The Shanghai airport maglev used to go around that speed too (~430km/h) over twenty years ago. But these new trains are regular trains running on regular (but specialized and high quality) tracks. There's probably no more need for maglev now that you can run on regular (well not exactly) tracks.
A 450kph limit for the rolling stock is great, but how many lines are actually capable of these speeds? There's only a single line (Chengdu–Chongqing, currently under construction) which is designed for 350kph, with sections capable of 400kph. Aside from that, most lines are at 350kph - unless I'm missing something.
Wow I though 300 Kph was some kind of physical limit. I mean every high speed train in the world used to max out at 300.
Now it feels like it was just lack of competition. Maybe now other countries will start producing lines and trains capable of 400 Kph and hopefully its not a China only thing going forward.
There is show and there is reality: French TGV achieved 574,8 km/h in 2007 for show, but it was under specific conditions, not in real world conditions.
While it is technically proven that it is possible to do 400+km/h on rail, it's not practical: maintenance, wear, noise, turns, embranchement, and overall cost, ... many considerations that are probably less important for Chinese railway now, which needs some "show".
Like pretty much everything else, it's an optimization problem rather than a physical limit.
So running a train at 350kph is more expensive than 300kph, both in per-distance and pre-unit time terms. But if you can run more services that way then sufficient demand might make it economical. Also, if it's too slow, people may choose flying instead.
Maglev can go even faster but those have never been made economical, really. It's much more complicated and expensive.
It's a bit like how commercial planes have actually gotten slower. 747s used to fly closer to Mach 0.9. Now most commercial planes fly at around Mach 0.8. There are physical problems flying between Mach 0.8 and 1.2 but sometimes that doesn't matter so the best private planes top out at about Mach 0.93. Even then they rarely fly that fast.
300kph is the limit because aerodynamics make that about the best compromise on the effeciency cury. higher speeds are completely possibly - but air planes running with much less atmospheric drag start to become the better option.
of course the above is all about compromise and you can emphasize whatever numbers you want to get different results.
Edit: it is often a good idea to have everything capable of faster speeds - say 350km/h. You don't normally want to use those speeds, but if a train gets delayed (as happens) you can use that extra speed to make up time. Just don't let this become a normal thing.
China also maintains a legacy line of trains, 绿皮火车, that drive at a slower speed and service smaller cities (btw they seem to have been upgraded a lot in the last 3 years, from hard wooden seats to cushioned seats and bed). The best thing (or the worst ;) is that you can smoke in the gangways, which just seems absolutely wild to me. But it was very welcomed during my 37 hour train ride.
I swear I have done over 400km/h here in China (402 to be exact) and recall they lowered the speeds at some point? Cant seem to find any articles nor my own photos (the trains have a speed read out in every coach).
Yeah, I remember 400+ km/h 10+ years ago from the airport into Shanghai. I remember seeing the speed read out creeping up, and then watching cars on the highways beside us move like snails by comparison.
> Perhaps oddly, this is superior to first class, where seats are arranged in a 2-2 layout; second class carriages have a tighter 2-3 configuration.
I guess the writer of the article does not really ride trains, the terminology is different from airlines.
First class just means better than second class (it's usually a bit better), and 2-2 seat configurations are very common. "Business class" in trains is a neologism.
All this talk about China makes me want to hop on a plane, but the visitor visa process is quite convoluted and laborious for stays longer than two weeks.
Why does kph sound like most cursed option. kilo per hour? Kilo what? kilowatt, kilogram? kilolitres? Well it is most likely in context, but still when I stop and think about it it feels icky.. I can accept p instead of /. But just entirely ignoring unit feels wrong... Also is speed of something slow ph?
[+] [-] comrade1234|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] usrnm|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] alexpotato|10 days ago|reply
e.g. even a small earthquake that shifts the tracks a few inches would probably cause, at minimum, a degradation in service.
[+] [-] rmccue|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] garte|10 days ago|reply
More lanes on the highway are not progress.
[+] [-] whinvik|10 days ago|reply
Now it feels like it was just lack of competition. Maybe now other countries will start producing lines and trains capable of 400 Kph and hopefully its not a China only thing going forward.
[+] [-] gregoriol|10 days ago|reply
While it is technically proven that it is possible to do 400+km/h on rail, it's not practical: maintenance, wear, noise, turns, embranchement, and overall cost, ... many considerations that are probably less important for Chinese railway now, which needs some "show".
[+] [-] jmyeet|10 days ago|reply
So running a train at 350kph is more expensive than 300kph, both in per-distance and pre-unit time terms. But if you can run more services that way then sufficient demand might make it economical. Also, if it's too slow, people may choose flying instead.
Maglev can go even faster but those have never been made economical, really. It's much more complicated and expensive.
It's a bit like how commercial planes have actually gotten slower. 747s used to fly closer to Mach 0.9. Now most commercial planes fly at around Mach 0.8. There are physical problems flying between Mach 0.8 and 1.2 but sometimes that doesn't matter so the best private planes top out at about Mach 0.93. Even then they rarely fly that fast.
[+] [-] bluGill|10 days ago|reply
of course the above is all about compromise and you can emphasize whatever numbers you want to get different results.
Edit: it is often a good idea to have everything capable of faster speeds - say 350km/h. You don't normally want to use those speeds, but if a train gets delayed (as happens) you can use that extra speed to make up time. Just don't let this become a normal thing.
[+] [-] Kuinox|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] thenthenthen|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] ece|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] thenthenthen|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] nixon_why69|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] thenthenthen|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] jaen|10 days ago|reply
> Perhaps oddly, this is superior to first class, where seats are arranged in a 2-2 layout; second class carriages have a tighter 2-3 configuration.
I guess the writer of the article does not really ride trains, the terminology is different from airlines.
First class just means better than second class (it's usually a bit better), and 2-2 seat configurations are very common. "Business class" in trains is a neologism.
[+] [-] mahrain|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] madhacker|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] metalman|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 days ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] EmptyCoffeeCup|10 days ago|reply
What's that, mach 586?
Seems a bit excessive.
[+] [-] unknown|10 days ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bamboozled|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] usrnm|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] rafaelcosta|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] Ekaros|10 days ago|reply
[+] [-] jiehong|10 days ago|reply