13 ms·

Japan maglev train breaks world speed record again

187 points by noso 12y ago

melling 11y ago
How about low-speed maglev? China will open its first line later this year: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_S1,_BCR http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_S1,_BCR I imagine it's much cheaper to build and operate?
- koyote 11y ago
  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?
  - vilhelm_s 11y ago
    It's less noisy than wheeled trains, and the maintenance cost for the track is lower. http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Culture/EnjoyBJ/t1192828.htm http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Culture/EnjoyBJ/t1192828.htm
  - melling 11y ago
    Actually, I wasn't thinking of Japan. Anyway, low-speed makes more sense with cities, right? Getting from downtown to an airport, for instance.
  - est 11y ago
    Less noise, less expensive than metro?
zachalexander 11y ago
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.
- mmaldacker 11y ago
  Berlin had a maglev metro for a short while back in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn
- dheera 11y ago
  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 promote this kind of lifestyle with the advent of Uber and other things that have made private gas-guzzling cars even more convenient than ever before. People also just don't like being told what to do and what not to do, even if what they are doing is going to kill their children. Given the short-sighted nature of people, in general, the only way this is going to change is if we make public transportation more convenient than an Uber. What we need, very seriously, is to make self-driving cars/minibuses running on renewable energy happen as soon as possible. They can then be rigged up to become a "Public Transportation 2.0" system that gets anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between and avoiding traffic jams from happening in the first place. It would also put the US back on the world map with a brand new, innovative system that's both environmentally efficient, cheaper to ride, and ultra-convenient at the same time.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Many medium to low density counties in the US operate on demand bus services that get anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between. They are usually subsidized (the county spends more than the service makes, so taxpayers are paying for the service) but still don't see the ridership it would take to justify higher service levels (these places generally don't have traffic jams, just short periods where you might have to wait for the second green to pass through a busy light). These counties already tend to be depopulating, which is the main way to reduce car traffic levels in such situations. Broader economic change has left them geographically uncompetitive, or automation has destroyed jobs in whatever extraction industry pulled in the population in the past. I think one of the best ways to improve the availability of public transport would be to treat rising housing prices as a government failure (it's currently considered a success when the value of someones home increases).
bnegreve 11y ago
What's truely impressive is not the record but the fact that they will operate at 505 km/h. Current high speed trains can go over 570km/h but are only operating an 320km/h.
danbruc 11y ago
They are certainly cool pieces of technology but also expensive ones. The development of the German Transrapid began in 1969, it was declared ready for use in 1991 and then no planned route turned out to be cost efficient. Wouldn't China have bought one there would probably still be none in use. Even the test track in Germany is no longer open to the public since an accident a couple of years ago.
wahsd 11y ago
I used to be all about public transportation and trains, but I cannot reconcile that anymore with advancement in technology. It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. It obviously makes a lot more sense in places like Japan or even parts of Europe, but in the USA, where you need to traverse huge swaths of uninhabitable and even inhospitable and unpredictable land, it simply makes no sense. Take Texas for example. All the idiots that have been moving to Texas from self-absorbed and myopic cesspools of self-importance keep crying about public transportation and high speed rail to connect the San Antonio, Dallas, Houston triangle; but no one wants to address the question as to why. You could and already can travel those paths by air and it will only get faster and cheaper with the improved air traffic control system when fully rolled out. Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? No! You will have to also go through the TSA security bullshit and you will still have to go to specific locations to get on. It just makes no sense. I would much rather see some sort of automated flight between regular airports on regional hops like the Texas triangle. Edit: ... If at all. Something somewhat related that has baffled me for years now. Is why do people, especially in the tech industry need to travel so much? Of all people, why has the tech industry not solved the remote working issue? It's like we are using steam power to make electricity. Again, it makes no sense.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. Planes have higher max speeds, but they're subject to weather delays and other issues that bring their average speeds down well into maglev territory. > With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. Significant limits remain - planes simply can't takeoff/land too close together due to things like wake turbulence, unloading a plane through a couple doors and jetways takes much longer than a train, etc. The weather issue is a big factor here, as well - a thunderstorm in Chicago can disrupt the entire nation due to connecting flights. > Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? It does in Europe and Japan.
ant6n 11y ago
What's interesting, the speed record for conventional bullet trains is 574.8 km/h, about 30km/h less! This was a TGV train, largely unmodified (although they did increase the tension in the caternary). The wiki article about the speed record is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record Makes you wonder whether the overhead of maglev is really worth it.
- m_mueller 11y ago
  I'd imagine that the wear on rolling stock and tracks as well as the power lost to friction makes Maglev worth it if you actually want to operate close to such speeds.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    I'm not convinced. Some conventional rail operates at close to 400km/h today. This will operate at 500km/h - in 15 years. But it's completely incompatible with existing infrastructure, and thus doesn't allow incremental updates of either the infrastructure or the trains (i.e. no service in the mean time, and no ability to reuse existing tracks and stations in cities). Then consider the amount of research that's been put into this, and the complex problems that needed to be solved -- it would probably cheaper to invest research into track that allows higher speeds with less maintenance (again incremental improvements possible). Then consider that most of the speed from this maglev comes from the geometry of the track. It's all tunnels and bridges. That's a giant investment needed to get to those speeds; and conventional rail with that track geometry could be similarly fast.
    - vilhelm_s 11y ago
      I guess the usual counterpoint is: they have to build a new track anyway (the existing one is getting saturated). Building a rail track or a maglev track costs about the same (almost all the cost is making the tunnels), and the maglev track is better, so why not go with the maglev. It was discussed a little bit for the new high speed train line in Britain, but rejected for the reasons you state in your first paragraph. But Japan seems much less worried about reusing trains (different lines are usually operated by different companies with different rolling stock). And somehow they were able to get this project funded even though it will be many years until first service---maybe they just are more competent than the west when it comes long-term investments? :) So maybe the trade-off came out differently there...
tokenadult 11y ago
The article by Kiyotaka Matsuda in Bloomberg Business[1] makes the important point that "Whether any of this makes a shred of economic sense is another matter." Japan has a declining population, and the level of investment required to build a maglev train line is enormous. Countries with growing populations have decided against building high-speed rail lines, and Japan does not appear to have any export market for this technology. Even the first phase of Japan's proposed maglev train line project, running from Tokyo to Nagoya if built, would not be completed until 2027. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/world-s-fastest-train-records-speed-of-603-kilometers-per-hour http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/world-s-fa...
jasonkester 11y ago
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. As it said on the loudspeaker in Berlin HBF last time I was there: "Please try to arrive on the platform at least five minutes before your train is scheduled to depart." Sadly, I bet the way we'll end up equalizing this will be that somebody will eventually bomb a TGV and we'll have to start doing the two hour confiscate-your-kids'-apple-juice routine at the train station too.
- mmaldacker 11y ago
  >Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left This still exists, for example Tegel airport in Berlin. Also, in the 70s there was waaaaaay less traffic in airports so it is simply not a fair comparison. >Sadly, I bet the way we'll end up equalizing this will be that somebody will eventually bomb a TGV and we'll have to start doing the two hour confiscate-your-kids'-apple-juice routine at the train station too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
  - rwmj 11y ago
    Internal flights in Japan are basically turn-up-and-go (and cheap too), and have only a little security.
    - jusben1369 11y ago
      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 final date to roll this out means it's probably not worth buying into.
Someone1234 11y ago
Just to reframe this a little: Commercial aircraft travel in ground-speed terms, around 350-500 MpH on average [0] (sometimes faster with wind behind them). This travels on a "normal" day up to 313 MpH which is nothing to sniff at. You should also take into account how long you'll spend at the airport (e.g. security, checking/unchecking bags, etc) and taxiing/queuing on/off of the runway, and how long it takes it get up to altitude (aircraft travel slower while ascending). Even still an aircraft likely is faster than this. But this could theoretically be cheaper than an aircraft, in particular as fuel costs continue to rise (and after the high building costs have been repaid). These might be wider deployed if land wasn't already "owned" and using Eminent domain to seize it wasn't so politically unpopular. Plus every road you cross either requires a bridge (expensive), tunnel (more expensive), or crossing (dangerous). [0] http://www.flightradar24.com/BER7382/60eb62e http://www.flightradar24.com/BER7382/60eb62e
- illumen 11y ago
  There's no way an air craft could compete at this distance. Just getting on to the plane would be slower. The trip time is going to be around 40 minutes by train.
- tdaltonc 11y ago
  > . . . in particular as fuel costs continue to rise. The long term trend is for a megaWatt (in any form) to get cheaper (in real terms) and less carbon intensive. There is every reason to believe that energy will be cheaper 5, 10, 50, 100 years from now. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/ http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/ (check out residential electricity)
kailuowang 11y ago
Imagine NYC to Boston in 40 minutes and the kind of boost it can bring to the innovative power in the region. It will be truly a silicon alley. And imagine two innovative centers in the country competing with each other. Unfortunately this kind of decisions are not made by innovative people.
shawnps 11y ago
Often people are disappointed when they visit Japan to find that it isn't as technologically advanced as they had dreamed, and I do agree partially, but whenever I discuss it with friends who also live here we always agree: the trains are amazing. Even local trains (in Tokyo) come very often, are fast, and are extremely quiet. But I always look forward to riding the Shinkansen. If you're lucky you can even get a great view of Mount Fuji.
ultimoo 11y ago
Contrast this with the Caltrain that chugs diesel and barely goes at 80 mph taking over 1 hour and 40 minutes to get from San Francisco to San Jose (the hubs of modern day technology). At this point the only advantage that Caltrain brings to the bay area is that you don't have to worry about parking in San Francisco.
aagha 11y ago
It's sad that in the US, train connections between major living centers isn't even a federal priority. Granted, the US is VERY large and we're talking about much larger investments than in Japan, but our economy is a crapton bigger as well.

187 points by noso 12y ago

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

koyote 11y ago
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?
- vilhelm_s 11y ago
  It's less noisy than wheeled trains, and the maintenance cost for the track is lower. http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Culture/EnjoyBJ/t1192828.htm http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Culture/EnjoyBJ/t1192828.htm
- melling 11y ago
  Actually, I wasn't thinking of Japan. Anyway, low-speed makes more sense with cities, right? Getting from downtown to an airport, for instance.
- est 11y ago
  Less noise, less expensive than metro?

zachalexander 11y ago

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.

mmaldacker 11y ago
Berlin had a maglev metro for a short while back in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn
dheera 11y ago
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 promote this kind of lifestyle with the advent of Uber and other things that have made private gas-guzzling cars even more convenient than ever before. People also just don't like being told what to do and what not to do, even if what they are doing is going to kill their children. Given the short-sighted nature of people, in general, the only way this is going to change is if we make public transportation more convenient than an Uber. What we need, very seriously, is to make self-driving cars/minibuses running on renewable energy happen as soon as possible. They can then be rigged up to become a "Public Transportation 2.0" system that gets anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between and avoiding traffic jams from happening in the first place. It would also put the US back on the world map with a brand new, innovative system that's both environmentally efficient, cheaper to ride, and ultra-convenient at the same time.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Many medium to low density counties in the US operate on demand bus services that get anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between. They are usually subsidized (the county spends more than the service makes, so taxpayers are paying for the service) but still don't see the ridership it would take to justify higher service levels (these places generally don't have traffic jams, just short periods where you might have to wait for the second green to pass through a busy light). These counties already tend to be depopulating, which is the main way to reduce car traffic levels in such situations. Broader economic change has left them geographically uncompetitive, or automation has destroyed jobs in whatever extraction industry pulled in the population in the past. I think one of the best ways to improve the availability of public transport would be to treat rising housing prices as a government failure (it's currently considered a success when the value of someones home increases).

bnegreve 11y ago

What's truely impressive is not the record but the fact that they will operate at 505 km/h. Current high speed trains can go over 570km/h but are only operating an 320km/h.

danbruc 11y ago

They are certainly cool pieces of technology but also expensive ones. The development of the German Transrapid began in 1969, it was declared ready for use in 1991 and then no planned route turned out to be cost efficient. Wouldn't China have bought one there would probably still be none in use. Even the test track in Germany is no longer open to the public since an accident a couple of years ago.

wahsd 11y ago

I used to be all about public transportation and trains, but I cannot reconcile that anymore with advancement in technology. It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. It obviously makes a lot more sense in places like Japan or even parts of Europe, but in the USA, where you need to traverse huge swaths of uninhabitable and even inhospitable and unpredictable land, it simply makes no sense. Take Texas for example. All the idiots that have been moving to Texas from self-absorbed and myopic cesspools of self-importance keep crying about public transportation and high speed rail to connect the San Antonio, Dallas, Houston triangle; but no one wants to address the question as to why. You could and already can travel those paths by air and it will only get faster and cheaper with the improved air traffic control system when fully rolled out. Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? No! You will have to also go through the TSA security bullshit and you will still have to go to specific locations to get on. It just makes no sense. I would much rather see some sort of automated flight between regular airports on regional hops like the Texas triangle. Edit: ... If at all. Something somewhat related that has baffled me for years now. Is why do people, especially in the tech industry need to travel so much? Of all people, why has the tech industry not solved the remote working issue? It's like we are using steam power to make electricity. Again, it makes no sense.

ceejayoz 11y ago
> It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. Planes have higher max speeds, but they're subject to weather delays and other issues that bring their average speeds down well into maglev territory. > With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. Significant limits remain - planes simply can't takeoff/land too close together due to things like wake turbulence, unloading a plane through a couple doors and jetways takes much longer than a train, etc. The weather issue is a big factor here, as well - a thunderstorm in Chicago can disrupt the entire nation due to connecting flights. > Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? It does in Europe and Japan.

ant6n 11y ago

What's interesting, the speed record for conventional bullet trains is 574.8 km/h, about 30km/h less! This was a TGV train, largely unmodified (although they did increase the tension in the caternary). The wiki article about the speed record is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record Makes you wonder whether the overhead of maglev is really worth it.

m_mueller 11y ago
I'd imagine that the wear on rolling stock and tracks as well as the power lost to friction makes Maglev worth it if you actually want to operate close to such speeds.
- ant6n 11y ago
  I'm not convinced. Some conventional rail operates at close to 400km/h today. This will operate at 500km/h - in 15 years. But it's completely incompatible with existing infrastructure, and thus doesn't allow incremental updates of either the infrastructure or the trains (i.e. no service in the mean time, and no ability to reuse existing tracks and stations in cities). Then consider the amount of research that's been put into this, and the complex problems that needed to be solved -- it would probably cheaper to invest research into track that allows higher speeds with less maintenance (again incremental improvements possible). Then consider that most of the speed from this maglev comes from the geometry of the track. It's all tunnels and bridges. That's a giant investment needed to get to those speeds; and conventional rail with that track geometry could be similarly fast.
  - vilhelm_s 11y ago
    I guess the usual counterpoint is: they have to build a new track anyway (the existing one is getting saturated). Building a rail track or a maglev track costs about the same (almost all the cost is making the tunnels), and the maglev track is better, so why not go with the maglev. It was discussed a little bit for the new high speed train line in Britain, but rejected for the reasons you state in your first paragraph. But Japan seems much less worried about reusing trains (different lines are usually operated by different companies with different rolling stock). And somehow they were able to get this project funded even though it will be many years until first service---maybe they just are more competent than the west when it comes long-term investments? :) So maybe the trade-off came out differently there...

tokenadult 11y ago

The article by Kiyotaka Matsuda in Bloomberg Business[1] makes the important point that "Whether any of this makes a shred of economic sense is another matter." Japan has a declining population, and the level of investment required to build a maglev train line is enormous. Countries with growing populations have decided against building high-speed rail lines, and Japan does not appear to have any export market for this technology. Even the first phase of Japan's proposed maglev train line project, running from Tokyo to Nagoya if built, would not be completed until 2027. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/world-s-fastest-train-records-speed-of-603-kilometers-per-hour http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/world-s-fa...

jasonkester 11y ago

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. As it said on the loudspeaker in Berlin HBF last time I was there: "Please try to arrive on the platform at least five minutes before your train is scheduled to depart." Sadly, I bet the way we'll end up equalizing this will be that somebody will eventually bomb a TGV and we'll have to start doing the two hour confiscate-your-kids'-apple-juice routine at the train station too.

mmaldacker 11y ago
>Back in the 70s, you could rock up at the airport twenty minutes before your flight left This still exists, for example Tegel airport in Berlin. Also, in the 70s there was waaaaaay less traffic in airports so it is simply not a fair comparison. >Sadly, I bet the way we'll end up equalizing this will be that somebody will eventually bomb a TGV and we'll have to start doing the two hour confiscate-your-kids'-apple-juice routine at the train station too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
- rwmj 11y ago
  Internal flights in Japan are basically turn-up-and-go (and cheap too), and have only a little security.
  - jusben1369 11y ago
    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 final date to roll this out means it's probably not worth buying into.

Someone1234 11y ago

Just to reframe this a little: Commercial aircraft travel in ground-speed terms, around 350-500 MpH on average [0] (sometimes faster with wind behind them). This travels on a "normal" day up to 313 MpH which is nothing to sniff at. You should also take into account how long you'll spend at the airport (e.g. security, checking/unchecking bags, etc) and taxiing/queuing on/off of the runway, and how long it takes it get up to altitude (aircraft travel slower while ascending). Even still an aircraft likely is faster than this. But this could theoretically be cheaper than an aircraft, in particular as fuel costs continue to rise (and after the high building costs have been repaid). These might be wider deployed if land wasn't already "owned" and using Eminent domain to seize it wasn't so politically unpopular. Plus every road you cross either requires a bridge (expensive), tunnel (more expensive), or crossing (dangerous). [0] http://www.flightradar24.com/BER7382/60eb62e http://www.flightradar24.com/BER7382/60eb62e

illumen 11y ago
There's no way an air craft could compete at this distance. Just getting on to the plane would be slower. The trip time is going to be around 40 minutes by train.
tdaltonc 11y ago
> . . . in particular as fuel costs continue to rise. The long term trend is for a megaWatt (in any form) to get cheaper (in real terms) and less carbon intensive. There is every reason to believe that energy will be cheaper 5, 10, 50, 100 years from now. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/ http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/ (check out residential electricity)

kailuowang 11y ago

Imagine NYC to Boston in 40 minutes and the kind of boost it can bring to the innovative power in the region. It will be truly a silicon alley. And imagine two innovative centers in the country competing with each other. Unfortunately this kind of decisions are not made by innovative people.

shawnps 11y ago

Often people are disappointed when they visit Japan to find that it isn't as technologically advanced as they had dreamed, and I do agree partially, but whenever I discuss it with friends who also live here we always agree: the trains are amazing. Even local trains (in Tokyo) come very often, are fast, and are extremely quiet. But I always look forward to riding the Shinkansen. If you're lucky you can even get a great view of Mount Fuji.

ultimoo 11y ago

Contrast this with the Caltrain that chugs diesel and barely goes at 80 mph taking over 1 hour and 40 minutes to get from San Francisco to San Jose (the hubs of modern day technology). At this point the only advantage that Caltrain brings to the bay area is that you don't have to worry about parking in San Francisco.

aagha 11y ago

It's sad that in the US, train connections between major living centers isn't even a federal priority. Granted, the US is VERY large and we're talking about much larger investments than in Japan, but our economy is a crapton bigger as well.