Talk:China Railway CRH380A

Similarities with the Shinkansen 500 and 700 series
The train shows remarkable similarities with the Shinkansen 500 and 700 series regarding the nose and cab section (500 series) and the waggons (700 series). The latter is not surprising, since the CRH 2 is actually a copy of the 700 series, but the older Japanese 500 series was not in use in China thus far. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because the outside have similar appearances doesn't mean they're the same such as track and operation mechanics; are all cars the same because they have a hood, windshield, and trunk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.118 (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're clearly not a train aficionado, and you don't seem to know much about cars, either. I want this question to be clarified. The other Chinese-made high-speed trains are exact copies of the Siemens Velaro (CRH3) and the Japanese Shinkansen 700 series (CRH2). -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So train aficionado Alexey Topol, may I remind you CRH2A is derived from Shinkansen E2-1000, not the 700 series? can you tell us the difference between E2-1000, CRH2A and the modified CRH2C? -- Tigersandys (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The only part that's even remotely similar to the 500 is the paint job, the noses are completely different. The Velaro resembles the 500 because both were designed by the same bureau. The CRH2 is for all intents and purposes a Shinkansen E2, not a 700 and because the E2 is older it's highly unlikely that it copied the 700. They just both use some typical Japanese elements (inset doors, the elaborate pantograph). The 380A has a different body cross section (rounder) and a European style pantograph but still shows its Shinkansen heritage. But to call it a copy just for the looks of the body is wrong, the KRX-II is a clean room redesign of the TGV and the cars still look like TGV cars because it's not IP infringement and, so why fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.99.169 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to be a copy; this is the fastest in the world, no other country has this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.125 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, you are obviously a "liuxuesheng" from the ISU... thx for beeing such a patriot, its just amusing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.247.128 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan’s 700T train is a 12-cars configuration, whereas Shinkensen 700 is a 16-cars configuration. Prima facie two trains have different configurations, however they share the  similar power-over-passenger ratios and similar max-speeds. This is not a surprise because both trains are of 700 series. However, CRH380 is a class of its own. It has a much higher power-over-passenger ratio, hence higher max-speed. There is no way that one can patch Shinkensen trains, 700 series or 500 alike, into a CRH380. Impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.220.185 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

cw value
I just tried to estimate the energy used for air resistance. But I can not find anything about the cw. When I estimate 10 m² front area and cw=0,15, only 844 kW for air resistance at 350km/h, 1794 kW at 450 km/h. So it seems most of the engine power is only for acceleration, while air resistance is even at 350 km/h only at 10% of the engine power. --Pege.founder (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My first estimation seems to be complete wrong. The lenght of a train ads significant to the air resistance. I found a page about air resistance at trains--Pege.founder (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because of the spaces between the waggons, the undercarriages, doors which don't fit tight by design, every bit of space where wind can enter and cause drag. Even the bare walls and roofs cause drag, though much less than the aforementioned areas. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.220.185 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical Features
''High-air-tightness body, enabling the train body air tightness to decrease from 4000Pa to 1000Pa in more than 180 seconds. The pressure change rate inside the train is less than 200Pa/s, with the maximum pressure change inside the train remaining below 800Pa compared with the standard value of 1000Pa. This ensures good ride quality at high speed.''

?? This whole paragraph makes no sense. I assume it means that the thing is pressure tight, but the air tightness decreases from 4000Pa to 1000Pa in more than 180s... Huh?

It takes 7 minutes to accelarate to 380 km/h,When running at 380 km/h, per capita energy consumption per 100 km remains below 5.2kWh.

5.2kWh/100km/passenger at 380km/h translates to roughly 20kW per passenger. That's more or less exactly the 20MW/train divided by its 1000 passengers. It's highly unlikely that the train needs 100% of rated power at its design speed and if it did it certainly wouldn't reach that speed in 7 minutes.

High-speed dual-pantograph current-receiving performance.First adopted new active control high-speed pantograph

What?

''Human-oriented passenger interface. Outstanding intelligent performance.''

