Chinese MagLev Train Opens Next Week 392
lupa1420 writes "The Guardian reports on the launch next week of the world's fastest train, 430kph, in China, which uses magnetic levitation technology. Includes instructions on how to make your own maglev demo at home."
PDA/Disks/MP3-players at risk? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or is there an obvious and easy way to shield that stuff?
is it possible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Boston to NYC. LA to San Fran. maybe even a network of the major cities.
As it is now, it's cheaper and sometimes faster to take Greyhound than Amtrack! The US spent so much on railroad tracks and most aren't used anymore. Sure the costs would be expensive, but would it be worth it if some of those tracks were replaced to support maglevs?
Cost vs. Benefit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maglev has been running for a while (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the worlds first "Commercial" Maglev train.
The next step is the development of vacuum tunnels which can be anchored to the seabed. You'd be able to run a maglev train at hypersonic speed as there is no air friction. The only factor limiting the trains speed is how quickly you can accelerate the train without making the passengers sick.
A transatlantic crossing could be one in under an hour.
Chinese is like America in 1950s (Score:4, Interesting)
Americans got jaded by the liberal pablum of 'Silent Spring' and 'Limits to Growth' in the 1960s. Science became pollutors, war mongers, and could do no right. Though pockets of "true believers" remain in groups like Slashdot, it is sad to live in such an apathetic country.
Maglev, not Mars! (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be cool to take a 300MPH train from New York to LA?
The steam age would be better than what we have. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stupid maglev... (Score:3, Interesting)
it's also ridiculous to charge 75 RMB per person, when you consider a taxi ride from Puxi is approximately 180 RMB.
You can say the same about taking a train to London. From Leicester it costs less than half the cost of a train ticket to take a taxi assuming you share with three other people. But then you are stuck in a taxi with three people for the whole journey and it takes longer. People pay ludicrous rail prices because it is quicker and normally their company is paying the expenses anyway.
It is now cheaper to fly to most destinations in the UK than it is to take the train. Example would be, Leicester to Edinburgh 18/01/04 Flying with easyJet = 22.50GBP, By train = 66.50GBP. The train takes 7 hours, whereas the flight is an hour. Which one would you choose?
MagLev offers a lot of the same advantages of air travel. Shorter journey times are better for the traveller, and allow a quicker turn around for the operator which means more tickets sold, presuming there is enough demand. Of course it also has the same disadvantage, high set up costs.
Maybe it doesn't make much sense for a 'normal person' to pay high maglev prices but if it is a business trip then your time is worth more. A client paying someone by the hour doesn't want them on a train for 7 hours doing nothing. Its about balancing different costs.
Re:Field Strength (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:is it possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with Amtrak is not, as a lot of well-meaning but uninformed libertarians on
1 (the main one) Congresscritters use Amtrak routes as huge pork barrel projects, so that their local region gets subsidized train service and some extra jobs for running it, even though no free-market train system would go there. Routes are governed by political laws, rather than by supply and demand, which is detrimental to the viability of the system.
2 (as a consequence of #1) Amtrak winds up being too expensive in an effort to keep afloat (because politicians from the same body that lets the pork barrel routes through also insist that Amtrak be "self-supporting" as though it could be run efficiently while political decisions muck with its business process) so it can't compete, price-wise, with airlines. To put this in context, keep in mind that planes get a lot of federal subsidies too (I think the only ones that are actually self-supporting these days are JetBlue and Southwest, though that could be a bit out of date) -- so it's not even a "glory of private airline enterprise" situation, especially when you consider the things we do to provide cheap air travel: political decisions to provide fuel (I don't even mean Iraq, there's a lot of government money that goes into geological exploration & finding oil reserves), the existence of the Air Traffic Controllers, staff to secure the Fatherland by having dogs sniff my underwear, etc.
Also, for a really long haul (like, coast-to-coast) air travel is going to be faster. For travelling to Chicago or along a sea-board, it would be pretty close, because you'd save a lot of time not having to go to and check into the airport (esp. when you consider trains can't be hijacked, plot arrangements for a Speed III notwithstanding). Plus the convenience factor!
Personally, living in NY, I'd be much more inclined to visit Philly or Boston if I knew I could get there in 45 minutes going public transit all the way. Price is a consideration (vs. the Chinatown bus or something) but if you cut out the cab/shuttle/bus fare needed to get to the airport...
Re:Transrapid technology (Score:3, Interesting)
I've taken the TGV as well as the Japanese Shinkansen and found both to be about the same in comfort and convenience. (In fact, I'm taking the Shinkansen Saturday morning up to Nagano for some skiing. It seemed weird to take a train to the slopes at first, but it's so convenient that now it would seem really odd to drive there.)
Switching either to maglev would seem a bit pointless. Both seem to work quite well.
As an interesting aside, the train to Narita, (which isn't a bullet train,) *could* make the trip in quite a bit less time than it takes, but they run it slower, as to not put the airport busses and taxis out of business. (Or so I've been told.)
Re:PDA/Disks/MP3-players at risk? (Score:2, Interesting)
"And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. When this was mentioned by researchers at a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, many newspapers carried the story. "
from
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29