Japan's Shinkansen Bullet Trains Celebrate 50th Anniversary

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan's Shinkansen Bullet Trains Celebrate 50th Anniversary

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 1, 2014 @06:51AM from the greased-lightning dept.

AmiMoJo writes Japan's Shinkansen bullet-train has marked its 50th anniversary. The first Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka debuted on October 1st, 1964, ahead of the Tokyo Summer Olympics. Since then, the Shinkansen has run about 2 billion kilometers, or the equivalent of 50,000 times around the earth. It has carried about 5.6 billion passengers. The latest series to enter operation, the E5, operates at 320km/h.

111 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And still nothing in the US by spiritplumber · 2014-10-01 06:55 · Score: 1

what will we say when it's 50th anniversary time for Apollo 11? :(

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
1. Re:And still nothing in the US by FlyHelicopters · 2014-10-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Amen...
  Our unwillingness to do great things is really sad... We spend $4 Trillion dollars a year on government in this country and what do we have to show for it? Lots of food stamps, lots of war, and the NSA.
  In 1990, NASA came up with a plan to land humans on Mars in 10 years. Over 10 years it was going to cost $450 Billion ($45 Billion per year).
  Even if it was THREE TIMES THAT, so what... We spend money on dumber things...
2. Re:And still nothing in the US by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  That we put multiple robots driving around on other planets since then?
  That our scientific knowledge of space has expanded dramatically?
  That we've put satellites in space that help all of humanity navigate, communicate, and understand our world?
3. Re:And still nothing in the US by jedidiah · 2014-10-01 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  ...that it's still cheaper to fly jets like buses for the same kinds of routes a bullet train would cover.
  Americans get all excited about this stuff without ever actually experiencing it firsthand. They never see the high prices or how it might be simpler just to rent your own car.
  Bullet trains more of a glamour tech item like a Battleship or an Aircraft Carrier. They look good but they aren't nearly as practical as they seem.
  If the US wants to act like it's in love with trains again, it would be far better to beef up CARGO capacity. However that's not sexy. No one gets exited about efficient cargo service.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:And still nothing in the US by spiritplumber · 2014-10-01 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I gotta disagree -- bullet trains make a lot of sense for some trips. Italy got high speed rail between Milan and Rome in 2009, and it's grounded a lot of airplanes (the same job gets accomplished with 5% of the energy). Plus, no mandatory security-kabuki entertainment, and shorter+cheaper taxi/bus ride from terminal to actual destination since the train arrives in the middle of the city. For the USA, airplanes are probably the best option transcontinentally, but fast trains going up and down the coasts would make a lot of sense.
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
5. Re:And still nothing in the US by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-01 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  "What will we say when it's 50th anniversary time for Apollo 11? "
  We will reminisce about how brave and adventurous Americans were back then.
  Recently I was speaking with a highly educated relative of mine, a California Democrat, and I asked how the LA - SF bullet train project was doing. I had just come back from a European trip that included riding the Eurostar from London to Geneva. Her response was "I don't think Californians could be trusted to build something like that..."
6. Re:And still nothing in the US by Starvingboy · 2014-10-01 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't knock it until you've tried it, well run public transit systems are VERY convenient.
7. Re:And still nothing in the US by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  ...that it's still cheaper to fly jets like buses for the same kinds of routes a bullet train would cover.
  No way. You can buy a 90 day pass on Tkaid Shinkansen(run by a private for-profit company), for the price of a single round-trip airfare in the US of similar distance. I mean, it's a nice argument, but it isn't true. There were huge infrastructure costs in setting up the lines in the first place, but this "it's not cheaper than airfare" thing is completely made up.
8. Re:And still nothing in the US by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I spent a lot of times riding trains, bullet and otherwise, in Japan, and have had the occasion to from time to time in visits to other places.
  Yes, in our spread-out country roads serve most of the country more efficiently than any mass transportation system ever could. For these trips our tech will advance in the direction of automated cars. But for those crowded corridors where you physically can't cram in any more traffic, there is a place for trains. Even Phoenix has a crosstown train now - just one line, and controversial to build, but the more traffic the city gets, the more certain it is that more lines will follow.
9. Re:And still nothing in the US by Russ1642 · 2014-10-01 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  When the US gets high-speed rail service there will be the same bullshit security theater as the airport.
10. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  >All those long stiff tubes barreling into tunnels, totally fucking GAY
  
  You've never had any kind of sex, have you? Women are right not to sleep with you due to your toxic personality. You're going to have to revise your whole worldview when someone tells you about vaginas.
11. Re:And still nothing in the US by Rakarra · 2014-10-01 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Just because there was "a plan" does not mean it was either a good plan or a feasible plan.
  Let's admit that the space program of the 60s had a goal, and that goal was not bettering humanity, scientific exploration, or even just being able to say we had done it. The moon mission came about because we hated and feared the Russians, and the notion that they would be first to the moon sent chills down the spine. There was the real feeling that the US could "lose" space and lose the Cold War.
  It would take that sort of pressure again, and that's hard to muster these days, especially since Mars is not as immediate (locationwise, threat-wise, etc) as the moon is.
12. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Whooooosh.
13. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Our unwillingness to do great things is really sad...
  Spending trillions on nationwide high speed rail (The SF-to LA run alone is projected to cost $300 Billion), that will require hundreds of billions more in subsidies, cater mainly to the relatively wealthy, and do little to reduce pollution or reduce CO2 emissions, is not a "great thing".
14. Re:And still nothing in the US by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-01 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  High speed rail is nothing like flying or driving. It's a lot faster on many routes for a start. No going to the airport and going through security, waiting to take off and disembark etc. Much faster and more direct than driving, no traffic jams. It's a lot more comfortable, you can relax, work, eat or whatever.
  Places that are a long way away are suddenly just a short train journey away. It's fantastic for visiting places, fantastic for business. Japan's economy benefits hugely from having high speed rail, even if the cost is high. Japanese companies are willing to look at the long term for ROI.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:And still nothing in the US by lloydchristmas759 · 2014-10-01 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Err, the Eurostar goes from London to Paris, not Geneva...
  
  --
  I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
16. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  When the US gets high-speed rail service there will be the same bullshit security theater as the airport.
  Unlikely. A bomb on a train will kill far fewer people, and also generate far less psychological effect. People have an instinctive fear of heights, and falling from them. Our society has put disproportionate effort into aircraft safety, compared to almost any other area of risk.
  After 9/11 many fewer people flew on airplanes. Passenger volume took quite a while to recover. The train bombings in London had almost no effect on ridership.
  Also, it is hard to hijack a train.
17. Re:And still nothing in the US by Falos · 2014-10-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, GGP qualifies for Poe's Law. A courtesy /s is optional, but can help the blurrier cases.
18. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The SF-to LA run alone is projected to cost $300 Billion
  
  No, it's projected to cost $53.4 billion in 2011 dollars. Meanwhile, it would cost $123 to 138 billion in 2011 dollars to move the same number of people by air and highways (4,295 to 4,652 new lane-miles of highway plus 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways). Also, like every HSR system in the world that has been open for at least a few years, California's won't require any operating subsidies, unlike airports and freeways. So high-speed rail is a really good deal.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
19. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  the same job gets accomplished with 5% of the energy
  No. Trains move people for about 350 kJ/passenger-km. Passenger aircraft average 1.4 MJ/p-km. So that is 20%, not 5%.
20. Re:And still nothing in the US by spiritplumber · 2014-10-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! I went by what they print on the back of their ticket. Maybe it's CO2 emissions rather than total energy. Good to know!
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
21. Re:And still nothing in the US by damn_registrars · 2014-10-01 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's amazing what can be done when people are willing to pay for progress. In the US the wallet opens wide for war but is inexplicably absent when it is time to talk about spending money on something useful for the people.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
22. Re:And still nothing in the US by preaction · 2014-10-01 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's not cheaper in the US because the government refuses to subsidize it, and indeed has done almost everything they could do to destroy Amtrak. Airlines, on the other hand, since they are private, get bailouts and subsidies and tax incentives and all sorts of help from the government.
23. Re:And still nothing in the US by Jack9 · 2014-10-01 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  > So high-speed rail is a really good deal.
  It was not and still is not.
  > move the same number of people by air and highways (4,295 to 4,652 new lane-miles of highway plus 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways)
  Those stats are completely made up and are modes of transportation are for orthogonal needs. You aren't going to stop that growth. This kind of quackery estimation is what has landed California in the money pit of the HSR Browndoggle.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
24. Re:And still nothing in the US by FlyHelicopters · 2014-10-01 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  You miss the point...
  It doesn't *really* matter if we would have gotten there in 10 years, or if it cost $450 Billion or $1.45 Trillion.
  The technology and research developed in even trying would advance humanity by leaps and bounds.
  The Moon race might have been about the cold war, but you're typing on a computer connected to the Internet that is largely possible BECAUSE of the space race.
  Would they have been developed sooner or later? Sure... but not at the speed that it happened.
  What would it take for us to aim for a goal and race for it, without war and "evil" being the motivation behind it?
25. Re:And still nothing in the US by FlyHelicopters · 2014-10-01 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  First, it shouldn't cost trillions. Our highway system didn't cost trillions, rail shouldn't either. If it does, then the system is really broken.
  Fix the system, don't blame the symptoms.
  Second, you honestly think that a thousand people moving via train on 200-400 mile distances instead of in 500 to 700 cars is "about the same CO2 emissions"? Really?
  Finally, building such a system might not be cheap in the short run (the interstate highway system wasn't), but it pays benefits for many, many years in the future.
26. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  If it does, then the system is really broken.
  Breaking news: The system is really broken. Pouring another few trillion into it won't fix it. It will make it more broken.
  
  Second, you honestly think that a thousand people moving via train on 200-400 mile distances instead of in 500 to 700 cars is "about the same CO2 emissions"? Really?
  Yes. That is about right. Moving people by train is about as efficient as moving two people in a car. That is why trains make some sense for local commuting, since most people commute one-person-per-vehicle. But they make less sense for long distance travel, where people mostly don't drive alone. But in either case, a bus is generally even better than the train, with much less up-front cost, and is more flexible when commuting patterns change.
27. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  But in either case, a bus...is more flexible when commuting patterns change.
  
  That's circular logic, because commuting patterns only change when something as flexible as a bus is in place. Putting in something as permanent as a rail line gives developers confidence to make investments along the line in a way that doesn't happen around bus stops. So commuting patterns changing is a non-issue with rail.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
28. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's projected to cost $53.4 billion in 2011 dollars
  No. That is the "bullshit" number made up by politicians. No one actually believes that, since that number is from 2012, and even the politicians are no longer sticking by it.
  The best way to estimate the cost, is to issue bonds that pay on a sliding scale, with a normal payout if the projected cost is met, more if the cost is under, and less it there is a cost overrun. Then see how much people investing THEIR OWN MONEY would be willing to pay for those bonds. Of course this will not happen for California high speed rail, or any other boondoggle, because the market would expose the real costs.
29. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  The bus (or the set of buses to match the capacity of a single train) cost just as much as a train up-front. If you want to count the rail line as well - then you also need the price of the highway the buses drive on . . .
30. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Would they have been developed sooner or later? Sure... but not at the speed that it happened.
  It seems to me that they would have been developed even sooner if we had spent more on scientific research and less on rocket fuel. Instead of spending X dollars on Y to get Z as a side effect, why not spend a lot less than X dollars directly on Z?
31. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, but you simply switch trains in Paris and keep going to Geneva.
32. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's not cheaper in the US because the government refuses to subsidize it
  The government subsidizes it.
  
  indeed has done almost everything they could do to destroy Amtrak.
  Not true at all. It is the government keeping Amtrak afloat. Support for Amtrak is surprising broad. Democrats support it because they like big government, and especially like trains. Republicans support it because service to sparsely populated red states would be the first thing cut if the subsidies were reduced.
33. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  The government subsidizes it.
  
  According to your link, the Acela Express (the U.S.'s closest thing to a bullet train) makes a profit.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
34. Re:And still nothing in the US by TheSync · 2014-10-01 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  My JR Tokaido Shinkansen ticket from Tokyo to Kyoto was $140. A Southwest flight from LAX to SFO is $73.
  I think of Southwest as the real "high speed rail" of California. Flights take off almost every hour.
35. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  My JR Tokaido Shinkansen ticket from Tokyo to Kyoto was $140. A Southwest flight from LAX to SFO is $73.
  
  According to FareWatch from GoFox.com, the average airfare between LAX and SFO is $145.58.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
36. Re:And still nothing in the US by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-01 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's the getting on and off that is the biggest plus for high speed trains. I have stayed in Shinjuku a number of times and the train station there is incredible. It takes about 3 hours just to walk round the outside of it.
  Inside it has everything from shinkansen to local rail trams. You can jump off a local tube with your suitcase in tow, meander across to the shinkansen platform, jump on and away you go. No security checks, no checking luggage nothing. And they are way more comfortable than planes, the seating space is bigger, the chairs flip from front to rear facing. They have an awesome food carriage. I love them.
  For a tourist as well if you buy a JR pass before you get there they are super cheap (not so cheap if you buy the ticket there)
37. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  The bus (or the set of buses to match the capacity of a single train) cost just as much as a train up-front.
  You are wrong by a factor of ten. Buses are standard products sold in competitive markets. Passenger trains are custom designed and sold to governments where cost is not an important consideration.
  
  If you want to count the rail line as well - then you also need the price of the highway the buses drive on . . .
  No. Because the highways ALREADY EXIST, and the buses displace cars, so no additional capacity is needed.
  Even if you accept the lowest of the projected costs for California high speed rail project, the cost is over $500,000 PER SEAT. Show me a bus that costs that much.
38. Re:And still nothing in the US by Guspaz · 2014-10-01 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  They also have no luggage area. If you're trying to replace flying with the Shinkansen, you need to hope that you get lucky enough to find a place to fit your non-carryon luggage.
39. Re:And still nothing in the US by mean+pun · 2014-10-01 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  The Japanese solution is to have your luggage shipped door to door by a freight company. A very good idea, but I must assume that Japanese freight companies ask a far more decent price for this service than in the rest of the world.
40. Re:And still nothing in the US by sjames · 2014-10-01 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Compared to spending that same amount on blowing up brown people, it is a great thing.
  There's always money for blowing up brown people.
41. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  the highways ALREADY EXIST, and the buses displace cars, so no additional capacity is needed.
  
  So the cars will magically disappear and make room on the highways for buses? I think you made that up.
  
  Even if you accept the lowest of the projected costs for California high speed rail project, the cost is over $500,000 PER SEAT. Show me a bus that costs that much.
  
  First show us where it says the cost is $500,000 per seat, because I think you made that up.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
42. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  Source? That doesn't seem credible. A high efficiency jet in the air is about as efficient as a middle of the road econobox with 1 person (the driver) ~35mpg.
  I know the NYC subway does a hell of a lot better MPG than a car. What are your figures measuring?
  Just cruising efficiency (planes burn a lot on the way up)?
  Is your figure just measuring long distance commuter trains (amtrak), mixing all rail traffic, (freight an passengers) or what? I'm not saying you are intentionally using misleading figures, but they seem WAY off.
43. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-01 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  So the cars will magically disappear and make room on the highways for buses? I think you made that up.
  People riding on buses are not also driving cars at the same time. I am not making that up.
  
  First show us where it says the cost is $500,000 per seat, because I think you made that up.
  The lowest projected cost of CHSR is $58 BILLION dollars. No one believes that number, and even the most fervent CHSR advocates have now admitted it was a lowball estimate. But for the sake of argument, lets use it. The plan is to run 100 trains with a capacity of 1000 passengers each. $58B/100,000 = $580,000 per seat.
44. Re:And still nothing in the US by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-01 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  I never had a problem - travelling with a family with 2 suitcases and all the crap you need for young kids on an international holiday, we just got on the train. Generally there was loads of room and they have a cubby for larger bags which we made use of. Most of the time the carriage was less than half full so even having the suitcase across the aisle taking up another seat was more than viable.
45. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Japanese companies would ditch the shinkansen in a heartbeat except for the Tokaidou run (Tokyo-Osaka). Their economy is in tatters and government overspending is the culprit.
46. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  The lowest projected cost of CHSR is $58 BILLION dollars. No one believes that number, and even the most fervent CHSR advocates have now admitted it was a lowball estimate. But for the sake of argument, lets use it. The plan is to run 100 trains with a capacity of 1000 passengers each. $58B/100,000 = $580,000 per seat.
  I don't disagree with your point (that this would be an exceedingly expensive project, both up-front and ongoing) but this bit of math is a bit irrelevant. Each seat isn't just going to be used once - a far better way to frame it would be in terms of a per-trip seat cost, which gives you an estimate of the ticket price required for break-even.
  I have no idea of the details or I'd do the math.
47. Re:And still nothing in the US by Guspaz · 2014-10-01 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have a cubby for large bags on the newer trains (there is literally no storage for larger bags anymore), but we were lucky enough on the various times that we rode it.
48. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Physics
49. Re:And still nothing in the US by Ichijo · 2014-10-01 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  I see, you're inflating the cost of a seat by including the infrastructure cost into the seat cost, but not doing the same for buses. Because every bus that's on the road prevents another vehicle from using the same space, there's always an opportunity cost of putting a bus on the road, even if the road is already "paid for".
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
50. Re:And still nothing in the US by FlyHelicopters · 2014-10-01 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  You need a reason to develop stuff...
  Just spending for no reason doesn't seem to work well...
  Spending to make stuff work in space? That worked pretty well...
  Going to Mars will require lots of new stuff, it will give us a goal, the amazing new technologies will come on their own...
51. Re:And still nothing in the US by TheSync · 2014-10-01 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Southwest doesn't share its prices with other sites. I can tell you that a "Wanna Get Away" fare from SW with 14 day advance purchase LAX to SFO is under $80 one way, some flights are under $70.
52. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  There's always money for blowing up brown people.
  Not if you've spent it all on the train, which the brown people will then come and blow up anyway as they did in Spain.
53. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  In the US the wallet opens wide for war but is inexplicably absent when it is time to talk about spending money on something useful for the people.
  So let's close it and then see what happens to all of the nations who have been skimping on their own defense and free riding off of US military protection. Maybe then we'll see how quickly they open their wallets to save their own necks, literally, from the likes of those ISIS killers who are just a hop over the Syrian border, a skip across Turkey and a flight from there into their homes. Of course, Iraq and Syria would turn into a repeat of other post pullout conflict abandonment blood baths, but then the left always excuses itself from any responsibility for those deaths. Obviously, the lessons of history are lost on some, so let's just leave Iraq and Syria to their fates and allow the world witness the horror of Isis raping and killing in Baghdad and all across Iraq, cutting off heads and female genitalia while the leftists of the world look on in shocked disbelief and tell them what bad people they are for doing those things without lifting a finger to stop them.
54. Re:And still nothing in the US by lloydchristmas759 · 2014-10-01 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do have to switch trains in Paris, but it is far from simple, the Eurostar from London arriving in the Gare du Nord, and the TGV Lyria to Geneva departing from the Gare de Lyon, a few miles south.
  
  --
  I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
55. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  I have stayed in Shinjuku a number of times and the train station there is incredible. It takes about 3 hours just to walk round the outside of it.
  Inside it has everything from shinkansen to local rail trams. You can jump off a local tube with your suitcase in tow, meander across to the shinkansen platform, jump on and away you go.
  Ummm, I live in Shinjuku and (a) there is no Shinkansen there, (b) there are no trams anywhere near the main station, and (c) it certainly does not take 3 hours to walk around it at a normal pace. You must be confused.
  The Shinkansen stations in Tokyo are Tokyo, Ueno and Shinagawa. There are only two tram lines: the Toden Arakawa line and the Tky Setagaya line. It takes about 30-ish minutes to walk the perimeter of Shinjuku station.
56. Re:And still nothing in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  The Japanese solution is to have your luggage shipped door to door by a freight company. A very good idea, but I must assume that Japanese freight companies ask a far more decent price for this service than in the rest of the world.
  This price depends on the size, weight and distance, but it usually costs $10-$20. A good deal to avoid lugging around gear.
57. Re:And still nothing in the US by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-01 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  They do have luggage areas, just not enough for everyone. They are only in certain cars, usually near the rather spacious toilets. Most people don't have luggage, but I have taken a large suitcase and large carry-on bag on the shinkansen a few times between Osaka and Tokyo.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
58. Re:And still nothing in the US by dave420 · 2014-10-01 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  You can also switch at Brussels, which doesn't require leaving the station. You then go on to Geneva via Cologne.
59. Re:And still nothing in the US by dave420 · 2014-10-02 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  It might be simpler to rent your own car, but it's not recommended to drive your car at ~200MPH while drinking beer, watching movies, sleeping, and/or having dinner. Trains like these also aren't as expensive as you might imagine, and coupled with a decent citywide public transport system, make getting around ridiculously easy. This isn't rocket science. And no, it's probably not cheaper to just have jets, as trains stop at stations along the way, which jets don't. You'd have to compare many jets to a single train - the train clearly wins. Plus factor in the waiting time associated with jets, and again the trains start to look even better.
60. Re:And still nothing in the US by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-02 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Spending to make stuff work in space? That worked pretty well...
  It only worked well the first time. There were spin-offs from the race to the moon. There were no significant spin-offs from the shuttle or the ISS. By sucking dollars and engineers out of the rest of the economy, they likely did more harm than good.
  
  Going to Mars will require lots of new stuff
  There is no reason to believe that a Mars mission will require new non-space technology that wouldn't be developed anyway. Certainly not a trillion dollars worth, which is the low range estimate of what such a mission would cost.
61. Re:And still nothing in the US by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-02 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  I changed in Paris, and it was indeed simple. Just two stops on the RER metro connecting the stations.
Hai! by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-01 06:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Shinkansen is awesome. Amazingly smooth, unbelievably fast. I had the pleasure of riding one between Tokyo and Kyoto earlier this year. According to my phone's GPS, I topped out at 173mph (278km/h). It's amazing to me that they've been running for a half century already, while in the States we're nowhere near this level of rail technology, even today.

Also, hai means yes in Japanese. You hear it very frequently there. If someone's on their cell phone, oftentimes all you hear is "Hai! Hai, hai, hai. Hai!" What an agreeble culture!

--
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
1. Re:Hai! by Ogive17 · 2014-10-01 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  While technically "hai" means yes, in conversations it's more of a "i understand" or "ok". Subtle difference but I've been corrected in the past.
  
  I rode Tokyo to Nagoya, it is so nice. Also rode the Eurostar from London to Paris. I wish we had a good rail system here....
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
2. Re:Hai! by Tumbleweed · 2014-10-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hai does not exactly mean yes in Japanese. It _can_ mean yes, but it more often is just an acknowledgment that someone is listening to you. You may hear a phrase like, "Hai, ." This doesn't mean, it's difficult but yes, this is actually their polite way of saying 'no', because saying no outright is considered rude. When they mean 'yes', they will often just make a sound like 'uhn'.
  Be careful of literal translations. :)
3. Re:Hai! by smooth+wombat · 2014-10-01 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  What an agreeble culture!
  
  Yes, they're so agreeable that no one visits beaches after September 1st.
  
  From the article:
  
  "Many of us are so submissive to authority that we will never think to challenge the status quo," says Sato.
  
  Indoctrination starts at school. Children are drilled: "Follow the rules. Don't be selfish. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
4. Re:Hai! by Rakarra · 2014-10-01 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hai does not exactly mean yes in Japanese. It _can_ mean yes, but it more often is just an acknowledgment that someone is listening to you.
  
  So it has the various meanings that the English 'yes' does. :-) 'Yes' can mean... well, 'yes' as in the acknowledgement of correctness or truth, or it can be an agreement, but it's often used as a grunt acknowledging that you're just listening and have attention.
5. Re:Hai! by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-01 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  ie!
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
6. Re:Hai! by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fascinating story about beach season etiquette. Seems very much in line with my perception of Japanese culture.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
7. Re:Hai! by Tumbleweed · 2014-10-01 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  iie. :)
8. Re:Hai! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  HSR is so boring. A train is not a fun ride unless there is some side-to-side swaying.
9. Re:Hai! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  ie!
  Chrome!
10. Re:Hai! by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-01 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, I found it to be quite the opposite. There you are, coasting along in comfort, and then out of nowhere you're passing a train heading in the opposite direction. At a relative speed of ~350mph and a separation of (I'd estimate) about a foot, the effects of the atmosphere are most definitely noticeable. If the sudden (and I mean sudden) sound doesn't startle you, the air pressure difference causes the train to bounce to the side a bit. Definitely got my heart rate elevated the first time it happened, as I was totally not expecting it.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
11. Re:Hai! by JanneM · 2014-10-01 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  That piece is kind of crap. The main reason is that the summer holidays are over. The kids are in school (and busy with clubs, homework and so on on the weekends) and the parents are working. And as most bathers are gone, so are the drink vendors, the equipment renters and so on.You'll still find people on beaches, just not many.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
12. Re:Hai! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  "hai" or "ee" depending on the situation. Sometimes even "iie" which is usually no, but, say, if someone bumps in to you and says "sumimasen", an appropriate response is "iie" which in that setting is analogous to "it's ok! don't worry about it!".
  Such a fascinating language.
13. Re:Hai! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Indoctrination starts at school. Children are drilled: "Follow the rules. Don't be selfish. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
  Perhaps preferable in some ways to what we westerners drill in "You are a special snowflake! Don't let people tell you that you can't do something!"
14. Re:Hai! by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-01 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Japan in particular can be difficult with literal translations. When you ask someone if they would like something, like a cup of coffee, you are unlikely to get an explicit no. You are more likely to get "choto" which literally translates to "a little".
  Japanese and English are rated two of the hardest languages to learn because of the fine variations that occur during use of words that may not be immediately obvious when you are reading a definition.
15. Re:Hai! by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-01 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  The first time you are looking the wrong way on a platform and a Nozomi super fast flys through the station right next to you.... That gets the heart rate up!
16. Re:Hai! by gentryx · 2014-10-01 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  One reason might be that railways are more efficient in densely populated areas. There express trains can even compete with airplanes. Yesterday we went from Tokyo to Osaka. Flight time would have been ~1h, plus 1h checkin and transfer to/from the airport (~45min. each). The Nozomi Shinkansen took us there in 2:30, and both stations were directly at the center of the cities.
  Most of Japan's population is situated in coastal regions, so just a hand full of routes can service all major cities. Imagine how many connections you'd need in the US...
  
  --
  Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
17. Re:Hai! by jonwil · 2014-10-01 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the arguments about population density/demand/etc that apply to high speed rail in Japan (or more to the point in Europe) would very much apply to a super-fast train linking, say, Grand Central Terminal in NYC to, say, Union station in Washington DC.
18. Re:Hai! by toQDuj · 2014-10-01 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  That, and the jellyfish which are arriving in August.
  
  --
  Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
19. Re:Hai! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  Next you're going to tell me that aircraft frequently bump around in midair, occasionally fall a few hundred feet when flying through dramatic air pressure changes, and sometimes make a large portion of the passenger cabin throw up.
20. Re:Hai! by Solandri · 2014-10-01 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  The English equivalent to "hai" in this context (phone call) is "uh huh".
21. Re:Hai! by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-03 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure where you live, but here in the US, our only "high speed" rail (Amtrak's Acela service, and I use "high speed" very loosely here) is a dramatically different experience. It's not smooth, and it's not fast. Train cars are bobbing around on shitty rails, and when you pass a train heading in the opposite direction the relative speed is insufficient to cause any noticeable jostling.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
22. Re:Hai! by mgcarley · 2014-10-04 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  45 minutes checkin? Really? Were you on an international flight?
  When I lived there, I used to fly between Matsuyama and Tokyo/Fukuoka about twice a week. Arrive at the airport about 10 or 15 minutes before the flight (even at Haneda), pop my JAL or ANA card in the machine, get my boarding pass and walk to the gate. And they'd scan my drink at the gate if I had one.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
JBox.com by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:00 · Score: 0

Getting sick in Japan, and celebrating 50 years of bullet trains.
Possible numberwang by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:08 · Score: 0

50 years = 24*365*50 = 438,000 hours
2,000,000,000 billion km in 438,000 hours = constant average speed of 4566 km/h.
That's numberwang!
1. Re:Possible numberwang by Arkh89 · 2014-10-01 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Divide by the number of trains to be operated...
2. Re:Possible numberwang by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  If there was only one train...
  15 trains running at 304.4 Km/h, 30 trains running a 152.2 km/h or 45 trains running at 101.5 km/h...
3. Re:Possible numberwang by Russ1642 · 2014-10-01 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  2,000,000,000 billion km = 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 km
The average speed has slowed down in Canada by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-10-01 07:40 · Score: 3

The average speed of a train in Canada has slowed significantly down from where they were in the 1930's. My family recently took a few trips to a location that is 2.5 hours of driving and the scheduled time for the train is a bit over 3 hours. Each time it is usually around the 4 hour mark and sometimes has exceeded 6. Plus major rail lines are being ripped up and turned into walking trails and the runs are far less frequent on the remaining ones. The areas with the removed train services have sunk into economic stagnation.

You might be thinking that we have a marvellous road system or something but, nope, our potholes have potholes (pictures available) and our most productive fishing and farming areas have a tortuous routes to get to major markets.

This is fairly typical of most of Canada with the exception of a tiny corridor running by the Ottawa area (our federal capital).
1. Re:The average speed has slowed down in Canada by Russ1642 · 2014-10-01 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I just drove from Edmonton to Ucluelet (near Tofino on Vancouver Island) and back. Road conditions were great. Hell, I'd even say they were perfect. BC has 120 km/hr speed limits on many stretches of highway now. There are good rest areas, some with picnic tables, proper bathrooms, and a concession truck - even in the middle of what seems like nowhere. I don't know where you got the idea that our highway system sucked but maybe you should come drive out west.
2. Re:The average speed has slowed down in Canada by tlhIngan · 2014-10-01 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  I just drove from Edmonton to Ucluelet (near Tofino on Vancouver Island) and back. Road conditions were great. Hell, I'd even say they were perfect. BC has 120 km/hr speed limits on many stretches of highway now. There are good rest areas, some with picnic tables, proper bathrooms, and a concession truck - even in the middle of what seems like nowhere. I don't know where you got the idea that our highway system sucked but maybe you should come drive out west.
  Well, you're also talking about BC which has a natural beauty to it that the views of many BCers differs from the "Rest of Canada". So those rest stops not only are convenient, but the generally are maintained because a surprisingly large number of people DO stop just to admire the scenery.
  It's one reason why BC is full of tree huggers and all that who seem hell bent on preventing any more oil pipelines from being built. (Because an oil spill unfortunately forms a nasty blight). Hell, we even think a clear-cut is a godawful sight (it isn't, it's actually a nice way to rebuild the environment and in a couple of years it turns from ugly tree stumps and dirt into a meadow, a decade later you see trees forming and then in a couple of decades it's a young rising forest.).
  Also why LNG is OK, because an LNG spill disappears in short order.
  Finally, it should be noted those roads are good because it's generally treacherous come late fall and winter. So a rest stop means one can park and wait for daylight rather than try to creep along at night because it is scary. A pothole filled rough road? Might as well just close the road because it'll be too dangerous to drive.
3. Re:The average speed has slowed down in Canada by Guspaz · 2014-10-01 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  The train from Montreal to New York City averages something like 50 kilometers an hour.
oh, for another golden era of public transport by supernova87a · 2014-10-01 08:45 · Score: 1

It is rather pathetic that in the first year of operation, 1967, the shinkansen achieved speeds of 137 mph while here in the US 45+ years later, we have yet to approach this average speed on our fastest line (Northeast corridor).

Admittedly, Japan benefited from a dedicated, grade-separated track, and new-build greenfield infrastructure that made efficiency and continuous improvement possible. As well as concentrated population centers with good local feeder public transport systems that could support expensive high speed rail. And ownership of the rails that allowed them to route and sequence traffic in a predictable and orderly way.

Ok, I admit that's a lot of favorable conditions that helped.

But still, you come back home to the US and wonder how we are still #1 with such shitty, shitty public transport systems, and public policymakers who care so little / are clueless about what it takes.

You take the shinkansen in Japan, or even a suburban line in Munich for that matter, and you have such a fast, quiet, vibration-free ride that you come back embarrassed about USA infrastructure. Try to take public transport to your flight at La Guardia, or the Amtrak Coast Starlight (SFO-LAX, which sometimes involves a bus), or the Boston Green Line squealing like a pig under Park Street like it's being tortured, or run away from the Chicago CTA crashing into O'Hare, and you get a sense of what it's like to be in last place among first world countries. Or for that matter, Chicago selling off it's public street parking infrastructure for 99 fucking years to the highest bidder. What moron was in charge of that one? I would hardly bet on what 5 years from now looks like, and they sold it off for 99 years.

It makes you disappointed in how dim is our current shadow of the earlier greatness that built this country.
1. Re:oh, for another golden era of public transport by drinkypoo · 2014-10-01 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  But still, you come back home to the US and wonder how we are still #1
  What precisely is it that we're still #1 in, besides arms exports?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Revisionist History by MakersDirector · 2014-10-01 09:22 · Score: 0

You gotta love revisionist history.
Wasn't it just yesterday they said it was released in the early 90s?
1. Re:Revisionist History by Guspaz · 2014-10-01 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no... nobody said that. The Shinkansen first ran in the 1960s. It's not a conspiracy, it was a big deal in the international news back then. The original 1960s cars were given the nickname "bullet train" due to the funny-looking nose of the train.
Let's put things back into perspective by remi2402 · 2014-10-01 11:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not to sound too pedantic, Shinkansen started out far from 320km/h. In fact, the original "bullet trains" back in 1965 were limited to 210km/h (about 130mph y'all non metric folks). The mighty Penn RR had GG1s pulling trains from NYC to DC at 100mph around the same time. Back in (my beloved old) Europe, SNCF class BB 9200 electric locomotives were pulling 200 km/h (120mph) trains in 1967 on part of the way from Paris to Toulouse; in Germany, Class 110 were pulling express trains at speeds similar to that of the GG1s.
Now, if anything should be remembered from JR of yesteryear was their bet against air and road traffic. It truly was against all odds that JR executives fought for proper rail infrastructure. For a completely new standard-gauge network, that did not exist. Unlike other countries, Japan's high speed standard-gauge network was built from scratch, with connections to the narrow-gauge network being done in the late 90's. This high-speed network has since then been upgraded to 320km/h operations over the past decades. Regardless of top speed, this is what Shinkansen should be remembered for: 20/20 hindsight.
As a Frenchman proud the national TGV network, I tip my hat off the Japanese engineers and executives who envisioned and built the Shinkansen.
1. Re:Let's put things back into perspective by Guspaz · 2014-10-01 11:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, how minor an accomplishment for a country still recovering from being destroyed in a devastating world war to produce trains in 1963 that were a mere 31% faster than the GG1. Shattering the speed record for actual passenger service is such an inconsequential accomplishment.
  The Shinkansen may not have held that record for long, but it's been on the forefront of high-speed rail ever since. And compared to the average speed of the fastest trains between Montreal and New York City in 2014 (around 50 kilometers per hour), it's blazing fast.
2. Re:Let's put things back into perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  Not to sound too pedantic, Shinkansen started out far from 320km/h. In fact, the original "bullet trains" back in 1965 were limited to 210km/h (about 130mph y'all non metric folks).
  They had successful test runs at 245 km/h just before the line opened. They then decided on 210 km/h as service speed. Since they ran very well at 245, the reason for the speed reduction has to be due to something else, most likely due to wear or running cost.
  It's not true that they came up with a new railroad gauge for the shinkansen. The standard gauge in Japan is 1067 mm and the shinkansen uses 1435 mm. However 1435 mm is not uncommon for private lines in Japan and was well known at the time. Also it is the standard gauge in Europe and North America. It is shielded from other traffic and uses tracks build for speed. The train itself is also build for speed to such an extend that it has sacrificed turning abilities in favor of high speed stability. It also use 25 kV power in a country where 1500 V is the most common and 25 kV wasn't previously used. Also while Japan uses 50 Hz, the western part uses 60 Hz meaning the trains have to be able to use both.
  The Shinkansen isn't entirely shielded from other lines though. The line from Tokyo to Niigata only has dedicated tracks to Sendai. The rest of the way the train slows down to 130 km/h and drives on a private railroad, which predates the first Shinkansen. Surprisingly this mean that it is actually possible to see Shinkansen trains running on a single tracked line with railroad crossings. Well it is single tracked if you ignore the narrowgauge track next to it, which the Shinkansen can't use.
3. Re:Let's put things back into perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Precisely. The train from Sydney to Newcastle in New South Wales runs 15 minutes slower now than it did in 1939, according to the timetable. You can't put a fast train down a railway line if there is a slower train in front of it, unless you have invested in multiple tracks. It's not all about the train, in fact the rolling stock is the last piece of the puzzle. I caught the AVE from Valencia to Madrid when I was in Spain, just over 300 kilometres, 1hr 38minutes non-stop, from close to downtown Valencia to downtown Madrid. Maximum speed just over 300km/h. With a dedicated track you can do that.
4. Re:Let's put things back into perspective by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-02 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  The step up from 160km/h to 210km/h was a major breakthrough and required the development of several new technologies. It wasn't just a case of fitting a bigger motor and pushing the throttle a bit harder.
  One of the biggest problems was oscillation in the suspension, which required a new type of dampener to be developed to prevent the train derailing at high speed. They also had to develop new pantographs to avoid destroying the overhead lines at high speed, and a new completely electronic and automatic signalling system as normal signals pass by too quickly for the driver to reliably see.
  Over the 50 years of operation their safety record has been pretty much spotless, in a country that has regular major earthquakes. Punctuality is incredible too. In 2007 the average delay from the advertised schedule was 18 seconds, including delays due to natural disasters.
  The current 320km/h is limited by concerns over noise. The trains are rated for about 380km/h, but they need to improve tunnels to prevent the noise created when the train emerges before they can go that fast.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Punctuality. by crazyvas · 2014-10-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Informative

One thing that has always impressed me about the Shinkansen is its near obscene punctuality:
Quote from http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shi... :
The Shinkansen is very reliable thanks to several factors, including its near-total separation from slower traffic. In 2012, JR Central reported that the Shinkansen's average delay from schedule per train was 36 seconds. This includes delays due to uncontrollable causes, such as natural disasters.[14] The record, in 1997, was 18 seconds.
1. Re:Punctuality. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  and the lack of fatalities due to derailments which is pretty impressive in a country with so many earthquakes.
2. Re:Punctuality. by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-02 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  In 2003 the Tokaido Shinkansen managed an average delay of 6 seconds over the year, including delays due to earthquakes and other natural disasters.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Punctuality. by wrook · 2014-10-02 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  From my experience, normal JR rail is almost as punctual. They have special gear that goes out and checks the rails after every earthquake. Typhoons usually don't even make the trains late. I got used to that service when I was in Japan. In 5 years I can only remember the train being late twice (both due to suicides on the track). I spent the last 2 years in England. They don't even count the train as late if it is less than 10 minutes late. Even with that, the train near me is late nearly 20% of the time (some times in the year it is late over 25% of the time). I'm glad I have a forgiving boss. I come in 30-60 minutes late at least twice a month due to the trains :-P
way to miss the point by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 19:05 · Score: 1

The summary and most of the comments here seem to be missing one minor detail:
Setting aside how fast / slow trains are in country X or Y, the shinkansen has experienced zero passenger fatalities during these 50 years.
Don't feel superior, we all have that problem by dbIII · 2014-10-01 19:25 · Score: 1

"Follow the rules. Don't be selfish. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
Sounds like the US attitude to workplace relations and why many are indoctrinated to think unions or any bunch of employees getting together to question a management decision in any way is evil.
I think you'll find "nail that sticks out gets hammered down" in many cultures, even ones that propagate myths of lone heroes working outside the system. Insert the name any country on the planet with large cities for Japan or US and there will be some major situation where people who act outside the norm face serious social pressure.
Safety by mutherhacker · 2014-10-02 00:44 · Score: 1

What many people don't know is that over the 50 years of the Shinkansen, there has never had a fatality due to derailment or collision which is an impressive safety record considering the frequent earthquakes and typhoons in Japan (there has been a single fatality by the doors closing on a passenger trying to catch the train). Younger high-speed rail services on other countries already count fatalities.