Japanese Train Sets A Speed Record Of 581 kph

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Train Sets A Speed Record Of 581 kph

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 2, 2003 @11:27PM from the son-do-you-know-how-fast-you-were-going dept.

Azuma writes "Last night, on December 2, a high-speed Japanese train set a new record of 581 kph, breaking its own previous record. The new Maglev high speed had real passengers on board this time. They proved that the distance between Osaka and Tokyo can be covered in one hour's time. However, we wouldn't see real trains for a while now since the cost is prohibitively expensive at this time. However, they expect that the cost would come down over the next 20 years. This seems to be the future of transportation, at least in Japan. Here is a detailed article from The Japan Times."

26 of 764 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Ouch... by Maestro4k · 2003-12-02 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
- Bet those passengers were scared out of their pants. With it flying that fast, I'd be...if the thing derailed, you'd be really screwed.
I've ridden some of the current shinkasens, and you really don't notice. It's a very smooth ride, and you feel very safe. The best I can compare it to is flying on an airplane, only quieter and smoother.
Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by Maestro4k · 2003-12-02 23:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

The one thing I came to like the most when I visited Japan on vacation a few years ago was the train service. Not having a car truly didn't feel like a loss when you could easily hop on a train and be where you wanted faster than you could drive there. (Especially in Tokyo.)
I just wish the US would invest in more passenger trains. They don't have to be super fast (like the one in this article), but imagine how much fuel/electricity we could save if we could all easily commute by train. And hey, you can always sleep on the train on the way to work, something you can't do while driving. (Or rather, something you shouldn't do, I'm sure someone's tried it.)
1. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by dbleoslow · 2003-12-02 23:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I live in Tokyo now and if there's one thing you can almost always count on, it's the train system. I know that if my commute is 30 minutes, it will always be 30 minutes, except for the rare exception, whether it's rush hour or late at night. I go back to the DC and I'm stuck on the Beltway during rush hour for 3 hours for what is normally a 30 minute drive.
  
  I don't think passenger trains will ever catch on in The States. The population is just too spread out right now. Japan is roughly the size of California but with half the population of the US (If I recall correctly.) You just can't fit all those people on the roads at 1 or 2 people per car. And besides, how will all the salarymen molest the school girls if they're in a car and not crammed into a train :)
2. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by fruey · 2003-12-02 23:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Too bad most places don't invest in more trains. However, investment usually implies a return, and most train companies lose money. The more captalistic a country is, the worse this becomes... note in the article " Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) and the government-affiliated Railway Technical Research Institute." that it's a state sponsored initiative getting these things going.
  The French TGV is one good example of a system that works, but it's not easy to replicate economically in a country like the UK where there is public outcry at any possible addition of rail links or something close to where they live (and population density is three times higher than France, so routing around people isn't as easy). The Eurostar now has high speed track for part of the link in the UK, shaving 20 minutes off total journey time, but the route is incredibly inefficient and could have been much more direct. Also, it was way off schedule!
  The US gave up on trains long ago. Flights and cars are all there is, Amtrak is a joke. Ironic that the rail revolution made the US what it is today, and it has to be the major economy that has turned its back on rail the most. High speed services coast to coast would undoubtedly be too expensive though. I think there must be a magic ratio between average distance travelled by passengers, total country size, train running cost and so on which the TGV manages to get close to. The TGV rocks.
  
  --
  Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
3. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by pubjames · 2003-12-02 23:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the reason the US as a whole doesn't invest more in trains is the fact that the country is A. Pretty big and B. Pretty Empty.
  
  That actually sounds more like a reason why it would be sensible to have a rail system to me, rather than a reason it hasn't got one.
4. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by pdjohe · 2003-12-03 00:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think the reason the US doesn't have a better train system is...
  
  1. In the past, Ford wanted automobiles to be affordable enough so that every American family could own one.
  
  2. Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than in Europe and other parts of the world.
  
