Japan Tests Bullet Train

[mzkhadir]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/06/27/bt.japan.bullet.train.ap/index.html

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan's largest railway company began a test run for a new bullet train that it eventually aims to operate at a record-breaking 223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes -- according to recent news reports.

The Fastech 360S, developed by East Japan Railway Co., successfully made its first test run between Sendai and Kitakami stations in northern Japan at a more leisurely 170 mph, Kyodo News agency reported.

The train, painted in jade and white colors, has cat ear-shaped air-brakes that pop up from the rooftops to help slow the train in an emergency.

By the time the test ends in early 2008, the operator hopes to hit the maximum speed of 250 mph -- faster than the train will travel during regular operation.

French company Alstom SA's TGV, or Train a Grande Vitesse, is currently the world's fastest train, operating at a top speed of 218 mph.

The new "bullet" train is set to start commercial service in 2011, when a new section on the Tohoku bullet train line currently under construction is completed.

The train is expected to make the 360 mile trip between Tokyo and Aomori --about the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles -- within three hours, half of the amount of time it currently takes.

 

[cKGunslinger]

That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

 

[Genx87]

By the time the test ends in early 2008, the operator hopes to hit the maximum speed of 250 mph -- faster than the train will travel during regular operation.

Poor guy, that is a long test!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

 

[irwincur]

That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Yup, it's too bad. However, Japan is the size of a small state. Something like this crossing and entire continent would be monumental. It would be nice to have though in dense localities.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

By the time the test ends in early 2008, the operator hopes to hit the maximum speed of 250 mph -- faster than the train will travel during regular operation.

Poor guy, that is a long test!

Yeah, that's not a very good rate of acceleration. What's that, the equivelant of a 0-60 time of 5 months?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

as someone else stated - why can't we do it? it's not like there was always an elevated train in Japan so they had to build the track at some point. it'd be fantastic to be able to zip from boston to NYC in a little over an hour

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

Many of these bullet trains utilize diesel, so it's probably not Big Oil. The thing is, like I said, these types of trains require a very extensively-maintained track to be considered save. You see AmTrak struggling as it is, it certainly does have the money to undertake a multi billion-dollar endeavor.

The US decided decades ago to drop the rail system to a minimum and promote the automobile infrastructure. Whether or not that was the best decision is irrelevant now.

Besides, most urban areas get to vote on whether they want to support a local commuter train system. I know we have the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) system here, and I enjoy it. I don't see the big need for a 200mph train in the US just yet. I'm pretty sure the 75mph+, 8-lane highways have more bandwidth and are already in place.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

The difference in size. In the NE corridor it works because the cities are closer. But try getting on a bullet train from Chicago to Denver.

A. It will take 4 times longer to get there or more on the train compared to a jet.
B. Probably cost more than a plane.

Our country is too large for highspeed trains to be worth it except for in certain areas.

I dont even think a train on the Minneapolis-Chicago run would generate enough interest. That run is one of the more flown routes in the world.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

Many of these bullet trains utilize diesel, so it's probably not Big Oil. The thing is, like I said, these types of trains require a very extensively-maintained track to be considered save. You see AmTrak struggling as it is, it certainly does have the money to undertake a multi billion-dollar endeavor.

The US decided decades ago to drop the rail system to a minimum and promote the automobile infrastructure. Whether or not that was the best decision is irrelevant now.

Besides, most urban areas get to vote on whether they want to support a local commuter train system. I know we have the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) system here, and I enjoy it. I don't see the big need for a 200mph train in the US just yet. I'm pretty sure the 75mph+, 8-lane highways have more bandwidth and are already in place.

the problem is that the "packets" on the highway aren't even close to fully utilized (read: carpooling) - we need to change our protocol if we want the highway system to be really effecient (and people need to stop driving SUVs as commuter vehicles that i can't see over and then when traffic goes from 75mph to 20mph i can't tell it's coming except for their brakelights)

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

The difference in size. In the NE corridor it works because the cities are closer. But try getting on a bullet train from Chicago to Denver.

A. It will take 4 times longer to get there or more on the train compared to a jet.
B. Probably cost more than a plane.

Our country is too large for highspeed trains to be worth it except for in certain areas.

I dont even think a train on the Minneapolis-Chicago run would generate enough interest. That run is one of the more flown routes in the world.

I agree with this - I think a highspeed rail system in the NE could work if done properly. I'm not entirely clear as to why it wouldn't - with the hassle of airtravel now (security and all of that) a train would be a relaxing trip by comparison.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

Many of these bullet trains utilize diesel, so it's probably not Big Oil. The thing is, like I said, these types of trains require a very extensively-maintained track to be considered save. You see AmTrak struggling as it is, it certainly does have the money to undertake a multi billion-dollar endeavor.

The US decided decades ago to drop the rail system to a minimum and promote the automobile infrastructure. Whether or not that was the best decision is irrelevant now.

Besides, most urban areas get to vote on whether they want to support a local commuter train system. I know we have the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) system here, and I enjoy it. I don't see the big need for a 200mph train in the US just yet. I'm pretty sure the 75mph+, 8-lane highways have more bandwidth and are already in place.

the problem is that the "packets" on the highway aren't even close to fully utilized (read: carpooling) - we need to change our protocol if we want the highway system to be really effecient (and people need to stop driving SUVs as commuter vehicles that i can't see over and then when traffic goes from 75mph to 20mph i can't tell it's coming except for their brakelights)

Well, maybe after we move over to IPv6, we'll have time to address our transportation protocols.

The only way to make the move is to continue the push for carpooling, HOV lanes, hybrid vehicle tax-deductions, etc. Do all this while keeping gasoline prices relatively high, and people will either be forced to cope.. or not.

 

[B00ne]

What about Bos-Ny-Wash wouldnt that be an attractive route - for the Transrapid cruising speed is 268 mph

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: B00ne
What about Bos-Ny-Wash wouldnt that be an attractive route - for the Transrapid cruising speed is 268 mph

It would work well, I would think. It would just take some serious $ to get it off the ground, and a bit of a pardigm shift to get ppl thinking about rail when they currently fly.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Nor the money. We're too busy fighting wars to maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and dang proud of it too! Yeehaw!!!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Nor the money. We're too busy fighting wars to maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and dang proud of it too! Yeehaw!!!

Way to contribute, Princess.


No, no - take it You earned it!

 

[mzkhadir]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Why can't we create that infrastructure? I figure it's the oil lobby and the auto unions.

we probably need some type of bridge, which would cost a lot of money, train tracks, like the simpsons monorail.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

We have airplanes...they are better transportation than trains anyway, for the USA. We are so spread out, even a bullet train still takes forever to get from one city to another.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It would be nice to see something like that in New England (or Boston-NYC-DC as mentioned) or along the California coast line area.

 

[ElFenix]

top gear reported last year that the high speed trains running in england were less efficient, per passenger, than a jetliner. and those trains only get up to 100 mph or so. this one is probably monumentally inefficient.

 

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: B00ne
What about Bos-Ny-Wash wouldnt that be an attractive route - for the Transrapid cruising speed is 268 mph

It would work well, I would think. It would just take some serious $ to get it off the ground, and a bit of a pardigm shift to get ppl thinking about rail when they currently fly.

yea. its tons faster than the bullet train and it runs on electricity for all those environment-conscious people.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

We have airplanes...they are better transportation than trains anyway, for the USA. We are so spread out, even a bullet train still takes forever to get from one city to another.

For a lot of the US, that's true. But in denser places like the NE, it makes more sense. There are trains right now, but they aren't all that fast. Flying is still competitive. But a high speed train from Washington to New York would be a much better way to travel than the same flight.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
top gear reported last year that the high speed trains running in england were less efficient, per passenger, than a jetliner. and those trains only get up to 100 mph or so. this one is probably monumentally inefficient.

Missed that one, how did they measure efficiency? I assume something like cost per passenger mile, which I could believe, but time is also valuable. And with airports only in major cities, and tons of wasted time in airports themselves, a there is a point at which any city closer than a certain distance, serviced by a high enough speed train, would be a better choice.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
That's cool, but we'll never have that kind of service here in the States. Something like that requires an elevated track, preferable fenced-in to keeps out animals and people. We just don't have the type of infrastructure to support that kind of effort.

Nor the money. We're too busy fighting wars to maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and dang proud of it too! Yeehaw!!!

Way to contribute, Princess.


No, no - take it You earned it!

:roll: I said Yeehaw! that should get me some credibility with you warmongering rednecks. Git dem A-rabs, they worship the same god we do but in a different way!

 

[Duckzilla]

It's about market and needs. We don't pay a buck for a single orange, either.