Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Transportation Alternatives, Japan
Japanese rail company to build $45 billion MagLev train
In the United States we've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in the last five years. Our political "leaders" bicker over fuel economy rules that ultimately still won't get us to where most of the world already is today. Meanwhile the rest of the world is racing ahead, developing technologies that will provide real transportation alternatives. Japan and Europe have long had trains that go well over 200mph. The Japanese are now preparing to step up to the next level. The Central Japan Railway Co. is preparing to build a 290km magnetically levitated (maglev) train line between Tokyo and central Japan. The target speed for the train is 310 mph. Central Japan Railway has a maglev test train that ran 361 mph in 2003. The company is now planning to move ahead with the project in spite of not getting any government subsidies.
[Source: AFP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mort 9:28AM (12/31/2007)
"Meanwhile the rest of the world is racing ahead, developing technologies that will provide real transportation alternatives."
And that is exactly what the U.S. oil companies are hoping they will do. They don't care about the future of this country, they care only for profit.
Reply
Dad 11:13AM (12/31/2007)
Sam wrote "In the United States we've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in the last five years."
Sam, would you just report the news and stop reporting your feelings about issues? It is BORING!
Reply
Craig 11:16AM (12/31/2007)
hey Dad, pull my finger.
Reply
Rick 11:19AM (12/31/2007)
at 300 mph - I think I'd feel safer up in the sky
Reply
Fry 1:07PM (12/31/2007)
Traveling by rail is generally safer than flying, and far safer than driving the same distance, so I'm gonna have to go with I wish I lived in Japan...once again
Reply
Dave 1:24PM (12/31/2007)
Here is some spaghetti to throw against the well -
How about superfast rail to replace cargo trucks and jets?
Just question - not a proposal. What do you all think?
Dave
Reply
gsolman6 1:35PM (12/31/2007)
"at 300 mph - I think I'd feel safer up in the sky"
That's the problem with feelings - they often don't match reality.............
During the Shinkansen's 40-odd year, 6 billion passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions (including earthquakes and typhoons).
Did I mention that the high speed trains are infinitely more comfortable than any plane?
Reply
Benjamin Jones 3:28PM (12/31/2007)
As for safety, let's keep in mind that the only Shinkansen deaths have been suicides! Even in the midst of earthquakes, I think that's pretty impressive.
What I wonder about it how these trains will deal with noise. It is generally known that the shinkansen can travel faster than they do, but noise pollution is a huge civic issue in Japan, and fast trains offer create huge tunnel booms and such things (but then tunnel boom is more of an issue further south, especially in kyuushuu, as I recall).
Anyway, thanks for the post
------
Benjamin Jones
http://ecomodder.com
Reply
Consumer 6:06PM (12/31/2007)
This reminds me of the Onion article, something like "Huge earthquake knocks Japan back to 23rd century". We'll catch up to Japan 2008 in about 2408
Reply
Murc 8:27PM (12/31/2007)
Japan is a small country compared to the US...so for them, it makes sense to travel by rail. but in the US, the best method is flying or driving...depending on how far your going.
While I do wish I had a train going from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis, then I would go to several Vikings games a year.
Most people in the US havn't even rode on a train (myself included). many people think of them in they same way they think of other (old) transportation methods, like being on a ship to get to a different continent, or riding in an Airship. trains just dont have that "its new" vibe to them. But they are slowly increasing in popularity.
as for long distances....what sounds better going 150-300 mph on a train......or going 500-600 mph on a plane? I prefer the faster one.
Reply
Mark 8:46PM (12/31/2007)
The squandering billions comment is just so much crap. Which squandering are you considering? Billions on social security? Medicaid? Oh, you must mean THE WAR. OK, squandered, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking it was ever a choice about WAR or MAGLEV TRAINS. As far as the transportation choices of other countries, I'm really tired of reading posts about what other countries do without comparing all the difference.
Land mass - US has 3.7 MILLION sq miles. ranks third. Talk to me again about MAGLEV when Russia, Canada, and China are building them.
Japan - 60th in land area at 146 thousand Sq Miles.
France - 47th with 211 thousand Sq Miles.
Japan is about the size of Montana.
France is a little bigger than California and New York combined.
We could be making much better transportation choices but mag lev trains ain't it.
Reply
Wave54 10:27AM (1/01/2008)
The size of the country is irrelevant -- nobody is trying to say that you MUST travel by train from NY to LA! Most travel in the US for commuting or leisure is under 500 miles, where 200-300 mph high-speed rail would be another option.
Also, an advantage to rail is that it takes you from city-center to city-center, rather than airport to airport, cutting out a lot of wasteful commuting.
Rail travel doesn't have to be for everyone, in every situation, at all times, to make sense.
Reply
Bill 11:07AM (1/01/2008)
Very light jet service as air taxis make more sense in the U.S. than passenger trains, considering the distances involved.
As a bonus general aviation skips most of the cattle call TSA garbage you get on commercial aviation.
Reply
Clark 2:58AM (1/02/2008)
Mark,
China is investing in Mag-Lev trains to coincide with the Olympics. So there you have it (and they don't have the kind of money the US has either).
Reply
Alex 10:49AM (1/02/2008)
the problem isn't our rails lines. we have plently of them. ask any of the mojor freight carriers. the problem is there is ZERO profit in moving people. I don't know about the rest of you, but i'm not interested in having my money squandered into a system that'll consistently run in the deep red.
Reply
John Smith 11:53AM (1/02/2008)
There we go again.
If I were king I wouldn't let anyone vote if they had not taken Economics 101.
That would be you Sam.
$45 billion! And that's for Montana alone!
This is not Europe. What does that staement mean to you?
Reply
GenWaylaid 3:45PM (1/02/2008)
It's important to note that high-speed rail needs a special infrastructure. The tracks must be very straight, very stiff, free of grade crossings, and equipped with overhead wires. Given the cost per mile, it would simply be absurd to build such track over most of the sparsely populated U.S.
Most of the existing mainlines in this country can support speeds of 100 to 120 mph. The northeast corridor from Boston to Washington has been upgraded so that the Acela can reach about 150 mph. Almost everywhere else passenger trains have to cede the track to the freight trains that actually make money.
Don't expect our trains to be as safe as Japanese trains, either. U.S. trains have to deal with safety hazards that Japanese trains probably don't, such as idiots trying to drive around the crossing gates.
Reply
mjh 12:44AM (1/06/2008)
A first step would be to refurbish the public transportation infrastructure that already exists in the US, instead of letting it face further declines. The Amtrak line from Maine to Boston is being threatened by the end of federal grant of support. So not only is the US standing still, when it comes to public transportation, it is falling back. There is simply no political will to face the the rising costs of energy and prepare for the future. Politicians have rather 20 more football stadiums built. Never mind, how people get there.
Reply
Big Daddy 3:31PM (2/21/2008)
Im suprised no one has mentioned the environmental issues at hand here. Airplanes and traditional trains pollute a lot more than trains using magnetic levetation technology. Yes it is expensive but it will benefit in the long run by not having to pay for ridiculous oil prices. Maglev trains are a good idea when taking our energy and environment crisises into account.
Reply
JustZisGuy 10:05PM (8/12/2008)
Where did you get the idea that maglev is more efficient than "traditional trains"? They aren't. At similar speeds, they are similarly efficient. Transrapid claims 47 Wh/seat-km at 300 km/h. A TGV Duplex consumes 18 kWh/train-km at 300 km/h. That particular TGV has 545 seats, so that's 33 Wh/seat-km.
Translating that into gasoline-equivalent mpg, that's 632 passenger-mpg with all seats full. With the average load factor of 80% (yes, this route is very busy), that's 506 passenger-mpg.
Aircraft get, at best, 80 passenger-mpg.
(The TGV Duplex is a particularly efficient example of high-speed "traditional" rail service. It's a fair comparison, however - newest tech vs newest tech.)
Source: http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html