China's Shinkansen: China’s WuGuang rail line employs locally-manufactured variants of Japan’s Shinkansen (pictured) and Siemens’ Velaro high speed trains. However, it is the line’s physical and digital infrastructure that enables the trains to beat world speed records.
China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock.
Dedicated lines are the key to record-breaking speeds.
China has begun operating what is, by several measures, the world's fastest rail line: a dedicated 968-kilometer line linking Wuhan, in the heart of central China, to Guangzhou, on the southeastern coast. In trials, the "WuGuang" line trains (locally built variants of Japan's Shinkansen and Germany's InterCity Express high-speed trains) clocked peak speeds of up to 394 kilometers per hour (or 245 miles per hour). They have also recorded an average speed of 312 kph in nonstop runs four times daily since the WuGuang's December 26 launch, slashing travel time from Wuhan to Guangzhou from 10.5 hours to less than three.
WuGuang's speed blows away the reigning champion: France's TGV, which runs from Lorraine to Champagne and averages 272 kph. It also bests China's first high-speed train, the Beijing-to-Tianjin trains that average 230 kph, as well as Shanghai's magnetically levitated airport shuttle trains that can hit 430 kph but average less than 251 kph.
Rail experts say the builders of the new WuGuang line deserve more bragging rights than the trains' European and Japanese designers.
"The high-speed rail technology implemented in China is not that much different from the TGV, Germany's ICE, and the Shinkansen," says Rongfang Liu, a rail expert at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark. What is notable, she and others say, is that unlike many high-speed lines that repurpose older tracks, this one was designed from the ground up for very high-speed operation over hundreds of kilometers. Bridges and tunnels, as well as the concrete bed beneath the track, have been designed to safely rocket passengers around, through, or over the natural and man-made obstacles that would otherwise force the trains to slow down.
Plenty more speedy lines are coming in China under an ambitious build-out initiated in 2006 by China's Ministry of Railways, and accelerated with government stimulus funds. A two-trillion-yuan ($293 billion) plan envisions 16,000 kilometers of dedicated high-speed rail lines connecting all of China's major cities by 2020. The first East-West segment--a link from Xi'an to Zhengzhou--could begin operating as early as this month, and work is underway to extend the Beijing-Tianjin line southward to Shanghai by 2012. WuGuang, meanwhile, is expected to expand northward to Beijing and South to Hong Kong by 2013. "Over the next five years there'll be more high-speed rail added in China than the rest of the world combined," says Keith Dierkx, director of IBM's Beijing-based Global Rail Innovation Center.
High-speed rail is seen as a clean way to boost the expansion of China's transportation system, according to Dierkx. Dedicated lines will help meet rail demand, which is expected to more than triple to five billion passengers per year by 2020. And building these lines is seen as preferable to further expanding reliance on imported oil for automobiles and airplanes. Dierkx says dedicated high-speed rail should also improve freight transportation by easing congestion on conventional rail lines.
Building fast lines requires civil engineering works on a massive scale. WuGuang has 625 bridges with a combined length of 362 kilometers, and 221 tunnels with a combined length of 177 kilometers, contributing to a total construction cost of 116 billion yuan ($17 billion). The 1,300-kilometer Beijing-to-Shanghai line will cost an estimated 221 billion yuan--more than the Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric project.
However, experts say part of the high cost will be paid back through lower operating costs. Rather than laying rail on wood or concrete sleepers set into crushed rock, the Chinese rails are almost exclusively set into beds of concrete slabs designed by German rail engineering firms RAIL.ONE and Max Bögl. This eliminates damage to the track and rolling stock caused by flying stones lifted by turbulence from the high-speed trains. It also reduces wear on the wheels from shifting tracks.
Taking a cue from Europe and Japan, the U.S. gets on track with high-speed trains.
How a maglev train works.
This is a classic case of reverse innovation. USA can benefit from this form of reverse innovation. It is a great opportunity to use the technology available to build similar lines in the USA. It is nice to see the rail road emerging as a vital form of sustainable transportation. This will spur economic growth and pave the way for other innovative technologies.The new method of laying tracks on pre-cast concrete is a case in point.
With our nations transportation infrusture in such a mess, it makes sense we "rebuild" our future and incorporate less sexy means of transportation like rail systems (ok - admittedly the high speed stuff is cool).
What's lacking in this article are some key points on operational aspects of rails.
What does it cost to power - some measurement that we can put a price on would be helpful
What is the pollution output - relative to single passenger or even aircraft since these speedy systems provide coverage for more distant runs.
At $25/day - cheaper than a commuter flight for the same distance, seems pretty reasonable. The lower cost seats are competative with cars since you have fuel, maintenance + parking and insurance costs to consider.
Obama could use a couple million good paying jobs at the moment.
I hope the US Secretary of Transportation is keeping an eye on stuff like this. Those Billions is Earmark dollars we spend every year could be redirected to something like this. In fact, a heck of a lot of those earmark dollars are spent to expand existing roads due to congestion already.
You think any of the Domestic Automakers could benefit from developing mass transit systems as part of a new business model expansion? I think a secondary income stream might make sense for them.
The transportation infrastructure in the United States really needs some serious updating, and China's high speed railway system is certainly a good example that Washington could take a look at. I would not call China a leader in high speed railways just yet, but I think they're on their way there, fast, for one thing I know about the Chinese is that they learn things quickly.
One point I'd like to make is that how the high speed railways are powered is a critical issue. If they're still powered by coal-fired power plants, then while they don't pollute the air in the surrounding regions, there's still room for improvement on the "sustainability" front. Most of China's electricity still comes from old coal-fired plants, but it's a good thing that Beijing continues to move aggressively on developing renewable power generation. That's something the United States needs make more progress on as well.
I remember working in the early 90's on Clean Coal Technology. We were designing huge catalytic converters for power plants (Desulphurization) What has happened in that front? Plus the Department of Energy was sponsoring a lot of research on it.
Just another example of how China (closely followed by India) are making huge strides in both developing and implementing large scale technology projects. Regardless of what you think of their lack of respect for IP ownership, the so-called 'West' (especially the USA) needs to wake up and smell the roses, or else we will find our economic health totally dependent on the scraps that fall off the table from the 'East'.
Maybe this is a small point, but I would have preferred if at the end the article read, "Canadian designed high-speed trains" to clear up confusion on my part.
When i was in China traveling between Suzhou to Shanghai by train this year and could see them building the high speed line line on a seperate alignment . It was all bridge structure for the full length of my hour train ride and this is only a small part of the line.
Missing critical assumptions make cost estimates for new tracks irrelevant and conclusions about them misleading.
1. China pays nothing for land (they obtained it by shooting all landowners) and in most locations off the coast relatively low value buildings and infrastructure can be demolished for ground level tracks. In the U.S., if stations are to be in urban areas, costs for land in the U.S. would be huge, and the facilities above ground are so valuable that the train would be underground. The difference here is huge, somewhere from a factor of 5-10.
2. Costs of construction are way lower in China due to way lower wages. This difference is much smaller, maybe a factor of 2.
Where China may pay $20M per mile, we might pay $200M per mile. In less congested areas, where they may pay $10M per mile, we might pay $20M per mile.
3. What we might learn from China's experience about our construction and operating costs is nearly nil. No significant technological advancements here. Some incremental innovations in the trains themselves are more likely. Possible cost savings on all costs? Unlikely to be over 5%.
4. Any comparisons about average cost are hugely dependent upon ridership, which depends hugely on population densities and wealth.
If we had appropriate carbon taxes for global warming and oil taxes to reduce our economy's vulnerability to politically driven changes in oil prices, we should subsidize building track to the same extent we do for interstate highways. Beyond that the trains should pay their own way.
Re: Critical assumptions missing
"China pays nothing for land (they obtained it by shooting all landowners)"
Yes, they just shoot and kill anybody who owns land in China. That does make sense.
We can't even get the 710 finished here in Los Angeles. The rights of the few outweigh the rights of the majority. Instead we will have 5mph rush hour traffic until cars are finally smart enough to drive themselves. Bottom line is that China is going to leave us in the dust sooner than most people think!
Re: Critical assumptions missing
China's right of way rules and labor laws make it much more affordable for them to build the tracks. However, my comment on rebuilding our infrastructure - aka Roadways, Highways and Freeways - means we (taxpayers) already bought the land once, but are retooling it for rails. So the cost per mile is more affordable.
The 710 Freeway in Californication is a prime example. The California Taxpayers (of which I am a former one) already bought the land for the original 710 freeway (the PCH, 55, 5, 405 and 605 too for that matter)and can easily retrofit a lane or two in each direction for rails. The BART and Coaster are two good examples of mass rail transit. I liked getting on the Coaster in Carlsbad and riding down to Old Town in San Diego. Very scenic and relaxing if you ask me, and beats getting stuck in rush hour traffic near the Del Mar race track or at the Border Checkpoints.
Finally - I am not pro rail to the point we replace ALL routes with some rails, but only those areas were road congestion is at it's greatest.
Google "Trolley Cars + your city name" and you will most likely get a series of links that show where your city trolley lines ran in the 20's, 30's, 40's and possbly the 50's and you will quickly realize that many famous roads in your town were the result of paving over the trolley lines when cars became popular. Those routes also point back in time how your city evolved and spread out. By tearing out the road, and installing rails, the local cities can revitalize the transportation corridors with rail systems and permit the local population access to cheap, SUSTAINABLE and comfortable transportation. Cheap is debatable of course, but comfortable and safe to be certain. Sustainable - because these run on electrcity which can be generated by many processes. No foreign oil sounds like a winner to me IMHO!
Better still, we have modern tools like Wireless Internet so the AM commute can permit you to login using VPN and do your email on your way into work, take calls without risking your life, text a buddy or sip coffee while enjoying your surroundings. Our grandparents rode the rails, but actually talked to their fellow commuters or read the paper which can be enjoyable too.
The development of rails does not imply you get rid of the family sedan either. You still need some degree of independence, but using it less often means it will last longer. You may find lower insurance premiums too since rail is your primary mode of transportation to and from work. You certainly will save fuel and parking fees, as well as maintenance costs.
As exciting as high speed rail might be to enthusiasts, it comes with a cost that can never be recouped. The Chinese line was designed and built with the intent of acquiring bragging rights, not unlike the decades-old race to build the tallest building. Any supposed cost savings due to design are offset by the need to set extremely low ticket prices so as to capture enough rail travelers.
The California line will break world records as well. California has the most strict environmental impact laws in the nation. Add to that the requirements for union only labor, and Washington protocol with pork barrel funding with little to no oversight and you're looking at a likely new world record in boondoggle spending of historic proportions. The initial $8 billion was meant as a full funding. I anticipate it will be nothing more than a fractional down payment. This will never ever pay for itself.
Re: World Record of another type
Hmm Duude, like all freeway systems pay for themselves.....enlighten
No, the rails are to connect their country.
Except, instead of funding a massive interstate system, like we did, they are choosing rail.
Rail is more efficient energy wise.
It may also fit with the chinese theme of tying their country together and maybe even preventing the individual expression threat that people owning their own cars represents (in their govt's imagination).
I've traveled in the NY area subways and onto long island by train and it is way more convenient than dealing with leaving cars by vacation houses, etc. In fact the only time I drive a car into the city is if a train or subway doesn't go right where I want. e.g. the NYBG I take a car but the BBG I take express bus then subways to right in front of its' door, also right by a MOMA branch.
If the US Govt had not subsidized the massive road, freeway and interstate system we would have evolved a vast efficient rail network between cities much like what china is building.
At the city level, for example in Los Angeles, the henry huntington's train lines would have evolved over the years to resemble today's light rail, except much more extensive, criss-crossing the city like the lines in the early 1900's that were paved over for freeways. Huntington Beach was even named for him with the hope he would build a lite rail spur to the city, which he did, bringing beachgoers.
I found a 1960's map of the roads in Utah. To get to Salt lake city, or Zion NP or Bryce, you had to drive for hours and hours on tiny little roads. Scary.
Here's another blatant copy of Shinkansen, ICE and TGV. Although achieving highest testing speed is commendable, this is a result of reducing the safety margin of the design and pushing for speed. It just demonstrates how well designed these trains were to begin with. They have filed for several global patents for their so-called "unique" technologies. Give us a break, when all China did was to buy few trains from Germany, France and Japan, copy them and mixed them all up, increased the outputs with disregard to safety of the operations. I wouldn't be surprised if I hear major accidents or failures in the near future. Developing a high-speed train is a decades long culmination of research, testing and manufacturing technology. One trivial failure of a part can wreak havoc. If you've ever driven a Chinese made car, you'll feel first hand what I am trying to convey. But while a car accident may kill yourself and few others, a train accident kills hundreds. US should be cautious when it comes to Chinese claims.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
johncourtney
1 Comment
While the building of this train line is impressive, it should be noted that right now the cost of a ticket is far out of range for an average Chinese and most of these trains are operating well below full capacity (and therefore probably are not making a profit or are heavily subsidized).
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-12/31/content_9250025.htm
In addition, while the article states the trains were locally manufactured, I feel almost certain all of the technology involved was licensed (or copied?) from foreign firms. Also, it appears the locals in charge of operating the train are still working out the kinks, as they have no processes in place for transferring passengers between trains or dealing with trains stuck on the tracks.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/31/content_9249192.htm
Given all this, I don't if calling China a leader in the area of high speed rail is appropriate.
Reply
joepasky
1 Comment
Re: HIgh Speed Trains
Every time I get on the 4-year 'new' subway trains in Shenzhen at rush hour, they're jammed full. And SRO at any other time during the day. They keep building more lines, and extending the existing ones.
The new high speed train from Shenzhen to Dongguan/Guangzhou always seems to have very few empty seats. During the recent 'Canton Fair' they were running these new trains every 20 minutes to keep up with demand. Every day, the LuoHu station is mobbed with travelers. And literally thousands waiting in the station for outgoing trains during the holidays.
Can the average Chinese afford to travel? Well, you can get a seat on the train from Shenzhen to Beijing for about US$25. It takes 24 hours, but hey, it's only 25 bucks for the cheap seats.
The one-hour, high speed SZ to GZ run is about US$6; $12 for first class. And yes, there a lot of middle-class Chinese and enough business travelers to fill most of the 1st class seats.
I have no idea if China Rail making a profit on operations. I can't imagine they are not. Perhaps a dozen trains an hour that always seem to be full of paying customers leave the stations every hour in every large city in the Country. In my estimation they move all lot of people every day, every efficiently.
Certainly the government is footing the bill for the infrastructure, but isn't that what governments are supposed to do? I think we in the States have forgotten that. We are woefully behind and losing ground fast.
jjp-Shenzhen
Reply
skingw
31 Comments
The ticket is not very expensive
Seriously I think those guys who are arguing that the tickets are too high for average chinese are actually real socialists (who are now rare in China :-) They are arguing for those poor people, immigrant workers in most cases. If you consider average middle-class chinese (in millions and increasing), the price is affordable and attractive in most cases.
As for technology, I guess the biggest thing China has now is the ability to integrate and configure all the components into rail cars and rail tracks (with those components manufactured globally, designed globally, ....) to meet very different requirements, from Lhasa to Guangzhou (like from Alaska to California).
Reply
gabrielg01
450 Comments
Re: trains are subsidized
The high speed trains probably do not make money (yet), and they are highly subsidized. Just last week I was on the Shanghai Maglev at "rush hour", when the train hits 430km/h...there were about 5-7 people in our car. You can't pay for a multibillion dollar project with that kind of passenger traffic.
Anyways, these trains are very cool. Let them build as many as possible :))
Reply
Mapou
355 Comments
Re: trains are subsidized
In my opinion, if they are subsidized, they are making money. The Chinese taxpayers are paying for them one way or another. I personally believe that all public transportation systems should be 100% subsidized so as to free the people to focus on more productive activities. Few things stimulate economic growth like good transportation and communication systems. Add a cheap energy supply (the biggest problem for China, right now) and China's GNP could well surpass the rest of the world in a few years.
Reply
meidude
3 Comments
Re:
High speed railway lines in China, like all bus and subway systems in cities around the world, is a part of China's public transportation network, so of course the government is footing the bill. I think it's not that big an issue that they're losing money -- with a huge cash reserve, Beijing can well afford to while markets are being developed (maybe through lowering the ticket price). Yes, the Chinese is not a leader in high speed railways -- yet, but I think they're on the way there, fast.
Reply
mootled
1 Comment
Re: the average chinese can't afford the train.
The problem with the term "average chinese" when giving profitability is that "average" doesn't work like that.
If I have 2 sandwiches, and you have none, the average is one apiece, but one of us is going to be hungrier than the other.
China is supposedly a communist country, but the money is not distributed equally. Looking at quartiles, if only the top 25% can use it, because of their population base, of 1.3 billion, that 25% is larger than the entire population of the States.
Aside from that, the one child/couple law that was there means there is more money available per person per family for education, and of course, for luxuries like travel.
I think the problem of high speed trains in the states is probably more to do with wild animals... I haven't done the math, but I'd hate to hit a moose at 400 km per hour.
Reply
hoatce
2 Comments
Re: the average chinese can't afford the train.
I have a friend who was invited to trail the WuGuang Line once before its official start and he had been allowed to get in the control room in front of the train. He saw tons of birds hit on the front window, died.. that looks terrible
Reply