In reality there is very little between Lumo and LNER. Yes LNER is more expensive, but there are more trains London to Edinburgh per day with more stops than Lumo.
On board the trains the service is similar. Some people say Lumo is slightly better and faster (because of the less stops).
The annoying thing I find on U.K trains is if (for example) a LNER train is cancelled for whatever reason, passengers cannot transfer to a different train company going to your destination unless paying the full fare again.
David
Well before we even go here you should get Americans to read the London School of Economics studies on rail passenger service. That would be a good foundation before we spend a lot of U.S. Taxpayer money on what should be lower priorities at far greater expense. In my view understanding the formula in which passenger trains can be successful needs to be learned as a foundation first. Then move from there into establishing spending priorities. Then look at extra features. To me it appears very hodge podge in the United States with no real overall strategy anywhere. Individual silos learning everything from scratch.
The newest CR model. Obviously the 400 kmh operating speed is useless in the US on our slower track. However the interior layout (stick to 2-2 seating here) is attractive for a 500 mile optimal distance.
I donât believe much of anything put out via China. Where is the track in China that can support 280 mph speeds? How many people have drowned in Chinese subways so far? Both China and Russia both spend significant amounts of money with their taxpayer paid for public relations campaigns and they both tend to exaggerate the positives and leave a lot out by ommission which makes any comparison between them and the United States very difficult without extensive research. United States has no similar scale of propaganda compared to either of those two countries.
China is involved in a massive overbuilding campaign with housing, itâs military, EVâs, high speed rail, etc, etc. People focus in with tunnel vision on each silo without connecting the dots across all the silos that China is a Communist country and has serious ongoing issues with graft and corruption across itâs many initiatives (this is repeatedly reported in our media as well but not at the same scale as the positive news). Russia likes to over promote itâs weapon systems because sale of arms brings in cash and the Kremlin knows this. So I look at their rail claims made in public as very highly suspect. The example you posted is all over facebook, instagram and elsewhere. Usually followed by someone (probably on the Chinese payroll) exclaiming how far behind the United States is. Russia and China both have a fairly large army of social influencers on the payroll. I can list names if you want of folks I just picked out on YouTube. Anyways, this is why I am highly skeptical of any claims from Russia or China. Until I hear the claims confirmed by a renowned expert in the WestâŚprobably a bogus claim being made in part or entirety.
You can believe what you wish. The facts are that they are actually making a passenger rail system that is very advanced and operate thousands of high speed trains daily with very few accidents. For what it is worth, I have ridden several of them and found them to be quiet and fast.
Unfortunately, in Germany
the neglected rail infrastructureâs updating has led to problems the past few years. However their ICE and IC trains are much better than anything here outside of those on the NEC.
Those are the facts as you see them but they are not necessarily facts. The reality is that you like everyone else is reliant on Chinese stats which have proven to be dubious in multiple areas. Riding a few trains on occassion statistically if they trully operate thousands of them, is really not a reliable random sample.
I never claimed that my riding a few trains was a reliably random sample (although it was pretty random. You probably meant statically valid). Donât stick claims in otherâs posts so you can denigrate them.
However, I have at least ridden a few trains in China. Have you? And I have ridden many trains in Germany and Italy in the last 25 years. Have you?
Yet, they canât build an airliner without massive Western technological help.
Boeing Boeing??
Russia is trying to convince people it has a viable commercial aircraft industry as well. Maybe China can pull off commercial aviation but I have serious doubts myself. China and Japan are in this HSR contest for top speed. Japan is winning it so far and not by a small margin. Japan is innovating and developing which is the right way to bring new products to market. China is not. So who will win? Probably Japan. China attempting to dominate the EV market via massive subsidies and shortcuts caught the eye of American investors and you can see what Warren Buffetâs investment is today in BYD compared to what it once was. I just pulled this randomly off the internet from September 2024 from an American investment website: âPersonally, Iâm taking a neutral view on BYD. The stock might be appear undervalued, but I recently took delivery of a competitorâs SUV. My sentiment on the stock might be colored by my own experience of the brand, as BYD compares poorly on quality and price, in my opinion.â Yes they might be outselling Tesla now in units but this will be reversed as Tesla does itâs next software upgrades with AI using the mountain of telematics that Tesla has, which I do not think China has. Time will tell there but China is 10 or more years behind in AI and application of AI. Russia is not even in the race and capitulated already stating it will work with China on AI.
Back to rail, my own conviction is China is not really innovating in any sector all that much. Most of what it has including 5G technology was lifted from the West and much of itâs HSR technology has been lifted. Which is why they are having so many issues staying at the same level as the West even with fairly massive state subsidies. The fact that the above press campaign is viral all over the internet and it was adapted by many media outlets. Tells you something. A reader might ask but Japan is far ahead of China in HSR technologyâŚwhy no mention of Japan, for example. Nobody will compare the gold standard of safety (Japan) against China either with HSR. Primarily because you cannot trust Chinese stats on anything and in any area.
Maybe I am misreading the situation but that is how I see it.
In my opinion the Chinese âmade their bonesâ in serious high-speed rail starting in the mid-2010s, when they stopped with the wacky attempts to crib âWestern technologiesâ and did what they should have done all along: learn from the sources doing it right, and draw from the most successful in developing further solutions.
The most important contributions they have made are comparable to what Americans developed for the great wave of New York elevated-railroad construction in the 1870s (this was the same level of ingenuity coupled with good engineering and practical production that gave us the 1885 âtemporaryâ Erie Bridge that served mainline trains until just a couple of years ago)⌠Correct approaches to grading, TLM, and OHLE installation have been reduced to practice, as has the design and implementation of self-launching viaduct construction. Presumably similar methods for track maintenance, including PM and perhaps magic-wear-rate grinding, are in place.
I do not know whether the Chinese actively operate the density of trains across the range of new HSR track they claim, but I would be surprised (given the amount of American trade âfinancingâ available to do it) if there is much exaggeration. While I may have reason to suspect that the Chinese are not publishing full accident and failure figures for their HSR, I believe the only serious reported accident was over a decade ago, and was primarily due to natural causes, so complaining that there is some kind of systemic Temu-grade chinesium construction and childishly-copied-from-Europe design doesnât really hoild water. Certainly current Chinese educational practice is sufficient to provide the necessary design training and engineering understanding to conduct further development (e.g. in their proposed version of the general Hyperloop concept, which so far actually makes some sense to try⌠markedly unlike Muskâs version).
While we may have some âbetterâ implementations (the R-crane comes to mind), there are enormous gaps in our tech, and more ominously a disturbingly large number of the âtechnology transferâ stuff from European companies and sources has proved decidedly lacking in build quality (CAF, TALGO, and the current Avelia Liberties being perhaps the most pointed, but even Bombardier falling short at inflated cost). I donât remember where Brightline West is sourcing their equipment, but it (and the track that will be constructed) are ridiculously short of 400 km/h standards. The revised Texas Central project (now, I believe, under Amtrakâs aegis somehow) was I think supposed to have Japanese supply â whether the trainsets are expensively sourced here, or merely assembled âin Americaâ to satisfy the letter of the law, the United States is no further toward its own indigenous true-HSR construction or provision.
None of this, of course, touches on the subject of this thread â although the obvious parallel to the French low-cost-HSR service (Ouigo) that was run with still-fast-as-hell-by-American-standards original TGV equipment has, strangely, not been mentioned. In order to have costed-down equipment to be used in competitive lower-cost service, you have to have (1) a successful design with a long effective service, and (2) a full end-to-end HSR track capacity, regularly maintained and costed-down, for which a âfairâ pro-rata access charge that permits the appropriate economy profit margin could be made.
You would do this exactly where in North America? More to the point: what coherent âfirst stepsâ to put it in being should we be prioritizing now? Expensively duplicating the weird routings of the North River access tunnels and the Baltimore thing, at tens of billions for little if any meaningful end-to-end speed increase, is not a very happy start. California⌠is never, ever going to get there, even if it sells off lines at pennies on the dollar âinvestedâ.
