Riding the World's Fastest Train @ 500 kph 588
angkor writes "Riding the world's fastest train @ 500 kph - some lucky people got a chance to ride on this experimental train. The Japan Times has the story." I like the part where the wheels retract as it starts picking up speed, with the train floating 10cm over the tracks. If only the California high-speed rail system was up and running.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ouch (Score:2)
Well, that's the way we do it in England...
Re:ouch (Score:2, Funny)
Several years ago, Amtrak was pretty notorious for lots of bad derailments. That's the source of his comment. It was just a joke. :)
Re:ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Vietnam - 5.29 fatalities/million train-km
Thailand - 1.05
Bangladesh - 0.66
Netherlands- - 0.28
United States - 0.25
India - 0.21
Iran - 0.11
Japan - 0.10
France - 0.05
Russia - 0.01
The U.K. - 0.1 fatalities/million train-km [railwaysafety.org.uk]
The safety record seems to be significantly worse than some countries, but then again it's significantly better than others. It all depends on what you're comparing it to I suppose.
Re:ouch (Score:2)
Re:ouch (Score:2)
No, the article says:
I didn't think I would have to explain my. Note the original numbers were given in miles, not kilometers. The target reduction from 103 to 34 fatalities (0.1 per million miles) is 67%. 3.02 x 0.1 = 0.30 fatalities per million miles. 1 mile is equivalent to 1.60 kilometers, so 0.30 / 1.60 = 0.18 fatalities/ million train-km. I apologize for being a little off in my original estimateShame, really... (Score:5, Interesting)
The rest of the world has the right of it, I think, sometimes.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Such high speed trains are meant to replace aeroplanes up to middle distance (say up to 1000km).
Much more economic (both moneywise and fuel consumption), faster because shorter check-in times, safer.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2)
We don't even carpool. I can't see how mass transit will ever take hold outside crowded urban areas. Offer tax incentives for mass transit and more people will do it. If a round-trip ticket to DC was $20, I might consider it.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2, Interesting)
You obviously don't know (at least) New York City. Yes, there are thousands of cars on the streets, but we have a very good mass transit system in the tri-state area (NY, NJ and CT) that carries hundreds of thousands of commuters into the city every day. The NYC mass transit system alone registers nearly 2.3 billion riders a year (about 6.3 million a day).
I will agree with your argument in other areas, however. I think that in many places in the country, they have nowhere near the mass transit system of other countries. Never really noticed much in Denver or Cleveland. Granted, things are little more spread out there.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you factored in the costs of roads, highway patrols, wrecks, ambulances, and the whole taxpayer-funded infrastructure that props up the federal highway system? Mass transit isn't economical, period (if you mean profitable as a stand-alone enterprise.) The Interstates are even less "economical" because (excepting toll roads,) you don't pay to get on. You can't make the comparison until you've factored in costs such as these. Pollution should be counted in as well. If hundreds of thousands took public transport, would auto insurance premiums change? You still have to insure the sucker to put it on the street, but if you don't use it as often, odds of an accident should go down. Whether rates would go down is a differnt story.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2)
All too often when road and rail are compared the comparison is completly "apples and oranges".
Re:Shame, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Buses, travelling an equivalent amount of passenger miles, pollute more than cars, as do diesel powered trains.
Electric powered trains don't directly pollute more, but the electricity they consume can increase power plant pollution.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Japan needed something to spend money on after World War II in order to get people re-employed. And they weren't allowed to spend it on building up a huge military, so they spent it on public works projects like the shinkansen (high-speed electric rail).
No one has ever told America that she's not allowed to spend money on military growth. Maybe if we hadn't spent trillions of dollars on the cold war, we would have a great national train system right now. Instead, all we have had to show for it is a collection of weapons that are only useful against a giant enemy that doesn't exist anymore and hundreds of thousands of out of work government defense contractors (most of those lost their jobs in the early to mid-90's). Oh yeah there's that huge national debt.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you ever think that the gigantic enemy isn't there anymore because se built all the big weapons? It's well documented that the Reagan SDI was the world's biggest head-fake for the kremlin-- it was meant to accelerate Soviet spending to the point that it would break theregime, and it worked!
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2)
The trains were all bought up by oil/car companies who drove them all into the sea.
Or at least, that's what I heard, but cannot find any url.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we could ride it to Washington on MayDay to listen to the Premier speak, and watch the Migs fly over.
Re:Shame, really... (Score:3, Funny)
OK, imagine if you will a complex global network of underground vacuum tubes with maglev trains zipping along friction-free at potentially thousands of miles per hour. It's faster than a plane, cheaper per mile, and since it's mostly underground, the environmentalists would only get to bitch about a few earthworms and such.
Of course, we can't build this today because digging tunnels is super expensive, but it WILL eventually get built IMO.
The most important enabling technology will be nanotechnology -- so instead of digging tunnels the hard way, we can completely automate the process by programming our vat of "smart goo" to "eat" downward 10 miles, then westward 2500 miles to go the distance from NYC to Los Angeles, and build as it progresses.
--
Re:Shame, really... (Score:2)
Such a system would be welcomed by me in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd much rather travel by train, but it's always been much too slow. Even though these new trains are still slower than flying, they make up the difference quite a bit.
A smooth, relaxing train ride where all seats are Business class or better? Sign me up.
Re:Such a system would be welcomed by me in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why THALYS is such a succes (Score:3, Interesting)
But in the last few years Railway operators have discovered the business market and are offering new (high speed) products towards that market.
Thalys [thalys.com] and Eurostar [eurostar.com] are two great examples. They interconnect a few major cities in differnt European countries. Especially THALYS (connecting Brussels (B), Amsterdam (NL) and Colone (D) amongst others) is a big success. It's not much faster or cheaper than flying, but it's much more luxurious and they drive you right to the city centre.
Eurostar (connecting Brussels, Paris and London)is not yet very successful, but that's because can't yet benifit from high speeds on the English tracks.
European trains (Score:3, Informative)
All across continental Europe, you'd be right to compliment the trains. France, Italy, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have perfectly good systems in my experience (sorry about the random selection - I don't normally travel by train and there's a lot of Europe I haven't been to anyway), although Romania is a bit ropey.
Re:Such a system would be welcomed by me in the US (Score:2)
Actually, due to all the fun airport security, there are places where the train is faster now (i.e. Boston to New York, since Amtrak runs straight into Penn Station)
'Cause I hate flying too. :) And the train has bigger seats, so when people fall asleep, they don't fall on me.
TGV vertical acceleration (Score:2, Informative)
One surprising effect on the TGV (the fast french train) is that you can feel positive and negative vertical Gs (or at least centiGs) as the train goes over hills.
mmmmmmmm, new toys (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Simpson's quote (Score:4, Funny)
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Although 'Maglev' doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well as 'Monorail' :)
Is it Al Qaeda bait? (Score:2, Interesting)
This article in the The Journal of Homeland Security [homelandsecurity.org] talks all about mass transit being used as a tool for mass terrorism, including the 1995 derailment of the Sunset Limited in the Arizona desert. That incident killed 1 and injured 65 and it was not traveling at 500kph.
Right now, the idea of maglev trains and all that exposed track scares me.
Re:Is it Al Qaeda bait? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We should never do anything ever again, just in case someone decides to break it.
Re:Is it Al Qaeda bait? (Score:2)
Because they are so much lighter than conventional trains, they should produce less damage if they crash, even though they are moving faster. Remember, kinetic energy = mass times velocity squared (E_k = mv^2, Newtonian physics). Which would you rather be hit by, a two-ton pickup truck travelling at 20 miles per hour, or a tennis ball travelling at 60 miles per hour?
Re:Is it Al Qaeda bait? (Score:2)
Velocity makes a far greater contribution to kenetic energy than mass. Also whilst the trains themselves might be lighter this does not make the passengers and their luggage lighter.
Re:Is it Al Qaeda bait? (Score:2)
Re:Take Notice of the ^2 (Score:2)
There is a lot of interesting information about the technology on this page:
http://www.rtri.or.jp/rd/maglev/html/english/ma
Counter-argument: So can the road system (Score:2)
* I'm saying this as an example my dear NSA and FBI. I am not a terrorist, and you shouldn't paint me as one because I also believe in encryption for privacy.
New Pickup Line (Score:2)
Re:New Pickup Line (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I try to avoid bragging about how fast I finish.
What the?? (Score:4, Funny)
What happen? Main electric board turn on. We get signal.
Re:What the?? (Score:2)
From that point on the Japanese Imperial line has remained unbroken.
Re:What the?? (Score:2, Funny)
Priceless (Score:4, Funny)
Ticket on the new train: $110
Accepting a dare from your mates: Free
Being the first person to do a 500 kph face-plant into a low bridge while train surfing: Priceless
Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:5, Informative)
There have been two cases for it in Germany and the Netherlands, Hamburg-Berlin and Amsterdam-Groningen, both times it failed on the excessive costs that are nescessary to build this track. The main problem of the system lies in the fact that at speeds above 300km/hr the magnetic system creates a drag of its own, so the drag of the wheels and track have been substituted. Furthermore the aerodynamic drag turns out to be a much more important factor than they first expected. So instead of being signifficantly more efficient at high speeds, it is only marginally more efficient at a much higher investment cost. That is why both the Dutch and German government decided not to build production tracks.
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maglev not economically feasible (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see drag as a serious problem since the only thing cooler than a high-speed, levitating train is a high-speed, levitating train with golf-ball dimples.
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2)
Have you ever seen aircraft with these dimples?
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2)
The original plan to build a track Berlin - Hamburg has been scrapped after years of planning in 2000 due to high costs. Now two alternative tracks are planned, one in Bavaria and one in Northrhine-Westfalia. The only case, in which Germany was successful in selling this train is China. There's a short track being build in Shanghai, with the hope to get an additional order for a long track between Shanghai and Beijing.
By now the Transrapid is seen in Germany as an example where an advantage in technology is being lost due to not enough courage to take a risk (i.e. build a track). The story's been going on for years now, and the Chinese track is pretty much the last hope for the project. It's great technology, but it's also very expensive and makes only sense on real long tracks...
btw: Siemens and Thyssen also founded a "Transrapid USA" company. They were trying to sell the train to several cities and states in the US, and several tracks were (are?) being evaluated by the government. Don't know what happened to that...
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2)
Just an addition: As you could have guessed the URL for that is www.transrapid-usa.com [transrapid-usa.com]. There's a map of the US with all proposed routes and other stuff. The German site [transrapid.de] is still more informative about the train itself, though.
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2)
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:2)
Re:Maglev not economically feasibble (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. (Score:2)
You can probably use neat tricks to reduce drag a lot in a train anyway. (But a lot of them have already been used in high-speed trains.)
American Maglev (Score:2, Interesting)
A French perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, in France most people use high speed train (TGV - 360kph, tested @ 515kph) rather than plane or conventional train...
Reasons :
For a trip from Paris to Lyon (about 450km/280 mi) :
Why take a plane ?
And those trains are quite safe : a handful of those trains derailed, but no-one was killed...
A few cost things (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A few cost things (Score:4, Insightful)
London to Paris: 213 miles.
Paris to Berlin: 545
London to Instanbul: 1557 miles.
New York to LA: 2400 miles.
Intercity European distances are much more representative of single regions of the US, such as the East Coast:
Boston to Jacksonville, FL: 1000 miles.
Not coincidentally, there is much more ridership on East Coast routes, and talk of setting up a regional rail system for California alone:
Redding,CA-> San Diego, CA: 600 miles).
It's not that Europeans are pinkos or Americans are knuckle scraping neanderthals; the geography of the two contients are different, and rail will always be relatively more practical and important in a united Europe than in the United States.
Sounds like Amtrak (Score:2)
In fact, it's often faster and cheaper to HIRE A LIMO and drive! (This is despite I-95 traffic)
A little rail gun, maybe? (Score:2)
More details on high speed trains (Score:5, Informative)
The Times article is nice and gives a good feel of what new generations trains will feel for passengers in a distant future, however the technology and the various experimental versions of high speed levitating trains are not exactly new.
Maglev research started in 1962, and by 1970 studies of electrodynamic levitation systems using superconducting magnets took shape. The first test run took place in 1979. In December 1986, a 3-car train registered 352.4 kph (220 mph). In December 1997, a manned MLX01 attained 531 kph (331 mph), and unmanned, attained 550 kph (344 mph). The following year, a test of two trains passing each other at a relative speed of 966 kph was run successfully. In March 1999, an unmanned five-car MLX01 reached 548 kph (342 mph). In April, the manned five-car MLX01 set a fabulously fast world speed record at 552 kph (345 mph).
We can see that the Japanese aren't ready for commercial deployment yet, as the article reads on:
Europeans daily experience high speed trains for the last decade, with the Eurostar and the TGV cruising commercially at over 300 kph (188 mph). The German have the ICE, which reaches 330 kph (206 mph). The Spanish Talgo is in the works and will do 350 kph (218 mph).
Re:More details on high speed trains (Score:2, Informative)
The "French/British Eurostar" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true that those high-speed tracks are tremendously expensive. Only a nationalized company like the SNCF can do it on such a large scale (eg, Paris-Marseille, over 800 km, 3 hours, track completed last year). I think the SNCF is a good example of why public services like railways are better not privatized...
California high speed rail a boondoggle (Score:2, Insightful)
They always talk about how the train would be competitive in downtown to downtown. That's because they ignore the fact you could put the high speed train from the downtown to the airport for a fraction of the price, and check you in on the train to drop you off in the secured area.
So run the high speed rail within the bay area and the L.A. basin where it makes sense, but seriously, are we going to see the desired traffic from Fresno to Modesto to justify the cost?
And it's an even worse terrorist target than the planes, since you can't guard the whole track, and a slight problem can cause a catastrophe at that speed.
Oh, please! (Score:2)
And don't get me started about fuel efficency. Hurling few hundreds passengers in tonnes of metal up to 10km height!? Just think how much fuel that wastes.
Airplanes have their uses, I doubt trains will ever replace airplanes on coast to coast routes, but they could work on something like the Boston-Wasington route.
But I guess the airlines are quite good at lobbying, wasn't there a mag-lev project in Texas that was cancelled due to airline lobbying? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
technology (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite the world's fastest (Score:2)
Transit Trains make sense in Japan (Score:3, Funny)
In the US, we'd have to put tracks EVERYWHERE to get an equivelent connection to what Japan has.
(Hm... Or, we could just move EVERYBODY to Washington, Oregon, and California, set the rest aside for public parks and farming, and THEN build our cool train system...)
Trains, Planes, and... (a little background) (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it turns out that the so-called "Tokyo's airports" aren't really close to Tokyo at all, and by the time you land in Shin-Osaka, you've spent over 2 hours getting there. Driving is out of the question, as traffic is horrible at all times, and you have to worry about expensive tolls on the not-so-freeway every 40 miles or so... ...not to mention the $5/gallon gas... So... what about bullet trains?
The bullet trains that go as fast as 300kph would get there in under 2 hours, but because the express train (Hikari, means "light") shares most of the same rails as the every-station-stop train (Kodama, means "echo" - get it? :) ), it can't always go 300kph. Even though it doesn't stop at every station, the Hikari train still has to slow down to around 50% speed when it's whizzing by the folks waiting on the platform 5 feet away, which slows the entire trip to 3+ hours.
You know, this isn't too far-fetched an idea... The maglev will undoubtedly have its own rail, and if it makes only 3~4 stops along the way to Osaka, it'll definitely do the Tokyo-Osaka run in under an hour. The construction of the maglev would create more jobs, and the one-hour commute will encourage "business" to take place faster. Will the maglev railway will turn a profit by itself? Probably not... But will it become a catalyst for Japan's economy to get healthier? Possibly so...!I just hope they include the maglev for the week-long rail passes.
- posting anonymously, seeing as how my karma can only go down...
Re:Trains, Planes, and... (a little background) (Score:3, Informative)
If you take a look at the tracks map [dion.ne.jp] (the current Tokyo-Osaka tracks are in orange), you'll see that they don't go in a straight line at all:
they follow the coast (through Shizuoka), and after Nagoya they still take a longer path to go through Kyoto instead of heading directly towards Osaka.
The reason for this is that Japan is constituted mostly of mountains. And the straight line from Tokyo to Osaka has to cross many of them. As a result, the construction of the straight Tokyo-Osaka maglev line will cost billions
- They need to develop the new maglev technology and stabilize it
- They need to build hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and bridges
- They need to build the maglev tracks
Therefore, don't expect the maglev to be inaugurated before at least a decade.
btw ac the fastest Shinkansen is not the hikari, but the nozomi. The Hikarii IIRC stops at least in Shizuoka, Nagoya, Kyoto, whereas some Nozomis don't make any stop between Tokyo and Osaka, and thus gain a few minutes.
It's a fake! (Score:2, Interesting)
China's Maglev (Score:3, Informative)
And also there are rumors that china will build a maglev connecting Beijing and Shanghai by 2008 (for the 2008 olympics). knowing how chinese love to show off, i wouldn't bet against this.
i say we wait and see how china does with their maglev... they have enough people to spare (j/k)
problems with mobile phones (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:problems with mobile phones (Score:2)
Transrapid in China and Germany (Score:3, Informative)
You can find more info on the website of Transrapid in English [transrapid.de] or German [transrapid.de].
Bye egghat.
Birmingham, UK Maglev (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember travelling on this just after it opened in 1984 and was amazed by the sci-fi-ness of it all.
Maglev was prone to unreliability and was recently scrapped and replaced [bbc.co.uk] with a traditional people mover
California HS trains look familiar (Score:3, Informative)
Lucky my ass. (Score:2)
Let's see....get a steel tube hurtling across the ground at ~500km/h, and oh! It's still in a stage being called "experimental"! These people are about as lucky as my one-eyed three-legged ringwormed dog bearing that name.
Southwest Chief (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn well better be great, at $1100 round-trip.
However, keep this in mind: When a plane lands at an airport, that is a minimum of 45 minutes from touchdown to takeoff, and usually more like an hour. The train stops are 5 minutes.
Now, it takes 3 days to get from New York to LA via rail (and a day and a quarter from KS to LA). The fastest the train goes is about 75 MPH (about 125 kph). Most of the trip's legs are pretty long - a TGV would be able to run at top speed for more than 90% of the run. That would pull the time down to less than a day from NY to LA.
Trains are FAR more efficent than planes at moving people, so the cost per seat can be far less. Also, making the train bigger or smaller depending upon load is easy - add cars. You really can't bolt a few extra seats on a plane. You also can make the seats larger on a train for comparitively less cost than a plane.
So, why don't we have this in the US? First, there's the Teamsters - they would much rather see freight move by truck than train, as that employs more Teamsters. Second, when the government cherry-picked the passenger rail from Sante Fe et. al., they really screwed up. SF owns the rail beds, and SF sees no reason to improve the railbeds to allow for fast trains. Amtrak would like faster trains, but with the railbeds in the condition they are, 70MPH is the limit. Also, since Amtrak is forbidden to carry significant freight, they cannot use freight to subsidise passenger service.
It's a shame, since if we had a decent rail service in this country, we would need fewer airports and aircraft (though, living in the Air Capitol of the World, that might be a bad thing) and we could reduce the numbers of trucks and cars on the highways (especially if Amtrak offered more AutoTrain service - I'd love to pull my car on a train in Newton, and pull off in Williams, then drive to the Grand Canyon).
But as long as SF sees no reason for faster freight service, and Amtrak cannot upgrade the lines, we will be stuck with the CF we have now.
High speed rail in USA? (Score:3, Interesting)
That comment was, of course, only the first scrap of a litany of "if only we had super-duper high-tech trains in the USA". (Yeah, it's News-for-Nerds, should I be surprised?) But sometimes a rather good, low-tech solution is also possible. It is less sexy, and less likely to have a corporate lobbyist selling it, but it is probably the best choice.
Recently, some boosters were clamoring for high-speed rail between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C, so that we could have a sexy train in time for some Olympics or somesuch. The projected cost ("projected" in this case is a euphemism for "wildly optimistic") was something like $4,000,000,000. There have also been proposals for high-speed from Washington, D.C to Richmond, Virginia, which would cost similar large piles of money.
How about something simple, like adding the overhead wires and such so that electric engines can travel South and West from Washington, D.C? Currently, if you travel through Washington, from any big Northeast ciy, and try to continue South or West, you will learn that they stop for a half hour in D.C., while they unhitch the electric engine, take it away, bring a diesel engine, hitch it, test it, yadda yadda. During most of the half hour, the coaches are sitting there, unpowered, unventilated, unlit. It does not make a good impression, and it is not speedy.
Sabotage? (Score:3, Interesting)
How susceptible is such a train to sabotage? Would a one-foot diameter rock tossed into the center of the tracks derail the train? It's difficult enough securing airplanes when you only need to check the departure point. How do you secure hundreds or thousands of miles of rails?
Some maglev history (Score:5, Informative)
The Japanese made a couple of mistakes however. First their track switching technology [rtri.or.jp] is cumbersome. They literally move concrete barriers around to shove the train onto another track. Secondly, they didn't design their magnets correctly and so have had problems maintaining them. Those problems aside, the Japanese have done a first rate implementation job.
The Germans, in an attempt to circumvent the Powell and Danby patents and cut costs, chose a conventional electromagnet approach for their maglev solution. Powell and Danby had considered eletromagnets and rejected them due to inherent limitations. First, electromagnets aren't anywhere as strong as superconducting magnets so the gap between vehicle and track is much smaller. Secondly, a power loss would be catastrophic. Thirdly, the way the Germans have approached maglev using magnets to attract each other, requires active controls. The intra-magnet gap has to be maintained to very close tolerances otherwise the train gets pulled into the track or falls away from the track if it veers too far. The tolerance problem will be especially acute in seismically active locations like China and California where tracks will drift slightly on a daily basis.
Powell and Danby have kept working at maglev despite paltry American support. Their website [maglev2000.com] describes several design changes to their original idea. They've designed all electronic switching equipment that makes dynamic track switching feasible. That's advantagous on a heavily traveled track that's being shared by express and local trains. They've also re-arranged their track to a monorail cum flatbed design to support dynamic switching.
Their website describes a variety of uses for maglev. Among them is a trans-continental vacuum tube that enables coast to coast travel in under an hour. The vacuum is necessary because as the train speed increases, the majority of power that's required to move the train is spent moving air out of the way. An evacuated tube makes it possible to move a train across the continent using the equivalent of 20 gallons of gas.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Lincoln authorized the construction of a transcontinental railroad. At the time, it was considered technologically impossible given the chasms and mountains that had to be crossed. Lincoln initiated the transcontinental railroad in the middle of the civil war. Part of his motivation was to demonstrate that though engaged in war, the United States was great enough to concurrently tackle a monumental engineering task.
Fifty years later, we built the Panama Canal, another technological impossibility. Finally 50 years ago, Eisenhower authorized the interstate highway system and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Fifty years have passed since this country last undertook a major infrastructure challenge. Whether our generation steps up to the plate and makes a significant contribution to the infrastructure as our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have done remains to be seen.
Re:What's the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps your question should be "What is the reason for the lack of a good rail system in the USA?" Lots of places in the world have good rail transport, not just Japan, virtually all of Europe too.
Re:What's the deal? (Score:2)
Perhaps your question should be "What is the reason for the lack of a good rail system in the USA?" Lots of places in the world have good rail transport, not just Japan, virtually all of Europe too.
Actually, I prefer it when you ask the question "I am just wondering the cultural obsession that the Americans have with cars, if any one has an answer."
In Melbourne (my breif experience with America tells me you guys are worse), the average car trip length is 5km. I live 12 km from work/uni, and I ride the distance twice daily, and am much happier for it!
Re:What's the deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact is, our rail system is very strong and very healthy, and it keeps a LOT of trucks off the highways. And it does that without any significant subsidy. Which I think is pretty cool.
Nothing against passenger travel, I took a couple of cross-country trips on Amtrak some years ago, and enjoyed 'em a lot. Unfortunately, people working at fast food joints were paying the taxes that subsidized my sleeping car room. Even so, it cost more than flying, took three days longer... and Amtrak still lost money.
Long-distance passenger travel just isn't viable in the US, except as a luxury, and it never will be. How could a train be built that replaces an existing Amtrak route and yet be profitable? It's impossible. Costs would be higher, and the potential for extra revenue just isn't there.
Freight trains, though, moves great quantities of stuff at little cost to the public.
Re:Not ALL of Europe... (Score:2)
Go there... you'll see. (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine being able travel from San Francisco to LA using nothing but train lines, yet be able to stop in, and get around in, every single town between. The trains in Japan are not just for the long distance hauling that we see here, they are really and truly for transportation. Almost every city in the country has thier streets criss-crossed with subways. You can't walk more than two blocks in Osaka without running into one. All the cities are connected from the biggest metropolis to the tiniest villiage.
They are relativly cheap, they are never late, and riding them with your laptop makes commuting fun! And you don't even have to live in the boondocks to be one of those train commuters, because the trains are ubiquitous.
Cars have thier place, but until you have been to Japan, you simply have no idea how amazing trains can be...
Re:Go there... you'll see. (Score:2)
Persuant to this post, I am welcoming any and all donations for the "Send Smitty to Japan Fund." You see, I have wanted to go for years, but the issue of getting there, living, and getting back has been realtively tough to get past.
I fear I missed one chance back in high school when I opted to keep my job rather than become a foreign exchange student, and I really have regretted it.
Help me live the dream!
(Also, take note that I am flexible and may be able to fit in carry-on luggage, for any
Re:cultural differences (Score:2, Informative)
Come on, it's pretty simple. The country's size, population density, and cost of land make railways ideal for both inner city and inter-region transport, and private automobiles relatively inconvenient.
Japanese would eagerly commute by car if it were worth the cost and time, and in many suburban / rural areas and smaller regional cities that have outgrown the rail systems that serve them, people are starting to do that. People tell me that these days you "need" a car if you live outside of Tokyo (e.g., Saitama, Chiba)
And even the most car-spoiled, fierce individualist American will eagerly give up driving and start using the trains in Tokyo.
Re:Is it still a 'train'? (Score:2)
Nah, it's a really big and slow RAILGUN SLUG!
graspee
europe (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Train Transportation (Score:2)
Or the little matter that once you have got to your destination you need somewhere to put the car.
Re:TGV (Score:2, Insightful)
Commercial : 360kph
Record : 515kph
Maglev
Commercial : none
Record : 550kph (as stated in the article)
Re:TGV (Score:2)
It would fit on the track fine, Japan uses the same guage as Western Europe (and the US).
Re:TGV (Score:2)
HH
Been done some time ago (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Been done some time ago (Score:2, Informative)
And that was with a regular train (no funny shit with the wheels, just a long straight railway)
Well, the train was not quite 'regular'. Some modifications [unipi.it] were made to the train, including increased power output, bigger wheels and longer gearing, modified pantographs and some aerodynamic mods.
Re:public transit in the US (Score:2)
When the US magically collapses into itself and becomes as dense (population-wise) as europe and japan.
Here in Tucson there's a proposal for a commuter train system.. I looked at it.. this is how it would work for me: I'd have to drive a mile to the train depot. Get on the train.. take it to the central hub, transfer trains, take the second train to the closest stop to my work. Then I'd have to walk half a mile to work.. and of course it's Tucson, so it's 110 degrees outside. Screw that.
Mass transit doesn't work in the US because we're too spread out.
There *is* a place for it though. Tucson is a two hour drive from Phoenix. It would be perfect to have a high speed rail between the two cities.
Re:public transit in the US (Score:2)
Re:About a dozen people a year in the UK (Score:2, Informative)
It still happens though and makes the evening (always the evening) commute hellish.
Re:552 kph with no seat belt available (Score:2)
Maybe time to reconsider seatbelts on aircarft. These trains trains are still slower than 560 mph.
Re:Train compatibility (Score:2)
You need special tracks for trains such as the shinkansen, TVG, etc anyway. On regular tracks you'd be limited to whatever the track can cope with. Possibly 100 mph, possibly a lot less.
This is what the Eurostar has to do.
FWIW the French TGV managed 515 km/h on tracks. The current limit of 300-350km/h is because of structural problems on unadapted tracks at high speeds (the train is designed to go fast on adapted tracks and slower on regular ones)
They did the tests on TGV track. In France the only trains to use these tracks are TGVs.