  3. In many parts of the US, it is impossible to get by without a car.
  
  4. Americans generally prefer privatization (own a car) over mass/public services.
5. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by Epeeist · 2003-12-03 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > Hardly: it should be no surprise that the nation that's quickest to abandon uneconomic technology is the most successful. If only Britain had the same attitude, rather than some Luddite desire to keep trains running no matter how bad and inefficient they may be.
  
  Manchester to London is about 2 hours 30m, even on Virgin trains. Driving takes anything from 4 hours upwards, dependent on when you start. So if I have a London meeting I can do it in a day by train. If I go by car I can`t.
  
  As far as I am concerned that makes it efficient. As for economic, if you actually added in all the costs, such as the time I save, the work I can do on the train, the telephone calls I can legally answer, the hotel bills I don`t have to pay, then the overall economic equation comes out much more evenly.
  
  The road builder`s arguments never take the human factors into account.
  
  Do I believe that rail travel is currently wonderful in the UK? Absolutely not, but it is much better than the Luddites in cars give it credit for.
6. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by erroneus · 2003-12-03 02:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  While the reason, initially, was a corrupt business/government situation, the public aversion to trains is now more cultural than anything else.
  
  As the nation grew, the auto industry fought to suppress the train industry and succeeded. Now trains are mostly relegated to freight. Sure there are occasional passenger train systems across the nation... there are two in my general area (DART and The-T) but AMTRAK doesn't exist out here. And since we all have cars instead of buses and trains (largely! must I qualify my assertions constantly?) our impressions of the buses and trains that DO exist are negative since they are often in our way! Buses are big and slow in busy city streets and you can't see around them. Rail crossings are also a bitter annoyance with accidents and long waits while trains cross our roads... now we HATE TRAINS and and HATE BUSES. It would be difficult for most Americans to see these methods as anything but an annoyance.
  
  The only way for these views to be overcome is for there to be competition between trains and airlines as others have previously hinted. We're annoyed at air travel... ESPECIALLY NOW! Trains could be far more beneficial to business travellers today if there were a good rail system in place. The trouble is, as always, the cost of roll-out.
  
  Now rolling out new technology in the US is not like doing it in smaller countries. If we didn't "grow" into it, and cannot easily "migrate" into it, then adoption will always be very slow. The fact is, we are a large continent. The cost of roll-out it enormous and the cost of failure is immeasurable. Japan is a very limited area so roll-out costs and failure costs are more acceptable. And since we are not a dictatorship, our government can't simply say "This is better so you will use it!" giving us no option but to change... we all have to want to change. We don't. We hate to change except when the TV tells us to... hrm... there's an idea...
7. Re:Too bad the US doesn't invest in more trains by DerekLyons · 2003-12-03 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As the nation grew, the auto industry fought to suppress the train industry and succeeded. Now trains are mostly relegated to freight.
  A nice Big Business conspiracy theory, but it's nonsense. For long distance passenger travel, it was the airlines that killed the railroads. In the densely urban Eastern Corridor (Chicago, around the lakes to the Washington/Boston Corridor), there is more passenger traffic than ever before. One reason the airlines won is their greater convience, the other is that the could operate at a lower margin because of their much lower capital investment and maintenance requirements. (Railroads owned and had to maintain their tracks and right of way, air is free however, and airports were paid for and maintained by municipalities for the most part.)
  
  What the auto industry killed was the local *trolley systems* (intraurban vice the interurban provided by the railroads).
Re:Ouch... by BiggerIsBetter · 2003-12-02 23:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
And much less hassle as well.
Train:
- Arrive 5 minutes before departure.
- Get on.
- Travel, with passport check on the way.
- Get off.
Airplane:
- Arrive 3 hours before departure.
- Check in.
- Passport check.
- Security screening.
- Departure lounge.
- Flight delayed.
- Get on.
- Travel.
- Get off.
- Baggage.
I, for one, welcome our new super-fast trains. I've used the 300kph trains (TGV,Eurostar,etc) and they are a really nice way to get around. For travelling within continents, these will a far better alternative than flying.
--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Converted to MPH by EmagGeek · 2003-12-02 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's expending 8 times as much energy to go twice as fast... which is even more amazing..
Twenty Years ago... by Crass+Spektakel · 2003-12-03 00:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Twenty Years ago the first maglevs were build in Germany. Increadibly fast and very quiet. For Testingpurposes. Since then ... nothing happened. Oh, yes, they sold the whole stuff for a piece of bread to china which also build the first "german maglev" for public use. Well, in germany we still have no public maglev.

At least in central europa (germany, france, benelux) we have conventional trains running at speeds of 150-300kph since decades. But then europa has a highly incompatible trainsystem. Western Europa (except once Great Britain) uses one type of track, eastern europa another one and while the british system closely resembles western europas tracks its not safe for high speeds.

Thank goodness china desided to use western-europa tracks which will more or less force eastern europa and russia to adopt or wither away.

--
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Re:Ouch... by SpaghettiPattern · 2003-12-03 00:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're forgetting that you can even take a comfortable night train and sleep while you travel. I do this with my family when we need to cover a "one night's distance". We loose less "wake time" and we arrive in a better shape.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
So right and So wrong by WindBourne · 2003-12-03 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I do not fully agree with your assesment of Chicago->LA, the most important route to build would be NY->Pit->Det->Chg->Mil.
These 4 cities have more traffic between them than any other route in the USA. In fact, most airlines make all their profits doing cargo between NY/Chg.
As to Chi->LA, well, I would argue for 3 East-west high-speed maglevs with stops every 1000M. Likeiwise, 4 North-South (W, Rocky, Missisppi River, E coast) to carry cargo.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Ouch... by penguin7of9 · 2003-12-03 00:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think so. There have been terrorist attacks on trains (e.g., Carlos the Jackal's bombing in 1983). They just haven't been very successful and haven't led to cumbersome security measures.

From a terrorist point of view, I suspect that a building is a better target than a train: easier to get to, easier to get away from, and more likely to kill lots of people.

In fact, even when it comes to airline security, Americans seem to be going from one extreme to another without ever getting it right: prior to 9/11, airlines just didn't want to inconvenience passengers even though even simple measures could have prevented 9/11. Post 9/11, US airlines seem to be working hard to make their passengers' lives as miserable as possible (without necessarily improving security much).
Re:Japan is linear by Bagels · 2003-12-03 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course, there may be a sort of a "last mile" problem in the US too - once you arrive at your destination, it might take almost as long or longer to make the second half of the journey from train station to final destination (because of car rentals, traffic, etc.).

--
--- Bwah?
Re:The time spent waiting for the train? by Pelops · 2003-12-03 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well too bad you are living in UK, well known for his train system :)

More seriously, though, i disagree with you to some extent, having taken both the plane and the train extensively.

Waiting for another train or plane is exactly the same thing. They can be both delayed very easily by technical problems, weather problems, and strike (only if you are in France of course, by the way i am French).

But when i look at the trip Paris-London, i prefer taking the train. You have quite a big number of trains leaving everyday to London. The overall trip is around 2-3 hours depending on stop. But the big plus is you leave in the center of Paris, you arrive in the center of London.
Now when you look at the plane, you would be better off if you arrive at least one hour before (probably more as they get anal with security). Then you have 45 mn plane and you have to wait for your case, etc... But since the airports are far from the center, you can add easily 45 mn both ways to get from the airport to the center.

Annoying !!! I prefer moving more freely in the train and then to arrive directly in London, than having to take the plane.

Pelops
OK, lets privatize the roads then too by maynard · 2003-12-03 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously, if you're not willing to pay tax dollars for rail infrastsructure, why also pay for roads and bridges? And while you're at it, why not dismantle the education system and courts as well? When private enterprise performs all of these civic functions, will "freedom" have been expanded or will we simply have seen a net transfer of power away from voters into private hands? Just asking. --M
Re:361MPH by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-03 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, 10 fingers is a base 11 system, not base 10 (because 0 is usually represented by not raising any fingers, and than you have 10 numbers left, 10 + 1 = 11)
Re:Ouch... by Yazheirx · 2003-12-03 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

even simple measures could have prevented 9/11

You mean like the passengers beating the crap out of some dorks with box cutters, rather than sitting like the trained sheep the left has been attempting to turn them into?

--
More of my thoughts
Re:361MPH by gfxguy · 2003-12-03 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It may be artificial but it just makes a hell of a lot more sense.

What's simpler? 10 decimeters in a meter? 10 centimeters in a decimeter? Even the prefixes follow a standard pattern...

Compared to: 12 inches in a foot? 3 feet in a yard? fractions for fine measurements (1/8 inch, 1/16 inch)... ever have to reoganize a ratchet set?

Or how about: water freezes at 0 and boils at 100? Makes sense to me. Compare to: water freezes at 32 and boils at 212? God awful!

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The myth of america being too spread out by merciless · 2003-12-03 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I live in Boston and I take the train (amtrak acela) all the time to NYC. I do not own a car. The eastern corridor (DC-NYC-Boston) is the only profitable route that Amtrak runs. In roughly 450 miles (shorter than the length of California by about 250 miles) the 5 major metropolitan areas (Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore and DC. There's also minor mets such as New Haven, Providence and Trenton) represents about 60 million people. The density is roughly comparable to that of England. The current system, even though profitable, has SERIOUS limitation in its currently incarnation - it has to abide to Metro North's speed limit of 60MPH when it's in Metro North territory, for example. This is done on a train that's designed to cruise at 150MPH. Bottom line - you CAN run a profitable maglev operation in US.
Re:Vegas to LA by MtViewGuy · 2003-12-03 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the environmentalists SHOULD support this idea.

Between getting a lot of road traffic off Interstate 15 between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and also reducing the need for air travel between Los Angeles and Las Vegas (imagine 375-450 passengers per train leaving four times per hour from Los Angeles to Las Vegas), that means a lot less air pollution from automobiles, buses and jet airliners.
Re:Ouch... by Coryoth · 2003-12-03 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's also worth noting that the Shinkansen lines in Japan have never had _any_ passenger deaths. The odd inattentive railway worker, or suicide jumping on the tracks, but _no_ train accidents.

They've been running since 1964. I would say almost 40 years of constant use with no accidents is a pretty damn fine record. JR are very good at safety.

Jedidiah

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:Ouch... by uradu · 2003-12-03 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

> than sitting like the trained sheep the left
> has been attempting to turn them into

The left what? The left hand? The left foot? Oh, you mean the Left! It seems your grasp of history is as tenuous as that of spelling, otherwise you'd know that a lot more social change has taken place because of public disobedience by what you call "the Left" than by (presumably) your own camp. Attributing conformism to the hippies of the 60s, or the civil rights marchers of the 50s, or even what you would probably consider the quintessential Lefties--the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution--smacks of ignorance and self delusion.

In fact, in recent history conformism is a trait much more frequently found amongst conservatives, or the Right. Who introduced the doctrine of "if you're not with us you're against us"? Or forwarded the notion that opposing the war in Iraq is paramount to being anti-American? Don't get distracted into addessing those particular issues, focus on the fact that they exemplify conformist thinking--behaving the way your leaders want you to as a matter of policy.
Re:Magnetic trains are just a dream by thorgil · 2003-12-03 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you know how hard it is to make a wheel, suspension system that can stand the enormous forces in 500 km/h.
(vibration, small bumps etc.)

The wheels are supposed to last for years running daily at that speed. (this is a big problem for high speed trains.)

MAGLEV has "no" moving parts.
eg. less material stress.. (safer and cheaper in the long run.)

MAGLEV's only limit is the air drag.

--
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *