It is not an understatement to say some of the HSR lines in Western China are indeed overbuilt. For example, the whole Lanzhou - Urumqi section 350kph capable line is unnecessary. Now it is used to operate 160-200 kph conventional passenger trains since it is so underused by high-speed EMUs. That section would have been far better served by quadrupling conventional rail (two tracks for 120-160 kph passenger train, two for freight). High speed passenger dedicated lines above 250 kph should only be built EAST of the Tengchong-Heihe line, along with the Guanzhong (Xi'an) and Sichuan (Chengdu and Chongqing) plains due to population density reasons.
Chinese Rail Transport Appreciation & News
- Thread starter cookiez
- Start date
Very true, but for strategic and military reasons, you don't need 350 kph capable tracks. Those 350 kph capable tracks and associated systems are simply too expensive. The more affordable 160-200 kph capable dual passenger-freight heavy tracks (like the ones used for the Sichuan-Tibet, Chonqqing-Lanzhou, and the new Chengdu-Kunming lines) are the most fit for Western China, especially sparsely populated areas with significant strategic importance. For example, you can have temporary 200 kph semi high speed EMUs running on Chongqing-Lanzhou and the new Chengdu-Kunming lines during peak seasons like the Chinese New Year. Once the peak seasons end, all passenger trains return to 120-160 kph services, whilst 100-120 kph freight trains resume normal schedules.
It is totally wrong to look at such infrastructure from the lens of profitability which is a western/capitalism/privatism standing point. I am sure you grow up in such enviroment. China is none of them ever.
In a society where state is paramount, the state (King, Emperor or President) acts as head of a family. Some brothers live and work in the city like the eastern populations you mentioned, others live and work in the country-side managing summer house, farm lands etc. The father is responsible to make sure all members have the same living standard. To sustain a equal living condition for the forest house as in center of a mega city is NOT a business, nor is the father going to make a profit from himself or his children, nor is any children to complain about each other spending undue money.
Another example is China's "telephone to every village and later 4G to every village" programs. This will never happen in a capitalist country because operators will never build fibre lines or cell towers that does not make profit.
In short, China's seemingly "costly/wasteful" infrastructure program is like a person buying a summer house at high price for leasure. In the west it is a money making business of a property owner lending out apartments to tenants.
That is not to say that China ignores economic consideration, but that is like how one would consider where and how much to pay his summer house.
Not really right. the cost difference is the operation (electricity cost), not much of the line. 350 train and 250 trains are nearly the same cost to produce, but running at 350kmph consumes much more electricity than running at 250kmph. What was done was building 350 capable infrastructure at similar cost of 250 line and run at 250kmph to save electricity. It may further reduce to 200kmph because of the strong side wind that is frequent in the Hexi coridor and desert. There was many times that trains (any type) were forced to stop due to such wind. But in calm days, you can run up to 250.
I’m no railway engineer but I assume the higher speed line cost more to maintain due to lower fault tolerance.
No, the cost difference is mostly electricity consumption at different speeds. Remember air drag increase by increase of velocity squared.
The subject was presented in details by numbers taken from operation when there was a netizen bullshitting China's HSR being hugely energy inefficient than Japan's. Here is a link with lots of data
In short, train running at 350kmph cost almost double electricity per person per 100km compared to running at 250kmph.
Hardware difference between lines of different speed is minimal, signal system need higher bandwidth due to reduced letancy requirement and wires need to carry higher amps but same voltage. But these are nowhere close to double cost, and double electricity cost is every ticket.
Last edited:
I mean, past a certain point you get diminishing marginal returns with speed, just in terms of the benefit to passengers.
This is just a personal preference, but I think we are forgeting why slower night trains are so convenient. You're not in a hurry when you're asleep anyway. And they are infinitely less costly to build and maintain. I personally would rather a railroad company spend more money to make existing rail stock more comfortable or offer more privacy.
Not questioning the electricity cost. The tracks for higher speed trains probably have to be more level than lower speed ones, plus other attributes.
The big construction cost difference is higher speed tracks require larger minimum turning radius, which can result in more tunnels and viaducts in mountainous areas and higher land acquisition costs in populated areas. The Lanzhou-Urumqi high speed rail is mostly over flat unpopulated desert areas where lower speed rail's ability to snake around difficult terrain and dense urban areas has minimal cost benefits. Construction cost for Lanzhou-Urumqi high speed rail works out to only , far lower than the average construction cost of for Chinese high speed rail overall (which includes a lot of 250km/h rail).
In the chart below, notice how many 250km/h and even 200km/h projects actually have higher construction costs than a lot of 350km/h projects.
Last edited: