Also even 300 kph is the exception rather than the rule. Most high speed trains are a lot slower than that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-fastest-trains-in-the-world-2012-11?op=1
Topic: China tests 3,000-kph ‘super-Maglev’ train concept - page 2. (Read 2422 times)
How fast are high-speed rail lines though?
Normal High-speed trains in China are having maximum speeds of 300 kmph to 350 kmph. For example, for travelling from Shanghai to Beijing (1,320 km), you will have to spend 4 hours 55 mins in a High Speed Train.
It would be awesome for trains like that to connect every country. I could go to Greece from the US in about 3 hours. Even if it went through Russia it would still be faster than the airplane. It's also insanely fuel efficient in comparison, and safer.
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/ny-to-la-in-45-minutes-teslas-elon-musk-has-a-plan
This idea has been theorized in the United States for several years. Although I think the Chinese will be the first ones to implement this new technology.
This idea has been theorized in the United States for several years. Although I think the Chinese will be the first ones to implement this new technology.
wtf??? looks dangerous its like a mini toy train.
I'm not sure that picture is going to be it lol.
wtf??? looks dangerous its like a mini toy train.
I agree. I'd likeo travel on it if it's proved safe though.
The chances of dying in a High-speed rail accident, is much lower when compared to that of traveling in a normal car. Millions of people commute on High-speed rail every day. And how many accidents do we get to hear?
How fast are high-speed rail lines though?
Exciting but very dangerous....
This does look dangerously exciting. I'm all for faster mediums of transportation as long as theyre obviously safe. Its a shame we'll never see a mode of transport in our lifetime that would easily let us whizz to anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. So much out there to see and unless you're rich and have a lot of free time its unlikely you'll ever get to see even a small percentage of it.
These trains will probably have swivelling seats. You face forward while accelerating, then the seats rotate and you face backwards while decelerating.
I agree. I'd likeo travel on it if it's proved safe though.
The chances of dying in a High-speed rail accident, is much lower when compared to that of traveling in a normal car. Millions of people commute on High-speed rail every day. And how many accidents do we get to hear?
Well 1G = 1 earth gravity = 9.8 m/s2. Velocity increases by 9.8 m/s every second. Doing some math and that works out to 35 kph /s. So if the train accelerated at a sustained 1G it would go from 0 kph to 3,000 kph in 85 seconds (and take 35 km to get to that speed) but the train probably has much lower acceleration something on the order of 0.1G to 0.3G (similar to existing trains) so it will take many minutes (and hundred or more km) to get to top speed.*
So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
* Now this is a simplistic example in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance so it takes more energy just to keep the train moving at the same speed, that means less energy available for acceleration and thus acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still this gets us within a ballpark.
You're right, this wouldn't be that useful on shorter distances. But if you had to travel let's say a few thousands kilometers with only a few stops, this would be great. I wonder what chances one has for survival if the train crashes at maximum speed. None? So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
* Now this is a simplistic example in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance so it takes more energy just to keep the train moving at the same speed, that means less energy available for acceleration and thus acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still this gets us within a ballpark.
Absolute zero. I imagine theyd be completely obliterated instantly.
You're right, this wouldn't be that useful on shorter distances. But if you had to travel let's say a few thousands kilometers with only a few stops, this would be great. I wonder what chances one has for survival if the train crashes at maximum speed. None?
At max speed yeah it would be none (or survival would be unrealistic = "miracle"). Even airliners, the only crashes which have a chance of survivors is ones where the conditions allow the pilot to slow the plane down enough that impact speed is "low" (<100 kph). I am no Dorian, but my understanding is these types routes are dedicated (no crossings with roads) and maglev makes derailment less likely. I doubt the risk of death is any higher than flying. Also I don't think the speed makes is more dangerous. Even in cars (seat belts, airbags, crash cages, etc) a head on collision at 100 kph is generally fatal. So 1,000 kph vs 3,000 kph it probably doesn't matter.
Well 1G = 1 earth gravity = 9.8 m/s2. Velocity increases by 9.8 m/s every second. Doing some math and that works out to 35 kph /s. So if the train accelerated at a sustained 1G it would go from 0 kph to 3,000 kph in 85 seconds (and take 35 km to get to that speed) but the train probably has much lower acceleration something on the order of 0.1G to 0.3G (similar to existing trains) so it will take many minutes (and hundred or more km) to get to top speed.*
So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
* Now this is a simplistic example in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance so it takes more energy just to keep the train moving at the same speed, that means less energy available for acceleration and thus acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still this gets us within a ballpark.
