High Speed Train

Beam

Member
One of my former employers had an Australian subsidiary running a major system on an old mainframe & running out of capacity. The UK operation had a similar mainframe which was being run under capacity & likely to diminish further, so they sent one section (effectively a small mainframe which could be connected to others to make a bigger one) out to Australia.

Kingsford Smith freight handlers dropped it. From the side door of a freighter to the ground.

So we got a replacement from the manufacturer (which had a business going temporarily re-purposing retired mainframes, or parts of them) & sent that out.

The freight handlers stuck a forklift into it, hard enough to punch a hole in the rather solid packaging & into the computer inside.

The manufacturers managed to find another, but warned us that this time they wouldn't be able to get a replacement quickly.

I understand that senior Kingsford Smith freight handling managers watched it being unloaded, having issued dire warnings to the crew of what would happen to them if they broke another one. Even secondhand, they were expensive. I marvel at the casualness that must have led to the previous smashes. It was on a pallet, securely boxed, marked with whatever the air freight equivalent of "Fucking expensive & fragile - drop this & you'll need new bollocks!" is, & they broke two of them. The mind boggles. How did they handle normal freight?

That was over 20 years ago. Maybe things have changed.

P.S. The order of the breakages may be wrong. I remember how they were both broken, but can't swear to which came first.
They haven't.

Before I retired I ran both air and road freight operations for a now closed major Aussie Logistics company that used to part own the old Ansett Airlines.

Could tell you some stories....

My very first Air Charter when I joined that business unit was for a Boy Scouts Band(from memory) to fly from Kingsford Smith to Lord Howe Island for ANZAC Day Memorial Services. In keeping with the purpose, we hired an old DC3 for the trip.

It took off, flew approximately 300 metres and splashed down into Botany Bay just off the third runway.
 

AndrewS

New Member
@AndrewS

As no response and supporting references were provided in the desired time frame this post has been deleted. Member banned.

alexsa

@AndrewS

You were specifically warned by me in October 2021 in the ASEAN thread about providing references for you comments and positions. The video's noted do provide evidence the situation with the HST referring to specific figures and reports. You are free to offer a counter view but I see no such detail in your response. Either apply the same level of rigour to you counter argument with figures or I will delete your posts. Depending your response I may also ban you given your previous warning, I expect a response within 24 hours.

alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:

seaspear

Active Member
This article suggests that China has developed a tactical use of fast transport of its H.S.T,I'm not aware of anywhere else this is used but would also possibly be harder to monitor via satellite
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24

This video altough I personally don't agree on the narator wholle points, put two points that he points out, that I also put before and practically most of train industrial analyst agree.

1. +/-1000km (or +/-700 miles) is the bentchmark range to make HSR/HST still attractive for consumers (thus represent 4-5hrs journey).
2. It should be only with area with enough population density plus have capacities that can afford HSR prices.

Just like what I put in my previous posts in the begining of this thread, the cost of Airplane and HSR did not differed much. More than 4-5 hrs journey the benefits of HSR will not outmatch the benefits of Airline travels in time and conveniences.

Thus when a Railway Company being told by Political motive to build expensive HSR outside 1000Km range between 'prosperous' population centers, then the tax payers have to continue subsidising those routes close to perpetuity. No matter how good the company try to cross subsidise between profitable and busted routes, commercials reality will bite you in the end. That's what happen with China Railway.

Thus if CCP give time line for China Railway on time on subsidy, that's clearly unfair to China Railway. Again the reality of their book clearly shown they are being 'force' to enter unprofitable business decision. This is the main topic on this thread from begining, HST/HSR only can make sense if build within coridor routes that make sense commercialy. Build outside those coridors, then the Tax Payers will have to continue subsidise them without time limit.

There's no what if in business decision. The projection has to make sense and can not be ; 'it will be profitable after certain years after the prosperities in that area catch up'. That's no business decisions, but it's political decisions. Business projection for transportation case has to be base on reasonable calculations on consumers spending power growth. Not just economic growth. Both of them not altogether growing on same level.

