Comments on: New Wuhan-Guangzhou Rail Route Shatters Average Speed Records

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:27:06 +0000

Indeed, it’s somewhat silly to include the DC -> Newport News segment as part of the high-speed Northeast Corridor. I used to live near Newport News, and you’d be an idiot to use it if you also owned a car (NN is also home to one of the worst bus services on the planet). Even at that, AirTran runs several flights a day to NYC that are cheaper and more convenient than the train.

There are urban metro systems that run faster and stay closer to their schedule than those trains, not to mention that only 2 trains run the route in each direction every day.

Also note that the Richmond to Newport News segment is particularly bad, as it is single-tracked the entire way, stops just barely short of Norfolk/VA Beach (a huge metropolitan area), and shares a track with a very busy freight line.

By: W. K. Lis

W. K. Lis — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:14:27 +0000

“Unlike Western countries, which tend to prioritize the preservation of existing city centers and which are willing to alter routes dramatically to respond to citizen concerns, Chinese officials can ram through huge, invasive infrastructure projects virtually anywhere. In general, this means Chinese trains are able to accelerate more quickly and maintain their top running speeds even in heavily populated areas.”

Except for highways! The U.S., in the latter part of the 20th century, would ram though wide highways in cities. At least with the railway, they use a narrower right-of-way compared with highways.

By: Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:54:56 +0000

Thanks for the comments on speed and distance, everyone. I adjusted the piece a bit and added an update at the end.

By: ez

ez — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:23:24 +0000

Hey, it’s THREE hours, not FOUR!!!

By: LaoLan

LaoLan — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:25:22 +0000

Tickets on sale now for the High Speed Train between Guangzhou and Wuhan. The ticket lane is located at Guangzhou East Railway Station at the far left hand side of the ticket counters on the east side of the station’s main door way.

By: AndyDuncan

AndyDuncan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:30:33 +0000

CHSRA’s time estimates for a San Diego-San Francisco run (991 km) of 3:54 minutes would give that line an even higher average speed (252 km/h) than the Wuhan-Guangzhou line. LA-SF is slightly faster (264 km/h), but not as long. Of course the SD-SF line doesn’t exist yet.

By: Max Wyss

Max Wyss — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:19:15 +0000

A bit off-topic, but today, Sunday, December 20 2009 was not a good day for high speed rail. If you understand a little bit of French, have a loo here: http://www.infolignes.com/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=10

In short, no Eurostars through the channel tunnel, delays because of heavy snow in northern France, and in Paris; an hour or more delay with various TGVs because they were not prepared in time and ready at the departure platform… General delays of 10 to 30 minutes because of reduced speed on the high speed lines because of snow…

Note: as far as is know right now, the Eurostars (technically TGVs) broke down in the Channel Tunnel, after running through very cold and snowy weather, and then the condensation and refreezing caused by the higher temperature in the tunnel caused electrical components to give up their ghost… The Eurotunnel shuttle trains are not affected, on the other hand because they don’t run very far outside of the tunnel.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:52:57 +0000

Amtrak’s diesel trains take much longer to accelerate to top speed. The electric trains accelerate faster – e.g. the Acela loses 5 minutes out of stopping in Metropark, in New Jersey’s 215 km/h zones.

By: Max Wyss

Max Wyss — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:33:07 +0000

These numbers sound plausible to me.

Again, not knowing the details, I would estimate the speed of the Nozomi through the stops with 2 minutes time difference to be around, but not much above 100 km/h.

On the other hand, extrapolating my recent experiences on Amtrak, I would put some doubts on the 3 minutes in the Bay area, unless the line speed in that area is at around 80 km/h … but then, it can never be excluded that the California operator looks and learns from overseas .

Just for curiosity’s sake, I checked the schedules for the TGV Est Europe. The nonstop trains between Paris and Nancy take 1:30; the one stopping at Meuse TGV takes 1:38… again 8 minutes penalty for stopping at a stop out in the boonies.

Between Paris and Strasbourg, a stop in Saverne (on the “old” line) adds between 3 and 5 minutes to the schedule.

In addition, I looked at the differences between the TGVs and the TER200 between Basel and Strasbourg. The difference is 18 minutes, where the TGVs run at 220 km/h and have three stops less than the TER200, running at 200 km/h. (TGV: 1:08, stopping at Mulhouse; TER200: 1:26, stopping at St.Louis, Mulhouse, Colmar and Selestat; but TGV: 400 m long, technical top speed 320 km/h, TER200: 150 m long, technical top speed 200 km/h)

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:46:05 +0000

Max, Greg: you can look at Shinkansen schedules as well – the greenfield stops there have a time penalty of about 7 minutes each, with a dwell of 50 seconds per stop. High-speed trains take a lot of time to decelerate and accelerate.

However, sometimes lines in built-up areas have lower speed limits due to curves and noise issues, reducing the time penalty. California’s HSR authority believes the time penalty incurred by each extra stop in the Bay Area is only 3 minutes, and the Shinkansen has some stops in urban areas that Nozomi trains only save 2 minutes skipping.