News Japan's maglev train sets new world record with 603kph

[Soheil_Esy]

Apr 21, 2015

Japan’s state-of-the-art maglev train set a world speed record Tuesday during a test run near Mount Fuji, clocking more than 600 kph.

The seven-car maglev — short for magnetic levitation — train, hit a top speed of 603 kph, and managed nearly 11 seconds over 600 kph Central Japan Railway (JR Tokai) said.

The new record came less than a week after the train clocked 590 kph, by breaking its own 2003 record of 581 kph.

The maglev hovers 10 cm above the tracks and is propelled by electrically charged magnets.

JR Tokai wants to have a train in service in 2027 plying the route between Tokyo and Nagoya, a distance of 286 km.

The service, which will run at a top speed of 500 kph, is expected to connect the two cities in only 40 minutes, less than half the time it takes by shinkansen.

By 2045 maglev trains are expected to link Tokyo and Osaka in just 67 minutes, slashing the journey time in half.

However, construction costs for the dedicated lines are astronomical — estimated at nearly ¥11.9 trillion just for the stretch to Nagoya, with more than 80 percent of the route expected to go through costly tunnels.

Japan is looking to sell its shinkansen and maglev systems overseas with help from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has been acting as traveling salesman in his bid to revive the economy partly through infrastructure exports.

Abe is due in the United States this weekend, where he will be touting the technology for a high speed rail link between New York and Washington.

Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaEFmqTlUvg

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...t-run-notching-new-world-record/#.VTZZFdaKjCI

Maglev Train Battle: Japan Breaks Speed Record, China Eyes Further

21.04.2015

Meanwhile China is set to push the limits even further.

Chinese researchers at the Applied Superconductivity Laboratory of Southwest Jiaotong University are testing their super-maglev concept claiming it could potentially be three times faster than an airplane.

Associate professor Dr Deng Zigang has developed a loop line where a train, encapsulated in a vacuum tube which decreases the speed limitations imposed by air resistance on regular maglev trains, could go at the speed of up to 2,896 km/h (1,800 mph).

The ETT (Evacuated Tube Transport) technology could be first applied in military and space launch systems.

http://sputniknews.com/science/20150421/1021161256.html

 

[Artlav]

By 2045 maglev trains are expected to link Tokyo and Osaka in just 67 minutes, slashing the journey time in half.

I'm sceptical.
It's a whole lot of money to solve an almost non-existent problem.
Why would you want to travel between cities in an hour, when you can do it in two already?
Wouldn't planes be several orders of magnitude cheaper, both in built and running costs?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Trains are especially attractive where the flight times are short (i.e. less than the time required to pass through TSA "security"). That one hour flight from Boston to New York City becomes three when security screening and baggage check in / pickup are factored in. And most stations are in the center of the city, so you avoid the additonal 30+ minute cab ride on both ends of the trip as well.

Factoring in the taxi costs, baggage fees, and aggravation, I'm happy to throw a few more bucks at Amtrak for traveling along the Eastern corridor of the U.S. If we could get true shinkansen speed along the corridor I think that would make a lot of people really happy. We'd actually be over the moon if we could get old shinkansen or ICE-like service, or even just be able to let Acela go as fast as it was meant to do.

But the problem in the U.S. isn't so much the train technology as it is the rails and the rights of way. Tracks here are shared with freight, so if the train gets held up behind a freight train, tough luck. The rails are also at grade, so there are numerous road crossings where Shinkansen speed + drunk driver in a stopped pickup on the tracks = Nightly News Fiery Spectacular(TM)! Acela is really limited because of these issues.

 

[Soheil_Esy]

Intercontinental transportation

I'm sceptical.
Why would you want to travel between cities in an hour, when you can do it in two already?
Wouldn't planes be several orders of magnitude cheaper, both in built and running costs?

No commercial civilian jet airliner can reach 2,896 km/h today, as both the Soviet Tupolev-144 and the European Concorde supersonic airliners are retired.

Linking Russia with China and the Americas with a 2,896 km/h Evacuated Tube Transport high-speed maglev, faster than commercial jet, would definitively save time. And bring a new era in transportation. For now, an entire trip on the "China-Russia-Canada-America" line, with its 13,000km, would take two days with the train travelling at an average of 350km/h.

 

[Urwumpe]

Linking Russia with China and the Americas with a 2,896 km/h Evacuated Tube Transport high-speed maglev, faster than commercial jet, would definitively save time. And bring a new era in transportation. For now, an entire trip on the "China-Russia-Canada-America" line, with its 13,000km, would take two days with the train travelling at an average of 350km/h.

This tiny 250 km maglev track through Earthquake ridden Japan will cost 66 billion dollar until completition.

Extrapolate for the whatever-link...

 

[jedidia]

Tracks here are shared with freight, so if the train gets held up behind a freight train, tough luck.

Wait, what? who the hell makes your train schedules? Do your drivers actually have to worry that they might run up on another train?

Switzerland has had civil uprisings over less :shifty:

As for the maglev train, I think it's one hell of a machine, but the price is... staggering. Since I'm not very versed in the technology, here's a few questions:
How much of that price comes from the fact that it's just a very new technology? I guess they are able to exploit economies of scale for a lot of those parts, but how much of the train needs dedicated and specialised manufacturing equipment I don't know.

