Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#81

Post by masklinn »

Someone1234 wrote: post #64
binarymax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The security won't get blown out of proportion for trains like air, because while trains can do significant damage to themselves and surrounding buildings - you cant take one and crash it anywhere you like. 9/11 never would have happened with a train. A hijacked plane is a missile.

Trains still have an "end of the line." So, yes, you could if you were going fast enough. Also aircraft security was too much even pre-9/11.

> Trains still have an "end of the line." So, yes, you could if you were going fast enough.

You can overrun the buffer stop (happened last year at O'Hare, a blue line train overran its buffer stop and climbed up an elevator) but you're just going to go a bit past the buffer stop (relatively, most likely a fraction of the train length), at best you'll get just outside the station Montparnasse-style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montparnasse_derailment). That's hardly a guided missile with complete freedom of movement in the same way a plane is.

You can't drive a train into the white house no matter how often you try, because there's no rail leading to it, or even ending in its general direction, which is anywhere near enough the white house for that to be a concern.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#82

Post by rhino369 »

zachalexander wrote: post #3

Amazing. Writing this from Berlin, which doesn't have maglev trains, but has phenomenal public transit. It's sad to be going back to the US soon where the infrastructure is so primitive.

Infrastructure isn't a one size fits all arrangement. Passenger rail was once common in America. In fact, America has twice as much rail as the next in line. Why don't we use it for transport?

1) Because we all have cars. Aside from a few outliers (NYC, parts of Chicago, DC, Bay Area), US cities are designed with high car ownership in mind. Less than 10% of US households don't have a car.

Short train rides are less convenient than car trips. Especially since you'll most likely need a car at the destination.

Trains also only take you to limited stops. Cars can take you anywhere.

2) Flights are faster for longer range trips and America is a fairly spread out country. Chicago to Denver would still be a long highspeed rail trip.

3)Trains only make sense for intermediate range trips that begin and end in cities that people will stay close to the train station. Washington to New York, train is the best option.

But that sort of utility wouldn't support a robust nationwide network of passenger rail.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#83

Post by masklinn »

jusben1369 wrote: post #47
jasonkester wrote: post #27

I wonder if we'll ever get back to "High Speed Air" in my lifetime. Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left, jump on with minimal hassle, and cruise along at 600mph to your destination. Now, you need to endure two hours of having your fingernail clippers confiscated so that you can fly at 500mph to save on fuel costs. That seems to be the true advantage of rail travel.…

In the US we really don't have any rail alternative to flying. I'd love to know how European travellers thinks and weigh up rail (which seems relatively fast and efficient) vs flying. Do you think the two are interchangeable services? Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ?

> Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ?

For modern non-maglev high-speed train (>300km/h top speed), 1500~2000km is the limit assuming "severe" airport security. HST is very competitive up to ~1000km, then it tapers off as the faster plane speed compensates for the security measures and lack of comfort.

Of course price is also a big factor, and barebones budget airlines can provide stupid low prices.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#84

Post by riffraff »

the8472 wrote: post #42
jasonkester wrote: post #27

I wonder if we'll ever get back to "High Speed Air" in my lifetime. Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left, jump on with minimal hassle, and cruise along at 600mph to your destination. Now, you need to endure two hours of having your fingernail clippers confiscated so that you can fly at 500mph to save on fuel costs. That seems to be the true advantage of rail travel.…

That still exists outside the US. Last year I took a flight from germany to a conference in poland and strolled through the airport after checking in. I left the security zone by accident - simply walking through a pair of sliding doors which only open from one side - 10 minutes before departure. But it wasn't a big problem, I simply went through the metal detector/xrays for hand luggage and arrived at the gate with…

as someone who has taken a few hundred flights outside the US in the last years: people get to take their shoes off quite often, but mostly boots and worker's shoes, not sneakers.

Sometimes they also ask you to take off a hoodie or such clothing, of course your belt, put your laptop separately from the rest, get an occasional pat down, and the liquid restrictions ("don't take that mysterious bottle in here, but your totally oscure laptop battery and the liquor we sell inside is ok"). Also, check in usually closes 45 minutes before departure so you _can_ do online checkin with most companies, but if you have luggage you still need to e at the airport one hour early.

Still, the american process is heavier, but nowhere I've been in europe and asia there is a process as simple as getting on a train (get there, jump on, leave).

EDIT: possibly it's a function of the airport traffic?

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#85

Post by apendleton »

dheera wrote: post #6
zachalexander wrote: post #3

Amazing. Writing this from Berlin, which doesn't have maglev trains, but has phenomenal public transit. It's sad to be going back to the US soon where the infrastructure is so primitive.

Agreed. The current incarnation of the US transportation system is also downright unsustainable from a fuel and carbon standpoint, and will lead to various downfalls if something isn't done about it. As much as I'm a public transportation advocate (I don't own a car, and refuse car rides if a public transportation option is available for the place I need to get to), it's becoming increasingly more difficult to promot…

Huh. I have pretty much the opposite feelings about Uber as you, as a fellow non-driver and public transit advocate. I think Uber (and also car-sharing services like Zipcar) are great for transit advocates, because they make it much easier for city dwellers to justify not owning a car, to the extent that I suspect that they actually increase transit usage.

Many people in my city (Washington, DC) that own cars don't actually need them most days, but they do have occasional needs that aren't easily doable by transit (Costco trips, driving out to see friends in the less-transit-friendly suburbs, hiking in Shenandoah, etc.) so they keep a car for that purpose. But the problem there is the incentives; the fixed costs of car ownership (a car payment, insurance, scheduled maintenance, etc.) are high, and once you've paid them, the incremental cost per mile of travel is really low (certainly way lower than the per-mile cost of transit), so if you have a car, you have a strong incentive to use it more than you need to. Uber and Zipcar are alternatives that make cars available in the circumstances where you need them and thus could allow these people to ditch their personal cars, and they also flip the cost incentives around: low-to-no fixed costs, and comparatively higher per-mile costs, which means you only use it if you really need it, and use transit most of the time.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#86

Post by vidarh »

jusben1369 wrote: post #47
jasonkester wrote: post #27

I wonder if we'll ever get back to "High Speed Air" in my lifetime. Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left, jump on with minimal hassle, and cruise along at 600mph to your destination. Now, you need to endure two hours of having your fingernail clippers confiscated so that you can fly at 500mph to save on fuel costs. That seems to be the true advantage of rail travel.…

In the US we really don't have any rail alternative to flying. I'd love to know how European travellers thinks and weigh up rail (which seems relatively fast and efficient) vs flying. Do you think the two are interchangeable services? Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ?

When I used to fly from London to San Francisco regularly, I had everything down to a routine including the exact amount I could manage to squeeze into carry-on only so I could walk straight out at the destination. Despite that, it took me 16 hours door-to-door for an 11 hour flight. So even with a plane trip that long, about 1/3 of the total travel time was on the ground.

Of course that depends on your distance to the airport, but there train stations very often have a solid advantage. E.g. going from where I live in London to anywhere I'd like to actually go to in Paris via the Eurostar is faster because the train terminals on both ends are more conveniently located.

So the answer is "it depends" but unless you live much closer to the airport than the relevant train terminal it generally takes a quite long flight before air travel is faster. Even then, I will often prefer train if it is "only" a bit slower, because of perceived convenience and comfort (e.g. I'd easily pick one hour more on a train vs. 30 minutes shorter journey if the latter involves additional legs, such as getting off a plane and lugging my bags to a train or bus station to get in to town).

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#87

Post by vmarsy »

jusben1369 wrote: post #45
rwmj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internal flights in Japan are basically turn-up-and-go (and cheap too), and have only a little security.

So that's fascinating. Having no expertise whatsoever on the topic of domestic Japanese transportation my immediate response is "Strong competition from fast rail means that air travel is a superior experience" It breaks my heart we don't have fast rail in the US. Even if it was just the North Eastern corridor (extended maybe to Chicago and Atlanta) it would have a huge impact on air travel. Of course the cost and fi…

Texas has a project of a high speed train between Houston and Dallas, it would link the 2 cities in 90mn (instead of 3:30h of driving, or 70mn of plane. So if you spend more 20mn more at the airport than at the rail station , the train would be faster. http://texascentral.com/the-facts/

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/T...

It's a privately own project, supposedly ready in 2021.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#88

Post by melling »

koyote wrote: post #5
melling wrote: post #2

How about low-speed maglev? China will open its first line later this year: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_S1,_BCR I imagine it's much cheaper to build and operate?

The reason for this is to cut down travel time. Japan already has a high-speed connection between almost all major cities, so this is just to speed up the link even more. What would a low-speed maglev accomplish?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Japan. Anyway, low-speed makes more sense with cities, right? Getting from downtown to an airport, for instance.

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#89

Post by [deleted] »

jusben1369 wrote: post #47
jasonkester wrote: post #27

I wonder if we'll ever get back to "High Speed Air" in my lifetime. Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left, jump on with minimal hassle, and cruise along at 600mph to your destination. Now, you need to endure two hours of having your fingernail clippers confiscated so that you can fly at 500mph to save on fuel costs. That seems to be the true advantage of rail travel.…

In the US we really don't have any rail alternative to flying. I'd love to know how European travellers thinks and weigh up rail (which seems relatively fast and efficient) vs flying. Do you think the two are interchangeable services? Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ?

[deleted]

Re: Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

#90

Post by vidarh »

CountHackulus wrote: post #48
the8472 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still exists outside the US. Last year I took a flight from germany to a conference in poland and strolled through the airport after checking in. I left the security zone by accident - simply walking through a pair of sliding doors which only open from one side - 10 minutes before departure. But it wasn't a big problem, I simply went through the metal detector/xrays for hand luggage and arrived at the gate with…

That's strange, I flew from Toronto to Budapest through Munich, and Munich was by far the strictest security I encountered. They made my take off my shoes and sweatshirt. So it's maybe not "outside the US" just "in some places."

The amount of screening varies a lot by airport and is wildly inconsistent.

I fly out of London Gatwick and Oslo Airport a lot, and have been seething at security staff there who keeps insisting on extra screening for my now 6 year old son. Last time he was crying and screaming his head off because he didn't understand why the lady insisted on patting him down.

A few years ago, one of the screeners looked almost panicked when he noticed that my sons shoes did not have solid heels (they were the kind that light up when you walk) - you could see him looking around frantically for someone before one of the other screeners noticed and explained to him what it was.

(on the other hand, I've repeatedly by accident taken bottles of liquids through in my carry on after failing to realise his mom has "helpfully" put in water or juice for him to have on the way to the airport, and they've not noticed even once - the liquid "ban" is a total joke)

Other places they'll wave you through without paying attention at all.

Post reply on HN