Follow this blog:
RSS

World’s longest high-speed rail line opens in China

By | December 27, 2012, 6:38 AM PST

Imagine driving from Washington, D.C. to Chicago or London to Berlin and then turning around and coming back. It would be a long journey — more than 10 hours and roughly 700 miles each way. But China’s new high-speed rail could complete one of these journeys, roundtrip, in less time than it currently takes to drive one way.

Spanning 2,298 kilometers (1,428 miles) from the Chinese capital Beijing in the northeast to Guangzhou — a major metropolitan region — in southern China, the new high-speed rail line is now taking customers on the eight hour journey at a sustained maximum speed of 300 kilometers per hour (186 miles per hour), according to China Daily.

But the new train isn’t without controversy. According to the New York Times:

Debt to finance the construction has reached nearly 4 trillion renminbi, or $640 billion, making it one of the most visible reasons total debt has been surging as a share of economic output in China, and is approaching levels in the West.

Each new high-speed train, however, does make more room on older tracks for freight trains. The Times reports that each passenger car taken off older freight lines makes room for three freight cars.

Though it does come at a cost to passengers. The new high-speed rail line costs about $139 for a one-way second-class seat. The cheapest seat on older passenger trains are about $40.

Photo: Flickr/toehk

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
it'll be cheaper to travel by flight
most of the time, you can get discount on flight tickets between Beijing and Guangzhou for as little as $120, not mentioning the collision happened in 2011 which has destoried my trust to Chinese high speed rail.
Posted by jessica_ldj
28th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Flights may indeed marginally be cheaper,
but one first has to get to the aeroport, at a cost of both time and money, and check-in times there are much longer than for trains. I'd opt for the latter....

Henri
Posted by mhenriday
28th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Would that be the case in America?
What makes you think that the TSA will not expand to make train travel just as miserable as plane travel? After all, notice that it's called the "Transportation Security Administration", not just the "Airport Security Administration". That is for a reason.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 29th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Chineseeeee Keeeeyboarddds
After ussssing a Chineeeseeee keeeeyboarrd, I would nnnot feeeeel safeeee on Cchineseeee trainnnnnn.........
Posted by ITOdeed
28th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Funny typo
fright lines
Posted by 16Tons
28th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
fixed
thanks!
Posted by Tyler Falk
28th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Huh?
Tyler Falk wrote: "Imagine driving from Washington, D.C. to Chicago or London to Berlin and then turning around and coming back. It would be a long journey more than 10 hours and roughly 700 miles each way."

A lot more than 10 hours. 10 hours assumes you average 70 mph over the entire journey. Assume 2 fuel/bathroom breaks at 20 minutes each. Then you would have to cover 700 miles in 9 hours and 20 minutes. To make the trip in that time you would have to achieve a sustained average of 75 mph. Pretty fast driving.
Posted by lmarks@...
28th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Do the math
Sounds like the Chinese are using the same twisted math the proponents of the S.F. LA HSR are using. The article says the total debt (= construction cost?) for this line in China is $640 billion. And the average 2nd class ticket will cost $139. That means they have to have
4,600,000,000 riders just to cover the construction cost. What about maintenance and operating costs? Those have to add $billions more every year. But let's stick to the construction costs for now: Looking at a payback period - let's use a 10 year period as a starting assumption - that means they need to carry 1,279,000 riders a day. On 1 rail line? If each rail car held 100 riders that would mean they need 12,790 rail cars traveling this line each and every day. Do anywhere near that many people even want to get to the other city - every day? So obviously there is a huge tax on the people to finance this because the above volumes just do not work. There is a faster, far less expensive and existing travel option that already exist today - it's called air travel.
Another stat to consider - 12,790 rail cars @ 100' in length each = 242 miles of rail cars. On a 700 mile track? Does anything about this make any sense at all?
Posted by HappiHenri
28th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
High Speed Trains.
Compelling maths! It is obviously absurd to build such trains when much cheaper alternatives such as air travel, ordinary express trains, etc. are available.
Posted by vu2yj@...
30th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Yes, but when politicians have easy access to OPM...
...(other people's money) all forms of uneconomic silliness become possible,
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
A sense of pride...
Is what's wasting money. That kind of money could have served many more people by using (much) lighter track, smaller trains (or even pods) within metropolitan areas.

Search Skytran for a rough idea of the simplicity of very light weight, overhead advantages...
However, imagine something a little larger without the need for full computer autonomy, such that it is a bunch of individual dedicated lines that simply loop around (and not so fast). Cost would then be only a fraction of all the heavyweight construction concepts that bloated governments seem to go for today!
Posted by fireofenergy
28th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
High Speed Trains
This is a wonderful subject for a comparitive study of our abilities as a nation to commercialise ideas. Why is that, In the early 70's, what was then British Rail (Research Dept of some 1,000 Scientists and Engineers, and an equally strong Design Dept), and British Rail Engineering with a plethora of expertise on rail stock construction, for both home and overseas, lost their highly advantageous grip of Research,Development,Design and Production of High Speed (also tilting) trains and MagLev markets?
In comparison, at the same time only half a mile away, Rolls Royce, embarked on a radical, never before attempted, three concentric shaft gas turbine and designed, developed and productionised it in three years to become the world beater that it is today.
You might argue the both BR and RR had extentensive periods in their respective fields, possibly BR having slightly more. The environs of Derby provide a very similar skills catchment area. Was the research at BR too academic? Was the Design at BR unable to progress new ideas? Was Production at BR stifled by political interference? Was the Board of BR of very limited vision? The whole example wants addressing so that we can learn and not waste these wonderful opportunities.
Posted by john f kelly
29th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!