What about maintenance? I heard that's pretty rough too, which is a bit surprising. As there's a lot less moving parts in these things, I would kind of expect the maintenance to be cheaper than conventional trains. Is it just because it currently needs rare specialised skills?

 

[TachyonDriver]

Why would you want to travel between cities in an hour, when you can do it in two already?

Because we only have so much time on this planet . If you need to get from A to B fast then halving the journey time is very useful - I'm not talking enjoying a railfanning tour trip here, just pure and simple getting their quicker.

[rant on]I lament the passing of Concorde - the world's most successful (and beautiful!) supersonic airliner. The subsonic airliners of the 1960s cruised faster than the modern ones - compare the Convair Coronado to the Airbus A330. Why is the world's transport systems slowing down? It's 2015 people! We should be riding in Sub-orbital hypersonics, London to Tokyo in 45 mins etc. etc. [rant off]



Speed is life.

 

[Pipcard]

I think it's the idea that saving money is worth more than saving time.

 

[Urwumpe]

The trick is: By sacrificing 10 KTAS out of 550, you are saving about 30% of the fuel.

Compare the old gas guzzlers to a modern A350 or B787,the engines are a big deal of the improved performance.

 

[RisingFury]

I think it's the idea that saving money is worth more than saving time.

That depends on how much you value your time

 

[Artlav]

Why is the world's transport systems slowing down? It's 2015 people! We should be riding in Sub-orbital hypersonics, London to Tokyo in 45 mins etc. etc.

At least YOU (i presume) can fit into the plane.
Me, my legs are too long.

45 minutes Santiago, Chile to Moscow?
YES, please.

Or at the very least MAKE SOME LEGROOM on the 15 hour long flights!
It would only take a few removed rows and a 10% increase in ticket price.

The subsonic airliners of the 1960s cruised faster than the modern ones - compare the Convair Coronado to the Airbus A330.

Soviet planes still do - it took 2 hours on Tu-154 to get from Moscow to Tivat, Montenegro.
It takes 3-3.5 hours on Embraer or Airbus ones.

Too bad most of these old planes were flown till they fell apart...

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Tracks here are shared with freight, so if the train gets held up behind a freight train, tough luck.

Wait, what? who the hell makes your train schedules? Do your drivers actually have to worry that they might run up on another train?

Ahh, you see the problem! I wish my fellow countrymen would be as enraged. Amtrak is grudgingly allowed on routes where it can break even, and even then must share tracks. Train collisions do occur occasionally.

It is the way it is because our gasoline is ludicrously inexpensive. Note that driving the distances between the east coast U.S. cities takes about the same time or is perhaps a bit faster door to door than taking the train (depends if it is an express or not) but is generally much less expensive than trains and even airplanes due to our gas prices, so many prefer to suffer that mode of transport.

In the U.S.:

• If trip cost is the primary concern, you drive the distance, at least until you start incurring overnight stays en route. Many people in the U.S. will not think twice about driving overnight 8-12 hrs, several hundred miles. It helps if you have one of these for those pesky overnight stays:
  
  
  
  
  
• If time is the primary concern, you fly, but you need to factor in security and check-in and taxi shuttle time - for intercity distances it may not be the fastest way. Boston to NYC is not worth the flight IMO, but Boston to Chicago definitely is.
  
• Trains often are not the cheapest or fastest way to travel (even where it is available), but if one is willing and able to sacrifice a little more money and time to have a reasonably comfortable trip, it is the way to go. Many people do this, but I'd venture to say that they are still a small minority in this country. Many people see trains as a socialist plot to subvert the all-American automobile :facepalm:

 

[jedidia]

Ahh, you see the problem!

I see it, but I still don't understand it. I understand why cars are more popular, alright, but what I can't get my head around is how on earth it is possible that a track is double-booked without anyone knowing, especially considering the low trafic density. Swiss trains share the tracks with freight trafic too, the density is not much short of insane, but they still manage to get all the trains by each other (barring unforseeable technical difficulties, of course). The way you're putting it sounds like everyone could just get their trains on the track whenever they want to.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I see it, but I still don't understand it. I understand why cars are more popular, alright, but what I can't get my head around is how on earth it is possible that a track is double-booked without anyone knowing, especially considering the low trafic density. Swiss trains share the tracks with freight trafic too, the density is not much short of insane, but they still manage to get all the trains by each other (barring unforseeable technical difficulties, of course). The way you're putting it sounds like everyone could just get their trains on the track whenever they want to.

Oh, no, it's not that bad. It is scheduled. But if a technical detail holds up a freight train, and you're behind it, you wait. Amtrak legally has priority over freight, but they are the 100 lb weakling in the system. If Amtrak starts getting in the way of freight, politicians start getting angry and sharpen their pens to carve more money away from Amtrak. Your train will occasionally have to pull off to the side rail to allow a big freight train to come through, legal or not.

