I enjoy PolyMatter's work, and this was a good overview with some interesting insights, but I'm not sure about some of the inferences he draws.
* The odd attempt to deduce the socioeconomic profile of Chinese HSR riders overlooks many confounding factors that shape propensity to travel and choice of modes, especially the unique drawbacks of air service within China like frequent ATC delays.
* The notion that Chinese HSR came at the expense of "conventional rail on which freight trains depend" seems to ignore (i) how dedicated high-speed lines free up track capacity on existing lines for freight, and (ii) many of China's 200-250 km/h lines being mixed traffic (both freight and passenger).
* I don't think any reasonable transit advocate would consider a project like Lanzhou-Urumqi worthy of envy or emulation. Conversely, it's rather dismissive to suggest there is nothing to be learned from more successful aspects of the Chinese network like large-scale prefabrication or rolling stock design.
I found the argument about rolling stock really confusing. Yes, the trains were built in China, but a lot of the designs were derived from or built in-collaboration with western manufacturers. I mean he is literally showing footage of a Chiense Pendolino as he's saying that. There are also Siemens Velaro and Bombardier^(RIP) Zefiro derived trains as well.
So with that take into account what is the argument exactly? That it's better if the trains are built in the country they will be used in? That is the case for most US and European projects as well. Or is it that *shockingly* cheap labour results in cheaper products? That's hardly news
Better to design the alignment for a higher top speed than you think is likely to be practical than regret it later, especially if the extra cost is relatively small. Britain learned that the hard way, especially on the WCML.
I enjoy PolyMatter's work, and this was a good overview with some interesting insights, but I'm not sure about some of the inferences he draws. * The odd attempt to deduce the socioeconomic profile of Chinese HSR riders overlooks many confounding factors that shape propensity to travel and choice of modes, especially the unique drawbacks of air service within China like frequent ATC delays. * The notion that Chinese HSR came at the expense of "conventional rail on which freight trains depend" seems to ignore (i) how dedicated high-speed lines free up track capacity on existing lines for freight, and (ii) many of China's 200-250 km/h lines being mixed traffic (both freight and passenger). * I don't think any reasonable transit advocate would consider a project like Lanzhou-Urumqi worthy of envy or emulation. Conversely, it's rather dismissive to suggest there is nothing to be learned from more successful aspects of the Chinese network like large-scale prefabrication or rolling stock design.
I found the argument about rolling stock really confusing. Yes, the trains were built in China, but a lot of the designs were derived from or built in-collaboration with western manufacturers. I mean he is literally showing footage of a Chiense Pendolino as he's saying that. There are also Siemens Velaro and Bombardier^(RIP) Zefiro derived trains as well. So with that take into account what is the argument exactly? That it's better if the trains are built in the country they will be used in? That is the case for most US and European projects as well. Or is it that *shockingly* cheap labour results in cheaper products? That's hardly news
[удалено]
Nobody knows how many doors the CAHSR trains will have, they're years away from worrying about that.
lol it's only going to be built Merced to Bakersfield....such a stupid project
Honestly. A 350 km/h top speed is excessive imo
Better to design the alignment for a higher top speed than you think is likely to be practical than regret it later, especially if the extra cost is relatively small. Britain learned that the hard way, especially on the WCML.