Slashdot Mirror
Japan Tests New Bullet Train
dmolavi writes "
Japan's largest railway company began a test run for a new bullet train that it eventually aims to operate at a record-breaking 223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes -- according to recent news reports.
"
Trains like this are becoming more and more prevalent in mainland Europe. Indeed, they are smashing the national boundaries in ways that are almost unimaginable. I know people in Germany who are able to work in Italy, and only have a 45 minute train commute each way!
When I visited the US I noticed that there were almost no passenger trains. Indeed, I wish there were, because I far prefer trains to planes and driving.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I would think that you would have a bit more of a problem with banking/turns, and possible elevation changes. But i guess they'll get around that by specially designed the track.
Aero braking can be combined with mechanical braking, which should produce a decent deceleration rate. But that still leaves the problems of derailments.
They also don't have to refuel and load luggage (at least, far less since they are intended for commuters largely). That gives them a faster turn around time. Add in that they can stop at any point along the track completely safely if given enough warning and you have a much more convenient system of travel.
Never confuse volume with power.
Train stations tend to be in the center of cities whereas airports are built far outside to avoid noise etc. On trips up to let's say 400-500 miles, trains are faster since you don't have to commute to the airport, show up 3 hours before departure. Example : Total travel time with plane: 5 hours, train : 4 hours.
When trains with speeds in the area of this new one is put into operation, you can easily extend that radius to 1000 miles and the train will win every time over a plane.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Maybe the Japanese, with their famously polite society can make this kind of thing work, but it's doomed here in America.
sigh
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Given the fact that Amtrak is supposed to compete against airplanes and that Amtrak is covering great distances, it should be using bullet trains exclusively.
Amtrak has been a money-losing operation since day #1. For some reason, the American politicians just cannot determine why Amtrak remains unprofitable. How can anyone be so ignorant that he cannot see the reason? No one wants to ride a train for 2 or 3 days when you can take an airplane for equivalent cost to the same destination in less than a day.
Does any American politician even know the phrase, "Japanese bullet train"? The answer to Amtrak's problems is staring the American government in the face, and no one is adovating the right solution. I almost think that the lobbyists for the commercial aviation industry (i.e. Boeing & Airbus) want to ensure that Amtrak is not allowed to use bullet trains.
"and, in Germany at least, an unwillingness to cover the entire country in tarmac as the UK is doing"
Back in reality-land, Germany has substantially more miles of road per capita than Britain: the UK's per-capita road density is about _HALF_ the EU average. They also have unlimited speed motorways in many places, unlike the crap 70mph motorways in the UK.
Transport infrastructure in the UK is an utter disaster, and another four years of anti-car NuLab is only going to make it worse. We're a 'first-world' nation with roads and railways that would embarass many third-world nations.
High-speed trains are quite popular in Japan and Europe, and many Americans scratch their heads and ask why?, especially when they cost almost as much as flying.
There are a few key reasons why they are so great:
1. Central terminals: trains tend to depart and arrive near the center of cities, while airports tend to be located outside the city. When I take the Eurostar train from London to Paris, I knock off 1/2 hour travel time at each end just because of the location.
2. No airports: flying in America (and to a lesser extent other places) is painful. You're asked to arrive a few hours early and treated like a criminal. I traveled in Japan on the bullet trains, and we had to arrive before the train left (they are famous for being on time) but that was it. No body cavity search, no x-rays, no checking in a few hours early. No only did I leave and arrive right in the middle of the respective cities (saving time) I did so according to the actual travel schedule, not according to some ridiculous security schedule.
3. Comfort: trains are the most comfortable way to travel. They are quieter than planes, roomier, have bigger windows and nice views (when flying I sometimes get a nice view out the window, but usually just see clouds or the dude sitting next to me), the air is normal pressure, you can walk around at any time, etc. You also have your luggage right there in the car with you so you can get to it at any time. A recent train ride I took from London to Edinburgh took half the time driving takes, each seat had power outlets, and there was WiFi access available as well as a full meal car.
4. Distances: when traveling in Europe and Japan, travel time isn't dominated as much by the distance. The end-to-end time is often better on trains when traveling between major cities (with good rail links). You arrive at the centrally located station a few minutes before the train leaves, enjoy a (relatively) comfortable ride, then step off at the other end with your bags (no waiting for baggage claim) and walk out into the center of your destination city. The timing may not work quite as well for New York to Los Angeles, but for London to Paris or Brussels, or for Los Angeles to San Francisco, a good train line makes a lot of sense.
- Russ
> Amtrak is the inter-state railway system in the USA and is supposed to be equivalent to the inter-prefecture system in Japan. Yet, why does Amtrak refuse to use bullet trains?
No money, bigger country. Japan's rail corridor is practically a straight line. Once you get off Honshu, there's some truly remote back-country you're taking dirt roads to get to.
France has TGV, but that's considered a big boondoggle to everyone but commuters.
In contrast, most of the high-speed train track is well away from populated areas. The passengers are at risk if something goes wrong, but no one else is (excluding disasters with chemical freight trains). And if you happen to be in a train which crashes at high speed, your chances of survival are still better than a crashing airplane.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Next you'll ask why planes fly at 55% thrust ...
It's called efficiency. The engines or motors or whatever are probably only most efficient in certain lobes of speed [e.g. like a car at ~90km/h].
You'd be surprised [hopefully not] but driving a normal car at 150km for 30 mins will burn more fuel then a car at 75km for 60 mins. [well not always but your mpg goes way down].
The point is the train is probably rated to hit 200mph if they make it the least efficient thing in the world.
See also: Diminishing returns.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Besides, where is Amtrak going to get that money? They're struggling to maintain what they already have... What you're talking about is a HUGE investment.
Same place we got the money for the war in Iraq. Why is it our government can invest in conquering another country half a world away, but when it comes to investing in some infrastructure here at home we just can't afford it?
Find coupons in Greeley
Similar thing in Kansas City, but on a smaller scale.
There've been proposals to put in a light rail system for travel within the city for years now. All of them have been struck down as being too expensive.
If you've ever driven in Kansas City, or, god forbid, commuted there, then you know how much of a help this would be. Most of the KC workforce lives outside the city proper, often 20 miles or more outside, and commutes to work. Trains combined with a sensible and well-funded bus system could easily reduce rush hour traffic by a sizable amount, and thereby save money on fixing the roads, which are constantly being repaired.
Further, commercial and entertainment districts in the city are spread WAY the hell out. It's a pain in the ass to go to a single attraction in the city in a single day, let alone visit more than one in a day. They're too spread out, and the paths between them are too complicated and clogged with traffic. A rail system would make a day of "Art museum in the morning, shopping and lunch at noon, take in a play in the evening" a real possibility.
I don't get people's resistance to public transportation. Done right, it's one of the best things a city/state can do for itself.
I think we can all settle for the following measure:
air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
The problem is population density. Japan is said to have half the population of the United States crammed into an area the size of California. Much of Europe is also densely populated, though not as much as Japan. High-speed rail lines are expensive, per km, to build and maintain. Pavement is less so. This is the same reason that subways serve the center of a city, streetcars the outlying areas, and buses the suburbs and some rural areas.
The Acela train is Amtrak's grasping attempt at high-speed rail. The fare is still too expensive: For instance, I can get a bus ticket from Boston to New York for $12, but, last time I checked, Acela was $80. If someone else is paying (i.e. it's a business trip) then it's more sensible to fly. Acela is stuck in a difficult middle-market.
Personally, I think that the problem with public transit in the US is that it interfaces poorly with the automotive system. Here in Boston, commuter lots at suburban train stations fill up quickly, and in many cases are quite expensive. They are also have security problems. Often, stations are in the middle of villages, where there is not the room for parking lot expansion and building a garage would adversly effect the character of the village. There needs to be more funding of vast garages built where high speed rail systems interface to the interstate highway system. The garages need to be inexpensive (no more than $5 a day), secure, 24 hour, and have sufficient bandwidth for rush hour. There should be a number of non-stop, high speed trains to/from the center of the city. These stations should also serve the interstate and local bus lines in the area, with shuttle buses to the outlying airports.
Train fare for such purposes should be at least partially tax-deductible. One should merely have to submit the yearly report from a transit authority account which would list the passes of various types purchased, or retain a collection of receipts for fares bought anonymously.
Look, even if Amtrak did have the billions and billions of dollars of funding it would need to replace tens of thousands of miles of track across the country to create bullet train-ready routes, it would still be wasted money.
The time it would take for a cross-country rail trip might decrease from 60 hours to 25 hours, but it still couldn't beat a 7-hour plane trip.
High-speed rail service makes a lot of sense in a lot of places, but most of the United States is not such a place.
Exactly true -- it is all just a matter of priorities. By looking at our budget, you can easily see where are priorities are. Really too bad... What better way to spend taxpayer money than hi-tech infrastructure, research/dev on next-gen technology, etc. The days of the United States holding the world's best technology are coming to a close (if it's not already the case). Instead, we busy going after "evildoers" sitting on oil fields, or spending 60+ billion a year fighting "the war on drugs". Imagine if this money was instead invested in our future!
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
You mean that polititians selling public taxpayer paid resources dirt cheap to private corporations run by people who "donate" a lot of money to polititians might not result in that shining example of free market economics they claim? Shock.
Ambivalent about whether it was the right choice?
You won't know until you've tried Nozomi - the current fastest bullet train in Japan... in a luxurious-2-feet-of-room-in-front-of-you seat in a noise-free air-conditioned cabin where you can read, eat lunch, enjoy the view AND sip your beer all the while you are being taken where you want to go. In under 3 hours for most destinations.
Compare this to a 7-hour drive in peak bumper-to-bumper traffic on a 4th of July on interstate 91 going from DC to New York...
Yep, we know building highways was the best idea ever...
Well then shouldn't the article be written in Japanese?
Lets face it in train technology the US isn't even a player and never will be. When and if these high speed rail corridors are built all the contractors will be non-US firms, as they hold all the leading edge patents.
Judging from what is now in testing, the Japanese will go to MagLev trains in about 2015 for speeds approaching 350-400 mph, with most entirely underground. They have the money and we don't and certainly won't for the next 15-20 years that the US will be in Iraq (as now admitted by the administration).
The problem for the US is that with vastly improved and more cost effective train transport their ability to move people and goods quickly will continue to increase their competitive edge over the US. They will put the savings and difference (estimated at about one trillion dolars per yer by some economists) into new technology in other areas, primarily biomedical, nanotechnology, materials science, robotics, and health care. Advances in robotics alone are likely to overtake use of humans in most routine employment in about 2020 (check-out clerks, receptionists, secretarial, general manufacture), so they will be able to manufacture goods at wages of about $0.20 per hour, which even the Chinese won't be able to compete with. Of course, by then we will have increasd our budget deficit to roughly 800 billion dollars per year and our trade deficit 3.5 times its current pace. China and Japan will continue to remain in the US market, but will buy US corporations that can no longer compete or are attempting to emerge from bankrucpy. They will also own roughly 85% of our debt market.
And the market leading car makers will be Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Ford will go bankrupt in the year 2009 with GM to follow in 2011 as they ceeded the hybrid and fuel efficiency standards to the Japanese in 2002-2005 and we will be unable to catch up. The bright spot is that US government will buy the hummer division to support our troops still fighting in Iraq.
The Chinese will at the same time be buying the major portion of world petroleum exports with their vastly appreciating yuan and gasoline in the US will hit $4.50/gallon by 2007 based on current price trends.
The good news is that Diebold and makers of other electronic voting machines will capture 100% of the US market and we will save millions in being able to suspend elections since the outcomes will be judged a foregone conclusion.
And for all of this economic progress George Bush, following in the Regan tradition, will get $30 million dollar in speakers fee for giving lectures in Japan and Saudi Arabia shortly after he leaves office.
But hey, this is good for the consumer (even if he is in hock up to his eyeballs).
Anyways, I feel the billion dollar bailouts repeatedly handed over to the airlines deserve some mention here.
There will be if the price of oil continues to rise.
There is a diffrence between investing in the military and spending more than the rest of the world put together...
Wake up and smell the stink in DC.
The reality in Iraq is this: For as long as we stay in Iraq, we will lose troops on a regular basis to attacks by insurgents who just want the damn infidels out. As soon as we leave, the country will collapse into civil war. Unlike Japan, Iraq didn't attack us first. There isn't going to be any return on this "investment".
Also, you have a very strange idea of what ordinary people really need if you think the manned space program is a better investment than modern, high speed trains that can actually get them to work each day.
A nation-wide bullet train system might be hard to achieve, but I definately think that high-speed rail service in some smaller regions could be a good thing. Trains certainly aren't perfect, but I would seriously consider a fast train over a plane or driving any day.
I live on the West Coast, and could definately see people using high-speed rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, LA to San Francisco and/or Sacramento. SF to Portland & Seattle.
I've ridden on some high-speed rail lines in Germany, Swizerland & Austria, and I would be thrilled if we could get some similar service here in the States. The whole experience was efficient and relaxing. I buy a first-class ticket for $150, walk onto the train, find my reserved seat. The seats are comforatable, I have a ton of room to stretch out, I can get up and walk around at any time, and I have a great view from the large window. The staff are polite, the train is quiet and smooth.
For 8 Euros, I buy a beer, some delicious cooked pork and a candy bar for 8 Euros. My wife & I sit & relax for 5 hours on a trip from Vienna to Frankfurt. It takes less then 5 minutes to get off the train and get my luggage.
I recently flew from Oakland to Seattle & back. The whole experience was a stress-filled nightmare. I had to wait in line for 45 minutes so I could get a ticket from a computer terminal (there were 3 people in front of us). Then we wait another hour in the security line. The flight itself is only 1 hour, but you spend another another 45 minutes strapped to your seat take-off and landing.
I got a teeny bag of pretels & a small cup of orange juice. They sell Budweiser for $4. A can of "import beer" (Heineken) or a bottle wine costs $5.
The seat in front of me is 8 inches from my nose. The fluorescent light above us flickers for the whole flight. The staff yell at the passengers.
It takes 20 minutes to get off the plane, an an hour to get my luggage, all of which has been opened and inspected by Security.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
IMHO the important difference to the US is that in Japan the passenger companies own the tracks instead of the cargo companies; while JR is mostly private by now that's a relatively new development and definitely not the reason trains in Japan don't suck as much as in the US.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Whenever the subject of trains is brought up here or anywhere else, someone claims that trains will never work in the US because of its population density. But the fact is that the population density of the US as a whole is meaningless. Rail lines do not need to be built equally spread out around the entire country; they can be built in the parts of the country where it makes the most sense.
The land area from Boston to DC is about 120 million square miles (including all of NY, PA, NJ, MA, CT, MD, RI, DC). The population is about 55 million, concentrated mostly in metropolitan areas. France has a nearly the same population with about twice the land area. Germany has a comparable population (80 million), and about the same area. Both France and Germany have train service far superior to that in the northeast. Clearly, it it not the population density that is preventing good train service there.
Similar arguments apply to other areas of the US. There are about 40 million people concentrated along the west coast. There's no reason, in terms of population density, that train service could not flourish there.
Your analysis is wrong. The United States has several extremely large railway companies. Union Pacific does about $12bn in revenue each year. The trouble is that none of that comes from direct passenger revenue. The reason for that is that direct passenger revenue simply became unprofitable, as it did and still does in almost every single developed country in the world.
Apart from the obvious example in Japan (which is a lot to do with the size and economic profile of that country), passenger railway systems in the world are successful only when they are heavily subsidized by the state. There is no inter-city railway system anywhere which is run privately and for financial profit.
In the USA it simply become completely cost ineffective to run passenger rail, so the private railways ran down and began to stop their passenger rail services. The federal government moved in to stop this and replaced it with Amtrak, which trundles on today keeping the system barely alive. The reason why there is no serious passenger railway system outside the merely-satisfactory northeast corridor is because the regional and federal governments won't spend the money to create one.
The same pattern followed in Europe, ie in the UK where the government nationalized the entire system. In countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland, reliable and efficient railways which contribute to the national economies in many ways exist because the governments spend billions to create them. The impetus to do this simply does not exist at a federal or state level in the US.
Yes, but not all trips are cross-country. I wouldn't expect bullet trains to replace 7-hour flights, but they might be a viable alternative to 4-hour drives.