This is a good summary article of the situation:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Amtrak-has-priority-over-freight-but-5923268.php

 

[Codz]

As a frequent rail user in Los Angeles, I'd love to fix the limited number tracks problem over the speed problem. It gets annoying to have to take a bus detour through Compton because the only rail-line the train can use is under maintenance.

 

[Andy44]

Trains are especially attractive where the flight times are short (i.e. less than the time required to pass through TSA "security"). That one hour flight from Boston to New York City becomes three when security screening and baggage check in / pickup are factored in. And most stations are in the center of the city, so you avoid the additonal 30+ minute cab ride on both ends of the trip as well.

Factoring in the taxi costs, baggage fees, and aggravation, I'm happy to throw a few more bucks at Amtrak for traveling along the Eastern corridor of the U.S. If we could get true shinkansen speed along the corridor I think that would make a lot of people really happy. We'd actually be over the moon if we could get old shinkansen or ICE-like service, or even just be able to let Acela go as fast as it was meant to do.

I often travel on the Northeast Corridor Amtrak route, and often the train is packed. The time from DC to NY is already equivalent to air travel when you factor in the TSA, baggage, ride to/from the airport, etc. Amtrak takes you directly into the cities. The last two trains I took were packed, and those were on weekends.

But the problem in the U.S. isn't so much the train technology as it is the rails and the rights of way. Tracks here are shared with freight, so if the train gets held up behind a freight train, tough luck. The rails are also at grade, so there are numerous road crossings where Shinkansen speed + drunk driver in a stopped pickup on the tracks = Nightly News Fiery Spectacular(TM)! Acela is really limited because of these issues.

Not on the NE Corridor they're not. That system was built, out of pocket, by the Pennsylvania Railroad company in the 1930s to be a high-speed electric passanger system, so unlike the rest of the Amtrak system, the NE Corridor trains run on time and at speed.

Also, there are no grade crossings along the NE corridor. The speed of the Acela train is limited by the track and grading, which is good enough for 1930s fast (120 mph or so) but not Acela fast. And upgrading the line and maintaining it properly is very expensive.

The real problem in the US is distance between major cities. When the distances get long, jets always win.

Unless you have a hyper-expensive rail system like those in the OP, which would likely never return on the investment, and which, frankly, scares me. I really don't want to be traveling at jet plane speeds inches from the ground. A couple of bad accidents and these things will go the way of zeppelins after the Hindenberg.

---------- Post added at 12:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------

As far as using a Winnebago to avoid hotel costs, yeah right. Those things get gas mileage worse than a Sherman tank! :lol:

 

[Linguofreak]

I really don't want to be traveling at jet plane speeds inches from the ground.

Here's some nightmare fuel for you then: Dig a tunnel through the mantle from New York to London, pump the air out, and run trains through it at 10 or 20 km/s.

 

[Pipcard]

Here's some nightmare fuel for you then: Dig a tunnel through the mantle from New York to London, pump the air out, and run trains through it at 10 or 20 km/s.

Well, there's the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel"]transatlantic tunnel[/ame] idea... (replace mantle with ocean.)

Also, do you mean 1 or 2 km/s because that would be above escape velocity.

 

[Urwumpe]

If Amtrak starts getting in the way of freight, politicians start getting angry and sharpen their pens to carve more money away from Amtrak.

Lets be honest there: No number of generations of inbreeding can explain the corruption and incompetence of US politicians. But that's a basement topic.

What I wonder is: Why is it impossible to fix this problem, which seems to exist since the foundation of Amtrak?

In Germany, freight trains and ICE trains also share the same rails very often, but the true high-speed lines are new constructions without freight trains interfering. Also freight trains are really lower priority here.

 

[jedidia]

This is a good summary article of the situation:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/articl...ut-5923268.php

This article poses more questions than it answers.

For a first, if the passenger trains have to pull over and let freight trains pass, this means that freight trains are moving faster than passenger trains. I thought the problem was that passenger trains had to wait behind slower moving freight trains, which would have made sense but would have been really poor scheduling. So... why exactly are the passenger trains this slow in the first place? they're a lot lighter.

The second is... how well inside schedule does a freight train need to be? You get the impression that whole refineries would be sitting idle, waiting for raw materials, if a freight train is an hour late. This makes no sense. They can't possibly schedule their production this tightly (and if they do, they're "standing on a hilltop in a thunderstorm, wearing a copper breastplate while cursing the gods of lightning", as PTerry would have put it). Freight trains don't really cost a lot more if they're late otherwise, since they are usually piloted by two guys, that's it.
A passenger train potentially carries hundreds of people that have to get somewhere, and if you accumulate the economic cost of them not getting there in time, there's no way a freight train can compete.
Well, maybe that second point is a bit Swiss, where thousands of people use trains to get to work in the morning. It is logical to calculate the economic damage of a train runing late in actual salaries under these circumstances. As such, a major train at rush hour running late 5 minutes can cost in the hundreds of thousands (taking into account waiting time for missed connections, because they can't afford to wait. Our trains literally run on the minute, and they're absolutely merciless about it. You can be standing at the door pushing the opening button and the darn thing will just drive away, period).

Also, do you mean 1 or 2 km/s because that would be above escape velocity.

Transatlantic mass-driver launch? :lol: