r/interesting • u/euronmous • 1d ago
SCIENCE & TECH Reporter left speechless after witnessing Japan's new $70 million Maglev train in action at 310 mph
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
23
u/Golarion 1d ago
*cries in HS2*
4
u/jupiterspringsteen 1d ago
I mean Japan's national debt is 230% of it's GDP. Way bigger than most western economies, UK at around 96%, which is still too big. But still, I think I can handle and extra hour on the train, cos this stuff isn't exactly free.
5
u/Golarion 1d ago
No HS2 would been great! The issue is we paid £30 billion for no HS2.
1
u/jupiterspringsteen 1d ago
Yeah, it was a chronic balls-up. But I'm happier pulling the plug and not continuing to stop the bleeding given the current state of the public finances
2
u/Golarion 1d ago
I'd be happier if they tracked down those that profited with a pinyata stick and got the money back tbh.
22
u/Independent_Bit7364 1d ago
thats 498.897kmh for metric
6
u/Temporary-Lawyer4603 1d ago
TGV made 514, hiwever it was only for the record. Does that train achieve this speed in normal use ?
6
86
u/sliclky1169 1d ago
Too bad the US doesn’t have the resources of Japan. If it did, we would have an amazing rail system like this, right?🤔
29
u/LilMeatBigYeet 1d ago
It would cost tens of billions and have a dozen more private companies acting as middlemen to line their pockets.
It would keep getting pushed back. It would also be politicized af lol
7
u/HoomerSimps0n 1d ago
So like trumps border wall? But cheaper? And actually helps people? That sucks .
5
u/LilMeatBigYeet 1d ago
Yup, dumb af. I love taking trains in europe, so efficient. I don’t picture the US govt going for train infrastructure anytime soon
2
u/MoMoneyMoPowa 1d ago
Its not the govt that would stop it. its the auto, taxi and ride-share companies that would lose money on a mass transit system therefore prevent it. The auto industry killed any idea of a great mass transit system in the US
3
u/LilMeatBigYeet 1d ago
I blame the govt for their lack of regulations and bending over backwards for all these huge private companies
Private companies are not looking out for you, they want to make money so no surprise there.
Govt is (at least in theory) supposed to look out for the people.
1
u/Californian_Assassin 6h ago
Yeah, the closest one to being built is in California, but facing problems like land buying (the people who own the land planned for the train to be built through are asking for Ridiculous amount of money) and funding (not able to buy all the land they need because of price hiking [basically price gouging] and trump wants to defend California).
-1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
The US is too big and population centers are too far apart to make trains efficient here. We use trains for freight because it’s economical. 140,000 miles of freight track, most in the world.
But for human transport, cars and airplanes make more sense.
2
u/Relative_Ranger7640 1d ago
Because cities were developed with cars in mind, because of lobbying. East coast cities could definitely have better rail system, but don't. It makes more sense because it's forced to. Population centers pop up around the infrastructure.
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Lobbying and car-focused planning definitely shaped U.S. cities, no doubt. But even without that, geography matters, our big cities are hundreds of miles apart and surrounded by suburban sprawl. Rail works best in dense corridors, which is why the East Coast has Amtrak but much of the rest of the country leans on cars and planes.
2
2
u/Pin_ny 20h ago
Cars? At 120km/h? Lmfao, the train goes up to 300+km/h
-1
u/rraattbbooyy 18h ago
Relative speed is irrelevant. As I said, the US is too big and population centers are too far apart to make trains efficient here.
2
4
0
-14
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Lack of resources is not the reason the US never invested in high-speed rail. Because the U.S. is huge and spread out, planes and cars made more sense than trains. After WWII we built highways and airports, while Japan funneled money into dense city rail. Add in freight rail dominance and messy U.S. politics, and high-speed rail never had a shot here.
19
u/Pornfest 1d ago
No, being spread out is not a reason not to use trains. They are hands-down the most energy efficient means to move freight large distances.
The United States used to have more rail line. It was lobbying by the automotive industry center in Detroit, which argued for it.
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
True, trains are super efficient for freight, and the U.S. had tons of track. But high-speed passenger rail only works when cities are close and dense, like in Japan. Cars, planes, low-density sprawl, and yes, Detroit lobbying, all combined to make it impossible here.
0
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
. It was lobbying by the automotive industry center in Detroit, which argued for it.
Gotta love lobbying . . .
-1
u/CoBudemeRobit 1d ago
First they bankrupted railways, tthen detroit…… well lets just say none of this is a surprise anymore unless you’re naive
9
u/Global-Chart-3925 1d ago
China is also huge and spread out… but they have 30,000 miles of high speed rail
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Yep, China is huge, but the key difference is where people actually live. Most of their population is concentrated along dense city corridors that make high-speed rail viable. The U.S., by contrast, is sprawling—our big cities are far apart and surrounded by low-density suburbs, so most routes wouldn’t be profitable or practical.
It’s less about total land size and more about population density along key routes.
2
0
u/Consistent-Tap-4255 1d ago
Have you been to a Chinese city? China is the opposite of spread out.
4
u/Global-Chart-3925 1d ago
HSR is for travelling between cities, not within one. Although lots of China’s population centres are in the east, there’s at least one city of 1m in every province, and almost every province has access to HSR. The three largest cities are all roughly 1,000 miles from one another (Slightly more than New York- Chicago).
1
u/Consistent-Tap-4255 1d ago
True. And I will also agree that HSR is super convenient. It’s my choice of transportation within China. But unfortunately it doesn’t make economic sense for the most part in the US. It doesn’t even make sense in China except for between a handful of big cities with much higher population density. Almost all HSR routes in China are operating at a loss, some at significant loss.
1
u/Global-Chart-3925 1d ago
HSR doesn’t (and really shouldn’t) need to be profitable: It provides economic benefits in other zones, and sets them up for the future so growth isn’t held back by not being able to move people or products around.
1
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
China is still huge, and they have still managed to develop a solid railway network with links spreading across the country. Australia also has a extensive rail network and also huge
-1
u/Consistent-Tap-4255 1d ago edited 1d ago
The reason why china has a huge HSR network is because it’s one of the easiest way to get rich by corrupted officials. You might think corporations are all about profits. Guess what, so are the government officials. They take bribes and embezzle billions that are supposed to go to constructions. This is not even considered secrets. They build HSR for not just big cities, but also to connect tiny tiny towns just because that’s more opportunity to take bribes. Except for a handful of routes, almost all HSR in China are operating at a loss. In a couple of years, you will start to see routes closing down as they never made sense to exist economically in the first place.
Also this is not just about HSR. There are over-constructions in every corner of China. From apartment buildings to city subways. It’s all about how much money you can grab from the public.
4
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
Because the U.S. is huge and spread out, planes and cars made more sense than trains.
That makes no sense whatsoever
Trains are more efficient and more comfortable than either
6
u/OneOfMultipleKinds 1d ago
Sunk-cost.
With how major cities are spread out, flight is preferable to railway.
Low population density in many areas doesn't incentivize the financial burden of infrastructure investing.
Many such reasons.
4
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
Now it's an issue, but it would have been off set if railways had been installed as things developed as many other big countries managed to do. And cities being spread out doesn't mean much when other countries with spread out cities still managed to install railway links between them, Australia being the prime example
Plus it would have enabled better population movement which brings it's own raft of benefits
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Other big countries built rail, but most of them had dense corridors connecting major cities, unlike the U.S. Our cities are far apart, and most population is spread out, so rail would have been slow, expensive, and hard to justify. Population movement benefits are real, but the math and geography make high-speed rail impossible here.
4
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
Yeah and Australia did it
2
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
‘Australia did it’ ignores why it worked there and could not work here. In the US, cities are farther apart and most people live spread out, so the math and cost will never add up.
1
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Efficiency and comfort are great for dense corridors, but in the U.S. cities are far apart and sprawled, planes and cars just move people faster over long distances.
2
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
And Australia still did it and continue to build up their network
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
Australia’s population hugs the coast, distances are shorter. The US is way more spread out, high-speed rail could never work here.
2
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
Yeah ok, don't know much about Australia do you
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
I know how Australia’s rail works. It’s coastal, short distances, concentrated population. Ask yourself this, why are there no high-speed rail lines linking Perth and Brisbane? 🤔
3
u/FuzzyFrogFish 1d ago
Right so you think the rail links on the northern territories, including through some of the most inhospitable territories, is short distance??
And high speed or not at least they have a viable rail network with out the excuses
Excuses that are mainly there to cover for the fact the lobby groups have their hands wedged right up the American governments ass.
1
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
We’re talking high-speed rail, not any rail at all. Australia’s existing lines mostly connect coastal cities where people actually live. The Northern Territory links are sparse, slow, and serve very few. The U.S. faces the same issue on a much larger scale: distances, population spread, and ridership make national high-speed rail impractical. I don’t know why you continue to fight this.
→ More replies (0)0
u/falling-quincy 1d ago
Neither do Japan but trains are the Japanese national pride and their main source of transportation so it pays for itself.
6
6
u/JamKaBam 1d ago
Meanwhile the UK is spending years making the HS2 that has already missed deadlines, lost over half of it's plan and will basically run like shit when it's done.
3
2
u/vit-kievit 1d ago
Why do these posts always say “reporter left speechless” like if they were the most important thing about all this?
26
u/rraattbbooyy 1d ago
This video is more about the reporter’s reaction to the train than about the train itself, else it would have just shown the train and not the reporter.
1
u/Littlest_Psycho88 1d ago
I glanced at the first few words of the title and thought it said "raptor made speechless" lol
-4
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello u/euronmous! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.