China unveils 600 kph maglev train prototype

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1151282.shtml

by mparramon • 7 years ago

124 154 7 years ago

tty2300• 7 years ago

I really wish we had high speed rail in Australia. I'd pick a 600km/h train over a plane any day.

GorgeRonde• 7 years ago

High 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

jacquesm• 7 years 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• 7 years ago

And Spain with the AVE and Talgos

kuschku3• 7 years ago

it might become more interesting to dig long tunnels under cities for these trains rather than increasing the train's maximum speed.

That’s actually part of what the Stuttgart 21 project is doing, and why it’s so expensive (it’s not just a train station): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21

They’re building several massive tunnels below the city and through the surrounding mountains to put the entire station and all rails underground, which also improves travel times on the Paris—Vienna magistrale.

Being one of the first major projects of that kind in Germany, it has to deal with massive budget overruns and delays.

melling6• 7 years ago

High-speed rail also works well in China.

It’s the same size as the United States, which is about the size of Australia. There are only 25 million people in Australia though.

sanxiyn2• 7 years ago

it might become more interesting to dig long tunnels under cities for these trains rather than increasing the train's maximum speed.

South Korea built >50 km tunnel out of Seoul for this reason. It opened in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulhyeon_Tunnel

Jaruzel2• 7 years ago

Here in the UK we enjoy low speed trains every day. ;)

Just seeing this stuff in other countries really makes me sad about how my countries technological developments have been left to rot.

rswail2• 7 years ago

Australia is huge, but everyone lives in 7 cities (within a margin of error). A high speed rail that covered Melbourne/Albury/Canberra/Sydney/Newcastle/Tamworth?/Brisbane would have a huge impact.

The distances are (as the crow flies): Melbourne-Albury: 260km Albury-Canberra: 219km Canberra-Sydney: 247km Sydney-Newcastle: 117km Newcastle-Tamworth: 219km Tamworth-Brisbane: 450km

That last leg might need another break in it.

But at 300kph average speed that's 2.5 hours Melbourne - Sydney (CBD-CBD), say 3.5 hours with stopovers.

To get to Sydney for a 9:00 start in the CBD from Melbourne now takes (CBD - CBD): Taxi: 30m + 1hr check in + 1.5 hour flight + 30m taxi: 3.5 hours.

I'd take the train any day. Space, able to work, sleep, dining car etc. Not affected by weather or other airport backlogs. You still get up at a god-awful time of the morning, but the actual travel would be much more tolerable.

makomk• 7 years ago

Note that, as I understand it, the security checks and queues for Chinese high-speed trains are comparable to those required at airports elsewhere if not worse.

anoncake8• 7 years ago

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.

It has to slow down anyway if it wants to stop.

seanmcdirmid4• 7 years ago

The biggest issue for HSR is straightened track, which should be possible in Australia as far as I can tell: not many mountains, kind of empty between cities.

This is also why’s hSR is so that impressive in China, they had none of those advantages sand had to keep blasting through mountains.

awiesenhofer• 7 years ago

I 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.

sanxiyn2• 7 years ago

Sydney-Melbourne is indeed no brainer. It is one of the busiest air route in the world.

jimworm• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia

099812477• 7 years ago

High-speed trains are starting to impact airline routes: https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-trai...

ddoolin• 7 years ago

Surely this is good for everyone save airline operators. Less planes on busy routes, more options for those don't want to fly, etc.

ksec• 7 years ago

Apart 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• 7 years ago

Because you usually don't go through the crazy security areas and luggage areas.

gattilorenz• 7 years ago

Naive, 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• 7 years ago

According to 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.

cs02rm02• 7 years ago

It's pretty common in the UK, not as common as mph mind.

Svip• 7 years ago

That's a weird way to write kilometres per hour.

rusticpenn• 7 years ago

I have seen kmph used a lot

Symbiote5• 7 years ago

Either "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.

NickNameNick• 7 years ago

I have never seen 'mts' used before, why would you, when 'm' is both more concise, and more correct?

I may have seen 'gms', but I can't think when.

I have seen kmph before, but not for several years.

'Kph' it's definitely current in spoken language, but increasingly rare in written form.

Tor3• 7 years ago

"kph" makes no sense - kilos per hour? Offical SI notation is km/h, and IMO that's what should be used.

timbit42• 7 years ago

...or kmph

robkop• 7 years ago

I'd say it's the most common way that it's said in Australia.

chrismorgan2• 7 years ago

I’d call it moderately rare in Victoria.

anonfunction• 7 years ago

US uses mph for miles per hour, so it's natural to use kph.

robin_reala• 7 years ago

Just 3 km/h less than Japan’s current prototype (but approaching production) system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0_Series

Grue3• 7 years ago

Interesting 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.

christkv5• 7 years ago

In three years they developed the technology needed, more likely just ripped off the tech from Siemens on the Shanghai line.

simion3143• 7 years ago

Your 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• 7 years ago

Also it doesn't really matter since the implementation is close to 20 years old, which means the patents should have expired anyway.

christkv5• 7 years ago

Of 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.

frostburg• 7 years ago

There are lawsuits involving the issue, as another comment reports. Jumping to ''big propaganda'' is unwarranted.

neya• 7 years ago

Relevant, although not exactly the same tech. I believe they lost the subsequent lawsuits even, because, China doesn't really care about IP theft:

http://fortune.com/2013/04/15/did-china-steal-japans-high-sp...

xvf22• 7 years ago

Breakthroughs sure are easier when you can just help yourself to most of the answers but there does seem to be at least some homegrown contributions as well.

termhidor• 7 years ago

I will not bring up any names here. But I know there is a project between CRRC, Siemens and a university in Germany to transfer the knowledge from Siemens to China and update e.g. the controller algorithms

Edit: so all the rumors about stealing are not true. The knowledge is handed over

sct202• 7 years ago

It looks like the German maglev project shut down a few years ago because of lack of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if they were selling off whatever they had.

LargoLasskhyfv4• 7 years ago

Why so mysterious? https://www.uni-stuttgart.de/en/university/news/showcase/mag...

melling6• 7 years ago

The maglev they built 17 years ago for a billion dollars?

China has been using maglevs for a long time.

The low-medium maglevs seem quite useful too:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless-maglev-t...

Someday they’ll probably replace their 19,000 miles (soon 25,000) of high-speed rail with maglevs.

In the United States, people couldn’t be convinced to build high-speed rail and now the land is expensive.

anoncake8• 7 years ago

Someday they’ll probably replace their 19,000 miles (soon 25,000) of high-speed rail with maglevs.

Not necessarily and definitely not soon. Maglev isn't strictly better (unless it's also suitable for cargo trains or China doesn't use their high-speed rail for cargo at all -- not even at night). Replacing high-speed rail by maglev means that you're basically replacing high-speed rail with somewhat higher-speed rail at the cost of (almost[1]) completely new infrastructure. And during the transition, you basically have two independent railway networks. It's like having two railway gauges in a country, but even worse. Every piece of rolling stock can only run on one network. That's inflexible, increasing costs and/or reducing reliability. It also necessitates additional transfers.

[1] You can reuse station and other buildings, maybe platforms too. I can't think of anything else.

raverbashing• 7 years ago

That'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• 7 years ago

That's less than 12hrs London to New Delhi. Imagine the possibilities.

stirlo• 7 years ago

I’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...

xenihn• 7 years ago

How did it compare to BART? I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing anything else yet.

kuschku3• 7 years ago

Most 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• 7 years ago

Siemens 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

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.

gnode4• 7 years ago

The 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• 7 years ago

It's not always going to be running at top speed.

SiempreViernes3• 7 years ago

That'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• 7 years 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.

gnode4• 7 years ago

Reacting 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.

Jaruzel2• 7 years ago

Don't forget the physiological aspect on the driver too, Just having the windows, useful or not, would contribute to better wellbeing as opposed to a windowless box. After all, the drivers cab is a workplace.

zeristor2• 7 years ago

At 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• 7 years ago

There'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?

zeristor2• 7 years ago

They also fly at altitude, where air pressure is much less obviously.

blu42• 7 years ago

Propeller-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• 7 years ago

In a somowhat less dense air though.

nabla9• 7 years ago

600 km/h at seal level is Mach 0.5. Commercial aircraft cruise Mach 0.70 - 0.85.

athenot• 7 years ago

The 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• 7 years ago

The 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-sys2• 7 years ago

The 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.

maattdd• 7 years ago

The French record was with a modified test unit but on a regular track (LGV Est), albeit with upgraded voltage.

fanf22• 7 years ago

They also adjust the tension of the catenary wires for the test runs so that the train does not catch up with the wave it induces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record#Catenar...

marmaduke• 7 years ago

But when you see how engineering works, isn’t it reassuring to ride something designed for a maximum of 600 at a speed of 320?

My car could probably hit 160+ but I don’t drive it over 130.

the8472• 7 years ago

This is fairly normal for all kinds of high speed trains. Or vehicles in general. Or technology in general. Most things are not operated at the edges of their performance envelope.

brainwipe• 7 years ago

"Roll off the production line" triggered me a number of times in the article. Perhaps "glide off" would be a better phrase?

nayuki• 7 years ago

This news site is strange. Every article headline has a rather positive view of China.

gok• 7 years ago

Global 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• 7 years ago

Interesting that this was just on HN a few days ago: "What Happened to Hovertrains? (2018)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944382

SllX• 7 years ago

Let’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

LargoLasskhyfv4• 7 years ago

So 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

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

nor

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPPXB7gqYU

( first 12 seconds only ^v^ )

LargoLasskhyfv4• 7 years ago

sigh in case someone mentions the dotted track to the SW

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.

LargoLasskhyfv4• 7 years ago

i can't get no levitation

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.

China unveils 600 kph maglev train prototype

Related Stories