25 ms·
China unveils 600 kph maglev train prototype
- tty2300 7y agoI really wish we had high speed rail in Australia. I'd pick a 600km/h train over a plane any day.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mdendura 7y agoBut isn't that down to Deutsche Bahn having lots problems with funding, industrial action etc?
- anoncake 7y agoThe problems with it are: - It was split up. For example, the tracks and the rolling stock are owned by different companies. All these companies are owned by a holding and all use the DB brand, but they independently try to make a profit. That makes sense to economists trying to let the market organize as much as possible, but not to railway employees trying to run a railway. For example: before, the Bundesbahn built its infrastructure, balancing cost vs needs. Now, the infrastructure company optimizes for its own profit and cuts corners, no matter how much the companies operating the trains have to spend to compensate. - The government was planning to sell it on the stock market. In preparation, DB neglected its infrastructure to appear more profitable. Fortunately these plans were dropped, but the damage is done. Another insane decision that still contributes to this neglect: Maintenance is funded by the DB. Construction is funded by the Ministry of Transportation[1]. So the DB neglects infrastructure until it has to be replaced. - Probably the worst one: It competes with cars and trucks. The automobile industry is very powerful in Germany. Properly funding the DB would lower their profits so it doesn't happen. [1] and Digital Infrastructure. Yes, our ministry of transportation is responsible for the information highway. I am not making this up.
- makomk 7y agoNote that EU rules require Deutsche Bahn and every other European train network to be split up in this way, with all the problems it entails. Germany bent the rules quite a bit over the years to keep the operation of its railways as tightly integrated as it could, but it couldn't last. The European Commission is pretty unhappy about the fact they're even under the same holding company.
- anoncake 7y agoYou're right, the federal government is not to blame for that. Thanks for the reminder.
- def_true_false 7y agoAs a counterpoint, the Czech Republic has seen a massive improvement in both prices and quality with the forced split and competition with other train companies.
- anoncake 7y agoCorrelation does not mean causation. It's also possible that splitting and competition improves one railway but would make another worse. Maybe a railway is just organized well enough that splitting is not an improvement. If the timetable gets designed by the director's nephew, something needs to change. But if multiple competing teams produce proposals and the best one gets chosen, you already have the benefits of competing companies without the disadvantages. Or there may be cultural differences between the railway companies. Maybe one company is staffed by hard workers who are motivated by working at a state-owned railway rather than for some capitalist that isn't them and would be offended if you introduced competition hoping to get them to work harder. The other could be staffed by lazy bums who find working for the state distasteful and do need a kick in the arse. Forcing a split could also cause other reforms that outweigh the damage the split causes.
- theyinwhy 7y agoThat's because DB is really bad. Everyone in Europe knows how bad DB is. It has nothing to do with high speed trains.
- ben_w 7y agoI didn’t know that. But then again, I only moved to Berlin late last year and I came from the UK, which is much much worse.
- theyinwhy 7y agoTrue
- TotempaaltJ 7y agoI still cannot believe how bad British trains are. They seem to ignore that functioning train systems exist, and just do it their own (broken) way.
- inferiorhuman 7y agoYeah I'm trying to get Great Western Rail to honor a delay compensation claim. What an awful company.
- endoftime5 7y agoI always hear my German colleagues complain about DB but having taken UK trains for a few years I can’t fault DB.
- dasKrokodil 7y agoI think the main problem with the so-called high speed trains in Germany is that they don't have their own rail network, unlike the Shinkansen in Japan or the Maglev trains in China.
- kuschku 7y agoThe Deutschlandtakt project which is being planned right now actually would include many new rail connections purely for passenger rail, as e.g. the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E2%80%93Rhein/Main https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E... already is.
- cm2187 7y agoHow stable are maglev trains in a crash? At these sort of speeds can the train sustain an explosion on board?
- GorgeRonde 7y agoHigh speed train works well in France (and it's just 300km/h) because the country is small. Australia is huge. And so is the US. This would make sense along coasts though but you wouldn't be able to cross the country from sea to sea in a few hours of course. What's good with trains is that you can hop in at the very last moment (when the bell rings, happened to me a couple times) and the train stops in the center of cities, instead of the suburbs. This is the main reason why high speed train in France can compete with airplanes when crossing the country. By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours by train. And because currently not every railroad segment can support high speed trains going at full velocity (but work is in progress) it could take 3 hours. 300 km/h Also note that Amdahl's law [1] applies in this context (there are diminishing returns in optimizing the speed of only one segment of the full path) and travelling the last kilometers accounts for a significant portion of the travel time. For instance the TGV has to slow down when entering cities (because of the noise) and at some point in the development of the high speed rail network, it might become more interesting to dig long tunnels under cities for these trains rather than increasing the train's maximum speed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
- jacquesm 7y ago> By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours And then there is the inevitable delays before the plane will be allowed to take off and if you're lucky the same before you're allowed to land. And in NL, if you land on Schiphol if you're particularly unlucky they will land the plane on the 5th strip which is more accurately located in Haarlem and it takes about 15 minutes to taxi to the gate.
- Zardoz84 7y ago
- awiesenhofer 7y agoI always wondered about this as well. It seems like a nobrainer especially in SE Australia. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, up to Brisbaine. Although 600km/h would probably be unnecessarily fast and not economically viable on these routes, a normal 300+ HSR would surely provide huge benefits.
- sanxiyn 7y agoSydney-Melbourne is indeed no brainer. It is one of the busiest air route in the world.
- netcan 7y agoSydney-Melbourne-Brisbane, even. Between those three, there's over 2,000 flights a week. The land issues are also easier than in most places. Ultimately though, these routes are pretty well serviced by flights. These trains are pretty amazing, but not cheaper or faster than flights.
- fulafel 7y agoIn trains, most of the cost is the fixed cost of the track and it makes sense to get its utilization way up. So the question of cost vs flights is a very dynamic one. Sounds like a good way for Australia to decrease its CO2 emissions would be to subsidize the track and try to get the air travelers to move over.
- netcan 7y agoco2 is a legitimate reason, and may justify the investment. Costs.. agreed in theory. But in practice, modern low cost airlines supported by efficient airports are very hard to beat on price. There are economies of scale here too. Very best case scenario, HSTs are similar in price and convenience and it's a matter of taste.
- jimworm 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia
- 099812477 7y agoHigh-speed trains are starting to impact airline routes: https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-train-plane/ https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-trai...
- ddoolin 7y agoSurely this is good for everyone save airline operators. Less planes on busy routes, more options for those don't want to fly, etc.
- ksec 7y agoApart from boarding experience in Airpot Terminal, I prefer flying on plane over train any day. Why is it boarding a train is 10x easier than on a plane?
- Fogest 7y agoBecause you usually don't go through the crazy security areas and luggage areas.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoAnd there are many doors.
- gattilorenz 7y agoNaive, irrelevant question. Is kph the correct way to signal "kilometers per hour" in English? I think I have seen this before in videogames maybe. Is it an US-only thing?
- pgl 7y agoAccording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour, > Internationally, km/h is the most commonly used unit of speed on traffic signs and speedometers kph isn't incorrect, but it's not as commonly used.
- cs02rm0 7y agoIt's pretty common in the UK, not as common as mph mind.
- rusticpenn 7y agoI have seen kmph used a lot
- Symbiote 7y agoEither "kph" or "kmph" is a casual, sloppy, but common way, along with abbreviations like "gms" (grams) or "mts" (metres). None of these are unusual in the UK. The correct way is km/h, or (occasionally, for mathematicians or scientists) km·h⁻¹ or km h⁻¹.
- robin_reala 7y agoJust 3 km/h less than Japan’s current prototype (but approaching production) system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0_Series
- Grue3 7y agoInteresting that there are plans to run this between Washington DC and Baltimore and finish it in the same year Tokyo-Nagoya is finished. Probably won't happen, but still.
- christkv 7y agoIn three years they developed the technology needed, more likely just ripped off the tech from Siemens on the Shanghai line.
- simion314 7y agoYour sentiment is popular this days with the big propaganda we see but is there any hint that what you say is true, maybe they stole it from other company or maybe in a country with such a large population you will have a large number of smart people.
- njepa 7y agoAlso it doesn't really matter since the implementation is close to 20 years old, which means the patents should have expired anyway.
- simion314 7y agoPatents are such a pain, I know someone that works in designing things for cars, and they need to actively avoid patents, things that are obvious and were patented you have to do not obvious things so you don't trip on them.
- christkv 7y agoOf course it’s propaganda the shocking thing is not that they are pushing for a China is bad story. It’s that they pretended it was not happening for the last decades eroding industries and blue collar jobs putting us in today’s situation where a totalitarian state governs most electronics manufacturing of the world including most of the supply chain.
