Maglev train, Shanghai
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Owl's Head, Maine
    Posts
    2,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    352
    Likes (Received)
    592

    Default Maglev train, Shanghai

    maglev-train-shanghai.jpg

    "Vanaf Pudong airport".
    Admittedly not typical of rail transport there, but nevertheless a sobering photograph for those few who still dismiss Chinese manufacturing as primitive.

    -Marty-

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    672
    Likes (Received)
    1213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Feldman View Post
    maglev-train-shanghai.jpg

    "Vanaf Pudong airport".
    Admittedly not typical of rail transport there, but nevertheless a sobering photograph for those few who still dismiss Chinese manufacturing as primitive.

    -Marty-
    That train was actually built by Siemens.

    Not what I would really call a commercial success, though interesting technology.

    Shanghai Maglev Train - Wikipedia

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    Yeah, it's a German project involving among others Siemens, Thyssen-Krupp and Krauss-Maffei.
    It was originally called "Transrapid".
    When the ICE came, interest was lost in Germany. And after an accident with over 20 people killed it was pretty much shelved.
    You can still see the test track in Emsland on Google satellite maps.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Owl's Head, Maine
    Posts
    2,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    352
    Likes (Received)
    592

    Default

    Ron Ginger found the following online:

    "China has spent $360 billion over the past decade building 13,670 miles of high speed rail lines, more than the rest of the world combined. The trains can reach speeds of 250 mph, and by 2020 will connect 80 percent of the country's major cities." And he notes that my thought that this train might be a unique showpiece is not accurate.

    -Marty-

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    China has a lot of trains better than Amtrak. there in general is a higher % without cars and many work far from home. when they want to go home and see the family it is fast convenient and relatively cheap to take the train.
    .
    last time i went to NYC from Rochester, NY i did not realize the traffic and parking problems and expenses of New York City which has subway and buses, although very old subway. for many easier to take a train to a big city as you will not be using a car much anyway.
    .
    it is more a big city with easy public transportation and difficult and expensive to park cars thing. there is a reason people pay big money to park their car on floating barrages in Manhattan. literally you might find parking over $20 unless you park over 2 miles away and walk. if you going to walk 2 miles why did you take a car ?? quite different than a small city where it is easy and cheap to park just about anywhere

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Feldman View Post
    Ron Ginger found the following online:

    "China has spent $360 billion over the past decade building 13,670 miles of high speed rail lines, more than the rest of the world combined. The trains can reach speeds of 250 mph, and by 2020 will connect 80 percent of the country's major cities." And he notes that my thought that this train might be a unique showpiece is not accurate.

    -Marty-
    Sounds like a quote from a Chinese government press release.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Owl's Head, Maine
    Posts
    2,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    352
    Likes (Received)
    592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benta View Post
    Sounds like a quote from a Chinese government press release.
    The source of the OP quote was stated to be "The Week", a weekly British news magazine that has been running in GB for 22 years and in the US for 16 years. While I am not a close follower of it and know nothing of its management, it appears to be quite respected in some serious quarters, with no discernable ties to the Chinese government. Perhaps some of you who are more familiar with it can comment on its soundness as a source of news.

    -Marty-

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    My reply was based on the "250 mph" statement, which is pure fantasy. It is phrased so you think that 250 mph trains are flying criss-cross through China.
    High speed rail in China is defined as >200 km/h, which is impressive in itself, though in no way revolutionary. A few select routes reach 250 and even 300 km/h, which is on par with TGV and ICE.
    250 mph is over the moon, except for the maglev.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benta View Post
    My reply was based on the "250 mph" statement, which is pure fantasy. It is phrased so you think that 250 mph trains are flying criss-cross through China.
    High speed rail in China is defined as >200 km/h, which is impressive in itself, though in no way revolutionary. A few select routes reach 250 and even 300 km/h, which is on par with TGV and ICE.
    250 mph is over the moon, except for the maglev.
    .
    .
    very few trains go over 100 mph cause of the tracks. most tracks in China are on concrete sleepers. i saw no wood timbers. you really want to be on any train going over 100 mph on bad tracks ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    2,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1246
    Likes (Received)
    3568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF_TomB View Post
    China has a lot of trains better than Amtrak.
    Not exactly something to pat yourself on the back about

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    2,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1619
    Likes (Received)
    1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF_TomB View Post
    .
    .
    very few trains go over 100 mph cause of the tracks. most tracks in China are on concrete sleepers. i saw no wood timbers. you really want to be on any train going over 100 mph on bad tracks ?
    Very few of our trains go over 79 MPH because they share tracks with freight... and the owner of the tracks is in the freight hauling business. Most freight doesn't care how fast it gets to its destination, consistency is more important than speed. Amtrak, with its trains full of retired tourists, is a tenant, and an irritant. No reason these passenger have to get to their destinations quickly, either.

