The article mentions "designed top speed of 600 km per hour". But then a bit further it mentions "Now the prototype has achieved <i>static</i> 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.<p>Don't get me wrong, I still find this project impressive.<p>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.<p>Perhaps they simply haven't gotten to the testing/benchmark phase yet.
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.<p>It makes me wonder why not get rid of them all together and make the cabin like a tank. To get some sunlight perhaps?
Naive, irrelevant question. Is kph the correct way to signal "kilometers per hour" in English?<p>I think I have seen this before in videogames maybe. Is it an US-only thing?
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...
So i've been following this and feel unsatisfied with the "buzz" about it. Let me explain why:<p>The best Pictures can be seen here<p><a href="http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/23/c_138082738.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/23/c_138082738.htm</a><p>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?<p>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<p><a href="https://binged.it/2M6k70R" rel="nofollow">https://binged.it/2M6k70R</a><p>nor<p><a href="https://goo.gl/maps/h687Cptq2U4kH2Pm9" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/maps/h687Cptq2U4kH2Pm9</a><p>show any signs of testing track at the factory, or its surroundings.<p>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.<p>Btw.: Anybody remembering<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Elevated_Bus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Elevated_Bus</a> ?<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPPXB7gqYU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPPXB7gqYU</a><p>( first 12 seconds only ^v^ )
Just 3 km/h less than Japan’s current prototype (but approaching production) system: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0_Series" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0_Series</a>
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)
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.
Interesting that this was just on HN a few days ago: "What Happened to Hovertrains? (2018)" <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944382" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944382</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>- Seattle to Portland: 280 kilometers<p>- Seattle to Spokane: 449 kilometers<p>- Seattle to Fargo: 2296 kilometers<p>- Seattle to Minneapolis: 2666 kilometers<p>- Seattle to Chicago: 3322 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Los Angeles: 617 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to San Diego: 807 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Ensenada, Baja California: 937 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur: 2456 Baja California Sur (from San Diego: 1654 kilometers)<p>- San Francisco to Reno: 352 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Sacramento: 141 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Salt Lake City: 1184 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Chicago: 3426 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Portland: 1022 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Seattle: 1300 kilometers<p>- San Francisco to Vancouver, British Columbia: 1529 kilometers<p>- Los Angeles to Las Vegas: 435 kilometers<p>- Los Angeles to Phoenix: 600 Kilometers<p>- Los Angeles to Salt Lake City: 1108 kilometers<p>- Los Angeles to Denver: 1635 kilometers<p>- Los Angeles to Chicago: 3244 kilometers<p>- San Diego to Mexicali: 198 kilometers<p>- San Diego to Tucson: 655 kilometers<p>- San Diego to El Paso: 1165 kilometers<p>- San Diego to Houston: 2366 kilometers<p>- San Diego to New Orleans: 2922 kilometers<p>- Dallas to Corpus Christi: 662 kilometers<p>- Houston to Austin: 266 kilometers<p>- Houston to San Antonio: 317 kilometers<p>- Houston to El Paso: 1199 kilometers<p>- Houston to Dallas: 385 kilometers<p>- Houston to Corpus Christi: 334 kilometers<p>- Houston to New Orleans: 560 kilometers<p>- Houston to Tallahassee: 1141 kilometers<p>- Houston to Miami: 1911 kilometers<p>- Houston to Denver: 1656 kilometers<p>- Houston to Oklahoma City: 716 kilometers<p>- Houston to Kansas City: 1198 kilometers<p>- Houston to St. Louis: 1253 kilometers<p>- (Trans-Missouri Express! Kansas City to St. Louis: 399 kilometers)<p>- Houston to Chicago: 1741 kilometers<p>- Houston to Nashville: 1253 kilometers<p>- Houston to Atlanta: 1276 kilometers<p>- Houston to Charleston: 1756 kilometers<p>- Houston to Charlotte: 1668 kilometers<p>- Houston to Washington: 2270 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Winnipeg: 1392 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Saskatoon: 2109 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Edmonton: 2633 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Calgary: 2570 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Milwaukee: 148 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Minneapolis: 657 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Des Moines: 537 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Lincoln: 841 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Denver: 1617 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Kansas City: 820 kilometers<p>- Chicago to St. Louis: 503 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Memphis: 850 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Indianapolis: 292 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Nashville: 757 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Louisville: 476 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Washington: 1124 Kilometers<p>- Chicago to Philadelphia: 1221 kilometers<p>- Chicago to New York: 1270 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Detroit: 453 kilometers<p>- Chicago to London, Ontario: 648 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Toronto: 835 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Ottawa: 1271 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Montreal: 1363 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Boston: 1581 kilometers<p>- Chicago to Portland, Maine: 1740 kilometers<p>- Boston to Portland, Maine: 180 kilometers<p>- Boston to New York: 353 kilometers<p>- New York to Albany: 249 kilometers<p>- New York to Syracuse: 397 kilometers<p>- New York to Montreal: 596 kilometers<p>- New York to Montauk: 190 kilometers<p>- New York to New Haven: 130 kilometers<p>- New York to Buffalo: 600 kilometers<p>- New York to Philadelphia: 151 kilometers<p>- New York to Washington: 364 kilometers<p>- New York to Raleigh: 811 kilometers<p>- New York to Charleston: 1219 kilometers<p>- New York to Atlanta: 1390 kilometers<p>- New York to Miami: 2059 kilometers<p>- Miami to Orlando: 380 kilometers<p>- Miami to Jacksonville: 558 kilometers<p>- Miami to Savannah: 783 kilometers<p>- Miami to Tampa: 454 kilometers<p>- Miami to Tallahassee: 777 kilometers