- mlang23 7y agoI find it particularily morbid that both countries that seemingly fight over the tech leadership on thsi planet both have the death penalty. Makes it hard to make out the moral winner watching from afar :-( Also, given all the bad spying rep the US has, I am really not sure what is better: a US phone or a China phone... Both seem a very good way to get fucked over.
- raverbashing 7y agoThat's faster than your average turboprop plane, the Q400 can get up to ~660km/h but that's one of the fastests (commercially available today)
- Numberwang 7y agoThat's less than 12hrs London to New Delhi. Imagine the possibilities.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stirlo 7y agoI’ve ridden on the Changsha Maglev, China’s first indigenous maglev and I was thoroughly unimpressed. The ride was rough and quite slow, nothing like their High Speed Rail which is world leading. I’m surprised they’d be able to develop world leading technology so quickly. But then again for areas of strategic interest we’ve seen China make similar bounds before. Makes me wonder how their Made in China 2025 efforts in CPU design/production is fairing...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- xenihn 7y agoHow did it compare to BART? I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing anything else yet.
- kuschku 7y agoMost of their "world leading" High Speed Rail, as you call it, is actually using Siemens Velaro D/E rolling stock — the same train used in Europe as "ICE" or for some of the Eurostar lines :)
- 88840-8855 7y agoSiemens Velaro have gigantic issues in good old Germany. And China has indeed homegrown machines, such as the CRH380A or the CR400AF. Further, there is also a lot of shit tier technology in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-Bahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-Bahn Siemens is actually still offering that system. If you ride it, you will wonder how it was possible to combine all disadvantages of all existing people mover rail technology and to produce that.
- kuschku 7y ago> Siemens Velaro have gigantic issues in good old Germany. I have heard about a lot of issues with many kinds of rolling stock, but so far I haven’t heard anything negative about the DB Br 407. The Br 412/812? yeah, that one’s fucked, but so far I’ve heard few complaints about the Br 407 (and personally, the Br 407 is probably the smoothest ride there is) Could you describe some of the issues you’ve had with the ICE 3 (MS)?
- gnode 7y agoThe cabin is interesting. There doesn't seem to be much visibility through the windows. I guess at such speeds the driver can only rely on information feeds from far up ahead, and there's little advantage to being able to see with the naked eye. Large windows would probably make it less safe in the event of flying debris too. It makes me wonder why not get rid of them all together and make the cabin like a tank. To get some sunlight perhaps?
- themanr 7y agoIt's not always going to be running at top speed.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoThat's a good point, wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out? I think the windows on trains generally serve to give situational awareness at the station, once you are up to speed reacting to unexpected impediments isn't so time critical since the train isn't likely to stop fast enough anyway.
- nicoburns 7y ago> wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out Almost certainly not. Open windows are terrible for aerodynamics. Even in normal cars they can cause a noticable reduction in fuel efficiency. I'd imagine the effect would be much worse at these speeds.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoI imagine aerodynamics isn't very important when you are shunting the train about on the switch yard...
- gnode 7y agoReacting to things is still important and time critical. You just can't react to anything in sight. Instead the things you can react to are data and camera feeds from far up ahead. What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? I think that raises a question of: what is the point of having a driver on the train? Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole? Arguably this is already the case, with some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. Maybe the reason is simply that passengers would rather trust a driver whose life is invested along with theirs.
- zeristor 7y agoAt these high velocities air resistance becomes a huge problem, making it impracticable. Wasn't this the main reason for putting very fast trains through evacuated tubes, my copy of the Usborne Book of the Future had this in seventies. Although Musk had a go at reviving it, the ideas Hyperloop has been based on have been around for ages.
- adamlett 7y agoThere's rumours of a vehicle that has somehow overcome the problem of air resistance and is able to go faster even than this train: "The Aeroplane". Maybe you've heard of it?
- zeristor 7y agoThey also fly at altitude, where air pressure is much less obviously.
- blu42 7y agoPropeller-based airplanes are not that much faster than this train -- current propeller world record stands at 855 km/h. For higher speeds jet/turbofan engines would be the choice, as they are among the few propulsion forms that can operate very efficiently with the atmospheric medium, rather than fully against it (up to certain speeds). So unless you equip that train with jet turbines (impractical for a number of reasons), you will be paying a huge energy price for airplane speeds at ground altitudes (holds true for any kind of ground transportation). As a result those trains are seldom operated at their peak speeds.
- aivisol 7y agoIn a somowhat less dense air though.
- nabla9 7y ago600 km/h at seal level is Mach 0.5. Commercial aircraft cruise Mach 0.70 - 0.85.
- athenot 7y agoThe article mentions "designed top speed of 600 km per hour". But then a bit further it mentions "Now the prototype has achieved static levitation and is in good condition" (emphasis mine). That leaves me wondering what was the actual speed reached during testing and what will be the actual operational speed. Don't get me wrong, I still find this project impressive. But there's a fair amount of boasting going on as well. For example the French TGV boasted a measured record of 574 km/h. But that's on a (modified) test unit and a test track. Operational speed is about 320 km/h on most tracks. Perhaps they simply haven't gotten to the testing/benchmark phase yet.
- bufferoverflow 7y agoThe Beijing–Shanghai HSR train averages 300 km/h over an almost 5-hour ride, two years ago they upgraded it to peak at 350 km/h.
- dis-sys 7y agoThe Beijing-Shanghai line was designed to operate at 350km/h with the plan to upgrade to 380km/h, it was downgraded to 300km/h after the 2011 Wenzhou accident in which 40 people killed.
- 7y ago
- brainwipe 7y ago"Roll off the production line" triggered me a number of times in the article. Perhaps "glide off" would be a better phrase?
- nayuki 7y agoThis news site is strange. Every article headline has a rather positive view of China.
- gok 7y agoGlobal Times is a party-run foreign affairs tabloid. So yes, it's pro-China bordering on nationalistic. Still, it's a useful source of what the CCP likes to say when they have a small sense of plausible deniability.
- bjnord 7y agoInteresting that this was just on HN a few days ago: "What Happened to Hovertrains? (2018)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944382
- SllX 7y agoLet’s put this kind of speed into perspective using distances between North American cities and existing highways, from Google Maps. This is not a proposal, this is merely perspective. Note: this is also not a proposed route map, but it is probably bleedin’ obvious that some major cities lend themselves to being high speed rail hubs more than others, because they were and/or are historical rail hubs. I tried to cover the entire lower 48 and the a good portion of Canada and a small part of Mexico so that hopefully most everyone in the US sees a possible line in the data that would 1. Interest them and 2. Give them a sense of scale as to how far two points of interest really are and 3. Imagine how long it would take to get from one point of interest to another along a 600 kph railway. - Seattle to Portland: 280 kilometers - Seattle to Spokane: 449 kilometers - Seattle to Fargo: 2296 kilometers - Seattle to Minneapolis: 2666 kilometers - Seattle to Chicago: 3322 kilometers - San Francisco to Los Angeles: 617 kilometers - San Francisco to San Diego: 807 kilometers - San Francisco to Ensenada, Baja California: 937 kilometers - San Francisco to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur: 2456 Baja California Sur (from San Diego: 1654 kilometers) - San Francisco to Reno: 352 kilometers - San Francisco to Sacramento: 141 kilometers - San Francisco to Salt Lake City: 1184 kilometers - San Francisco to Chicago: 3426 kilometers - San Francisco to Portland: 1022 kilometers - San Francisco to Seattle: 1300 kilometers - San Francisco to Vancouver, British Columbia: 1529 kilometers - Los Angeles to Las Vegas: 435 kilometers - Los Angeles to Phoenix: 600 Kilometers - Los Angeles to Salt Lake City: 1108 kilometers - Los Angeles to Denver: 1635 kilometers - Los Angeles to Chicago: 3244 kilometers - San Diego to Mexicali: 198 kilometers - San Diego to Tucson: 655 kilometers - San Diego to El Paso: 1165 kilometers - San Diego to Houston: 2366 kilometers - San Diego to New Orleans: 2922 kilometers - Dallas to Corpus Christi: 662 kilometers - Houston to Austin: 266 kilometers - Houston to San Antonio: 317 kilometers - Houston to El Paso: 1199 kilometers - Houston to Dallas: 385 kilometers - Houston to Corpus Christi: 334 kilometers - Houston to New Orleans: 560 kilometers - Houston to Tallahassee: 1141 kilometers - Houston to Miami: 1911 kilometers - Houston to Denver: 1656 kilometers - Houston to Oklahoma City: 716 kilometers - Houston to Kansas City: 1198 kilometers - Houston to St. Louis: 1253 kilometers - (Trans-Missouri Express! Kansas City to St. Louis: 399 kilometers) - Houston to Chicago: 1741 kilometers - Houston to Nashville: 1253 kilometers - Houston to Atlanta: 1276 kilometers - Houston to Charleston: 1756 kilometers - Houston to Charlotte: 1668 kilometers - Houston to Washington: 2270 kilometers - Chicago to Winnipeg: 1392 kilometers - Chicago to Saskatoon: 2109 kilometers - Chicago to Edmonton: 2633 kilometers - Chicago to Calgary: 2570 kilometers - Chicago to Milwaukee: 148 kilometers - Chicago to Minneapolis: 657 kilometers - Chicago to Des Moines: 537 kilometers - Chicago to Lincoln: 841 kilometers - Chicago to Denver: 1617 kilometers - Chicago to Kansas City: 820 kilometers - Chicago to St. Louis: 503 kilometers - Chicago to Memphis: 850 kilometers - Chicago to Indianapolis: 292 kilometers - Chicago to Nashville: 757 kilometers - Chicago to Louisville: 476 kilometers - Chicago to Washington: 1124 Kilometers - Chicago to Philadelphia: 1221 kilometers - Chicago to New York: 1270 kilometers - Chicago to Detroit: 453 kilometers - Chicago to London, Ontario: 648 kilometers - Chicago to Toronto: 835 kilometers - Chicago to Ottawa: 1271 kilometers - Chicago to Montreal: 1363 kilometers - Chicago to Boston: 1581 kilometers - Chicago to Portland, Maine: 1740 kilometers - Boston to Portland, Maine: 180 kilometers - Boston to New York: 353 kilometers - New York to Albany: 249 kilometers - New York to Syracuse: 397 kilometers - New York to Montreal: 596 kilometers - New York to Montauk: 190 kilometers - New York to New Haven: 130 kilometers - New York to Buffalo: 600 kilometers - New York to Philadelphia: 151 kilometers - New York to Washington: 364 kilometers - New York to Raleigh: 811 kilometers - New York to Charleston: 1219 kilometers - New York to Atlanta: 1390 kilometers - New York to Miami: 2059 kilometers - Miami to Orlando: 380 kilometers - Miami to Jacksonville: 558 kilometers - Miami to Savannah: 783 kilometers - Miami to Tampa: 454 kilometers - Miami to Tallahassee: 777 kilometers
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoSo i've been following this and feel unsatisfied with the "buzz" about it. Let me explain why: The best Pictures can be seen here http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/23/c_138082738.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/23/c_138082738.htm whereby the third is the most interesting to me, because it allows comparing whith the existing pictures of the Transrapids "Track-Train-Interface" (for lack of a better term). It looks similar, but not exactly. Would it matter? Who really cares? What i do care about is how "real" this thing is. Because for all we know this just a mockup on stilts. There is nothing wrong with mockups as such. Except for this mockup on stilts there is no footage to be found which shows this thing on a longer test track, or this thing on a test stand where at least it is levitating in the configuration like shown in the press. Any footage, if existing at all shows different systems. Furthermore neither https://binged.it/2M6k70R https://binged.it/2M6k70R nor https://goo.gl/maps/h687Cptq2U4kH2Pm9 https://goo.gl/maps/h687Cptq2U4kH2Pm9 show any signs of testing track at the factory, or its surroundings. So until further notice i consider this as a notion of intent to build, but far from ready. As i said, for all we know, the "production rollout" is that of the modelmaker without the real innards. Btw.: Anybody remembering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Elevated_Bus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Elevated_Bus ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPPXB7gqYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPPXB7gqYU ( first 12 seconds only ^v^ )
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agosigh in case someone mentions the dotted track to the SW https://osm.org/go/5yfE0BZx--?m= https://osm.org/go/5yfE0BZx--?m= THAT looked interesting, especially with the stationlike structure at the end. But level crossings like can be seen on gmaps? Doesn't look like separate/different track at all. Correct me, if i'm wrong.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoi can't get no levitation https://j.map.baidu.com/rybf- https://j.map.baidu.com/rybf- Mysteriously the end of the branch/spur about a mile to the SW is not visible there. Anyways, doesn't look different to what's visible in gmaps, looks all like conventional tracks.