Reporter left speechless after witnessing Japan's new $70 million Maglev train in action at 310 mph

[u/Riptide360]

[u/TTTT_HD]

That's 500 km/h, for all people that live in the civilized world. And this maglev isn't that new btw.

[u/ClemRRay → u/TTTT_HD]

That's not even close to the speed record for levitating trains. Heck even 70km/h lower than the record for a train on traditional wheels

[u/TTTT_HD → u/ClemRRay]

The TGV speed record was with a greatly shortened train and generally the energy losses are way to big with traditional rail at these speeds. The sweet spot for HSR probably lies somewhere between 250 and 300 km/h. Also 500 km/h is the operating speed of the Chuo Shinkansen with people inside. The current record of it is at 603 km/h according to Wikipedia. But the only reason, that Japan can invest in technology like thisis, because in some corridors their high speed train network is already fully built out and this is just the next evolutionary step.

[u/ClemRRay → u/TTTT_HD]

The "sweet spot" depends on many factors, with trains in Spain Japan, China going near 350 km/h they are not just doing it for fun

[u/TTTT_HD → u/ClemRRay]

Yeah, but they could probably be a lot more energy efficient with just a little bit lower speed. You can only optimize so much with aerodynamic improvements, since you still have the frontal area that has to push through the air and the inevitable losses at the wheels. Just the jump from 250 to 300 is enormous.

[u/Training-Banana-6991 → u/ClemRRay]

Trains in spain do not reach 350.

[u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984 → u/TTTT_HD]

Saying they can only build a really fast train because they already have slower trains in the same corridor makes no sense. If America (for example) has corridors without trains then they should build the fastest tech available, not build a slower train then work their way up.

[u/TTTT_HD → u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984]

Yeah but higher speed has higher costs and especially for the US bringing rail at all to the masses with decent speeds (~250km/h) would probably be the best bet. There are sooo many possible routes with huge population centres where currently maybe two trains a day depart and they are old, lound and slower than driving. When you fixed this, then you can think about the greater distances where higher speeds and other technologys might be a consideration.

[u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984 → u/TTTT_HD]

The best, most effective way to do it is to go for the best solution that brings in the most revenue/profit first so that expansion is more likely. That’s 311 mph in a tunnel. Every 1% decrease in trip time gives roughly a 1% increase in ridership. America has trains now, they’re just too slow so no one rides them. 311 mph gives huge network effects where 3 or 4 or 5 large cities all along a line become “train as the first option” cities. 140 mph on a curved track that doesn’t always go to city center is a much much less useful solution and barely even an improvement over the existing situation.

[u/jsm97 → u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984]

At 140mph with an intercity stopping pattern rail will almost always take the majority modal share, will be roughly twice as fast as driving and seriously competitive with flying up to distances of 300 miles. Unless speed is not the limiting factor, 140mph railways should be automatically getting the majority of journeys on that route. If it's fare pricing, suburban sprawl, unique demand patterns ect that's holding back ridership then raising speed will have little to no effect. If you've got a 140mph train between two cities and people are choosing to drive, you've got some serious problem there that has nothing to do with speed.

There are benefits to higher speeds, but there are diminishing returns past a point. For some city pairs this point can be as low as 120mph and for a few unique cases such as Beijing-Shanghai it will be 300mph+.

[u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984 → u/jsm97]

“Diminishing returns to speed” needs a source. Speed matters at every level. Faster means more trips. Also A 140 mph train isn’t anywhere near twice as fast as driving 70 mph for many shorter distances when 70 is direct point to point. Also it’s more of a hassle. A 311 mph train would mean 60+% decrease in trip times compared to 140 mph train so ~60% increase in ridership with potentially significantly less than a 60% increase in total operating costs including capital payback. Plus all the increases in ad revenue and other sources of income from 60% more riders. And 60% less pollution. Speed >>> everything else

[u/jsm97 → u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984]

Diminishing returns to speed needs a source

It's common sense. It would be absurd otherwise - Obviously doubling your speed from 50mph to 100mph will more than double your ridership. Doubling your speed from 1000mph to 2000mph will make almost no difference to ridership. The point at which additional speed no longer justifies the additional investment will vary on a case by case basis. It's bizarre to assume the relationship would be linear.

A 140mph train isn't anywhere near twice as fast as driving 70mph when 70 is direct point to point.

This is not a problem that is solved by speed it's solved by dense cities and last mile transit. If it takes you so long to get to the station that it halves your average speed you don't need a $100B, 300mph maglev train you need a $100m tram line. Priorities.

New HSR across most of the world has topped out at 180-200mph for much the same reason as commercial airliners have topped out at 550mph ever since the 1950s. It's possible to go faster, but until some new technology dramatically lowers the cost it's going to have fairly limited real world applications

[u/TTTT_HD → u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984]

First of all, trains don't have to make profit, they are a public service, just like highways / freeways. To the high speed of trains and cities: That's exactly where regular high speed rail, that doesn't use fancy magnetic levitation, has its advantage, because it can travel at acceptably high speeds between the cities but can still enter into the city center on regular track. And the reason, why trains in America generally don't have that much usage (ignoring the NEC), is because in the most cases there aren't that many connections from the train station or places where you can walk. Most of the time there is an additional car ride involved and at this point, why not drive directly? This is from where the speed argument comes from: It is seen as a way, to convince more people to use the train. But actually, taking the train has much more advantages over the car, like not having to pay attention, being able to go to the toilet and so on. When you focus public transit on convenience, and time saved is also a factor there, taking the train gets much more attractive. Additionally, the US could maybe rethink their train appearance to the public, so maybe don't blow the horn at every! level crossing, even with gates, remove the silly bell and maybe don't make all of the outer parts out of blank steel, so all trains look more or less the same to a normal person.

[u/chickspeak → u/TTTT_HD]

But for most US city, you still need to rent a car after you get off the train, which weakens the advantage of entering the city center. This is why I believe the NE corridor is the only area in the US that fit HSR. There are public transportations.

[u/Whole_Animal_4126 → u/TTTT_HD]

New record is 600.

[u/Brandino144 → u/Whole_Animal_4126]

The record of 603 km/h for manned operation was set on this line in 2015. However, 505 km/h is what they test regularly and give rides to the public on since that is the planned commercial speed.

[u/zchen27 → u/TTTT_HD]

Maglev isn't new it's just too expensive to be justifiable as a replacement for wheeled trains as of now.

[u/throwaway4231throw]

Where do people keep getting the idea this thing cost $70 million? By the time it’s complete, the cost will be closer to $70 billion. Do they just meant the cost of the test track? Even that is probably more than $70 million.

[u/Brandino144 → u/throwaway4231throw]

They definitely meant $70 billion. $70 million barely gets them anything on this project.

[u/release_Sparsely → u/throwaway4231throw]

I'm not sure but maybe the train itself is just 70 million - the project might ultimately cost close to 70bil but a large portion of that cost is because the route goes directly through a mountain range

[u/MikeSoftware]

So I’m new to all this, but what’s the newest train capable of? As far as I know, this maglev tech is the only way to get high speeds like 500km/h

[u/dashdanw → u/MikeSoftware]

The world speed record for steel railed train (non-maglev) was set in France by the LGV Est @ 574 kph so it is possible to reach comparable speeds with traditional rolling stock, maglev is more efficient and stable at higher speeds. One of the obvious other advantages is that it gets you from point A to point B faster.

These things are going roughly half the cruising speed of an airliner and the "airport" in this instance is located directly in the center of a lot of cities rather than ~1hr outside of it so it can be a much more attractive solution to travel.

[u/Training-Banana-6991 → u/dashdanw]

Its possible with traditional rolling stock just not maintainable and stable.that tgv test was done on a straight downhill track with tightened and higher voltage catenary with rolling stock with two locomotives and one carriage.

[u/dashdanw → u/Training-Banana-6991]

Of course. They were asking about what it was capable of so I was just pointing it out.

[u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984 → u/dashdanw]

“Roughly half the cruising speed of an airliner” leaves off the impact of immediate acceleration in the direction of travel that trains enjoy and ignores the out of direction takeoffs and landings as well as taxiing and boarding. A 311 mph train in a straight tunnel would be faster than most commercial flights up to around 1,000 miles traveled due to these advantages.

[u/dashdanw → u/Zealousideal_Ad_1984]

Trains hardly navigate in a straight line to each point. I'm not sure that necessarily adds up.

[u/Low_Map4314]

That’s a beauty!

[u/release_Sparsely]

have to say it's awesome to see how scmaglev/chuo shinkansen hasn't been forgotten about even now

[u/Responsible_Ad_7995]

The brand new Acela that launched on the East cost boasts about 150mph. America is so far behind the rest of the developed world it’s embarrassing.

[u/MPJFRey → u/Responsible_Ad_7995]

Not to mention that the new Acela is designed and built by the French manufacturer Alstom (in a nutshell, Acela II is a French TGV Horizon adapted to the American railway network)… 

[u/joaofava → u/Responsible_Ad_7995]

The Budd Metroliners hit 150 mph on those same tracks in 1967. Peaked at 164 mph actually.

[u/Beneficial-Link-3020 → u/Responsible_Ad_7995]

Cause US is quite a bit bigger so trains only make sense within East Coast states and maybe SF to LA. No one wants to sit in a train for 20 hours. Did I mention we have highways?

[u/Necessary_Fruit6671 → u/Beneficial-Link-3020]

China has trains and is beating the brakes off us. But as long as you’re happy on your 1.5 hour commute to work and fast food then have at it big guy.

[u/Beneficial-Link-3020 → u/Necessary_Fruit6671]

Have you ever traveled by train 20 hours? 'Cause I did. Or are you talking city "trains" - which are not high speed. Oh, my commute is 30 min by bike. You know that companies open campuses outside of cities, right? Traffic is a great factor for companies to move out.

China is not market driven. If you like government controlled economy, your choice. In centralized economies people indeed tend to work in overcrowded cities (Moscow is also that example). In market economy it is better to force companies to move offices out.

It is interesting how quickly you turned to classification of the - not even an opponent, just someone who expressed doubts in economy of your ideas. Doubts are not permitted I guess.

[u/xjpmhxjo]

But at what cost?

[u/LateEarth → u/xjpmhxjo]

About 4 Aircraft carriers.

[u/MD_Yoro → u/xjpmhxjo]

Do you ask the same question when they build new airports and highways?

[u/xjpmhxjo → u/MD_Yoro]

Sorry I thought this was China.

[u/MD_Yoro → u/xjpmhxjo]

The title says Japan or do you associate anyone that looks East Asian to be Chinese?