Building routes outside profitable corridors is a no no for any transportation company. Cross Subsidise between profitable routes and non profitable one has to be done only in certain short period time. If those routes has no prospect to turn green after few years of being cross subsidise, then you have to kill it. That's what happen in many airlines after this covid. Some unprofitable routes need to be kill as the capabilities to continue doing cross subsidies are diminishing.

However it is easier to be done by Airlines or Shipping, then Railway company. Railway can not just kill a routes without thinking what happen to their rails routes investment. Unlike Airlines or Shipping even ground trucking, Railway also has to invest on the rail track infrastructure it self. More on the case why healthy Railway Company has to calculate the timing of their investment carefully.

That's why like JR Hokkaido line that I put as example, JR move on calculative timing. Cause in the end those line has to make money, unless those line being build only to fullfill Political purpose. Which's clear in China Railways Interior and Western corridor routes.

Question is on any 'Political Business Decision' how long you are going to continue subsidising. China is not the only nation where 'Political Business Decision' can happen. However don't also have a dream that most of business decisions that being drive more by Political Motivation will turn commercially viable. It will not happen, cause from begining Politics already overide Commercial viabilities projections.

Politics can give incentives for Business to make a decisions. However end game decisions has to be base on commercial motives. Without that it will be Tax Payers subsidy for perpetuity.


This is too sum up what I wrote above. Will this meand China Railway will continue in trouble ? Not neccesary, however what it means it will continue being burden by unprofitable routes for many years to come, and China Tax Payers basically has to share the burden.

That's why China HSR models is not something that can be a model for other countries. China for one thing have regime that can push their political wills. Not many others that have economics for HSR can do what CCP done. The rest has to be very carefull with calculations on commercial viabilities on HSR/HST.
 
Last edited:

Terran

Well-Known Member
This article suggests that China has developed a tactical use of fast transport of its H.S.T,I'm not aware of anywhere else this is used but would also possibly be harder to monitor via satellite
Wasn’t this done in World war 1? I mean the military potential here is to move infantry and support personnel fine but HSR on heavy freight is limited. So you have the soldiers and the rations but not the tanks or heavy metal. So it’s on par with a civilian airliner.
 

seaspear

Active Member
If we were to compare the use of trains in military purposes we could even go back to the Boer war and even the Franco-Prussian war with armoured trains, the article also quotes the transport of cruise missiles in high-speed freight which is likely new .
If the P.L.A believe that the use of high-speed rail is of some value in rapid movement might suggest numbers have been crunched on logistical value
Consider this map of future H.S.R to Taiwan China high-speed rail planning map, China high-speed rail network
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
high-speed-rail-map-02.jpg


P.L.A believe that the use of high-speed rail is of some value in rapid movement might suggest numbers have been crunched on logistical value
If we see the map of China HSR that your link provide, on paper seems it's going to provide complete line toward all China population center. However the book of China Railway clearly shown they still have to subsidise most of the lines outside coastal area or near coastal area.

Because outside those profitable lines, other corridors simply don't have enough consumers buying power yet for average consumers on those interior and Western area for HST demand. That's why China Railway can't fill enough HST frequencies on those corridors.

So using them for non commercial purpose can be one thing that CCP has in mind, but that raise another question. How useful HST toward logistics ?

HST by design has to be light weight, and energy efficient. If not it's going to cost higher then what already expensive train system. However what the map doesn't shown, is the fact those corridors also already have more extensive Regular Train and Highways network.

HSR/HST is not part of basic land base transportation infrastructure. Regular train and Highways are. HSR basically more exclusive system build on corridors that already have enough consumers buying power, as alternative for airlines traveling mode.

If they modified HST for more freight in the cost of 100km reduction on average speed then passanger HST. Then they'll risking clogging the HSR network and reducing the traffic frequencies.

Why modified HST for freight when by modifications on regular train and lines you can already can run 150km+ on regular freight train. What modifications for freight on current HST just like China and Italian railway do, basically only for relative light weights cargo. Not really something that useful for PLA.

However if CCP intentions is for internal securities, perhaps it has some merit. Transferring securities personals for areas that needed reinforcement fast, can use HSR network with existing HST. After all on those purpose, you don't need much heavy equipment to transport.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
If we were to compare the use of trains in military purposes we could even go back to the Boer war and even the Franco-Prussian war with armoured trains, the article also quotes the transport of cruise missiles in high-speed freight which is likely new .
If the P.L.A believe that the use of high-speed rail is of some value in rapid movement might suggest numbers have been crunched on logistical value
Consider this map of future H.S.R to Taiwan China high-speed rail planning map, China high-speed rail network
The first military use of trains during a war I know of was in the late 1840s, for the movement of troops.

By the Crimean War in the 1850s some armies had permanent railway staff & both the British & French made considerable use of railways for moving troops, equipment & supplies. The British army even built a short railway in Crimea for military use.

In the Franco-Austrian war of 1859 superior railways & better use of them helped the French & Piedmontese defeat the Austrians. The Piedmontese & French railway networks were better than those of Austria & the Austrian-ruled part of Italy, enabling the French to field & supply an army in northern Italy easily, & there was the first tactical movement of troops in battle by train that I know of. The French switched a division from one flank to the other during a battle & attacked with it, winning the battle.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The first military use of trains during a war I know of was in the late 1840s, for the movement of troops.
The first "wartime" military use of trains in Germany was on September 18th 1848, in the September Revolution in which federal troops were brought into Frankfurt by train to bring down the revolutionary movement there. Troop movements using trains had been exercised since ca 1839, although there were no regulations for it until 1856.

One week later in 1848 the first documented attack on a railway line (by revolutionaries) occured about 50 km south of Frankfurt in order to prevent similar reinforcement of fighting in Baden by federal troops - supposedly the only combative action against a railway line before the American Civil War.

Russia supposedly moved an entire corps in 1849 by rail to assist against the Hungarian Revolution.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Yeah, that was what I was thinking of, though I couldn't remember details. I just remembered reading about it being done during the 1848 uprisings. I didn't know about the attack on a railway, though. Interesting.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The first "wartime" military use of trains in Germany was on September 18th 1848, in the September Revolution in which federal troops were brought into Frankfurt by train to bring down the revolutionary movement there. Troop movements using trains had been exercised since ca 1839, although there were no regulations for it until 1856.

One week later in 1848 the first documented attack on a railway line (by revolutionaries) occured about 50 km south of Frankfurt in order to prevent similar reinforcement of fighting in Baden by federal troops - supposedly the only combative action against a railway line before the American Civil War.

Russia supposedly moved an entire corps in 1849 by rail to assist against the Hungarian Revolution.
My German history is basic but I’m slightly confused.
You say that “federal” troops were brought to Frankfurt and my question is; which federation?
Did the Confederation of German States (Treaty of Vienna 1813) have a military component?
I understood that the Prussian dominated “federal” Germany was finally unified/coerced in 1871 under Bismarck.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You say that “federal” troops were brought to Frankfurt and my question is; which federation?
Did the Confederation of German States (Treaty of Vienna 1813) have a military component?
The German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) of 1815 to 1866 had the German Federal Army (Bundesheer) as its military component. It maintained 10 corps (300,000 men) plus a line of "federal fortresses" (Bundesfestungen) positioned against France that it financed and which served as primary peacetime bases and wartime mobilization points for the army.
During its only war against Denmark in 1848-1852 it also had a small navy of about 11 ships, which was promptly dissolved for financial reasons afterwards.

The troops - and budget - were contributed by the states in accordance with pre-set shares, with Prussia and Austria each contributing 30%, Bavaria 10% and the remaining about 35 states the other 30% (anywhere from a battalion to a division). The states usually maintained their own separate troops under their purview on top of this contribution. Bavaria and Prussia also each contributed two additional fortresses to the defence line, partially built from federal funds. Especially with the smaller states the contribution to the federal military wasn't exactly a priority and often significantly understaffed.

In the case of September 1848 troops from the federal fortress of Mainz were deployed into nearby Frankfurt by railway. The troops deployed were both Prussians and Austrians, primarily infantry. In addition Hessian state military was brought in - also by railway - that day from Darmstadt in the south and (marching from) Friedberg in the north as fire support (apparently primarily a field gun battery and light cavalry). Distances covered by rail were pretty minor, about 20-25 km in each case, but of course using trains still cut transport from a 3-4 hour march down to a "reactive" sub one hour.

I understood that the Prussian dominated “federal” Germany was finally unified/coerced in 1871 under Bismarck.
The last deployment of the German Federal Army (the last of six internal interventions/executions in its existance) was against Prussia in 1866 in the German-Prussian War, in which it was defeated. This led to the demise of the German Confederation, with Prussia first forcing states into the "North-German Confederation" in 1867, then expanding that into something again called "German Confederation" in 1870 and one year later in 1871 renaming that to "German Empire".
 
Last edited:

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I didn't know about the attack on a railway, though. Interesting.
It was actually a series of three sabotage attacks in various places across Baden, usually by just loosening screws holding tracks together and digging under sleepers to make the railway unusable - typically promptly fixed after having been discovered. The one in Weinheim - on the border of Hesse and Baden - resulted in a train derailing though (*), severely damaging the railroad dam and having an actual effect on troop movement.

A few thousand federal troops occupied the area around the attack afterwards and arrested supposed co-conspirators left and right for a couple weeks to the point where according to contemporary reports "jails were overflowing"; only four men from a family from Hesse were later sentenced for "destruction of the Main-Neckar railway with treasonous intent" though. One other - from the same family - is known to have fled to the USA (after going undercover and shooting a politician half a year later) and conspirators from Baden went scots-free since revolutionaries managed to burn all investigation files for the attacks in their state.

A bit funnily the revolutionaries a few days before the attacks were still pondering whether to use trains themselves to gather for large armed assemblies, to the point where they were discussing how to organize transporting weapons separately as cargo since the railway companies did not let armed men onboard.

(*) slight propaganda interpretation issue there: the revolutionaries claimed the derailed train itself was a "troop-carrying train", the federal version is that it simply was an empty train.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) of 1815 to 1866 had the German Federal Army (Bundesheer) as its military component. It maintained 10 corps (300,000 men) plus a line of "federal fortresses" (Bundesfestungen) positioned against France that it financed and which served as primary peacetime bases and wartime mobilization points for the army.
During its only war against Denmark in 1848-1852 it also had a small navy of about 11 ships, which was promptly dissolved for financial reasons afterwards.

The troops - and budget - were contributed by the states in accordance with pre-set shares, with Prussia and Austria each contributing 30%, Bavaria 10% and the remaining about 35 states the other 30% (anywhere from a battalion to a division). The states usually maintained their own separate troops under their purview on top of this contribution. Bavaria and Prussia also each contributed two additional fortresses to the defence line, partially built from federal funds. Especially with the smaller states the contribution to the federal military wasn't exactly a priority and often significantly understaffed.

In the case of September 1848 troops from the federal fortress of Mainz were deployed into nearby Frankfurt by railway. The troops deployed were both Prussians and Austrians, primarily infantry. In addition Hessian state military was brought in - also by railway - that day from Darmstadt in the south and (marching from) Friedberg in the north as fire support (apparently primarily a field gun battery and light cavalry). Distances covered by rail were pretty minor, about 20-25 km in each case, but of course using trains still cut transport from a 3-4 hour march down to a "reactive" sub one hour.


The last deployment of the German Federal Army (the last of six internal interventions/executions in its existance) was against Prussia in 1866 in the German-Prussian War, in which it was defeated. This led to the demise of the German Confederation, with Prussia first forcing states into the "North-German Confederation" in 1867, then expanding that into something again called "German Confederation" in 1870 and one year later in 1871 renaming that to "German Empire".
Thanks Kato that really filled some knowledge black holes.
I did study some basic modern history in high school but the German component was dominated by Prussia/Otto von B and the final “unification”.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks Kato that really filled some knowledge black holes.
I did study some basic modern history in high school but the German component was dominated by Prussia/Otto von B and the final “unification”.
As a slight P.S., the modern German Army "refers" to exactly this Federal Army of the German Confederation (... and to the 1848 revolutionaries too for that matter) for a number of its traditions due to it being relatively politically inconspicuous - even if its internal use was of course primarily to secure the monarchist system of the time.

Four of the nine fortresses used by the Federal Army were also still in use in modern times by the Bundeswehr - one (Ehrenbreitstein in Koblenz, situated on a hill above the largest base of the Bundeswehr) now houses the official memorial site for fallen soldiers of the Army, while another (Wilhelmsburg in Ulm) houses the NATO headquarter MN JHQ Ulm; two others (Germersheim and Ingolstadt) were used as depots and mobilization sites by the Bundeswehr until a few years ago.
Four fortresses in Germany had been given up in the 1880s after the '71 war moved the border westwards and were razed after WW1 under Versailles Treaty stipulations; the ninth fortress of the Federal Army was razed starting in '67 after Luxembourg declared itself "forever neutral".
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I put a thread not related to defense, on HST (High Speed Train)
For a perhaps interesting combination, according to some current media reports the German Army is considering buying three high-speed trainsets (Siemens Velaro Novo aka ICE3 Neo) for use as wounded transport trains.

The reason for using HST for this purpose is considered likely to be simply because that's what Deutsche Bahn, the state-owned railway operator, is buying at the moment. The likely primary purpose would be to transport civilians in case of pandemics and similar, similar to how France used SNCF-owned TGVs for this in 2020-2021.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
I thank you fellows for your replies, I had been aware of military rail use as far back as the American civil war in the 1860s.
My primary goal was to point out that Military use of HSR isn’t an earth shattering capability. Interesting yes.
But hardly revolutionary. As indicated Military rail service is an established capacity and quite common. What HSR seems to offer is domestic access responding to national emergency with personnel at near airliner speed but not with associated heavy equipment. A step up vs conventional passenger rail but at best equivalent to Domestic airlines in terms of needs on infrastructure and limitations. IE you still need to bus said personal to and from base or depots. Still need to move associated equipment separately by freight rail, Truck, air or barge.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The first military use of railways I know of was in 1848, in the widespread revolts in Europe. By the late 1850s it was common for European armies to have dedicated railway staff for managing movement of troops & supplies by train. The British army constructed a railway in Crimea for military use in the 1850s.

The French army had an advantage over the Austrians in the war in northern Italy in 1859 because France & Piedmont had better railway networks than Austria & Austrian-ruled NE Italy, & made better use of what they had in both supplying & moving their armies. The French moved a division by rail during one battle, from one flank to the other, thus surprising the Austrians.

I'm afraid that American histories have an unfortunate tendency to suggest that the USCW was the first in which military use of railways was significant.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The first military use of railways I know of was in 1848, in the widespread revolts in Europe. By the late 1850s it was common for European armies to have dedicated railway staff for managing movement of troops & supplies by train. The British army constructed a railway in Crimea for military use in the 1850s.

The French army had an advantage over the Austrians in the war in northern Italy in 1859 because France & Piedmont had better railway networks than Austria & Austrian-ruled NE Italy, & made better use of what they had in both supplying & moving their armies. The French moved a division by rail during one battle, from one flank to the other, thus surprising the Austrians.

I'm afraid that American histories have an unfortunate tendency to suggest that the USCW was the first in which military use of railways was significant.
Ah but according to Americans they single handledly won WW1 & WW2, and the Napoleonic Wars if they thought an American was involved in it.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Ah but according to Americans they single handledly won WW1 & WW2, and the Napoleonic Wars if they thought an American was involved in it.
Time to build that trans Tasman HSR.
Good for military logistics and football crowds.
Not sure which would be the most formidable


Cheers S
 
Top