Adapted and improved upon Siemens rail technology, maybe to some extent but we havenât developed ANY passenger rail designs in years.
I donât see that you provided any evidence that Japanâs rail are far ahead of Chinaâs other than your lofty fiats and assertions.
You seem to have a blanket problem with anything to do with PRC. Clearly they have economic problems, mostly too much debt due to huge investment in infrastructure. But better than huge debt from tax cuts to the Ăźber rich (with failing infrastructure) as we have. Meanwhile, back to pathetic Amtrak.
In my opinion, any of the practical âsecond spineâ Northeast Corridor improvemtns, whether by way of Hartford or Sam Berlinerâs beloved Orient Point Bridge, have become technically feasible using the Chinese engineering and construction methods and equipment. They would NOT be feasible with any other countryâs existing technology, which is not well suited to noninvasive construction across populated regions where co-development a la Fortress for PUDs will be an essential part of the effort.
If you look at the current Chinese âfive year planâ, they mention that one of their previous goals was to reach pre-eminence in railroad technology as a targeted state priority, and I think they indicated they think they have done so. I do not have any objective argument that, at least in TLM/construction of LGV, there is any substantial failing (other than perhaps build quality of the equipment they produce to accomplish the work, which is something I would hope American companies could still remedy.)
This is completely different from issues with ordinary railroad equipment supply, like the prospective issues with Chinese-sourced roller bearings contributing to the emergent problem requiring detector suites closer than 10 miles apart for the BS wayside âsolutionâ. We should be careful to distinguish the two types of concern.
I am not a news feed. Itâs freely available but it is not on news feed. So yes you can see it via Google.
You didnât look either. I think my personal bar on discussions might be too high for this Forum
Sounds like you donât have any objective data for your contention.
To be honest, all he has to do is post his sources. I for one will be interested to read them objectively, especially if they show a pattern of slipshod attention to safe practice.
Likewise for track development at 400 km/h (thatâs still below 250mph). My understanding was that the current production equipment was built to the same 350 km/h of some present European and Japanese production trains â 220mph. I donât see anything to sneeze at there, just because the practical speed is lower â the physics difference between 350 and 400 is NOT trivial, but the end-to-end time savings if that is only intermittently-achieved peak speed may not be worth it.
Methinks he just likes to argue. It seems quite clear that at the very least passenger rail services in many countries are superior to ours. More service and some have true High Speed Rail: Japan, Spain, France, Italy, China to name a few.
I donât think there is any question, using any sensible metric or standard, that China has better long-distance passenger service than the United States does â and quite possibly ever did. And I think they get the credit both for implementing rapid expansion coherently, and for designing effective ways to achieve their very ambitious apparent growth.
If the United States had an odd couple of dozen trillion from foreigh-trade imbalance, and a persistent government presence of Biden-like passenger-rail aficionados, I have little doubt we could build a reasonable network of high-speed spines, and the HrSR regional and parallel services to support them in our context. But donât expect any sort of farebox return to cover the cost of construction, and perhaps not enough to cover the necessary maintenance for typical American conditions. Iâm still waiting for some overpriced Californian consultant to explain how they expect CAHSR to pay for its expenses while keeping the fares âaffordable for allâ (and quite possibly, implicitly subsidized for some groups such as those considered disabled under the terms of the ADAâŚ)
Note that many of the high-speed corridors would be operated by the states after construction. That further increases the necessity for governments to support rail whether or not it hemorrhages money that could be spent on, well, other social needs or priorities.
I might also add that I think the only way this would be practical even with funds available is with a totalitarian government and communist-style ownership of both land and the means of production. Canât see anything like that developing in any sort of rail-friendly context here, regardless of whether âdemocracy is on the lineâ as it was supposed to be in the last Presidential election.
Weâre straying farther and farther from the original premise of the thread, which is LOW-FARE high-speed rail transportation that, at least putatively, makes private profitâŚ