High speed rail: Pattaya to Bangkok in well under an hour - around 300 baht!

[apophyss]

When we see how long they build the road from Pattaya to Jomtien,

it's better to wait before comment what came happen (maybe) next centuary...

[Jimdandy]

2 hours ago, thailand49 said:

Dream Dream Dream!  by the time it is all said and done and all the skimming off the top you really think fare will be around 300?  even this story indicating 300 baht, by the time one reads the article it has gone up around 30 baht so by the time it is build and running it will be around ???

A bazillion...

[Justfine]

7 hours ago, outsider said:

 

To travel 220 km in 45 minutes, the train has to do 293.333 km/h, including at the point of departure and arrival. In other words, from the word 'go', it must do 293.333 km/h, and arrive at the final stop at the same speed! Imagine, if you're not killed by the G-force during accelration from 0 - 293.333 km/h in zero seconds, you'd be dead when it stops from 293.333 km/h to 0 km/h on the dot, at the last station! And this doesn't take into consideration the seven stops along the way... It has to stop at the seven stops while doing 293.333 km/h. These people don't think before they speak or write anything, do they?

 

In reality, this train has to do way, way over 300 km/h if it is to meet its 45-min timeline inclusive of seven stops and the time it takes to accelerate and decelerate without crushing passengers' skulls or collapsing their lungs with the G-forces.

 

Don Muang to Pattaya is 164km.

[chicowoodduck]

Believe it when see it......sounds just like riding in a van up and down the motorway to me.....same speed and price.....??

[dontoearth]

19 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Please learn to count. 

No way you can do 220 km in 45 minutes running at 250 km/h,

and even far worse if you have to stop at 7 stations on the way !

      I wonder!  So the basic math skills of the people planning this are not very good, eh?  ROFL

[Jimdandy]

11 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      I wonder!  So the basic math skills of the people planning this are not very good, eh?  ROFL

They probably used Quantum finger counting for their calculations. 

[overherebc]

11 hours ago, outsider said:

 

To travel 220 km in 45 minutes, the train has to do 293.333 km/h, including at the point of departure and arrival. In other words, from the word 'go', it must do 293.333 km/h, and arrive at the final stop at the same speed! Imagine, if you're not killed by the G-force during accelration from 0 - 293.333 km/h in zero seconds, you'd be dead when it stops from 293.333 km/h to 0 km/h on the dot, at the last station! And this doesn't take into consideration the seven stops along the way... It has to stop at the seven stops while doing 293.333 km/h. These people don't think before they speak or write anything, do they?

 

In reality, this train has to do way, way over 300 km/h if it is to meet its 45-min timeline inclusive of seven stops and the time it takes to accelerate and decelerate without crushing passengers' skulls or collapsing their lungs with the G-forces.

 

Agree.

In one report says 5 stops, another 7. if we go for 5 lets say 5 minutes standing at each stop, that's 25 minutes total. leaving 20 minutes of moving time. 200 kilometres in 20 minutes, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean 600 kilometres an hour??? and doesn't even include slowing and accelerating. 

I'm sure I remember a simple calculation from way back to maintain average speed, for every stop you have to move at twice the required average speed for the same length of time as the stop. Not 100% on that one though.

[Airbagwill]

4 hours ago, Justfine said:

Don Muang to Pattaya is 164km.

Assuming it doesn't stop at an stations on the way the distance whether 200 or 160 between is pretty irrelevent

[Ossy]

2 hours ago, dontoearth said:

So the basic math skills of the people planning this are not very good, eh?  ROFL

So the basic posting skills of some of our number prevent them from saying what they mean and limit them to using only letters instead of their 'special' words.

 

I don't know what 'ROFL' means and I'm certainly not going to bother finding out but, if something's worth saying, then, for goodness sake, please say it.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Ossy
clarity

[overherebc]

8 minutes ago, Ossy said:

So the basic posting skills of some of our number prevent them from saying what they mean and limit them to using only letters instead of their 'special' words.

 

I don't know what 'ROFL' means and I'm certainly not going to bother finding out but, if something's worth saying, then, for goodness sake, please say it.

FAF

[lucjoker]

19 hours ago, Daveyh said:

I can see a major tragedy brewing here if they are going to use the existing rail track albeit with new high speed rails. It crosses so many unmanned crossings from Utapo to Bangkok & if the signals/barriers fail to stop impatient motorcyclists from crossing during the warning of a train, approaching crossing at 250kph .......... hmmm! I can see real danger here until they get all the traffic laws enforced with heavy fines & jail terms, plus who is going to tackle the "mindset"of drivers? Driving responsibly here just doesn't happen. I don't think Thailand is ready for this. Safety barriers will need to be placed all along the track on both sides where it's possible for motorcycles to cross etc ........ not viable at all. An improved railway system would be more beneficial & definitely a mandatory speed limit. All this speed etc nonsense is a receipe for disaster ............... 

thailand is not even ready for a bicycle.......but a high speed train ,yeah !

[outsider]

5 hours ago, Justfine said:

Don Muang to Pattaya is 164km.

 

Noted. However, I was referring to @Pattaya46's comment on distance vs travelling time vs average speed: " ...220 km in 45 minutes running at 250 km/h..." and my comment was in agreement to his, on how impossible that distance vs time vs average speed relationship is. My comment does not take into consideration specific distances between specific points therefore, the distance between DM and PTY is quite irrelevant to my post, in my opinion

Edited March 29, 2018 by outsider

[outsider]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

Agree.

In one report says 5 stops, another 7. if we go for 5 lets say 5 minutes standing at each stop, that's 25 minutes total. leaving 20 minutes of moving time. 200 kilometres in 20 minutes, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean 600 kilometres an hour??? and doesn't even include slowing and accelerating. 

I'm sure I remember a simple calculation from way back to maintain average speed, for every stop you have to move at twice the required average speed for the same length of time as the stop. Not 100% on that one though.

 

I think your estimation is roughly there or thereabouts. Scary innit, when you consider that they are toying with high-speed trains when they can't even keep a 50 km/h train on the track properly. The whole high-speed train thing is good actually, as long as they do it and manage it properly. They just need to go back to the drawing board for more realistic travelling times... lol

 

[Justfine]

27 minutes ago, outsider said:

 

Noted. However, I was referring to @Pattaya46's comment on distance vs travelling time vs average speed: " ...220 km in 45 minutes running at 250 km/h..." and my comment was in agreement to his, on how impossible that distance vs time vs average speed relationship is. My comment does not take into consideration specific distances between specific points therefore, the distance between DM and PTY is quite irrelevant to my post, in my opinion

220kph over 164km is about 45 mins though.

 

So the 45 min est is about right without stops.

 

 

[overherebc]

6 minutes ago, outsider said:

 

I think your estimation is roughly there or thereabouts. Scary innit, when you consider that they are toying with high-speed trains when they can't even keep a 50 km/h train on the track properly. The whole high-speed train thing is good actually, as long as they do it and manage it properly. They just need to go back to the drawing board for more realistic travelling times... lol

 

Travelled on high speed trains and one thing I noticed was the very secure fencing to keep the track free of the larger animals and brainless humans. Front screens must surely be almost if not the same as aero quality for bird strikes etc.

Don't know if you've stood in a station and watched a high speed go through but it appears and disappears before you can say sh-t!!!!!

I wonder if the cost of making it 'secure' has been factored in?

[mike324]

16 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

"ones that don't stop or only make one stop"

 

There is already a high speed, non-stop link between UTP and BKK or DMK (which are airports).

 

It's called the......aeroplane.

 

Which is much faster and is genuinely "point to point"

The distance between BKK and DMK is too short for HS to be relevant.

Thus the HS aspect of that "selling point" is redundant.

 

It's all a sham designed to maximise expenditure and the proportionate size of backhanders.

 

Its not irrelevant if the route passes by, this has been done in many countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and all other Europe. In the case of Taiwan, the shortest route between high speed rail is only 8km (taipei main station to Banqiao station). I just happen to take it last month, but I can cite other examples in Europe too!

 

Taiwans domestic airline industry was decimated by the introduction of high speed rail.

 

You don't seem to have taken high speed rails in other countries before to see how efficient and how much time and money you actually save vs flying.

 

Corruption is a different story which is in everything the government touches in this country.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by mike324

[outsider]

15 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Travelled on high speed trains and one thing I noticed was the very secure fencing to keep the track free of the larger animals and brainless humans. Front screens must surely be almost if not the same as aero quality for bird strikes etc.

Don't know if you've stood in a station and watched a high speed go through but it appears and disappears before you can say sh-t!!!!!

I wonder if the cost of making it 'secure' has been factored in?

 

Oh yes, I was at a platform in Japan many years back (more than a decade, really) and I had my back against the tracks, chatting with a friend. I realised that, by the time I actually heard the sound and looked over my shoulder, the train was already 'upon me' and in a huge swoosh of air, it was gone as quickly as it appeared. And the train was at the central track dedicated to non-stopping trains, so it was quite far away from where I was standing on the platform. And this was the old Shinkansen, not the new one with the duck-bill nose. So yeah, I know what you meant. That was quite an experience, isn't it? My friend told me that train wasn't doing its max speed - they 'slow down' when they pass through stations. So, imagine if it was going at full chat out in the open!

 

One of the posters here said they will have to build the tracks above ground, or under ground, or raise highways and roads above ground where they intersect with the tracks, to avoid brainless humans crossing or driving across the tracks thinking they can beat a train. And let's not forget the stray buffaloes and herds of elephants. They (the authorities) had better expend more effort in making it secure than they had on figuring out those travelling times! Because if anything happened at that kind of speed, there will be serious repurcussions to passengers INSIDE the train.

[overherebc]

5 minutes ago, outsider said:

 

Oh yes, I was at a platform in Japan many years back (more than a decade, really) and I had my back against the tracks, chatting with a friend. I realised that, by the time I actually heard the sound and looked over my shoulder, the train was already 'upon me' and in a huge swoosh of air, it was gone as quickly as it appeared. And the train was at the central track dedicated to non-stopping trains, so it was quite far away from where I was standing on the platform. And this was the old Shinkansen, not the new one with the duck-bill nose. So yeah, I know what you meant. That was quite an experience, isn't it? My friend told me that train wasn't doing its max speed - they 'slow down' when they pass through stations. So, imagine if it was going at full chat out in the open!

 

One of the posters here said they will have to build the tracks above ground, or under ground, or raise highways and roads above ground where they intersect with the tracks, to avoid brainless humans crossing or driving across the tracks thinking they can beat a train. And let's not forget the stray buffaloes and herds of elephants. They (the authorities) had better expend more effort in making it secure than they had on figuring out those travelling times! Because if anything happened at that kind of speed, there will be serious repurcussions to passengers INSIDE the train.

Been on the KTX to Seoul. It can do 305 but the fastest I've seen was around 290+, it may have touched 300 but I didn't actually see it, on the speedo. I still can't decide if it was a scary or exciting or both experience on the times I did it.

[outsider]

2 minutes ago, Justfine said:

220kph over 164km is about 45 mins though.

 

So the 45 min est is about right without stops.

 

 

 

Yes, your calculations are theoretically correct but that's not the point. The point of contention is "220 KILOMETRES (distance) in 45 minutes running at 250 km/h" - which is not possible. It's NOT about 220 km/h over 164 km in 45 minutes - I think you've got the variables wrong. We're not talking about Don Mueang to Pattaya, or 164 km.

 

But since we're here, let's dwell further into YOUR point of 220 km/h over 164 kilometres is about 45 minutes - which is correct. In theory. That's the average speed required to cover two points in a given time - in theory. In reality, you'd be killed because you need to get on a train that is doing 220 km/h and get off the train while it's still doing 220 km/h. Or the train accelerates from 0 km/h - 220 km/h immediately, and stops from 220 km/h to 0 km/h - immediately. Those kinds of forces would've killed you. Your argument doesn't take into consideration the real-world requirement of acceleration and deceleration (both of which require time) amongst other things. Therefore, to travel 164 kilometres in 45 minutes, you'd still need to travel faster than 220 km/h. They key is average speed. Seems your argument is still inaccurate, my friend. Sorry.

 

 

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, Justfine said:

So the 45 min est is about right without stops.

Yes . . . a non-stopping train sounds like the answer to the problem. At least the maths will stack up, but heaven help those standing at t'other end.

[overherebc]

50 minutes ago, outsider said:

 

Yes, your calculations are theoretically correct but that's not the point. The point of contention is "220 KILOMETRES (distance) in 45 minutes running at 250 km/h" - which is not possible. It's NOT about 220 km/h over 164 km in 45 minutes - I think you've got the variables wrong. We're not talking about Don Mueang to Pattaya, or 164 km.

 

But since we're here, let's dwell further into YOUR point of 220 km/h over 164 kilometres is about 45 minutes - which is correct. In theory. That's the average speed required to cover two points in a given time - in theory. In reality, you'd be killed because you need to get on a train that is doing 220 km/h and get off the train while it's still doing 220 km/h. Or the train accelerates from 0 km/h - 220 km/h immediately, and stops from 220 km/h to 0 km/h - immediately. Those kinds of forces would've killed you. Your argument doesn't take into consideration the real-world requirement of acceleration and deceleration (both of which require time) amongst other things. Therefore, to travel 164 kilometres in 45 minutes, you'd still need to travel faster than 220 km/h. They key is average speed. Seems your argument is still inaccurate, my friend. Sorry.

 

 

GSE Maths question.

 

Your journey is 200 kilometre long.

You travel at 40kph. 

On the way you stop twice for 30 minutes each time.

1. How long will your journey take?

2. If you travel at 60 kph and have had one stop how far will you still have to travel  80 minutes after starting your journey.

 

( Disregard slowing down and speeding up )

Edited March 29, 2018 by overherebc

[Justfine]

30 minutes ago, overherebc said:

GSE Maths question.

 

Your journey is 200 kilometre long.

You travel at 40kph. 

On the way you stop twice for 30 minutes each time.

1. How long will your journey take?

 

( Disregard slowing down and speeding up )

World's slowest train.

[DefaultName]

A couple  of things sprung out to me;

Route - there are a lot of bends on the proposed track for a high speed train, usually the builders make the track as straight as possible.

Fare - even if it does start at 300, how much to get to the station in Bangkok & how much at the other end?  I'm thinking 2-300 in Bangkok + the same in Pattaya, so 7-900 fare really. OK, so this doesn't apply to airports but even so, we're getting down to taxi prices - and that's for a single person, 2-3 travelling and the balance (of cost anyway) falls firmly in favour of the humble taxi.

 

I'd still try it though.

[mrmicbkktxl]

20 hours ago, Bastos60 said:

45 min is indeed unrealistic between Bangkok and Rayong, but it is complete nonsense they can never reach 250km/h,  they don't even need 2 km of clear track to reach maximum speed and only need 3 km of track to slow down into the next station. Depending on the quality of the railtrack, they will average a speed of 210 km/h on the complete route.  Without delays, suvarnabuhmi airport and pattaya will be doable in +-40 min, including all the stops on the way.

yes an ICE  needs 3km  if it is an emergency break,I'm not talking about emergency breaks,maybe you have a look on the map how short the distances are,anyway never mind

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

Travelled on high speed trains and one thing I noticed was the very secure fencing to keep the track free of the larger animals and brainless humans. Front screens must surely be almost if not the same as aero quality for bird strikes etc.

Don't know if you've stood in a station and watched a high speed go through but it appears and disappears before you can say sh-t!!!!!

I wonder if the cost of making it 'secure' has been factored in?

    They will work on that after the first few derailments and hundreds of deaths.   Right Away.

[Krataiboy]

Sometimes, as in the case of Pattaya being your destination, it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. 

[overherebc]

43 minutes ago, mrmicbkktxl said:

yes an ICE  needs 3km  if it is an emergency break,I'm not talking about emergency breaks,maybe you have a look on the map how short the distances are,anyway never mind

Busan to Seoul is about 320 kilometre and takes 2.5 hours by KTX, it can manage 300kph in 'some' parts of the journey.

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

GSE Maths question.

 

Your journey is 200 kilometre long.

You travel at 40kph. 

On the way you stop twice for 30 minutes each time.

1. How long will your journey take?

2. If you travel at 60 kph and have had one stop how far will you still have to travel  80 minutes after starting your journey.

 

( Disregard slowing down and speeding up )

1. 6 hours
2. 150 km

Ask me another

[Ossy]

And the Ministry boys were so hoping that the Hornby Pendolino set, they got for Christmas, was going to show them how to do it.

When I was a kid and wanted a change from my model railway, my dad got me a motorised flying saucer that went round and round on the end of its support rod. Maybe the Ministry boys should take a look at that option for Pattaya . . . much safer and no need for the train to turn round at each end. How do they do that . . . 3-point turn or what?

[CLW]

By the way, for medium speed layout it should not be necessary to elevate the whole structure. Would be enough to guard with secure fencing. I've never heard of an incident on the new BKK Pattaya motorway. Also reduce the number of existing crossings. Bridges for cars are much easier to build.
Therefore I would recommend to enhance the existing track as the best solution.