.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

leipility said:


> Look at the speed, then certainly the Chinese stay in the forefront.Quality of these is not clear!China's high iron sitting comfort good.Shortly before the Chinese travel back!


Ow geez a Google Translate 50-cent army message hno:



Anyway, I agree with a previous post:

The Japanese revolutionized rail with their first implementation of HSR. Everything after that, no matter how great (France, Germany, Spain, China) has just been evolution.


----------



## PredyGr (Jan 11, 2005)

Sopomon said:


> Is this a serious study? (I.E: Likely to go towards a production run?) Has it been commissioned by anyone? Are there any early projected stats? (Top speed, capacity, weight, acceleration, etc..)
> 
> Entirely new developments in HSR rolling stock don't come around very often.


The NGT is a research project covering different rail specific topics. The aim is the coordination and the common presentation of the different rail vehicle research activities in the NGT as integration platform.

Some known stats : Top speed: 400km/h, axle load:16t

About the bogie


WCRR2011 presentation said:


> This ambitious concept of a passenger running gear has a realization horizon of approximately 10 years.


A description of the project: 
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10467/740_read-916/

DLR will demonstrate at innotrans 2012 a 1:1 mock up of the medium car
http://www.eurailpress.de/article/v...ck-up-vom-next-generation-train/browse/1.html


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

makita09 said:


> What planet are you on? For example, the LGV Nord has no alignment-restriction between les banlieux de Paris and Lille. I'm not even sure there is a speed restriction as it turns into the LGV to Brussels.
> 
> Only the LGV Sud-Est has bits that are poor alignment and therefore are restricted to 270km/h. Guess what? The French realised that was a mistake so they didn't do that anymore.
> 
> ...



I am an unbiased citizen of Earth. Which planet are you from? 

LGV Nord has a min turn radius of 4000m so it is not up to standard of Chinese 350km/h network. I am sorry to let you down but it is the hard cold fact.



Sopomon said:


> This explains nothing. It only shows that France and Spain are happier to use tried-and-tested technology.
> With proper maintenance, all three lines have exactly the same potential. And no, ballast does not magically fly up when a train passes over. The railway engineers would have spotted and rectified it a long, long time ago if that were the case. The benefits of ballastless track lie in that it requires less maintenance, thus making it slightly cheaper in the very long run.


If you guys look at the pictures I send and see no difference, it just surprises me. There are quite a lot of fundamental differences among these mentioned lines. 

1) Chinese network is mostly elevated which has quiete a lot of advantages:

a) Required footprint of the lines decreases. (You can tell from the pictures that Beijing-Shanghai line's foot print is less than half of those in Spain and France)

b) It is inherently safer for people who lives around.

c) It creates a foundation to increase minimum horizontal and vertical curve radius of line since elevation imperfections of the geography becomes less of an issue. This in turn translates into a higher potential maximum speed.

2) The minimum curve radius is 7000m without any exceptions: The advantage of this obvious, you can go at top speed all the time. This is why Chinese lines even though they are limited to 300km/h right now still have the highest average speed.

3) It uses ballastless track: 

a) It requires significantly less maintenance. There are many reasons for this, will not go into details. a simple google search gives nice information.

b) It is more stable so do not require solutions to stabilize it like this:










So, again it presents the potential for higher speeds.

Only disadvantages of these standards is the cost. It is more expensive to build.

Moreover, when one considers the sheer scale of the Chinese network build with these standards, it is easy to claim, in high speed rail infrastructure, China is the leader.


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

I have to say ballastless tracks is certainly better suited for very high speed trains, it allows the tracks to be positioned more precisely and prevent unwanted debris from being thrown when a train passes by. Yes TGV is able to go fast on the ballast tracks but I'd imagine the maintenance requirement is quite strict too. I rode the TGV from Paris to Aix-en-Provence a couple of years ago and in sections it went to above 300km/h but the ride was shockingly uncomfortable.


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

foxmulder said:


> 1) Chinese network is mostly elevated which has quiete a lot of advantages:
> 
> a) Required footprint of the lines decreases. (You can tell from the pictures that Beijing-Shanghai line's foot print is less than half of those in Spain and France)


This is a fair enough point, however it's an extremely inefficient use of resources.



> b) It is inherently safer for people who lives around.


Wenzhou train crash. How close was it to utterly destroying the nearby houses? Because it's falling from a height, it can travel further. Also this is an utterly baseless claim.



> c) It creates a foundation to increase minimum horizontal and vertical curve radius of line since elevation imperfections of the geography becomes less of an issue. This in turn translates into a higher potential maximum speed.


Or you know, elevate the track in the valleys, and tunnel through the mountains. (Which is exactly what every HSL in the world does, btw). Having it on viaducts the entire route is just wasteful when on a large area of flat land.



> 2) The minimum curve radius is 7000m without any exceptions: The advantage of this obvious, you can go at top speed all the time. This is why Chinese lines even though they are limited to 300km/h right now still have the highest average speed.


This point has been proven wrong multiple times, stop bringing it up. The highest average speed is because it has the longest distances between stops.



> 3) It uses ballastless track:
> 
> a) It requires significantly less maintenance. There are many reasons for this, will not go into details. a simple google search gives nice information.


Correct.



> b) It is more stable so do not require solutions to stabilize it like this:


 This solution only really exists in Japan, and it is to stabilize the ballast in the event of an earthquake.





> So, again it presents the potential for higher speeds.
> 
> Only disadvantages of these standards is the cost. It is more expensive to build.
> 
> Moreover, when one considers the sheer scale of the Chinese network build with these standards, it is easy to claim, in high speed rail infrastructure, China is the leader.


I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

hmmwv said:


> I have to say ballastless tracks is certainly better suited for very high speed trains, it allows the tracks to be positioned more precisely and prevent unwanted debris from being thrown when a train passes by. Yes TGV is able to go fast on the ballast tracks but I'd imagine the maintenance requirement is quite strict too. I rode the TGV from Paris to Aix-en-Provence a couple of years ago and in sections it went to above 300km/h but the ride was shockingly uncomfortable.


The big advantage of traditional ballasted track is that it is much easier to correct it again if for some reason the foundation moves. With ballast less track you are essentially building your whole line on a bridge. Since that is what the Chinese do anyway, it makes sense for them.
However, if you are going to build a line at grade the picture changes.

As to the TGV becoming uncomfortable, that's more due to the fact that SNCF cares somewhat less about passenger comfort than many other railways...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

aquaticko said:


> Granted, most if not all of these will likely end up operating at the 350kmh threshold due to concerns of economy and efficiency, but what comes after that?


There is still a lot to be gained by further improving network integration. I am going to London from Lausanne soon, and will lose 1 1/2 hours changing stations in Paris. If for example SNCF were to build a TGV tunnel under Paris (an idea that comes up now and then), with a new underground station in the middle trips that now require a change of station in Paris would become more convenient. 
France also plans a high speed connection across the south (Bordeaux - Toulouse - Montpellier). 
These are just two examples of possible incremental improvements to the system that would reduce trip times for quite a large number of passengers, without having to increase train speed times beyond what is economically practical.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Track geometry is not really an innovation for HSR. Ballastless tracks are, but they pale compared to what really made HSR feasible: rolling stock and signaling. Without modern in-cab signaling, HSR would be extremely dangerous (e.g., train engineers relying on visual signs to proceed, limit speed, stop, deploy brakes etc). 

Ballastless tracks have lower maintenance costs and downtime. They are more noisy though, albeit the mains source of trains travelling 250km/h+ is air displacement, not friction deflection on the ground.

Now I'm curious to know at which average speed Maglevs start being more appealing as they can deal with steeper grades. Given enough power, TGV tracks could host trains travelling at 600km/h on 5000m curve radii without risks of tipping over. But that would be tricky for passengers unless seat belts were deployed on seats. But the wear and tear would be dramatic and the component safety for mechanic parts would be raised to some akin to airlines.

I think higher commercial speeds will be only attainable with maglevs. It is a disgrace Germant ditched their early 1990s plan for a network of maglev tracks there. 

TAlking of maglevs, I have a question: what is, at current technology state, the minimum time interval between two trains travelling at maximum power on a same maglev track in the same direction?


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Sopomon said:


> I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.


Also remember that China is where Europe and the US were in the 19th century. 

During the early and mid 19th century Europe and the US build railroads at a tremendous pace. That is because both were industrialising rapidly at that time. Also then it was not uncommon for large stations to be built outside cities, just like it is in China now. The cities later expanded to engulf them. One can expect that the same will happen in China.
China has the advantage of being able to do this at a moment where the state of the art has advanced so that 300kph trains are normal. But they have this advantage because they arrived late at the party...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> Given enough power, TGV tracks could host trains travelling at 600km/h on 5000m curve radii without risks of tipping over. But that would be tricky for passengers unless seat belts were deployed on seats.


Am I right in assuming that you are in favor of higher speeds because it would provide an excuse for forcing passengers to wear seat belts?

(In fact, if the superelevation is adjusted seat belts wouldn't be needed)


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

foxmulder said:


> LGV Nord has a min turn radius of 4000m so it is not up to standard of Chinese 350km/h network. I am sorry to let you down but it is the hard cold fact.


The LGV Nord is designed for 350km/h - THAT is a cold hard fact.

If you go back a few pages you'll see that I stated that different authorities have different specifications as to what the minimum curve radius is required depending on their own decision as to the maximum lateral force the passengers should experience.

Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats. So, stop holding on the this 7km figure, as it doesn't make your point, whatever it is.



MarcVD" said:


> That's the other way around. It's the Paris-Brussels direction which is
> straight, and you need to take a curve to exit the line before you enter
> Lille. And yes indeed, the whole high speed line between Paris and Brussels
> can be travelled at max speed, without any slow down in between.


Thanks yes I knew this, I just didn't make it clear. I know the speed through Lille is 240km/h, but what is the linespeed of the direct line to Brussels? Is it full speed?


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

makita09 said:


> Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats.


Wouldn't that just be a matter of having sufficient super-elevation?

Of course, extreme super-elevation then becomes a problem for slower trains...


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

makita09 said:


> Technically a train is perfectly capable of negotiating a 2km curve at 300km/h, the passengers wouldn't unless strapped to their seats. So, stop holding on the this 7km figure, as it doesn't make your point, whatever it is.


Care to show some *PROOF* to back up your claim?


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

Sopomon said:


> This is a fair enough point, however it's an extremely inefficient use of resources.


No it is not. If it is arable land then it is probably better use of the resources. Or if land is too expensive because it is on an urban area. Japan is even planing to build its maglev line in tunnels mostly because of the cost of land acquisition. So it is a choice you should make for better use of the land. 



> Wenzhou train crash. How close was it to utterly destroying the nearby houses? Because it's falling from a height, it can travel further. Also this is an utterly baseless claim.


You didn't get my point. I prefer to have a house next to an elevated line if I had livestock for example. There is zero possibility that something can walk on lines.  (Germany accident... poor animals  )



> Or you know, elevate the track in the valleys, and tunnel through the mountains. (Which is exactly what every HSL in the world does, btw). Having it on viaducts the entire route is just wasteful when on a large area of flat land.


It is not wasteful. It is better planing, especially for China. 



> This point has been proven wrong multiple times, stop bringing it up. The highest average speed is because it has the longest distances between stops.


huh?? When did that happen?  All lines mentioned as having 7000m min curve radius in reality have tighter ones. Sorry 




> This solution only really exists in Japan, and it is to stabilize the ballast in the event of an earthquake.


Earthquake is one of the reasons why a more stable track is better. Overall, if you have resources, there is no excuse not to use ballastless track. 



> I think you'll find that in terms of sheer amount, China is the leader. But remember it was German engineers who planned and designed nearly all of it. China simply has the political will to build these lines, not the technical know-how nor experience, thus it's hard to say that China is truly the leader.


Technology came from Germany but they did not plan or design vast portions of the network. Right now, China is pretty much have the full capability to build the cutting edge high speed lines. 








makita09 said:


> The LGV Nord is designed for 350km/h - THAT is a cold hard fact.


That does not change its minimum curve radius. *It is 4000m on LGV Nord.* Trains can go 1000km/h if they can. It is not the point.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Okay, this discussion is now being rehashed again and again. I think I am going to have to lock this thread as we've reached a bit of an impasse.


----------

