Slashdot Mirror


Magnetic Levitating Trains Get Go-Ahead In Japan

An anonymous reader writes "They've been on the drawing board for 40 years but the politicos have finally approved routes for the 500kph maglev trains to replace bullet trains." I wonder if they'll let me test out maglev rollerblades on the track.

36 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by mamono · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as they don't go over water, then you need POWER!

  3. Population Density by Daryen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sort of project makes a lot of sense in a place like Japan where there are a few places with very dense population separated by rural areas.

    America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it will be exponentially more difficult than for us than for a country like Japan, or even most Eastern European countries.

    1. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most, if not 95%+ of all rail traffic in the US is in small, highly populated corridors - think BosWash or through Californian cities. If this was a viable alternative to air travel, I think most folk would hop on it in an instant to avoid the hassles of modern air travel.

    2. Re:Population Density by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this was a viable alternative to air travel

      The airliners have nothing to fear. Since the trains levitate, the TSA will simply declare that they have authority over security for them, and they'll make sure its just as much of a hassle as flying.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Population Density by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible.

      Not necissarily true. I think the important thing is to get people thinking of a maglev more the way they think of airplanes than the way they think of trains. Americans in general are very resistant to rail travel for some reason, mostly because the only experience they have with it is a friend of a friend who rode Amtrak once. Why not have non-stop routs between the major cities of each region (LA, Chicago, Houston, Miami, New York). Put the Maglev terminals at the airport and consider them another part of the air transportation network.

      Alternatively, put maglev lines between airports that are close together but still see lots of traffic. I'm thinking something like Mineapolis to Chicago since that is what I am familiar with. Generally, if you want to fly into or out of Minneapolis, it is cheaper to go through Chicago. It would save a lot of time, money, and polution if you could ride the maglev between them. If it worked out and was profitable, it would also be a powerful proof of concept for longer lines in the future.

    4. Re:Population Density by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      actually, in the last amtrak bill that passed, their was money in there to extend the high speed rail between chicago and milwaukee (one of the most reliable and most profitable routes for amtrak, airport to airport). They are going to extend it to Madison, then up to St. Paul Not Maglev, but 100+mph trains, with limited stops. Even without Maglev, the diesel electric trains are the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to move cargo or people around.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Population Density by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TSA has no need to declare levitating trains as aircraft. They already have authority over rail traffic and mass transit sytems like subways and busses.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two thoughts on this. First, yeah, why do you guys do that? What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient? I don't know about you, but I like to be able to, I don't know, pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream, perhaps even walk to work! This is supposed to be a democracy—why build such misery for yourselves?

      Second, HSTs, like aircraft, connect hubs, not suburbs. Starting and stopping works better than with a plane, but it still puts a hell of a dent in your average speed, which is your selling point. The population density of the US is more than a quarter of that of the EU; that means that the distance between hubs is on average only doubled—and the fact that there's nothing much happening in the midwest only argues in favour of trains by pushing up the density on the sides. Indeed, if we take the (sadly American) argument that we cannot take any risks and we can only deploy technology where we are sure it is justified, well, France has HSTs. If you need a population distribution like that of France to do this thing, then—if I read these maps right—there ought to be HSTs (and I mean like TGV, not Acela) from Boston to DC, from New York to Chicago, and within the states of California and Florida.

      Of course, what's really going on is that America just doesn't do infrastructure, because the country is hung up on a psychological model of 'winning' against the 'competition' by holding back your neighbours. That's why businesses talk all the time about 'market share' and in times of difficulty fire R&D and boost marketing. If you built a train system, other people could use it! Perhaps even—OMG—poor people! Then how would I know I was better than them?

      (And I'm not making this up. I'm living in San Jose and hearing what the people around me are saying about the light rail, the BART extension, the HST project.)

    7. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, but so long as AMTRAK is in charge of managing this it will never happen. Acela had the potential to steal massive amounts of travel from the airlines. If you could do Boston to NYC in 2 hours by train it would be faster/cheaper than flying.

      Its the politics and half-assed shortcuts that are preventing it. Would it take financial capital to start up? Sure. But if done RIGHT it would return on its investment pretty quickly. However Amtrak is constantly doing it wrong. They need a dedicated line, with maybe 2 inter city stops. The train needs to run full out the entire time its not stopped. I'm not 100% certain of the route Acela uses, but if it stopped once in RI and once in CT you could be doing 150mph the entire time in between. Even at $100 per ticket thats far better than flying. How many Boston to NY flights are their daily?

      In general the US just has a broken view of how train infrastructures should work. The best model for a place like the US is a hub system. You designate major metros that have inter city traffic as hubs (NYC, Boston, DC, Philly) You run limited highspeed inter city trains between them. Dedicated lines for the majority/all of the trip. Once a person gets to the city they can use conventional rail to travel to surrounding areas if they so choose. Having intercity trains slowed waiting on local traffic or making local stops is just a terrible idea.

      I ran an itinerary of a Boston to LA train trip on Amtrak and the number of stops was just silly. Amtrak just needs to realize its cheaper to ignore some areas and improve travel times and they will be able to be competitive with airlines. If I could do Boston or NYC to Chicago with say 4-5 stops Same thing for Boston->NYC->DC, and be able to do it at 150mph on average, then $100/ticket 1 way would be more than reasonable, considering you'd be looking at double that for a plan ticket.

      As mentioned in one of the above posts, the key is flight time + airport time + 20% > train time between 2 cities. The 20% makes up for the fact that people will consider slightly longer for a significant savings in cost.

    8. Re:Population Density by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Informative

      This sort of project makes a lot of sense in a place like Japan where there are a few places with very dense population separated by rural areas.

      No... NO IT DOESN'T!!!

      It makes sense only in the minds of people who only know the image Japan wants to project to the world.

      They don't need _even faster_ trains using Ãbertech, they already got the shinkansen. Shaving off 30 minutes of the ride from Tokyo to Osaka isn't worth it, when the effort should really be spent on making what they have _affordable_.

      Wasting enormous sums of money (that they don't have, most of it is funneled out of the postal savings and pension funds... Which, btw forced the previous prime minister to resign cause they 'lost' all the records of how much people had deposited) on unneeded construction projects is the _LAST_ thing Japan needs.

      They should try to bury all the cables hanging around everywhere... Seriously, only place in the country where they bury cables are Shinjuku and Harajuku; as a pilot program. It's so ugly that after a while you just learn to ignore it, yet still it lingers in the back of your head.

      Or they could build people real houses, instead of these un-isolated plastic... things. Winter here isn't _that_ warm.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    9. Re:Population Density by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember reading a report that said that for the cost of the "stimulus checks" that the government wrote last spring (150billion), they could have built a 300+mph train from SF to Chicago, using 2 tracks, one for eastbound, one for westbound. Future projects would be cheaper, since that included wiggle room to iron out a few problems. so that's what, 5-6 hours from SF-Chicago, with all the legroom you could want, large bathrooms, dinner cars, etc? No more feeling like cattle, no more airport body cavity searches. Something 600-1000 people per train, trains leaving every hour or less.. My god that would clear up roads and airports.

      I was just thinking about that yesterday. If we stimulated the economy by way of good old fashioned public works projects instead of just cutting checks for everyone, we'd leave a much more useful legacy to society than a few million houses with an extra plasma TV each. On the other hand I suppose it's good that people got a chance to pay down credit card bills and take some debt out of the system.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  4. Efficiency by ILikeRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone know how the energy usage per passenger compares with a large jet?

    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    1. Re:Efficiency by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to remember that you don't have that costly climb to 10 km. It will probably be a lot cleaner.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Efficiency by interiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2) You don't have to carry an entire trip's worth of fuel with you.

    3. Re:Efficiency by bdenton42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html?page=2 they appear to be saying maglev is about 36% the energy cost of airplanes and about 43% of conventional trains.

    4. Re:Efficiency by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      4) Profits!

  5. The US already has a maglev by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Our university has had this technology on our campus for almost 10 years now. If you're wondering how it works check out Dr Lawrence Weinstein's page on maglevs. Our current problem is vibration which makes riding at any speed intolerable. AEN

    1. Re:The US already has a maglev by coppice · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The one from Pu Dong airport in Shanghai has no vibration problems. In fact its super smooth at 430km/h. However, they have used an enormously thick concrete structure to be stiff enough to achieve that.

    2. Re:The US already has a maglev by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Japanese have solved the vibration problem along with a host of others. There have been a few other problems that crept up like quenching and the not insignificant problem of cost.

      Quenching appears in magnets when they're jiggled enough that the atoms lose their orientation and the material stops being magnetic. According to their blog, that happened to them at least once a few years back (around 2001-2002). At the time, one of the American inventors, Jim Powell, told me that his partner and co-inventor of superconducting maglev, Gordon Danby, thought that the Japanese had not used pure enough aluminum. Using purer aluminum, of course, drives up the already high cost of the technology.

      Contrary to what you might think, the roadbed is not magnetic as that would have made the cost far too high. Instead, they line the roadbed with aluminum plates that become magnetic in the presence of a moving magnetic field. The magnetic field is provided by superconductors on the train. When the train is moving slowly, it runs on rubber tires as the roadbed can't generate enough lift to support the train.

      Cost has been the key factor that his stalled this technology. I've seen cost estimates as high as almost $1 billion/mile. The Tokyo-Osaka link was estimated at $200 billion. This proposal coming in at $50 billion for the short route from Tokyo to Nagoya of 160 miles is saying they can build it at .3 $billion/mile. The detours, of course, will drive the cost up as well as slow the train down.

      So if nothing else, the Japanese will provide the world with real data for both construction and operating costs. Their test bed already provides lots of interesting video. Best part is at 5:30.

  6. Re:magic trains by PatLam · · Score: 5, Funny

    You were able to take out 3 letters from Magnetic but you got Levitating right...?

  7. Oh Fast by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About seven years ago I would have thought this was the epoch of cool. Now I think it's cool, but not even in the top 100 of cool civics works projects. Once I started riding my bike to work fast doesn't impress me like it once did. On the other hand Copenhagen has redid it's infrastructure to have protected bike lanes all over the city and residential districts are close to work. Now that's cool.

    --
    We are the Borg...
  8. Re:magic trains by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    Not really. Though now you reminded me of Hogwarts Express.
    To make it worse, I had to concentrate so I wouldn't type "Hogswatch Express", which would have been pretty embarr... oh, never mind.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  9. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Trails · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meh just buy it now on credit. I'm sure the japanese will lend us the money. It's foolproof!!

  10. Re:magic trains by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    Freudian DiscWorld slips are more embarrassing than reading Harry Potter?

    I like both, but DiscWorld definitely has more geek-chic.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  11. monorail by Paralizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. And, by gum, it put them on the map.

  12. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by butterflysrage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    except being far apart you have the problem of getting the track actually built. While I don't know much of the Russian frontier, or much of rural US... I know there is a whole LOT of empty land in Canada, rocky, swampy, forest covered nothing. Plowing a train route through the Canadian Shield is not just difficult, in many places it's pretty damn impossible. The hardest rocks in the world cover most of eastern Canada, and despite not being a steep as the Japanese Alps, the sheer hardness of the rocks would make blasting/tunneling prohibitively expensive. On the flip side of that, one would need MASSIVE bridges to cover many of the dips and rivers in Quebec and Ontario.... It is just all around cheaper to fly over it all.

    The Tokyo/Nagoya run was likely picked as a first attempt as it is fairly flat and there is an absurd amount of travel between the two centers. At about 20 million people in the greater Tokyo area, and over 8 in the area around Nagoya, these are two of the thee largest cities centers in the country... add the two together and you have almost as many people as there are in ALL of Canada.

    They have the demand, money, and geology for it.

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
  13. Re:magic trains by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny
    • Magic Leviathan Trolls

    Those are really hard to kill.

  14. Stupid blog post is slashdotted by level4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    And I hate those stupid blog stories anyway.

    Here's a real article with actual information:

    http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20081022a1.html

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  15. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by smidget2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, we are really being pummeled with terrorist attacks over here in the US. All of the place. They are something we should definitely not advance our horrid land-based transit system for.

  16. Re:magic trains by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanted my milk to come out my nose

    Milk out of nose? Okay...
    NOSE
    Change N to P: POSE
    Change S to L: POLE
    Change P to M: MOLE
    Change O to I: MILE
    Change E to K: MILK

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  17. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It is just all around cheaper to fly over it all.

    Now, perhaps, but until when? Oil spiked to almost $150 a barrel this year. If it goes up to $150 and STAYS THERE, the airline industry as we know it will simply disappear.

    you had damn well better have a VERY effective train system installed BEFORE that happens.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  18. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That doesn't really have any bearing on my point. People complain about complexity of endeavors whenever it comes to upgrading our infrastructure. Canada had adverse conditions to running rail, and yet the succeeded. It seems pretty clear to me that rail can be used effectively in just about any environment, given proper planning and execution.

    Also, relying solely on one form of transportation, whether it be air, rail, ship, or car, is a mistake. Continuously improving all forms of transportation is in the best interests of our society and economy. Remember 9/11? Every plane grounded. How many flights are delayed due to weather? Likewise for rail and roads with earthquakes. IMHO America is embarrassingly behind on rail. We used to be known for our daring innovation and technological know-how. Now it seems like we just want to whine and collect profits.

  19. We shouldn't try by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it will be exponentially more difficult than for us than for a country like Japan, or even most Eastern European countries.

    The 'exponentially more difficult' part is why we shouldn't try to use rail to solve transportation problems. We're just too spread out. Rail only connects a very narrow corridor of people, and moreover, fixes their location indefinitely. If cities re-configure, the rail can't be reconfigured without lots of money.

    If, on the other hand, we reconfigured cars so that they were capable of forming dynamic trains, we could get a lot of the benefit of trains without the drawbacks. For instance, trains move lots of vehicles more cheaply than a single vehicle because the locomotive bears the cost of pushing air out of the way. That not inconsiderable expense rises exponentially with speed. In a train, it's spread out over the vehicles following the locomotive but in a car, the single car bears the entire expense.

      If cars drafted behind each other, they could share that savings that trains have. For that to work, it would require the cars to be able to communicate between themselves to sort out common destinations and speeds.

    In practice, you'd jump on the highway per normal and your car would start querying other cars how far down the road they're going. When it found another car that was headed the same way for more than a mile or so, they'd sort out who would be lead car and who would draft and arrange themselves accordingly. The person in the lead car would continue to drive, but all the cars trailing him would be tucked in within an inch or two of each other. Their car's computers would be telegraphing to each other what the lead car was doing in terms of accelerating/decelerating so that they would do the same at the same time. When someone's destination exit arrived, the car would telegraph to the following cars that it was peeling off and the other cars would momentarily disconnect while the car pulled out of the train and then the remaining cars would re-connect. In the case of the leader, second car up would become the leader. Tail car peeling off wouldn't affect the train at all.

    For a car to be allowed to join a train, it would have to carry a digitally signed certificate saying when the last time it was checked out for safety so members of the train would be confident that one of the cars wouldn't fall apart while they're within inches of it and that it was able to stop itself within a standard distance. If you didn't want to join a train, or you joined a train that made you uncomfortable for some reason, you'd turn off the feature and just drive yourself. But if you're a commuter, letting someone else drive the same route day after day, has a lot of appeal. A common commute of 20 miles would give you 20 minutes to yourself to do whatever while someone else drove.

    With reaction times removed and cars bunched up within inches of each other, highways can carry more cars at higher speeds. Currently, we slow down when the highways get congested because we have to account for reaction times to propagate down the road. With the cars handling reaction time issues, they can speed up quite a bit.

    Add a little intelligence to our cars and suddenly our highways become much greener.

  20. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by $criptah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you traveled around the United States? In many places we have geology for that too. Unfortunately, many of these cutting edge ideas won't get off the ground because of the current deficits and millions of Joe Plumbers who will fight for every cent spent outside their pocket. I will not be surprised to hear that things like high speed trains and ability to use cell phones for purchases will be linked to socialism and "'em Asians." While the whole world is trying to march forward this country seems to be taking one step back at a time.

    But let's focus on geology for now. There are many valleys and flat places around the U.S. that scream "give me a train!" You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much. Will Californians do it? Does not look like it because nobody wants to give money. Mid-west and Eastern U.S. are prime candidates for more rails as well. Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome. We don't have to focus on extremely long distances. Why not build trains to connect places that can be connected? Fewer cars on the road, shorter lines in airports. It is not about building socialism or taking away your car. It is all about leverage. If we ground our aircraft for some reason or if there is a problem with a major highway it will only make sense to take a train. Currently we put all our eggs in one basket and when oil shoots past $140pbl everybody goes ape shit because we are simply forced to pay the price. We can't avoid it. We can't say "Gee dear, I will be taking a train today since there is no need to stop by for groceries after work."

    But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.

  21. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you'd first have to address the problem of (sub)urban sprawl. public transportation is incredibly efficient with good urban planning. but since the 1950's urban sprawl caused a shift away from transit-oriented development. people began relying more and more on personal transportation. with the advent of the superhighway, introduced by Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, people began commuting 50-60 miles to work and population density began to thin out.

    but now that private vehicle ownership is considered the social norm, with public transportation out of vogue, the public highway system is being stretched to its limit. traffic congestion has become a major problem in most urban areas. and with skyrocketing gas prices, many people are finally starting to realize the stupidity of dreaming of living in sprawling suburbs and bedroom communities far and removed from job opportunities.

    the rise of car-dependent communities basically makes it impossible to walk anywhere. and everything is too spread out due to leapfrog development and single-use zoning for public transportation to be practical. add on top of this the incompetent management of commercial transit systems in many areas, and you end up with completely unusable public transportation. in my area it takes me 2 hours to get to a medical clinic by bus when it only takes me 10-15 minutes driving my car.