    Dennis

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Owl's Head, Maine
    Posts
    2,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    352
    Likes (Received)
    592

    Default

    Not sure I agree with Modelman's "No reason these passenger have to get to their destinations quickly, either." That may be true in a completely rational world, but speed is a major factor in selling tickets. If I go on a 500 mi train trip and have to spend 5 hours doing it (the train doing 100 mph), and another company comes along that lets me make the trip in 2 hours (their train doing 250 mph), I know which of the two tickets I am going to pick. Of course, the closer the two speeds are, the more comfort & convenience factors come into play.

    I don't know much about the rail freight business, but I also wonder about Modelman's other statement, that most freight doesn't care about speed of delivery. My guess is that for many classes of freight, an obvious example being where food spoilage is a factor, getting stuff from A to B quickly might well make more money than getting it there more slowly.

    -Marty-

  13. Likes digger doug liked this post
  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    just saying laying railroad tracks on wood sleepers might be ok for slow trains but fast trains need a stable foundation and tracks are on concrete sleepers
    .
    like having a racecar designed for 200 mph and a very flat (smooth no bumps) race track. that same race car going on a gravel or dirt road aint going 200 mph. lucky it goes 20 mph
    .
    fast train means nothing without good tracks to run on

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF_TomB View Post
    just saying laying railroad tracks on wood sleepers might be ok for slow trains but fast trains need a stable foundation and tracks are on concrete sleepers
    So what does a 120 car consist of "heavy freight" ride on when doing over 100 mph ?

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modelman View Post
    Very few of our trains go over 79 MPH because they share tracks with freight... and the owner of the tracks is in the freight hauling business. Most freight doesn't care how fast it gets to its destination, consistency is more important than speed. Amtrak, with its trains full of retired tourists, is a tenant, and an irritant. No reason these passenger have to get to their destinations quickly, either.

    Dennis
    They routinely go over 100 mph west of chicago, hauling fresh veggies east from the west coast....

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    So what does a 120 car consist of "heavy freight" ride on when doing over 100 mph ?
    .
    .
    just saying in the USA laying modern design stable train tracks is very rare. often train like in Shanghai is more a show piece train. something to brag about. in actual practice Shanghai subways trains get 100x more people every day. subway dont go 100 mph cause people often standing. if stop sudden everybody would fall down. still Shanghai subway is a lot more modern better train than NYC subway

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    2,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1619
    Likes (Received)
    1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Feldman View Post
    That may be true in a completely rational world, but speed is a major factor in selling tickets.
    So is price... and the fact is, the people who want to go fast won't pay the cost of going fast, at least not enough of them. They want to use my taxes to pay for their enjoyable speedy trip.

    We used to have quite a bit of territory that ran in excess of 100 MPH during the steam era, there was a famous sign at Roundout, north of Chicago on the Milwaukee Road that said SLOW TO 100 MPH. That was when railroads were the fastest way to travel, and corporate titans, and other people of means, liked the speed. The could also pay for it, and many other amenities that made the trains pay their way. But after WWII, the advent of commercial aviation took that clientele away, with family autos taking a large bite of the rest. What was left was the "Greyhound clientele", who want cheap.

    China is using their high speed rail for political reasons... judging that people won't miss the freedom of a personal auto if they can get where they want to go by train, and they may be right. But that genie is already out of the bottle here.

    Dennis

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF_TomB View Post
    .
    .
    just saying in the USA laying modern design stable train tracks is very rare. often train like in Shanghai is more a show piece train. something to brag about. in actual practice Shanghai subways trains get 100x more people every day. subway dont go 100 mph cause people often standing. if stop sudden everybody would fall down. still Shanghai subway is a lot more modern better train than NYC subway
    What do you mean by "Modern" ?

    If wood sleepers work for heavy freight (Heaviest in the world along with Australia BTW)
    Hauling at over 100 mph, who needs to change anything ?

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    in New York State i never see any railroads with concrete sleepers. maybe out west in a few areas but USA has some really old tracks in places. i rarely see any trains going over 60 mph

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    10,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    What do you mean by "Modern" ?

    If wood sleepers work for heavy freight (Heaviest in the world along with Australia BTW)
    Hauling at over 100 mph, who needs to change anything ?
    .
    .
    you need a good thick concrete foundation for stable tracks. normally laying long lasting stable rail road tracks is what takes the longest time and greatest expense. you cant go fast on wavy tracks
    .
    freight dont object to a bumpy ride. people get sea sick on long bumpy rides


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •