All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

Blitzo · Feb 20, 2011

Debt, anyone?
I'd like people's thoughts on this article, cheers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Will Massive Debt Derail China’s High Speed Train Plans?

Is China’s much-hyped and fast-expanding network of high-speed railways bracing for a slowdown?

After the head of China’s Ministry of Railways, Liu Zhijun, was removed last week because of an investigation into possible corruption, questions are being asked by various high-speed train experts whether the sacking of its leader would force the ministry to revise its plans to expand high-speed rail links across China.

Those questions are even more pertinent now with the revelation this week that the railways ministry under Mr. Liu’s stewardship has run up debts possibly in excess of 2 trillion yuan, or roughly $303 billion.

The Global Times, citing a report from the National Audit Office, said in its Wednesday edition that China’s Ministry of Railways was 1.3 trillion yuan in debt in 2009, with 854.8 billion yuan in short-term debt and 448.6 billion yuan in long-term debt. The paper quoted Zhao Jian, a researcher at Beijing Jiaotong University, as saying that “the debt had at least reached 2 trillion yuan by now, and the interests of those debts have grown too large for the government to afford.”

Some experts say those debt levels are unsustainable, even for a government accustomed to running up massive infrastructure tabs, given that many of the country’s high-speed rail links are having trouble making money.

The country already has built a high-speed rail network that as of November last year stretched 7,531 kilometers, according to the ministry. By 2020 China plans to expand the network to stunning 16,000 kilometers. Yet it’s not clear whether there’s sufficient demand to support all the construction. A senior Beijing-based executive for a foreign high-speed train producer that has transferred technology to Chinese train-set makers says that on many high-speed rail routes, such as the one linking the southern city of Guangzhou and the central city of Wuhan, some trains run “nearly empty.”

With high-speed trains failing so far to attract significant riders, and the railways ministry in such dire shape, a number of experts have begun to question the wisdom of the project.

Among the most damning of the criticisms, especially for a government whose oft-trumpeted motto is “Serve the People,” is that the high speed trains now linking major cities such as Beijing, Tianjin, Wuhan, Xian, Zhengzhou, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Nanjing do not benefit the general public, largely because of high ticket prices.

An end-to-end ticket on the high-speed Wuhan-Guangzhou line currently costs 469 yuan, or $70. That’s roughly the same price as an airline ticket booked a week in advance and twice as much as the most expensive “soft sleeper” ticket on the regular speed Wuhan-Guangzhou train.

Those numbers have led some in China to label the high-speed trains the “white-collar railway.”

The money being poured into high-speed railway projects, Beijing Jiaotong University’s Mr. Zhao tells Global Times, “could be used to develop the general rails, which could be more cost-effective to ease the transportation pressure.”

–Norihiko Shirouzu, with contributions from Josh Chin

I know there are some problems in HSR development, and the issue of ticket costs and building excessively over the public demand. Is this an issue at all, or will it be one of those problems which solve itself?

bladerunner · Feb 21, 2011

Bltizo said:
Debt, anyone?
I'd like people's thoughts on this article, cheers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know there are some problems in HSR development, and the issue of ticket costs and building excessively over the public demand. Is this an issue at all, or will it be one of those problems which solve itself?

I guess if one was to employ an international standard of cost analysis on the HSR project, then the continued development of HSR is not feasible at the expense of regular rail. However it would be a shame to let such hard earned technology lapse so I guess a compromise situation would be suitable, where the controversial projects such as the Maglev extension and the ever more faster trains such as the 1000k trains vacumless tube projects are put on hold. The money saved should be put back into improving the functionality of the regular train services, while the thought of 300 billion of lossess and HSR trains that run near empty do point to a lot of excess.
I think far to much reliance is put on the fact of the 3trillion surplus China holds I think a fair lot of that money already underpins China's continued social and infrastructural development hopes such as social security and health insurance.

SampanViking · Feb 21, 2011

HSR is safe because; as the ATOL article pointed out, it is primarily aimed at reducing the cost of long distance travel, rather than commuting and will become cheaper than short haul and transcontinental flights.

Why?

Because the cost of Aviation Fuel is sky rocketing, while train overhead power lines can be generated from any cost efficient source. I dare say also, that running trains over planes gives a better statistic in terms of energy consumption per unit of GDP and lower carbon emissions, which; if you recall, are things that China signed up to at the last two major environmental conferences.

Asymptote · Feb 21, 2011

SampanViking said:
HSR is safe because; as the ATOL article pointed out, it is primarily aimed at reducing the cost of long distance travel, rather than commuting and will become cheaper than short haul and transcontinental flights.

Why?

Because the cost of Aviation Fuel is sky rocketing, while train overhead power lines can be generated from any cost efficient source. I dare say also, that running trains over planes gives a better statistic in terms of energy consumption per unit of GDP and lower carbon emissions, which; if you recall, are things that China signed up to at the last two major environmental conferences.

Same can be said for EVs. I expect as EV becomes more popular, you going to get EV buses and coach.
And as with any road worthy vehicles, you can drive ANYWHERE, you don't need dedicated infrastructures like expensive train tracks and signal lights, rail crossings etc etc and expensive maintenance for these infrastructures.

The aviation fuel crisis, I think can also be alleviated with synthetic fuel.
As I recall, USAF is currently experimenting flying with synthetic fuel.

Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who knows, with current fuel crisis, we might eventually go back to AIRSHIP if all the fuels run out........

kyanges · Feb 21, 2011

Asymptote said:
Same can be said for EVs. I expect as EV becomes more popular, you going to get EV buses and coach.
And as with any road worthy vehicles, you can drive ANYWHERE, you don't need dedicated infrastructures like expensive train tracks and signal lights, rail crossings etc etc and expensive maintenance for these infrastructures.

The aviation fuel crisis, I think can also be alleviated with synthetic fuel.
As I recall, USAF is currently experimenting flying with synthetic fuel.

Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who knows, with current fuel crisis, we might eventually go back to AIRSHIP if all the fuels run out........

Nah, comparing HSR to roads isn't a good a comarison. People don't take the train to go everywhere, they take it to get one far away place, fast. I would much rather take an HSR to get across the country than take a really long road trip.

I think you had a good point with your comparison of aviation versus HSR, because you made a fair case for the advantages of aviation, namely prices, but more importantly it was a comparison between two systems that both strive to achieve the same goal, reaching a distant location as quickly as possible

One thing I'm not clear on, is the cost of maintain roads really way cheaper than maintaining a rail line? You still need crews for filling potholes, enforcing speed limits, road signs, etc don't you?

As I think about it, I'm not sure the issue of efficiency is so clear cut, that simply saying one is cheaper to build is the final word. Sure you can have trains that are under capacity, but just as surely you can have roads to no where. For an extreme example, would people rather drive to Tibet, or take the train? Would they rather fly? Would flying really be that much cheaper if few people really want to go there anyway? Would maintaining a road up there really be the best way compared to simply building single, sturdy and fast rail line? I think simply citing infrastructure costs make an incomplete argument. You have to look at what people are moving to different places for, and why. Flying to a remote region might always be more cost efficient and faster than a rail line, while driving between two close cities will always be better than taking the train.

I remember reading about the inefficiencies of the current model of air travel, which they dubbed the hub and spokes method. Massive terminals with thousands of flights, and multiple connections just to get somewhere can make flying just as inefficient and costly as an under-capacity HSR. But what are you gonna do? Build terminals everywhere? Some places simply might not want to deal with the noise, lol, costs be damned. XD .

bladerunner · Feb 21, 2011

kyanges said:
Nah, comparing HSR to roads isn't a good a comarison. People don't take the train to go everywhere, they take it to get one far away place, fast. I would much rather take an HSR to get across the country than take a really long road trip.

I think you had a good point with your comparison of aviation versus HSR, because you made a fair case for the advantages of aviation, namely prices, but more importantly it was a comparison between two systems that both strive to achieve the same goal, reaching a distant location as quickly as possible

One thing I'm not clear on, is the cost of maintain roads really way cheaper than maintaining a rail line? You still need crews for filling potholes, enforcing speed limits, road signs, etc don't you?

As I think about it, I'm not sure the issue of efficiency is so clear cut, that simply saying one is cheaper to build is the final word. Sure you can have trains that are under capacity, but just as surely you can have roads to no where. For an extreme example, would people rather drive to Tibet, or take the train? Would they rather fly? Would flying really be that much cheaper if few people really want to go there anyway? Would maintaining a road up there really be the best way compared to simply building single, sturdy and fast rail line? I think simply citing infrastructure costs make an incomplete argument. You have to look at what people are moving to different places for, and why. Flying to a remote region might always be more cost efficient and faster than a rail line, while driving between two close cities will always be better than taking the train.

I remember reading about the inefficiencies of the current model of air travel, which they dubbed the hub and spokes method. Massive terminals with thousands of flights, and multiple connections just to get somewhere can make flying just as inefficient and costly as an under-capacity HSR. But what are you gonna do? Build terminals everywhere? Some places simply might not want to deal with the noise, lol, costs be damned. XD .

However if you arent in a hurry cars offer greater flexibility. In a train one is governed by where a train stops, too many stops and the trip becomes variably longer.

bladerunner · Feb 21, 2011

Asymptote said:
The aviation fuel crisis, I think can also be alleviated with synthetic fuel.
As I recall, USAF is currently experimenting flying with synthetic fuel.

Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who knows, with current fuel crisis, we might eventually go back to AIRSHIP if all the fuels run out........

However all this natural gas and coal are still finite resources

delft · Feb 22, 2011

Asymptote said:
Same can be said for EVs. I expect as EV becomes more popular, you going to get EV buses and coach.
And as with any road worthy vehicles, you can drive ANYWHERE, you don't need dedicated infrastructures like expensive train tracks and signal lights, rail crossings etc etc and expensive maintenance for these infrastructures.

The aviation fuel crisis, I think can also be alleviated with synthetic fuel.
As I recall, USAF is currently experimenting flying with synthetic fuel.

Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who knows, with current fuel crisis, we might eventually go back to AIRSHIP if all the fuels run out........

This asks for a few remarks.
EV means, for the time being, carrying heavy batteries, which is inefficient. Later EV will mean vehicles with fuel cells ( twice the efficiency of the infernal combustion engine ) and perhaps synthetic fuel.
But using rail will be faster and less tiring travel.
The main change in the next ten to fifteen years will be the development of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors by China and, I hope, by other countries. This will provide a nuclear reactor that is safer and have about twice the thermal efficiency of the Light Water reactors we're used to. ( Also the world has about forty times as much Thorium as U235.) They can provide electricity to the railways, and everything else, replacing coal burning plants, and provide the energy for synthetic fuel.
For China that would mean an end to the import of coal, except coking coal, and oil and perhaps LNG.

I like especially the return of the airship. Not in the shape of the Zeppelin but using what is called a Metalclad. The fuel would be liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen tanks are huge for a given energy value because LH2 weights 90 kg per cubic meter. Winged aircraft with this fuel look hideous with their large tanks, but in an airship this is not a problem.
The "metalclad" would not be built from metal, as the first was, ZMC-2, but from fiber reinforced plastic. You can than safely use hydrogen as lifting gas and reduce lift by burning some of the gas, increase lift by evaporating more LH2 than you burn. An airship of this kind with the length of the "Hindenburg" might be twice as fast as that ship and fly halfway around the world after loading the same fuel fraction, 3.5 % of total weight, that "Hindenburg" loaded to fly from Frankfurt to New York.
Such an airship will need less ballast and thus carry more load than a Helium filled airship and its lifting gas is very much cheaper.

Asymptote · Feb 22, 2011

kyanges said:
Nah, comparing HSR to roads isn't a good a comarison. People don't take the train to go everywhere, they take it to get one far away place, fast. I would much rather take an HSR to get across the country than take a really long road trip.

I think you had a good point with your comparison of aviation versus HSR, because you made a fair case for the advantages of aviation, namely prices, but more importantly it was a comparison between two systems that both strive to achieve the same goal, reaching a distant location as quickly as possible

One thing I'm not clear on, is the cost of maintain roads really way cheaper than maintaining a rail line? You still need crews for filling potholes, enforcing speed limits, road signs, etc don't you?

As I think about it, I'm not sure the issue of efficiency is so clear cut, that simply saying one is cheaper to build is the final word. Sure you can have trains that are under capacity, but just as surely you can have roads to no where. For an extreme example, would people rather drive to Tibet, or take the train? Would they rather fly? Would flying really be that much cheaper if few people really want to go there anyway? Would maintaining a road up there really be the best way compared to simply building single, sturdy and fast rail line? I think simply citing infrastructure costs make an incomplete argument. You have to look at what people are moving to different places for, and why. Flying to a remote region might always be more cost efficient and faster than a rail line, while driving between two close cities will always be better than taking the train.

I remember reading about the inefficiencies of the current model of air travel, which they dubbed the hub and spokes method. Massive terminals with thousands of flights, and multiple connections just to get somewhere can make flying just as inefficient and costly as an under-capacity HSR. But what are you gonna do? Build terminals everywhere? Some places simply might not want to deal with the noise, lol, costs be damned. XD .

I don't understand why you would think it is not a fair comparison between railway vs bus-way?
Both form of transportation are almost identical except one runs on track, and the other one runs on road. If you ever taken an interstate coach service (like the ones in america) where you have toilets at the back and regular stops for rest, its pretty enjoyable, and relaxing to be honest.

Also, a bus is more modular than a train. You can increase number of buses on demand while you cannot do that with the train once it leaves the station.

One thing I'm not clear on, is the cost of maintain roads really way cheaper than maintaining a rail line? You still need crews for filling potholes, enforcing speed limits, road signs, etc don't you?

For one thing, with railroad tracks you need flat-bottom steel rails (costly!) supported on timber or pre-stressed concrete sleepers (referred to as railroad ties in the US), which are themselves laid on crushed stone ballast. Cost of raw materials (iron ores, even coals are now imported from Australia) are increasing EVERY YEAR for the past 10 years. That's something China needs to buy from OUTSIDE CHINA. Making asphalt road on other hand are relatively inexpensive by comparison - largely because you can get asphalt IN CHINA EVERYWHERE. Also, consider the maintenance issue - maintaining rail tracks requires specialized equipment and specially trained crews - while maintaining the road requires minimal training of the crew, and relatively inexpensive equipments (at most basic level - workers with shovels are all that needed. Most developed countries use road roller to compact the road surface). Also when you are maintaining the rail track, the whole rail track is almost always down, where as for bus-way/highway they can do that incrementally working on one lane at a time, thus the service can continue uninterrupted (closing only one lane while all traffic drive on the other lanes).

Now, also consider the train signal lights are all networked and needs to be programmed and scheduled meticulously (to avoid catastrophic collisions). There are also overhead power line (and power substations) for trains that are highly specialized for design, construction and maintainances to consider. These are high skill, highly specialized works. Compare this to highway/busway, there is no need for traffic light. Road signs are needed but its not like it requires very high skill workers to put them up or designing them. On most highways, the speed limit is almost always either 100 km/hr or no limit (on European highway). So you don't really need to enforce speed limit since everyone knows its 100 km/hr (I never seen speed limit sign on highway). Just consider this scenerio: If railway track has problem, do you call any guy on the street to fix it??

You need highly qualified railway engineers to do it. For road surface, anyone with shovel can fill up the pot holes.

Of course, I know the bus/coach is slower than a HSR, but there is no reason to discard the idea. Its highly possible car makers in China can develop high speed buses that goes up to 200 miles per hour!! (and runs on fuel cell)

Obama Replaces Costly High-Speed Rail Plan With High-Speed Bus Plan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Seriously, I think there are merits to this satirical video.

SampanViking · Feb 22, 2011

Asymptote said:
Same can be said for EVs. I expect as EV becomes more popular, you going to get EV buses and coach.
And as with any road worthy vehicles, you can drive ANYWHERE, you don't need dedicated infrastructures like expensive train tracks and signal lights, rail crossings etc etc and expensive maintenance for these infrastructures.

The aviation fuel crisis, I think can also be alleviated with synthetic fuel.
As I recall, USAF is currently experimenting flying with synthetic fuel.

Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who knows, with current fuel crisis, we might eventually go back to AIRSHIP if all the fuels run out........

Just to add to what others have said, I have a few points.

Trains are cheaper than Jet Liners to build and maintain.

Trains carry a lot more people than even the largest Jet Liner.

Trains tend to go right into the heart of major cities, while Airports tend to be on the outskirts. In addition some budget airlines land at nearly 100 miles from their quoted destinations.

Trains can turn around faster than Planes - and you do not need to check in hours in advance

This also means that trains can run at faster intervals than Planes.

Trains can stop more frequently and move of again more quickly, allowing customs officials to board at International borders and inspect Passports etc while the train is moving.

Synthetic fuel is about dealing with shortfalls not competing in price. Oil is ready cooked for free in mother natures kitchen and so will always be cheaper than a synthetic product where energy has to be input at cost. It will also be highly efficient by consequence.

Further Aviation Fuel costs the same whenever you burn it, but the price of electricity varies depending on the time of day. Night time trains should be very cheap as they would be buying up surplus load from power stations that want to avoid having to shut down turbines and restarting them just a few hours later.

All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

SampanViking

The Capitalist

Asymptote

Banned Idiot

kyanges

Junior Member

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

delft

Brigadier

Asymptote

Banned Idiot

SampanViking

The Capitalist