Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 251 posts

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#191

Post by pmyteh »

lmm wrote: post #40
pyb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I've always thought it was completely ridiculous. What's the 'justification' for it ?

Guess: when originally built those carriages didn't have door locking. It was felt it would be unsafe to have a handle on the inside that could be accidentally opened while the train was moving at high speed. So the handle is on the outside so that it takes a very deliberate effort to open the door (and hopefully people know better than to reach out of a window at high speed).

This. These trains were originally not fitted with central locking, and being able to (accidentally?) open the door at 125mph is obviously unsafe.

There have been a few converted to more conventional power doors, but the original design is not such that this is easy; it's a pretty major rebuild and it's not clear they're going to be in service long enough to make it worthwhile.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#192

Post by _delirium »

Spooky23 wrote: post #187
ghaff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people do indeed want to get from Point A to point B quickly. That's why there are around 75,000 plane flights per day. There are very few city pairs in the US with the potential volume to justify high speed rail. There already is high speed-ish rail travel in the Northeast and it's very popular. But, for example, even if you could magically offer 6-8 hour train service between New York and Chicago, relatively f…

There are tons of good city pairs. People are paying to be carted like baggage by Spirit. We subsidize highways and air travel at the expense of other ground options. It shouldn't be 70% cheaper for me to drive my family to Florida or the Carolinas for vacation from NY vs air or rail. But it is. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, do that I95 trip every year. There are dozens of corridors like that.

The "Texas triangle" is one example of some good city pairs, which are a lot more practically situated than the pie-in-the-sky NYC-LA route people always bring up as a reason HSR won't work in the U.S. due to distances (and this is not the only such set of routes, just a particularly high-volume set).

Houston-Dallas is a very high-volume city pair forming one leg of the triangle, of length around 250 miles. People do fly on this route, but most people don't, because between the airports' relatively inconvenient location (especially Houston's), security, delays, etc., it doesn't save you that much time. So most people just drive. But driving is just far enough, and stress/traffic-filled enough, that many people who drive that route regularly hate doing so (it takes 4-6 hours, depending on how good a day you're having, and much of that is with wall-to-wall traffic containing a heavy volume of trailer trucks in the mix). I've done it many times myself, and I'd love to take a train instead. For me personally, it wouldn't even have to be that fast: if the train could get me there reliably in 3 hours (i.e. average speed 85 mph, not even talking about Shinkansen speeds), I'd be very satisfied. Related things can be said about the other two legs of the triangle: San Antonio - Houston (200 miles) and the San Antonio - Austin - Dallas corridor (80+195 = 275 miles).

The topography here is also more friendly to rail than, for example, LA-SF, being mostly flat and open and with shorter distances. But unfortunately the state-level political geography is less friendly (at a local level rail is popular in all four of these cities, but the state is another matter).

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#193

Post by pmyteh »

pyb wrote: post #189
pmontra wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another guess: a handle on the outside costs less than one on both sides and there is a window to access the outside handle. Or: passengers were not supposed to operate those doors, there was railway personnel for that (this assumes very old trains) Check: there is something about that issue here https://lukehalliwell.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/horrible-door... "they firstly removed the interior door handles as a dirt-…

We are talking about recent carriages here (10-20 years old)

They're quite a bit older than this, assuming you're thinking of the British examples. The last Mark 3 coach was made in 1988, and the Mark 4s have sliding plug power doors.

It was still an odd design decision, though. There had been electric doors on BR multiple units since the 70s.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#194

Post by ghaff »

_delirium wrote: post #192
Spooky23 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of good city pairs. People are paying to be carted like baggage by Spirit. We subsidize highways and air travel at the expense of other ground options. It shouldn't be 70% cheaper for me to drive my family to Florida or the Carolinas for vacation from NY vs air or rail. But it is. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, do that I95 trip every year. There are dozens of corridors like that.

The "Texas triangle" is one example of some good city pairs, which are a lot more practically situated than the pie-in-the-sky NYC-LA route people always bring up as a reason HSR won't work in the U.S. due to distances (and this is not the only such set of routes, just a particularly high-volume set). Houston-Dallas is a very high-volume city pair forming one leg of the triangle, of length around 250 miles. People do…

But these are very spread out cities so if you fly (or take a hypothetical train) you now need to rent a car at the other end. I was in Dallas a while back and basically couldn't walk to a restaurant a mile away because there was no sidewalk.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#195

Post by ebrewste »

ajmurmann wrote: post #161
ghaff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people do indeed want to get from Point A to point B quickly. That's why there are around 75,000 plane flights per day. There are very few city pairs in the US with the potential volume to justify high speed rail. There already is high speed-ish rail travel in the Northeast and it's very popular. But, for example, even if you could magically offer 6-8 hour train service between New York and Chicago, relatively f…

I think your point is generally valid for the US. However, Chicago-NYC might be a bad example, since it actuality might be viable. The Shinkansen goes ~200mp/h and thus would be able to go back and forth in 4-5hrs. Given that trains are less weather dependent, can drop you off on there middle of the city rather than the outskirts and don't come with the same security theater you probably come out with a comparable ti…

In addition, every train I have been on is more comfortable than any but the most expensive airline fares.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#196

Post by lmm »

pmyteh wrote: post #193
pyb wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about recent carriages here (10-20 years old)

They're quite a bit older than this, assuming you're thinking of the British examples. The last Mark 3 coach was made in 1988, and the Mark 4s have sliding plug power doors. It was still an odd design decision, though. There had been electric doors on BR multiple units since the 70s.

The Mark 3 coaches were made for the High Speed Train, right? So the safety (or "safety") requirements were probably higher than for previous coaches.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#197

Post by MarkMc »

mozumder wrote: post #97
neolefty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ridden those trains (spent 2011-2016 in China), and they're pretty great, but they're hard to justify economically: > The overall bill is already high. China Railway Corporation, the state-owned operator of the train system, has debts of more than 4trn yuan, equal to about 6% of GDP. Strains were evident last year when China Railway Materials, an equipment-maker, was forced to restructure part of its debts. Si…

Are these supposed to make a profit? Isn't this a state-run project, like highways? Aren't the debts covered by the state anyways, via taxes? Also, economic justifications are broad concepts.. how would it compare against a country like the US that has oil and people can therefore drive cars for cheap, whereas China doesn't have oil? Is high-speed rail a more economically efficient system than cars?

> Are these supposed to make a profit? Isn't this a state-run project, like highways?

Yes, high-speed rail could be worthwhile even if it doesn't make a profit. I haven't seen any figures about high-speed rail so it may be a good investment. But in general I think China's investment boom is bad in the long term. By taking on so much debt to fund projects that have little economic return China is setting itself up for a lost decade or two like Japan.

> Aren't the debts covered by the state anyways, via taxes?

Yes, the debt is effectively passed on to taxpayers.

> Also, economic justifications are broad concepts.. how would it compare against a country like the US that has oil and people can therefore drive cars for cheap, whereas China doesn't have oil?

Sure, you need to look at the economy as a whole and the cost of energy is a factor. But that would include the cost of coal-fired power to run the trains - including costs of pollution.

> Is high-speed rail a more economically efficient system than cars?

China already had slow-speed trains and fast airplanes. So the better comparison is between (a) upgrading the capacity of the existing rail and airport systems; (b) building an entirely new rail network.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#198

Post by ghaff »

Spooky23 wrote: post #187
ghaff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people do indeed want to get from Point A to point B quickly. That's why there are around 75,000 plane flights per day. There are very few city pairs in the US with the potential volume to justify high speed rail. There already is high speed-ish rail travel in the Northeast and it's very popular. But, for example, even if you could magically offer 6-8 hour train service between New York and Chicago, relatively f…

There are tons of good city pairs. People are paying to be carted like baggage by Spirit. We subsidize highways and air travel at the expense of other ground options. It shouldn't be 70% cheaper for me to drive my family to Florida or the Carolinas for vacation from NY vs air or rail. But it is. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, do that I95 trip every year. There are dozens of corridors like that.

I'm not sure I understand. Even if rail were cheaper to get from, say, Boston to Charlotte, you'd then almost certainly have to rent a car for that vacation so it's hard to see a train being an economical option for most families.

And Amtrak does offer an auto train though from Virginia to Florida.

I like the train but I don't assume it's a particularly economic option.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#199

Post by pmyteh »

lmm wrote: post #196
pmyteh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're quite a bit older than this, assuming you're thinking of the British examples. The last Mark 3 coach was made in 1988, and the Mark 4s have sliding plug power doors. It was still an odd design decision, though. There had been electric doors on BR multiple units since the 70s.

The Mark 3 coaches were made for the High Speed Train, right? So the safety (or "safety") requirements were probably higher than for previous coaches.

Yes; derivative Mark 3A/B loco hauled stock was later also built for the West Coast Main Line (plus a bunch of sleepers).

I don't know whether the crash standards for 125mph running were higher at the time. The Mark 3s are generally very strong, and have held up to high-speed crashes better than their predecessors, so something was definitely done right.

They weren't fitted with central door locking until the early 90s, though, and even now it's not interlocked with either the train power or an 'actually closed' sensor - so it relies on the guard to make sure the train doesn't set off with a door open.

Re: China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

#200

Post by legodt »

leviathant wrote: post #136
neolefty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ridden those trains (spent 2011-2016 in China), and they're pretty great, but they're hard to justify economically: > The overall bill is already high. China Railway Corporation, the state-owned operator of the train system, has debts of more than 4trn yuan, equal to about 6% of GDP. Strains were evident last year when China Railway Materials, an equipment-maker, was forced to restructure part of its debts. Si…

> But they're built now, and that isn't going to be undone. I hope. I work in a city where bike commuters have to dodge trolley tracks from electric trolleys that stopped running decades ago. We're converting an old train viaduct into an elevated park, although where that viaduct goes below grade, the construction of a building within the old right-of-way prevents full utilization of what had been old railroad tracks…

I'm pretty sure I know what city you are talking about and I've definitely been caught in the tracks all over town. At least the active line on Girard has bike lines running parallel
Post reply on HN