China unveils 620 km per hour bullet train, could be running in 2025

[S10]

This is not the way of achieving Lowest carbon footprint target... Is it going to bring full stop to other means of transport?? Will it stop you from buying your own dream car?? So this can't be an explanation...

If you can transport a larger number of people to a destination with the least carbon footprint, then it is the superior form of transportation. Nobody cares about what your dream car is and China cannot afford to have 1.4 billion cars on the road. The cities are congested as it is.

 

[letsrock]

This is not the way of achieving Lowest carbon footprint target... Is it going to bring full stop to other means of transport?? Will it stop you from buying your own dream car?? So this can't be an explanation...



So??? 350 km per hour speed (which is already more than enough for land transport) won't offer you stops in between??? I guess 350 kms per hour train frequency is also equal to 30 minutes....

Justify me the speed of 620 km per hour train when you already have 350 km per hour running train along with passanger jets.....

So this is just a pure show off to world where we are..... I'm not jeloused please don't misunderstand but this speed is simply insane for land surface.....

mankind always has this relentless pursuit of speed.

Yes if it is not economically feasible - then they wont do it.

 

[vishwambhar]

If you can transport a larger number of people to a destination with the least carbon footprint, then it is the superior form of transportation. Nobody cares about what your dream car is and China cannot afford to have 1.4 billion cars on the road. The cities are congested as it is.

My friend if you already have 350 km high speed train then why need this? Apart from that 1.4 billion population doesn't mean 1.4 billion cars on road considering family members.... One family can have one car.... If you are going to buy car for your granny then I seriously don't know....

mankind always has this relentless pursuit of speed.

Yes if it is not economically feasible - then they wont do it.

This is the reply I was expecting...

 

[S10]

My friend if you already have 350 km high speed train then why need this? Apart from that 1.4 billion population doesn't mean 1.4 billion cars on road considering family members.... One family can have one car.... If you are going to buy car for your granny then I seriously don't know....



This is the reply I was expecting...

Why need this? Because you can get there in almost half the time? You know the whole point of technological is to get to places and complete work faster right? Do you want to ride on an ox cart instead?

You do know that you need about 300 cars to transport the same amount of people on one high speed train right? Think about the infrastructure and parking space required to service those cars compared to a single train.

Are you being argumentative for the sake of arguing?

 

[vishwambhar]

Why need this? Because you can get there in almost half the time? You know the whole point of technological is to get to places and complete work faster right? Do you want to ride on an ox cart instead?

You do know that you need about 300 cars to transport the same amount of people on one high speed train right? Think about the infrastructure and parking space required to service those cars compared to a single train.

Are you being argumentative for the sake of arguing?

So now you want to to get there in half time..... considering a day is 24 hours and working time maximum 12 to 15 hours..... aren't your 350 km per hour train or passenger jets not enough to do a job or to attend meetings??? Or you plan to welcome your host??? This is pure show off... stop arguing for the sake of arguing....

 

[S10]

So now you want to to get there in half time..... considering a day is 24 hours and working time maximum 12 to 15 hours..... aren't your 350 km per hour train or passenger jets not enough to do a job or to attend meetings??? Or you plan to welcome your host??? This is pure show off... stop arguing for the sake of arguing....

Are you retarded to the point where you can't see the advantage of getting to a destination in half the time as the existing trains? Let me explain it to you so even a monkey could understand.

If I want to get from A to B, time spend traveling in between the 2 points is time wasted. The less I can cut transit time down, the more time I have for my actual purpose, be it business, sightseeing or free time. By utilizing high speed rail, I could transport the same amount of passengers with less than 1/5 of the carbon footprint as jets and don't have to put hundreds of cars on road.

There is a show off for sure. You're showing off your brain damage.

"Passenger rail is around three times more efficient than a car on a passenger-mile basis at current occupancy levels. The lower energy consumption leads to lower greenhouse emissions."

Rail travel is cleaner than driving or flying, but will Americans buy in? | Greenbiz

Can expanding passenger rail incentivize people to actually use it?

www.greenbiz.com

"The world’s leading authority on transport emissions factors for different modes (the UK’s Department of Energy, Food and Rural Affairs, or DEFRA) claims an emission factor of 12 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per passenger kilometer (g CO2e/passenger-km) for rail systems globally, while for international aviation the average is 183 g CO2e (more than 15 times greater!). So yes, generally speaking the train is a far more efficient means of long-distance passenger transportation."

Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (and why the government ought to do something about that)

Faculty Affiliate, ISSP Assistant Professor, Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, uOttawa Despite its reputation as a more sustainable form of transport, long-distance passenger rail travel in Canada typically results in a higher carbon footprint per passenger than long-distance...

issp.uottawa.ca

 

[vishwambhar]

Are you retarded to the point where you can't see the advantage of getting to a destination in half the time as the existing trains? Let me explain it to you so even a monkey could understand.

If I want to get from A to B, time spend traveling in between the 2 points is time wasted. The less I can cut transit time down, the more time I have for my actual purpose, be it business, sightseeing or free time. By utilizing high speed rail, I could transport the same amount of passengers with less than 1/5 of the carbon footprint as jets and don't have to put hundreds of cars on road.

There is a show off for sure. You're showing off your brain damage.

You are not getting it..... on land surface this speed is good for military purposes.... this is insane for civilian purposes.... not at all required..... since you have started personal attacks I'm not going to respond further.....

 

[Yaoudelizard]

620 KM per hour speed is just insane as long as its on land surface..... why why we need to rush so fast in the era of passenger jets??? imagine the horror of accident at this speed???

Why?? What is the need of this speed on land surface??? a pure show off????

Much cheaper to operate train and more efficient load per trip. I mean it’s a horror show if a passenger jet goes down as well is it not??

 

[Beny Karachun]

620 KM per hour speed is just insane as long as its on land surface..... why why we need to rush so fast in the era of passenger jets??? imagine the horror of accident at this speed???

Why?? What is the need of this speed on land surface??? a pure show off????

Passenger jet crashes aren't much better

 

[vishwambhar]

Passenger jet crashes aren't much better

Count me passengers jet accidents compared to land surface vehicles accidents.....

Much cheaper to operate train and more efficient load per trip. I mean it’s a horror show if a passenger jet goes down as well is it not??

Yeah there are more accidental deaths recorded on earth on land transport compared to air transport....

 

[Beny Karachun]

Count me passengers jet accidents compared to land surface vehicles accidents.

Jets and trains both have an almost 0 chance of crashing

 

[S10]

You are not getting it..... on land surface this speed is good for military purposes.... this is insane for civilian purposes.... not at all required..... since you have started personal attacks I'm not going to respond further.....

You don't get to determine what's required or not. Insanity is being able to develop more efficient transportation and choosing not to.

Better passenger comfort than planes, 6 times faster than cars, emits less carbon than both. This is what winning looks like. We got things to do with time saved, not sitting around worshipping cows.

 

[vishwambhar]

Jets and trains both have an almost 0 chance of crashing

I am not saying that..... I am just trying to say if we consider safety record till date on earth then Jet wins hands down.....

 

[Beny Karachun]

I am not saying that..... I am just trying to say if we consider safety record till date on earth then Jet wins hands down.....

Maglev trains are almost impossible to derail compared to regular trains

 

[villageidiot]

Two bullet trains found racing each other on track

I don't know how they manage the safety issue every second around the clock, I would definitely poop my pants if I were in the driver's seats in any of these 3 trains..

sheesh. that gave me anxiety,

Will it stop you from buying your own dream car??

Once mass transit is available and affordable to all, "dream cars" should be made extremely hard to get if we are going to save the planet. we've damn near outstayed our welcome. we need radical change.

this speed is simply insane for land surface.....

someone gave their reply to this. i am sure once upon a time, the cars and planes of today were thought of as too fast and unnecessary.

we could use the same type of argument anywhere. "space exploration is unnecessary. we should spend those resources to fight climate change so we don't have to leave Earth"