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.
"
One of the odd points about this train (other than the retractable cat ears) is that it isn't symmetrical. One end is a completely different shape than the other. Apparently this is just for testing purposes. The US airforce calls it a "flyoff", where two designs are built and tested head to head. In this case it seems they are having trouble determining what the best nose shape is. Normally this is a fairly simple problem, but Japan has a lot of tunnels, and diving into a tunnel at 360kph is a rather difficult aerodynamic problem. Nothing like a full-scale model. For much more detailed information, see this press release. (Japanese press releases have a habit of actually being informative, unlike their North American counterparts.)
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Only in Japan would a train's noses look like manga characters!
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.
Er, they don't pollute the environment anything like as much? They take you from city centre to city centre, hence are much quicker over all?
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Japan Tests New Bullet Train
Meanwhile, in other news...
North Korea Tests New Bullet
These trains create far less pollution than flying. But that is because they also you far less fuel, and the fuel they do use burns far more efficiently than jet fuel. The lower fuel consumtion leads to them being far cheaper, as well. In some areas of Japan you can get a unlimited-use monthly train pass for the equivalent of US$120. That's the cost of a one-way plane ticket between very close destinations.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Try getting around the UK by train. It's about the equivalent of Sri Lanka in that respect, only not as cheerful.
It's really France and Germany who are of just the right size for train travel and with lots of money to put into it (and, in Germany at least, an unwillingness to cover the entire country in tarmac as the UK is doing).
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Saying that the 200+mph speed is 'faster then many propeller planes' is an awfully strange comparison. Most single engine general aviation aircraft (eg, Cessnas, Pipers, etc) typically cruise around 100-120mph, so that comparison applies to some of the existing bullet trains already.
If, on the other hand, the submitter is comparing it to Turboprop commuter airplanes (to suggest that the train is faster then the plane you might otherwise use), then those typically have cruise speeds of 250-350mph, so...
Finally, I'm guessing we can appreciate the cruise speed on its own merits. There's probably no need to give the unladen speed of the next flying whatchamacality in 'mpa' (many propeller airplanes). "Ah yes, the Rotamo air car flies at 1.5mpa!" It'll be the new LoC measurement for speed.
It can stop quite quickly. If you had read the article, you would have seen the bit about the retractable "cat ears" fin breaks that are extended to provide air resistance. Combined with the latest in pneumatic brakes, it is quite possible to stop these trains within very short distances.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
What's the advantage of super-fast trains over airplanes?
In many places in the world, the infrastructure for trains is already in place. Tracks are laid, stations are ready, power lines are set up, railway crossings are set up, and so on.
OTOH airport facilities may not be available, and I'm guessing that in Japan the space required to construct new small-town airports would be fairly tough to find. This is probably why they prefer speeding up their trains. Air travel may not be easily possible at all.
StrayByte.Net
Train travel tends to be slightly cheaper than planes, but a whole lot safer and more convenient. For visitors, it is definitely your cheapest option to travel by train because you can buy an all-purpose train pass to travel on any lines run by Japan Rail which is basically a monopoly. Even a cross-country train can generally be caught every hour while airplane schedules in Japan are far less convenient for most locations.
The german ICE can do this speed since 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE
I hate to be a skeptic, but this train seems pretty damn scary. The idea of going that fast on land just doesn't seem to be too safe. So while reading the article and looking for some clues to its safety, I stumble across a quote that the train "has cat ear-shaped air-brakes that pop up from the rooftops to help slow the train in an emergency." Is it just me, or in an emergency situation, wouldn't you like to have something a little more reassuring than cat ear-shaped air brakes?
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
There has never been a fatality (in 40+ years) due to accident on a Shinkansen (bullet train.)
They are also much cheaper than flying and rail stations tend to be right downtown.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
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.
It's much cheaper because it can go directly from one downtown to another, whereas most airports are located somewhat far away from cities.
On top of this, boarding is a lot lot faster (no need to be there 1 hour before departure).
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!
Much better energy efficiency per passenger*mile travelled.
More flexible scheduling in peak hours and seasons.
More security. France's TGV high speed train network has moved hundreds of millions of passengers since the early 80s and not a single person lost her life in an accident, even though trains went off track at full speed (180+ mph) on one or two occasions.
More comfort. No more going to and from remote airports. No more stripping for the security. No more waiting for boarding or for checking in your luggage. Infinitely more leg room. Affordable first class with even more room. A restaurant-bar car in every train. Possibility to use your cellphone at any time.
No-one has ever died in a bullet-train accident. In fact, there have been no derailments in 40 years of service -- except one last year when an earthquake struck exactly below a speeding train (in Niigata prefecture). The train jumped the tracks at 200kph, but no-one was injured.
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.
"The train is expected to make the 360 mile trip between Tokyo and Aomori --about the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles -- within three hours, half of the amount of time it currently takes."
A train that can do over 200 mph, and they're planning to run it just over 120 mph. Any ideas why? Are there lots of stops?
Bullet trains require something Amtrak will never have: lots of straight, well-built track to get up to that speed.
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.
The Acelas on the Northeast Corridor (one of the most important pieces of track Amtrak owns) were intended to provide higher-speed trains on conventional track by leaning into the turns. They generally do provide faster service when they're running, but of course the Acelas haven't been without their problems.
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
I think a major problem with Amtrak is the rail system is rather old and out-dated. They don't have the money to operate let alone to upgrade.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Superman is confused as hell. "I can't remember if I'm faster than a speeding train and more powerful than a bullet, or the other way around," the superhero said in an interview Monday. "I mean, I guess it's really both, but now that bullets ARE trains, I'm all confused."
The U.S. rail network is huge, with tens of thousands of level crossings, and millions of miles of unfenced track. It simply isn't practical to run at more than about 130 kph on such lines.
Years ago, the U.S. decided to pour infrastructure money into the interstate highway system, not rail lines. I'm ambivalent about whether or not that was the right choice. We all love to hate cars and trucks, and they are less efficient than trains, but building fenced lines with elevated crossings would be an astronomical expense.
Canada ran the "Turbo" in the Montreal-Toronto corridor for many years. It simply took out too many animals and cars and trucks, in addition to being stopped too often for rail maintenance. And it was only a 200 kph train, I think.
does it make "Nyaaaa!" when stopping?
=^_^=
Hey; they put cat-ears on their anime-girls all the time, why not on their bullet trains?
And those anime-girls seem to have no problems surviving 300-mph crashes, so, those cat-ears must work!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Most of Amtrak operates on shared tracks with freight trains.
These tracks are not built to handle high-speed trains. Also, this shared use favors the freight trains; Amtrak trains have to move over if a freight train is coming. This means that if a freight train is leaving a station 1 hour ahead of the Amtrak's current position, and there's a pullover spot right there but no others for the rest of that 1 hour stretch, the Amtrak must get out of the way and wait for an hour at a dead stop, until the freight train goes by.
I once used Amtrak to travel from Kansas City to St. Louis. That train continues on to Chicago, and the return train does the opposite: Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City. KC->St. Louis took me over 6 hours. It'd have been a little more than twice as fast just to drive the damn thing. On the return trip, the train from Chicago was a little less than two hours late arriving at the St. Louis station. We had about another 1.5-2 hours worth of delays again from St. Louis to Kansas City, so that one was late as hell, too.
Amtrak sucks the devil's ass. I'll never use them again.
The northeast corridor (DC to Boston) is one of Amtrak's few profitable routes. They did have a high speed Acela train that could go 100mph on good sections of track, but it was pulled from service after they found cracks in the brakes. It might be back in service by this summer.
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...
Youmight have heard: Japanese are not afraid of technology - they embrace it and like it. I could see that in so many aspects, and am sure they will have the first commercial fusion plant. They might not develop the core tech, but they will use it, you can bet on that. (and I wouldn't the least be surprised if, once built, will be operated by bipedal robots).
Sigged!
last Autumn, there were several earthquakes in the Chuetsu area on the back-side of Honshu. The largest of these earthquakes caused a crash for the bullet train, which rocked off its tracks and scraped along for 2 kilometers. No one was seriously injured, but that is really out of blind luck-- the train happened to be on a raised track, with cement walls on either side-- other places the track has only chain-link fence separating it from other trains or open fields.
In short, JR dodged a disaster. They don't want to press their luck. If a train could rapidly decelerate, then perhaps the risk of a crash could be reduced.
Then again, maybe someone watched Totoro once too many times.
davejenkins.com |
There's a 2-year old article on Amtrak at the Christian Science Monitor's site that discusses this question in depth.
aims to operate at a record-breaking 223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes
The train only needs to be fast enough to outrun Godzilla the next time he decides to stomp Tokyo. Of course, they'd need some kind of shielding to protect against his breath which they can't outrun. I don't think those really cute Hello Kitty ears really help with aerodynamics.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
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 agree 100% with your post- I am also biased- I am a huge fan of railroading and love trains, so that is my caveat.
The major problem with translating some European/Asian models of transportation to the US is pure distance. Please don't forget that a country like Germany (I have visited there a couple times and find that Germans, like most Europeans are a great and friendly people) would fit into Texas, one of the 50 us states, twice. So when Japan creates a bullet network, it is more akin, area wise, to putting a rail network into one of the 50 US states. Obviously people wise, it is very different. But as far as track miles in the US it would be a huge number. Everything would have to be regraded, turns banked, track relaid etc. to allow for high speed running. Also, don't forget, almost nothing infastructure wise is from beofre WWII, wheareas much of the rail in the US is well over 60 years old, some much older. And the grades and rights of way here in the states are from the 1800's in many sections.
If one could travel at 223 mph accross the US that would be incredible- I could be from here in Ohio to California in what, 12-14 hours? That would almost make it feasible to board a train after work on Friday, have a nice dinner aboard, catch a show on board, go to sleep, and wake up near the West coast- It would almost make it feasible (Moneyt aside) to take a weekend trip to California (arrive Sat early afternoon, leave Sunday Early afternoon...) Of course this will never happen for many assorted reasons, however I can dream can't I?
Imagine if these bullet trains copuld be made zero emmision- don't forget that planes are awful polluters (why I can't stand a hollywood star who drives a Prius telling me she is green, the jumping into a Gulfstream and jetting accross the country...)
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Have you factored in the cost of transportation to/from city centers? Time it takes to get to their respective airports?
Haneda is at best, from Otemachi, 45 min train ride. Ditto for Osaka International to the business centers. Taking the Shinkansen, however, you're taking the train from either Tokyo station or Shinagawa, and you're dropped off at Shin-Osaka, which is a stone's throw from downtown.
Plus you don't have to go through all the hassles associated with air travel.
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)
First one ran in the late '60s for the Olympics.
:)
It's still online....
I was on a platform, on the bullet line, one time, outside Tokyo, about 1/4 mile from a tunnel entrance/exit. The tracks leading to the station platform were canted so the train could bank into the turn. You could feel the ion change in the air that preceded the train as it exploded out of the tunnel and blasted past the platform...the locals had one hand on the newspaper and the other wrapped around the nearest pole to counter the terrific buffering as the 1,000 seat wonder blew past. Inside, there are LCDs showing live telemetry - it's very hard to tell how fast you're really moving, since the ride is so smooth and quiet.
I saw a video on TV one time, showing how they run field tests of various sorts...one segment showed a technician putting on an old leather flying helmet and goggles. He climbed a small ladder and slid open a hatch in the roof and stuck his head out...while the train was hurtling along at full speed in the dark of night.
The trains shut down automatically if a quake threatens...they have to keep the lines a significant distance from buildings and roads, so when one of them goes down, it takes a portable bridge crew to get to them. They clean ice off the boggies with high-pressure steam cleaners mounted on bridges when the weather turns cold. Color cameras are mounted everywhere, so that the crew and central control can do visual checks at will.
When the bullets pull into Tokyo Station, the stews inside are just like on a 747, with a replacement crew lined up along the platform, waiting for shift change. All neat as a pin. The 'pilots' are dressed just like commercial airline staff, and draw huge crowds, with autograph seekers and train groupies galore. I had my photo taken with one, and he even let me wear his hat
They have a mini-shinkansen that goes up into the mountains for weekend ski trips that is the best looking...all smoked glass and dark gun-metal gray, with green pinstripes. The mega-shinkansen is a double-decker design, that looks a bit ungainly, yet it still manages speeds high enough to match domestic airline travel times.
You have to ride on one of these beasts to appreciate them.
It's actually a little more interesting than that. Amtrack owns (almost?) no track - they run pretty much entirely on track owned by the standard commercial railroads. Building new track is almost impossible, because of the right of way requirements (trains aren't sexy any more so you can't get the government to sieze it for you via emminent domain). The guys who actually own the right of way and the tracks are commercial railroads, who don't (and can't) provide passenger service and have no interest in laying out millions to upgrade track. Amtrack is legally prohibited from carrying signifigant freight, and doesn't have the passenger base to fund track improvements, even if the track owners were willing to upgrade (a lot of commercial rail guys hate Amtrack and would refuse to upgrade just on principle). Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
The advantage that trains currently dont have security check was rudely shaken by last years 3-11 bombing in Spain. Its just that the countries with high speed trains haven't been high priority targets yet.
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.
At the risk of getting flamed, The keyword is "Japan's largest railway company began a test run for a new bullet train". In America the pattern is always the same. Take NY City's subway system first
1) private companies built 100's of miles of track
2) New York set price limits to "keep the fare reasonable"
3) the companies go bankrupt
4) the city takes over the system
5) no major improvments for the next 50 years
6) people start paying much more for taxis and express busses so they can get to work
When the subway was private 26 major lines were built, since then practically nothing. The only thing they have left is advertisements bragging that their system is 100 years old. It's the same story for Amtrack.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
I think that depends on where you are. Out west, in Colorado, where I live there is a big interest in it. In 2003 voters approved a 4.7 Billion dollar initiative to extend the light-rail system well outside of the Denver area. Unfortunately it's going to take them twelve years to complete it and traffic here is getting difficult now.
Find coupons in Greeley
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?
Despite the -1 moderation, parent is (at least partially) correct. From wikipedia, there have been no fatalities caused by operational incidents such as collisions or derailments on the Shinkansen. There have however been suicides, and incidents where people have been caught in doors and injured.
I may or may not be correct on this, but other railway networks across the globe, despite horrific crashes, are still safer than transport by road in terms of volume of passengers carried.
Nice weather for penguins...
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?
There is an interesting story about the San Francisco Bay Bridge. If you haven't seen it, it is a double-deck bridge. When first built the lower deck had train tracks and car lanes. The upper span was just for cars travelling in both directions.
The passenger train system (the Key System / Key Route) was successful but somewhat limited as the East Bay area spread out away from SF/Oakland. It was discontinued in 1958. General Motors (surprise, surprise) obtained 64% of the stock of the company which ran the Key System through a front company. They replaced the entire board and essentially dismantled the system piece by piece. GM then planned to replace the system with GM buses. The regional governments tried to stop the plan, but lost out eventually.
GM continually tried to dismatle all trains, and even had some help by the Oakland transportation department in converting popular train lines (96% ridership) into car lanes because the trains (travelling at street level) were trying up car traffic.
I love this quote: "The PUC had granted a large fare increase for Jan. 1, 1948 for "service improvements." After the fares were raised, GM stated its 'motorization" plan was the "service improvement.'" Motorization was the replacing of street cars and electric trains with buses.
Through fare increases and service cut backs, GM got what it wanted all along. Removing trains and selling buses and cars!
Source: http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc03.html
So, it wasn't a conspiracy so-to-speak, but underhanded corporate tactics to sell product.
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
Yes, aircraft tend to be more fragile to onboard attacks. However trains have tracks which can't easily be monitored or defended. Why terrorize those onboard an aircraft? Because we already have a substantial population with an irrational fear of flying. An act of terrorism will build upon that fear.
Keep in mind, a bullet train has to rely on aerodynamics every bit as much as an aircraft. Furthermore, if you come to a sudden stop for any reason at all, you'll die just as fast and randomly as you would in an aircraft.
One final thing: High speed trains make at least as much noise as a low flying aircraft. The bow shock from the train is quite substantial too. Few are willing to reserve the space for an airfield, but most don't think twice about carving huge rights of way to mitigate the noise a train makes. What a bunch of luddite foolishness...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
By the time the test ends in early 2008, the operator hopes to hit the maximum speed of 250 mph -- faster than the train will travel during regular operation.
French company Alstom SA's TGV, or Train a Grande Vitesse, is currently the world's fastest train, operating at a top speed of 218 mph.
Current record for the TGV is 320mph
Anyways, I feel the billion dollar bailouts repeatedly handed over to the airlines deserve some mention here.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
There will be if the price of oil continues to rise.
They stopped all service. Amtrak is such a disaster. (1) To take accela turns the philly->boston ticket from a $174 friday/sunday
fare to a $300 fair. (2) The plane ticket prices between those two cities on a friday/sunday are $100 round.
You're forgetting several things here:
1) Acela Express service is only one option on the route you're talking about - there are several others that Amtrak offers that cost significantly less. (Acela Regional, Metroliner, etc.)
2) Acela Express trains are one of the only profitable parts of Amtrak's business, so clearly the business model they've set upon for the train works... when the trains themselves work. This is why it was such a disaster when they had to pull them out of service - right now (well, not right now), these trains are subsidizing most of the NEC improvements that are going on.
The story of why these trains have been so unreliable is a long one, and is rooted in the same congress that has been trying to cut Amtrak's funding for so many years. Congress pressured Amtrak to have a North American-built train and it also refused to amend 19th-century era safety standards so that Amtrak could use similar technology to trains built elsewhere (Japan, Europe, etc.). The direct end result of this is the cracks in the brakes that led to Amtrak taking these trains out of service. The Acela Express trains are based on the TGV, but are about twice as heavy due to safety regs in this country - yet Bombardier/Alstom did not redesign the brake system to take this extra weight into account.
3. The reason why air fares are so low on the route you mention is because of pressure from Amtrak. Amtrak's NEC service (all kinds) is popular enough that it has actually taken riders away from airlines, and that has forced airlines both to use smaller planes and to reduce fares.
I really want amtrak to succeed but they either need to give the same subsidies that they do for roads and airports or just kill the thing off; because its too over specialized for people just doing dc/philly/ny in 1->2 hr hops.
Well, fortunately for Amtrak and its riders, the NEC is the last part of the system that would ever be "killed off".
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.
In case of Godzilla attack the train will transform into a giant robot in order to protect Tokyo.
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.
There is a MagLev test line under development in the Yamanashi perfecture, that can currently do 310 mph; it is quite a treat to watch, and if you get lucky you can get a chance to ride it. More information here in English, with some videos here. True, it's been around damn near ten years and they haven't started public service...
...can we have the old one if they're done with it?
1) private companies built 100's of miles of track
The city of New York and the State of New York paid for all of the miles of NYC subway. They contracted construction and operations to the IRT and later the BMT but always had ownership of the lines.
2) New York set price limits to "keep the fare reasonable"
NYC always had control over the fare prices. These were included in the contracts.
3) the companies go bankrupt
There were many reasons for this, fares being part of them, but also the fact that the city had 2 competing systems for a number of decades.
4) the city takes over the system
5) no major improvments for the next 50 years
During this time, much money and energy went into NYC roads. This was mostly due to a cultural change starting in the 60s including urban renewal and the rise of the automobile. While the subways stayed the same, NYC built airports, more bridges, tunnels, and the Cross-Bronx expressway, etc were built. These were huge projects.
I would also argue that they are once again starting to make improvements. One could call the airshuttle a major improvement.
6) people start paying much more for taxis and express busses so they can get to work
Huh? More people are now using NYC rapid transit than almost anytime in recent history.
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."
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
I don't think that's the claim. The issue I personally have is that the Bush administration proposes spending $310 million to fund Iraq's rail system and $0 to fund the US's rail system. This does not seem a bit off to you? These priorities are not out of whack?
I cannot for the life of me recall a situation in which our government proposed funding an entire industry in one country while refusing to support that same industry in its own country. Especially when it comes to infrastructure, on which the entire rest of the economy is based. Exactly which country is the Bush administration supposed to be governing? Did we elect the president of Iraq or the president of the US?
I would say the priorities of our government are more than a little off-kilter. It's not about reducing defense spending to zero. It's about $1.2 billion in government funding for Amtrak out of a budget of several trillion. It's a tiny amount in the grand scheme; certainly nobody is asking for anything rivaling the amount spent on defense, or education, or even highways and airports. (David Gunn has never requested more than $2 billion, and has said Amtrak could get by at its current spending level, albeit with deferred maintenance.) It is a much, much smaller amount than the $10 billion the government gave to the airlines after 9/11, it is miniscule compared to the amount the government just gave up in seeking from the tobacco companies as part of the trial it's been waging (recently slashing $120 billion off the penalties they were seeking), it is much lower than many, many other discretionary expenditures. And the proposed amount of spending Bush has set aside for Amtrak next year (zero) is exactly $310 million less than the amount of spending we are putting into Iraq's rail system - the same rail system we destroyed to begin with. We're throwing good money after bad when we could be putting that money to better use right here at home.
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.
I've ridden the London-Paris train at 300kph (180mph). The sensation was like being in a plane that's flying entirely too low. The scenery blurs, so that you cannot see any detail that's closer than 100m or so. The thought of a train that goes nearly twice that speed is scary!
I was going to say this same thing, but noticed that you did first.
I'm originally from Maine, though I now live primarily in New York City. Occasionally, I now take the train to Boston and then on the "Downeaster" route, but it took them years to run a train from Boston to Portland. There were a lot of reasons why this took a while, but I remember that one chief problem was that passenger trains needed to go a certain speed. Amtrak wanted the train to go over a hundred miles per hour, but it ended up going slower than that.
Amtrak doesn't own the tracks from Boston through Maine (or, apparently, anywhere else). They're owned by a commercial shipping company. The freight companies have absolutely no interest in upgrading their track to handle higher speeds. You can see why it's not in their best interest...you don't want a million tons of coal going 200 miles per hour, after all.
Anyway, I'm about as far from a socialist as you can get, but I think that internal transportation and communication networks are integral to the function of a country and ought to be publically owned, or that the government should step in and force the freight companies to upgrade track, or give up the track altogether. I'm one that would join in the chorus of not invading Iraq -- or not giving money and weapons to Israel -- and instead spending 30 billion dollars putting in mag-lev trains, starting on the West and East coasts, and working inward, much like we did in the 1800s.
The prospect of going from New York to Boston in two hours, or New York to Chicago in...say...6 hours...would appeal to me as an alternative to flying, especially when I factor in that it takes me an hour to get to any of my local airports from Manhattan, that I have to show up ridiculously early to go through security checks, and when I get there it takes another hour to get into the city I'm traveling to, whereas trains just go from city center to city center, and there's no reason to show up early.
gameDB
Unlike Japan, Iraq didn't attack us first.
Neither did Germany. Either time.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
Record-breaking?! I rode the maglev train from Shanghai http://www.shairport.com/en/airline02_d.jsp to the airport. It accelerates for an awe-inspiring 3 minutes, to 432 km/h http://flickr.com/photos/25577117@N00/21992900/ then after about 1 minute it decelerates for the final 3 minutes. Less than 8 minutes for what is nearly an hour drive in traffic (30 km).
Of course there are no tunnels, it's brand new maglev track, etc, so not comparable to trains on traditional track. Still, an unbeatable experience.
Steam trains were pretty damn fast since Victorian times: http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm Diesel electrics and pure electrics do not have the raw power required for high speed travel. Slow diesel trains is a major reason why air travel became popular.
Oh well, what the hell...
The shinkansen has been running since 1-oct-1964, and in that time it has had one derailment(only minor, no injuries) and although it was due to an earthquake, since 1964 Japan has had a number of large earthquakes.
The track is beautifully put together and the ride supurb, unlike here in Australia where the track width varies upto a quarter of an inch.