SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Deutsche Bahn (DB) and Siemens Mobility have managed to get an ICE test train to 405 km/h (251 mph) on the Erfurt-Leipzig/Halle high-speed line.
While China, with a maglev train hitting 650 km/h (404 mph) in just seven seconds, might regard the achievement as cute, it is a milestone for Germany, where exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph) on the rail network is rare.
The UK had its own attempt at going beyond traditional rail in the 1960s and the early 1970s with the Hovertrain, but the project was cancelled in 1973.
France pushed a steel-wheeled TGV to a record 574.8 km/h (357 mph) in 2007, yet the German achievement will inject a dose of pride into the country's beleaguered network, once an icon of efficiency.
According to a report in the UK's Financial Times, Deutsche Bahn delivers "one of the least reliable services in central Europe," even when compared to the UK's rail system, which is hardly a performance benchmark.
The test ran on a high-speed line that had been in continuous operation for ten years. According to Dr Philipp Nagl, CEO of DB InfraGO AG, no adjustments were needed.
"It is confirmation that infrastructure investments are the foundation for reliable, sustainable, and efficient mobility and logistics over generations," he said.
[...] Thomas Graetz, Vice President High Speed and Intercity Trains, Siemens Mobility, said: "Our goal was to gain in-depth insights into acoustics, aerodynamics, and driving behavior at extreme speeds." Mission accomplished – though what counts as "extreme speeds" seems to vary by country.
Trains on the UK's HS2 railway (whenever it finally opens) are expected to reach speeds of 360 km/h.
An insight into the technology behind Germany's rail network came last year, with an advertisement for an IT professional willing to endure Windows 3.11.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Rich on Thursday July 03, @01:59PM (10 children)
Did the air conditioning work during the record run? (Note: air conditioning on some ICE trains is prone to fail when it's needed most, because it then would operate outside the specified required parameters, and some dumbnuts did not specify "hot weather" as required parameter. I won't wager against the aircon limit also being below 300 km/h.)
That said, they can run, if they're let loose. I was on an ICE about two years ago, and the usual variety of issues accumulated delays approaching one hour. The Bahn's solution to that is to cut off the travel entirely, because it then can be counted as "extraordinary termination" which (probably) counts towards subsidy money, rather than being counted in the dreaded "long distance train over an hour delayed" category which causes disgraceful face loss and (probably) cuts into the manager bonuses. So this train bound for Munich announced it would end at Nuremberg. Which must have gone against the pride of the train driver, who let it run free after the announcement. The speed indicator for the passengers maxed out at 299 km/h, but I could swear this was display-limited, because it steadily kept climbing and suddenly stopped at 299, while the sound and feel of the acceleration went on for a while. Apparently as a result of that run, the premature termination was called off, and the train arrived in Munich with 59 minutes of delay.
I suspect the only sustainable solution might be a serious look to Japan, and having a washizaki ready for everyone over 250k€ pay if less than 95% of trains are within one minute of the schedule after they've been given 4 years to fix it.
ps Google search sum-up AI is completely braindead on the topic with a related search: "shinkansen speed" -> "Die Höchstgeschwindigkeit ist auf 120 km/h begrenzt." ("The maximum speed is limited to 120 km/h.")
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 03, @03:28PM (5 children)
>I could swear this was display-limited, because it steadily kept climbing and suddenly stopped at 299
Most phones these days can install a GPS based speedometer app in a matter of seconds...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 03, @03:35PM (1 child)
Years ago, I used to routinely use a GPS app when flying. I could see the speed of the aircraft as it taxied to the runway. I could see the speed increase during the takeoff run, and I could see that we always left the ground at 153 mph -- exactly as the pilot would sometimes announce prior to takeoff.
On one flight I could observe that we were going just a wee bit over 600 mph. I think making up for lost time due to brief takeoff delay.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday July 03, @04:12PM
Tail winds. On a pretty regular basis when GPS was "new and cool" there were infinite reports in the news of transatlantic planes well exceeding 800 MPH. I don't recall ever seeing an article in normie media or in aviation magazines ever reporting over 900 MPH (at least for subsonic passenger planes). Over 800 is not unusual but noteworthy.
Its still flying subsonic relative to the air whooshing east at WAY far over 100 MPH, faster than F1 race car speeds are not unheard of.
Note the speed of sound depends on air pressure so its not terribly relevant that the speed of sound is 767 mph on the ground. If you need a mnemonic for the speed of sound there's a pretty famous aircraft model "767" which coincidentally is the speed of sound in freedom units at standard atmosphere (on the ground and nothing weird). Speed of sound is "like a hundred mph slower" at 35K feet cruising very handwavy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rich on Thursday July 03, @05:28PM (2 children)
I had that as an afterthought, but one doesn't really consider it when thinking about what to do when ending up in Nuremberg at 11, while being expected in Munich at 10.
By the way, on the return journey to Frankfurt, there was a diversion where the Bahn suggested everyone getting stranded in Mannheim. As pleasant. I figured out that the diversion would go through Frankfurt Airport which has local public rail connection, so that leg could be completed with only an hour of delay, too.
I also didn't mention I froze stiff at 4am during winter on the first leg on a train switch, because the bloody ICE already was late. It's that experience that makes me think that a threat of public naked impalement by Romanian experts is the right motivation for the lard asses in management, and the offer for them to save grace from that with the wakizashi already is a really generous concession and only made to infuse a little Japanese (rail) culture.
It's all a matter of organization. I don't mind if the train takes longer because they have to fix the run down infrastructure (as was the case with the Mannheim-Frankfurt connection at that time) or they have important freight trains rolling on shared rail - but they've got to organize their schedule around that and then stick to it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 03, @06:12PM (1 child)
I had quite the adventure getting from Nuremberg to Rotenberg ob der Tauber back in '89. I suspect that's still not a journey to make if you're in a hurry, or even on a schedule.
> I froze stiff at 4am during winter on the first leg on a train switch
Now you're reminding me of the all-nighter I spent in Berlin the following summer because the trains to Potsdam (where my room was) had stopped running - they were nice enough to keep the Metro running all night for the 300k + concert goers such as myself, but after all the bars shut down on Ku'damm it got kinda tedious roaming around the sleeping city, so I finally settled at the platform where my train would leave for Potsdam I think at 6:30am, but I got there more like 5. Anyway, I huddled on the little bench inside the plexiglass wind-screen box and shivered until the train arrived - it was remarkably chilly for a July morning.
> they've got to organize their schedule around that and then stick to it.
What happened to the old joke about Germany is where the trains run on time? Or was that Switzerland? Anyway, I suspect reunification didn't help their punctuality.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rich on Thursday July 03, @06:59PM
In Germany, it's a mess. According to the official report, for April and May 2025, 61.9/62.0% of all long-distance trains arrived within 6 minutes of schedule. Worst recent month was June 2024 with an amazing 52.4%. It's been going downhill since rail privatization and/or reunification. Before, in West Germany, it was pretty much clockwork precision, and I'd guess the East Germans were as good, though with rather vintage vibes.
So that must be Switzerland, their trains run slow but steady. Japan remains the reference. Although I just looked up some samples of information about China, and their rail seems to be very punctual, too, with the fastest high speed trains running at 350 km/h.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday July 03, @04:26PM (3 children)
Amtrak does about 75% within 10 minutes of scheduled time on short runs without even trying on shared tracks, so your proposal seems very pessimistic. Amtraks own metrics claim they're to blame for delays only about 1/5th of the time, so it's very plausible that if Amtrak had dedicated unshared tracks and unshared stations, they could do 95% today without changing absolutely anything except "within 10 minutes" instead of "within 1 minute". I don't think 9 minutes will change all THAT much in the results.
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel/chapter3/table3-8 [bts.gov]
https://www.bts.gov/content/amtrak-time-performance-trends-and-hours-delay-cause [bts.gov]
People constantly insist the solution to passenger rail in the USA is magic faster trains, but the real solution would seem to be dedicated rail. The easiest way to build "high speed passenger rail" is just to slap down a regular track and ban freight from it LOL. A magic faster train that could run at 200 mph will have to sit there motionless and idling while a 10 mph mega coal train waddles by, just as long as Amtrak's existing 100 mph trains, and you don't have to pay extra for the older simpler 100 mph trains that rarely get to run at 100 mph anyway. The other problems are they don't go anywhere anyone wants to go, and they don't run often enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03, @05:36PM
"The food there is horrible, and the portions are so small"
(Score: 3, Informative) by day of the dalek on Friday July 04, @10:17PM (1 child)
The issue is that American railroad lines mostly aren't designed for high speeds. For example, there are a lot of at-grade crossings that would be even more dangerous with high speed trains. There are also issues with things like track quality [wikipedia.org] and curves that are designed for higher speeds. Even in the absence of freight traffic, it just isn't safe for passenger trains to operate at higher speeds on those tracks. Because freight traffic generally doesn't need higher speeds, track owners like UP, BNSF, and CSX don't really benefit much from upgrading their tracks. If something needs to be shipped faster, then air shipping is used instead of ground shipping.
For safety reasons, a lot of main lines are limited to around 60 mph for freight and 79 mph for passenger trains. Or there's the Marceline subdivision in the central US where freight is restricted to 55 mph but passenger traffic (Amtrak's Southwest Chief) is permitted to operate at 90 mph. There are also segments of track with lower speed restrictions for various reasons. The railroads publish these in timetables like this old timetable for BNSF's Chicago division [multimodalways.org].
Railroads certainly can and do prioritize traffic classes. BNSF uses letters to designate different classes of traffic. I don't know what all of them are, but some of them are discussed here [trainorders.com], and I know that Z-trains have the highest priority for freight classes. That means that trains in other classes will be directed to allow Z-trains to pass. Amtrak is supposed to have top priority, but part of the issue is actually enforcing this against railroads when there are freight-related delays. Railroads can and do prioritize certain types of traffic, and trains like BNSF's Z-trains get top priority for freight that's somewhat time-sensitive, whereas a commodity like coal or grain probably has a lower priority and doesn't need to be on a Z-train. A Z-train tends to be relatively short, perhaps around 80 cars, generally has a load of shipping containers, and will often be led by several locomotives (like this train [youtube.com], which is going somewhat slowly here because of the grade it's climbing) if it's going to climb any significant grades. You just don't need that if you're just moving a lot of coal around in open hoppers, for example.
I'm less familiar with other railroads, but I assume that they have similar practices, even if they don't use designations like Z-trains. Sure, freight trains could move aside to allow Amtrak to pass whether the Amtrak's speed is 79 mph, 90 mph, or 150 mph. The issue is that freight railroads don't really have anything to gain from upgrading their tracks to allow for higher speed operation. It probably doesn't benefit BNSF much if their Z-trains can do 100 mph instead of 60 mph, but they have to spend huge amounts of money removing at-grade crossings and installing new rail to make it happen.
Most railroad lines are optimized for freight, which just doesn't benefit much from higher speeds.
Reform the judiciary to stop tyranny [demandjustice.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Saturday July 05, @01:43PM
I don't disagree with any of your post and AFAIK its all factually accurate enough, but I'd have to reiterate the "real" problem is not 60 vs 79 MPH but Amtraks own data shows the reason most of their trains are late is due to going 0 MPH on a siding while a miles long coal train trots past at 10 mph. It doesn't matter if the track can handle 79 or 140 mph or if the train engine can go 100 or 200 mph (in theory) if 20% of the time the train is parked on a siding at 0 mph.