You're right, this wouldn't be that useful on shorter distances. But if you had to travel let's say a few thousands kilometers with only a few stops, this would be great. I wonder what chances one has for survival if the train crashes at maximum speed. None? So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
* Now this is a simplistic example in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance so it takes more energy just to keep the train moving at the same speed, that means less energy available for acceleration and thus acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still this gets us within a ballpark.
Be funny if they accidentally created a time machine. How fast do you actually need to go to travel in time? lol.
I agree. I'd likeo travel on it if it's proved safe though.
Exciting but very dangerous....
Well 1G = 1 earth gravity = 9.8 m/s2. Velocity increases by 9.8 m/s every second. Doing some math and that works out to 35 kph /s. So if the train accelerated at a sustained 1G it would go from 0 kph to 3,000 kph in 85 seconds (and take 35 km to get to that speed) but the train probably has much lower acceleration something on the order of 0.1G to 0.3G (similar to existing trains) so it will take many minutes (and hundred or more km) to get to top speed.*
So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
If you were asking what can humans handle, well a lot more but it won't be comfortable so regs and common sense limit g forces to lower limits. For:
Space Shuttle during launch and re-entry: ~3g
Formula One race car during breaking or cornering: ~9g peak
Apollo module during re-entry: ~9g
F22 (high performance air domination fighter): ~12g peak (for 30-40 seconds)
Skydiving (at moment of chute opening): ~20g
* This example is simplistic as it assumes constant acceleration but in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance. This means more and more energy is needed to keep the train from slowing down, leaving less energy available for acceleration. In reality acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still the point isn't to be super accurate but to get it to within a ballpark of what is can do.
So if we assume it did accelerate at 0.3G it would take about 5 minutes (and 120km) to go from zero to 3,000 kph. If the distance between stops was 240km the train would only reach top speeds for a second and then have to start accelerating back down to zero. So higher speeds become more useful on routes which have fewer stops with more distance between them. If the distance between two stops was less than 240km then the train would either need to accelerate harder or would reach a lower peak speed between stops. Still very cool technology if they can pull it off.
If you were asking what can humans handle, well a lot more but it won't be comfortable so regs and common sense limit g forces to lower limits. For:
Space Shuttle during launch and re-entry: ~3g
Formula One race car during breaking or cornering: ~9g peak
Apollo module during re-entry: ~9g
F22 (high performance air domination fighter): ~12g peak (for 30-40 seconds)
Skydiving (at moment of chute opening): ~20g
* This example is simplistic as it assumes constant acceleration but in reality as the train goes faster it encounters more wind resistance. This means more and more energy is needed to keep the train from slowing down, leaving less energy available for acceleration. In reality acceleration slows as the speed increases. Still the point isn't to be super accurate but to get it to within a ballpark of what is can do.
Heard that they will first introduce this train along the Shanghai-Beijing route. Right now the normal high speed train takes around 5 hours to cover the 1,300 km+ distance. The new train might be able to complete the journey in less than 1 hour. 
What about the G force when travelling at 3000 kph? This is insane and yet amazing. I hate when I have to sit in a train/bus for hours just to get somewhere and then go back home. So much time is being wasted like that.
G force is based on acceleration not speed. You can go 1 million miles per hour and be under zero Gs.
So a train (would have to limit its acceleration) and that means 3,000 kph is only useful for long stretches where it has plenty of time to accelerate (safety) up to that speed. Commercial aviation (for example 747) is limited to 1.3G under normal conditions for safety.
What about the G force when travelling at 3000 kph? This is insane and yet amazing. I hate when I have to sit in a train/bus for hours just to get somewhere and then go back home. So much time is being wasted like that.
G force is based on acceleration not speed. You can go 1 million miles per hour and be under zero Gs.
So a train (would have to limit its acceleration) and that means 3,000 kph is only useful for long stretches where it has plenty of time to accelerate (safety) up to that speed. Commercial aviation (for example 747) is limited to 1.3G under normal conditions for safety.
This just seems dangerously fast.
Seems like an accident waiting to happen. There's no margin for error at that speed.
Jump to: