3 ms·

Haha. Now we know what the Chinese equivalent to The Onion is.

by paul_f 12y ago

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Chinadaily? They are quite serious, but not very professional. It would take only "2 days" to get to the US via this train, and the Russians would have to cooperate of course. Heck, we don't even have a train from Alaska to Seattle yet. It might make sense for freight, in which case "high speed" is not really necessary (well, it does help increase bandwidth). But for people? It will still be cheaper and fast to fly...maybe even more efficient considering that planes can fly in straight lines, mostly.
- tomrod 12y ago
  Planes don't fly in straight lines, especially in that corridor.[0] Example flight path[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance [1] https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4030/4622898186_e71984d836.jpg https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4030/4622898186_e71984d836.jp...
  - rosser 12y ago
    The whole point of Great-circle routes is that they are (effectively) straight lines. They just appear not to be on 2d projections of an oblate sphereoid — you know, a "map" of a "planet". From Wikipedia, "The minor arc of a great circle between two points is the shortest surface-path between them. In this sense the minor arc is analogous to “straight lines” in spherical geometry." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Circle
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    They do fly straight lines given a spherical coordinate system. All of my flights between Beijing and Seattle are via the arctic, but I doubt a train could achieve since it would have to cross the Bering straight between Asia and NA, and the topology is still extremely mountainous, unless it is completely underground or they drill through a lot of mountains, they will have to divert. Heck, the only way to drive from Seattle to Fairbanks or Anchorage is by diverting east in the Yukon to avoid the mountains on the panhandle (cities like Juneau and Ketchikan are not even connected by land for that reason).
  - tempestn 12y ago
    As mentioned by other comments, these are straight lines, which is why they take this route. What's interesting though is that it's also relatively close to the proposed train route, so the "straight line" advantage of the plane wouldn't be terribly significant.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Ocean freight is almost certainly more affordable, and does have fuel flexibility aircraft don't have: both wind and solid biofuels (particularly pelletized biofuel) are possible. Oil is preferred to coal for ships for several reasons, among them that oil can be pumped, while coal has to be shoveled or otherwise managed -- and rebalancing a ship's coal bunkers underway was a significant operational concern. Recoaling is another -- it takes longer and is less convenient than loading up with even no. 6 fuel oil (which must be heated to flow). And there's ash removal to be concerned with, as well as the indirect power generation of steam as opposed to diesel engines (which at ship scale are truly impressive). Pelletized fuels address at least some of those concerns. They're not a direct substitute in existing powerplants though, and I've got my grave misgivings as to just how much energy can be derived from biofuels in any regard, though marine transport is very efficient overall in energy per ton-mile of cargo moved.

Haha. Now we know what the Chinese equivalent to The Onion is.

by paul_f 12y ago

Haha. Now we know what the Chinese equivalent to The Onion is.

Chinadaily? They are quite serious, but not very professional. It would take only "2 days" to get to the US via this train, and the Russians would have to cooperate of course. Heck, we don't even have a train from Alaska to Seattle yet. It might make sense for freight, in which case "high speed" is not really necessary (well, it does help increase bandwidth). But for people? It will still be cheaper and fast to fly...maybe even more efficient considering that planes can fly in straight lines, mostly.

tomrod 12y ago
Planes don't fly in straight lines, especially in that corridor.[0] Example flight path[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance [1] https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4030/4622898186_e71984d836.jpg https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4030/4622898186_e71984d836.jp...
- rosser 12y ago
  The whole point of Great-circle routes is that they are (effectively) straight lines. They just appear not to be on 2d projections of an oblate sphereoid — you know, a "map" of a "planet". From Wikipedia, "The minor arc of a great circle between two points is the shortest surface-path between them. In this sense the minor arc is analogous to “straight lines” in spherical geometry." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Circle
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  They do fly straight lines given a spherical coordinate system. All of my flights between Beijing and Seattle are via the arctic, but I doubt a train could achieve since it would have to cross the Bering straight between Asia and NA, and the topology is still extremely mountainous, unless it is completely underground or they drill through a lot of mountains, they will have to divert. Heck, the only way to drive from Seattle to Fairbanks or Anchorage is by diverting east in the Yukon to avoid the mountains on the panhandle (cities like Juneau and Ketchikan are not even connected by land for that reason).
- tempestn 12y ago
  As mentioned by other comments, these are straight lines, which is why they take this route. What's interesting though is that it's also relatively close to the proposed train route, so the "straight line" advantage of the plane wouldn't be terribly significant.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Ocean freight is almost certainly more affordable, and does have fuel flexibility aircraft don't have: both wind and solid biofuels (particularly pelletized biofuel) are possible. Oil is preferred to coal for ships for several reasons, among them that oil can be pumped, while coal has to be shoveled or otherwise managed -- and rebalancing a ship's coal bunkers underway was a significant operational concern. Recoaling is another -- it takes longer and is less convenient than loading up with even no. 6 fuel oil (which must be heated to flow). And there's ash removal to be concerned with, as well as the indirect power generation of steam as opposed to diesel engines (which at ship scale are truly impressive). Pelletized fuels address at least some of those concerns. They're not a direct substitute in existing powerplants though, and I've got my grave misgivings as to just how much energy can be derived from biofuels in any regard, though marine transport is very efficient overall in energy per ton-mile of cargo moved.