Fly or Train?: Beijing to Shanghai
Jul 9, 2016 | 10:47 am
#46
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: MAN DXB ✈️
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 6,932
Generally two or three weeks ahead works for getting decent airfares, unless you're travelling at a holiday period.
There can be fairly big seasonal differences in fares, with discounts being greater in the winter than summer.
Also, discounts tend to appear on busy, well-travelled routes. Flights in and out of a small place like Huangshan, for example, often don't get discounted that much.
There can be fairly big seasonal differences in fares, with discounts being greater in the winter than summer.
Also, discounts tend to appear on busy, well-travelled routes. Flights in and out of a small place like Huangshan, for example, often don't get discounted that much.
Jul 10, 2016 | 11:29 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 18
Jul 10, 2016 | 11:35 pm
#48
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 46,400
Most, but not all, double digit trains stop in Nanjing and Jinan only.
Triple digit trains have at least 3 stops.
Jul 10, 2016 | 11:44 pm
#49
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 18
Which trains were speed up? I just checked Shanghai-Beijing on 12306, and the fastest trains are still 4:48 (G2, G4, G8). Incidentally, G8 is a welcome addition to the schedule because it makes it possible to work an entire day before leaving.
Regarding the decrease from 350 to 300, this happened after that accident in ~2010, and safety was the stated reason for the change. However, since that accident had nothing to do with the speed of travel, I have long suspected that saving money was the --behind the scenes-- reason. During testing of the Jing-Hu Line, I recall reading that some trains were run at very high speeds (e.g. 450).
Regarding the decrease from 350 to 300, this happened after that accident in ~2010, and safety was the stated reason for the change. However, since that accident had nothing to do with the speed of travel, I have long suspected that saving money was the --behind the scenes-- reason. During testing of the Jing-Hu Line, I recall reading that some trains were run at very high speeds (e.g. 450).
Jul 10, 2016 | 11:53 pm
#50
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 18
G6 stops at Najing & Ji'nan
G## < G20 usually only stops at Nanjing & Ji'nan, while G12 has 5 stops
Others 5+
Jul 10, 2016 | 11:58 pm
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 46,400
In the original Jinghu HSR schedule, 2-digit trains adhered to the 2-stop convention, but this went out the window when they starting trying to optimize things.
Jul 11, 2016 | 12:02 am
#52
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 18
Jul 11, 2016 | 2:13 am
#53
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Programs: KrisFlyer Gold
Posts: 9,606
I guess for trains it's quite similar than with cars: After a certain point of speed, consumption goes up so much it's simply not worth it.
I can drive my car at 80km/h or 120km/h for about the same consumption (5l/100km) - when I go up to 150 or 160km/h, I'll have an increase of about 20-40%, still reasonable for the speed I gain (compared to 120km/h) - I gain about as much time as the extra consumption is.
But if I press it above that, consumption does increase much more than the raw speed gain. I can imagine that 300km/h for a train is about the same as 150km/h for my car. Go above it, and it uses much more electric power than going just a little bit slower.
And considering the HSR operator probably got told to be more efficent, they'll keep it that way, unless going at higher speed gets them more money.
I can drive my car at 80km/h or 120km/h for about the same consumption (5l/100km) - when I go up to 150 or 160km/h, I'll have an increase of about 20-40%, still reasonable for the speed I gain (compared to 120km/h) - I gain about as much time as the extra consumption is.
But if I press it above that, consumption does increase much more than the raw speed gain. I can imagine that 300km/h for a train is about the same as 150km/h for my car. Go above it, and it uses much more electric power than going just a little bit slower.
And considering the HSR operator probably got told to be more efficent, they'll keep it that way, unless going at higher speed gets them more money.
Jul 11, 2016 | 2:32 am
#54
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 46,400
Jul 11, 2016 | 3:53 am
#55
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 18
I guess for trains it's quite similar than with cars: After a certain point of speed, consumption goes up so much it's simply not worth it.
I can drive my car at 80km/h or 120km/h for about the same consumption (5l/100km) - when I go up to 150 or 160km/h, I'll have an increase of about 20-40%, still reasonable for the speed I gain (compared to 120km/h) - I gain about as much time as the extra consumption is.
But if I press it above that, consumption does increase much more than the raw speed gain. I can imagine that 300km/h for a train is about the same as 150km/h for my car. Go above it, and it uses much more electric power than going just a little bit slower.
And considering the HSR operator probably got told to be more efficent, they'll keep it that way, unless going at higher speed gets them more money.
I can drive my car at 80km/h or 120km/h for about the same consumption (5l/100km) - when I go up to 150 or 160km/h, I'll have an increase of about 20-40%, still reasonable for the speed I gain (compared to 120km/h) - I gain about as much time as the extra consumption is.
But if I press it above that, consumption does increase much more than the raw speed gain. I can imagine that 300km/h for a train is about the same as 150km/h for my car. Go above it, and it uses much more electric power than going just a little bit slower.
And considering the HSR operator probably got told to be more efficent, they'll keep it that way, unless going at higher speed gets them more money.
Not sure how the cost is calculated