Somebody should reign in the marketing department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.99.169 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * re power-consumption: You have to factor in the temporary over-power used for acceleration, which is not sustainable over longer times. The acceleration time of 7 minutes to 380 kmh seems to be authentic. Power use at cruise speed is not 100%, since the trainsets are reportedly able to exceed 380 kmh significantly (up to 485 kmh without modifications, or sth.). Besides I would guess that the figures in the article were contributed directly by the manufacturer or Chinese persons who are knowledgeable about this trainset, which means that a) the figures are correct and b) it would explain the poor English, which makes some sentences uncomprehensible. Chinese companies and offices are infamous for their "Chinglish." -- Alexey Topol (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

maximum derail coefficient of the CRH2A
I looked up "derail coefficient" and got almost nothing but references to this article. What does it mean? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Energy from regeneration.
The article claims up to 95% efficiency from the regenerative braking and up to 800KWh energy regained from a complete braking. Assuming 100% efficiency from the regeneration system, 800KWh still translates into the energy of 2880 metric tons at 100m/s. How much does a CRH380 weight? Or maybe that 800KWh figure is from their record 480kph run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.127.229 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is not neutral
Hello,

in my opinion the article ist not neutral. It is written like there has taken place the creation of a new world wonder with the CRH380A. It is a nice train o.k., but indeed it does not bring something really new into the train industry.

It would be great, if somebody else would formulate the article more neutral.

Example: " the CSR conducted more than 1000 technical tests covering 17 specific areas such as dynamic performance, pantograph-catenary current collection, aerodynamics, and traction performance. CSR discovered the technology to increase the maximum speed."

Hm, 1000 tests for the development of a new train does not seem to be a really big number. I would await ten thousands of tests. And CSR discovered how to increase the maximum speed? Wow! Indeed the train is not the fastest one in the world (neither in operation, nor in test), 380 km/h operational speed are made easily years before by the Velaro E for example. And currently 300 km/h is the maximum speed in China.

If the train is such magic, why it hasn't been sold into the world yet? TGV/Shinkansen/Velaro are in operation in many countries and the count is growing...

2003:63:235F:9591:1D65:9AC5:1235:98FC (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read the article myself and cannot find any section that isn't neutral. You should be specific and point the section out. As a past expat who rode on china's high-speed trains and have read many other people's experiences in business newspapers. I find the article to be quite conservative on its praise. The frequent consensus on the media is that it's hard to find fault with them and mostly glowing praise from journalists. 49.195.164.27 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)https://www.businessinsider.com.au/china-bullet-train-speed-map-photos-tour-2018-5?r=US&IR=T There is a youtube vid that demonstrates and proves the smoothness of the ride where one rider puts a coin standing up throughout the trip and it won't fall even at max speeds. What exactly is your experience or reasons for the need to add negative info for the sake of neutrality? If you feel the info in the article is being exaggerated or termed over-rated, you have to provide a real argument and please not resort to personal soapboxing.

Also you wrote "And CSR discovered how to increase the maximum speed? Wow!" Why must that deserve a sarcastic tone? According to the link -, it set a record by speeding at 486.1kmph during its trial operation in December 2010 and has an operational speed of 380kmph. Velaro E in comparison achieved a max "trial" speed of about 400kmph and lesser operational speed of 350kmph. CRH380A current speeds are objectively impressive by international scales - currently the second fastest operating train in the world. And your final question of concern, "If the train is such magic, why it hasn't been sold into the world yet?" Politics, years of branding, geography and economics are the other major factors. It doesn't mean quality is deemed inferior. But despite the politics and economics, Chinese high-speed train maker had beat Japan on the contract for Indonesia's high-speed rail which is still under construction. And hi-tech Chinese subway train designs are being exported to Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Lastly you wrote 1000 tests does not seem to be a really big number. If you have any authoritative source that says 1000 is a relatively small number. Then please cite it and make the statement. Otherwise it's just your personal opinions and not facts. 49.195.164.27 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing reference
Cant find any reference in the article that CRH380A maximum operational speed was 350 km/h (217 mph) (until 2011) — Preceding --JKBDre (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC) comment added by JKBDre (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)