Japanese railway operator to license maglev tech to US for free(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
Japanese railway operator to license maglev tech to US for free
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Japanese-railway-operator-to-offer-maglev-tech-to-US-for-free
9 comments
Like many routes in the US/Canada the NYC<->Montreal one is shared with freight, and for a significant distance on it there's only one track. Since the freight lines own the track they take priority, so the passenger trains have to go slowly, and often give way.
That route, picturesque though it is, is also not remotely economically viable. The parts of New York state it connects to are very poor compared to the endpoints, and it just doesn't get enough passengers. New York subsidise it to provide those communities with some links. (A drive through more remote parts of NY can be really depressing, but the Adirondacks are amazing).
The simple reality is an improved normal speed train service wouldn't make a difference, but the cost to build high speed is ridiculous either because the distances are too large or you're in already built up areas.
That route, picturesque though it is, is also not remotely economically viable. The parts of New York state it connects to are very poor compared to the endpoints, and it just doesn't get enough passengers. New York subsidise it to provide those communities with some links. (A drive through more remote parts of NY can be really depressing, but the Adirondacks are amazing).
The simple reality is an improved normal speed train service wouldn't make a difference, but the cost to build high speed is ridiculous either because the distances are too large or you're in already built up areas.
I think the real problem is that Americans identify cars with freedom and rail with "socialism" or something. Throughout much of the U.S. there is a profound anti-public-transit sentiment. It's viewed as a waste of money, a boondoggle, etc.
That's because railways lines in the US are over 100 years old and France's TGV runs on dedicated tracks and right of ways.
Btw shootout to SB. I was born/grew up in Saarland too. Small world!
Yeah it's a small world indeed! Admittedly dedicated tracks are a great thing, but even in Germany where tracks are shared between local trains and ICEs the average travel speed is pretty decent.
Because Germany bothers to update tracks and DB uses those tracks usually for passenger trains. US tracks are rarely if ever updated and are mostly owned by freight companies. Many trains don't only go slow, but have to wait minutes, sometimes hours for permission to roll on such tracks while freight trains have priority.
> I think that the answer has more to do with political unwillingness and lobbying than with lack of technology
I think it is a bit less nefarious than that. The simple fact is that there is not a whole lot of demand for these services. The major corridors are covered just fine (planes, trains and automobiles) and building a high speed train wouldn't really offer too much benefit and the cost would be astronomical.
I think it is a bit less nefarious than that. The simple fact is that there is not a whole lot of demand for these services. The major corridors are covered just fine (planes, trains and automobiles) and building a high speed train wouldn't really offer too much benefit and the cost would be astronomical.
That's kind of hard to believe with the Montreal region having more than 4.5 million inhabitants and NY more than 10 million, surely some of them would like to take the train between the two cities once in a while.
I understand though that in the US planes and automobiles are considered viable alternatives to trains, especially considering the average distances between cities here, which tend to be much larger than in Europe.
I understand though that in the US planes and automobiles are considered viable alternatives to trains, especially considering the average distances between cities here, which tend to be much larger than in Europe.
high speed trains go between cities the wealthy want them to go between. They may want/need to work in one but prefer another to live in.
High speed trains don't solve the problem the average worker has and never will. They do not spend nearly the time traveling the "jet set" does. The type of trains they can benefit from, both light and heavy rail, are localized and definitely not sexy.
Besides, as technology ramps up the need to travel for business goes down, let alone automated automobiles, electrically powered, and solar charged, will about end the need for trains except for cargo. US uses trains more than most countries for moving cargo.
High speed trains don't solve the problem the average worker has and never will. They do not spend nearly the time traveling the "jet set" does. The type of trains they can benefit from, both light and heavy rail, are localized and definitely not sexy.
Besides, as technology ramps up the need to travel for business goes down, let alone automated automobiles, electrically powered, and solar charged, will about end the need for trains except for cargo. US uses trains more than most countries for moving cargo.
I really have to disagree when you say that high-speed trains are for the "jet set": There are countless people that need to commute between different cities for professional or private reasons, and most of them are from the middle-class and would definitely value and be ready to pay for speedy transportation. I agree that such a system would not be for the "average worker" though (whoever that is these days).
Slightly off-topic: I've noticed that public transport from city center to airport kind of suck in larger german cities.
In e.g. Berlin (for SXF at least), Frankfurt and Munich there's only the fantastically slow S-Bahn, with ride times around 40-60 minutes.
In e.g. Berlin (for SXF at least), Frankfurt and Munich there's only the fantastically slow S-Bahn, with ride times around 40-60 minutes.
Agreed, Frankfurt and Hamburg are pretty ok though. And in Berlin it's not only the transportation to the airport but the airport itself that sucks ;) *
*the announced opening date of the new airport has been delayed by several years to the point where it's questionable if it will ever open...
*the announced opening date of the new airport has been delayed by several years to the point where it's questionable if it will ever open...
Munich is ridiculous. Taking the S Bahn to the airport takes and hour and literally stops at tons with barely more than a handful of houses (where also no one seems to get on or off). Waste of time.
Why do you think "Hyperloop" is unrealistic?
Basically for two reasons:
-To my knowledge it's still a completely hypothetical technology without an existing proof-of-concept prototype, so it's unclear how fast it could be brought to maturity.
-Supposing it could be realized as planned it's still unlikely that the initial cost-effectiveness would be better than that of existing, alternative solutions such as the Maglev, Transrapid or even conventional bullet trains, which haven't yet reached their theoretical limitations in speed and efficiency.
An example: At an hypothetical average speed of 960 km/h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop), the Hyperloop could traverse the distance between LA and SF in about 30 mins. For comparison, the current speed record for a TGV is 560 km/h, which yields a theoretical travel time of slightly less than 1 hour for the same route. I think it's questionable whether the 30 minute gain in travel time would justify the large amount or R&D necessary to make the Hyperloop a reality, let alone make this a viable economic undertaking. Of course this doesn't mean that it's impossible (it is not), just that I think it won't become a reality in the near future (but then again, people tend to be horribly wrong when making predictions about this kind of stuff).
-To my knowledge it's still a completely hypothetical technology without an existing proof-of-concept prototype, so it's unclear how fast it could be brought to maturity.
-Supposing it could be realized as planned it's still unlikely that the initial cost-effectiveness would be better than that of existing, alternative solutions such as the Maglev, Transrapid or even conventional bullet trains, which haven't yet reached their theoretical limitations in speed and efficiency.
An example: At an hypothetical average speed of 960 km/h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop), the Hyperloop could traverse the distance between LA and SF in about 30 mins. For comparison, the current speed record for a TGV is 560 km/h, which yields a theoretical travel time of slightly less than 1 hour for the same route. I think it's questionable whether the 30 minute gain in travel time would justify the large amount or R&D necessary to make the Hyperloop a reality, let alone make this a viable economic undertaking. Of course this doesn't mean that it's impossible (it is not), just that I think it won't become a reality in the near future (but then again, people tend to be horribly wrong when making predictions about this kind of stuff).
When Musk unveiled Hyperloop, he used sleight of hand to make it look dramatically less expensive than the conventional rail system currently being built. Specifically, Hyperloop, as proposed, only runs within the central valley, from the northern side of the San Gabriel Mountains to the eastern side of the Diablo Range. San Francisco is on the western side of the Diablos and Los Angeles is on the southern side of the San Gabriels. It adds an one to two hours (on each end) to drive from the city center to the proposed hyperloop endpoint.
It should surprise no one that it is less expensive to build a track which avoids crossing two mountain ranges--yet Musk compared the cost of building a hyperloop in the central valley to that of a building a conventional train from LA to San Francisco. When you compare apples to apples (conventional vs. hyperloop in the central valley), conventional rail comes out much cheaper.
It should surprise no one that it is less expensive to build a track which avoids crossing two mountain ranges--yet Musk compared the cost of building a hyperloop in the central valley to that of a building a conventional train from LA to San Francisco. When you compare apples to apples (conventional vs. hyperloop in the central valley), conventional rail comes out much cheaper.
The technology has existed for so long but never really went anywhere. After half a century there are 30km in Shanghai, that’s all.
Maybe it will work out better in the future.
The biggest problem I see is that the gains of this technology would be rather small anywhere with conventional high-speed rail or existing infrastructure that can be upgraded to that. With Maglev everything needs to be built from scratch. That’s just not very attractive for any place that has consistently expanded its rail network ever since the height of the industrial revolution.
And for what? A 180km/h faster train? I personally very much want that, sure, but is it worth it for anyone building it? I’m pretty sure I know the answer in Western Europe (though I can always hope that maglev has a future there), I’m not so sure when it comes to the US.
Maybe it will work out better in the future.
The biggest problem I see is that the gains of this technology would be rather small anywhere with conventional high-speed rail or existing infrastructure that can be upgraded to that. With Maglev everything needs to be built from scratch. That’s just not very attractive for any place that has consistently expanded its rail network ever since the height of the industrial revolution.
And for what? A 180km/h faster train? I personally very much want that, sure, but is it worth it for anyone building it? I’m pretty sure I know the answer in Western Europe (though I can always hope that maglev has a future there), I’m not so sure when it comes to the US.
"And for what? A 180km/h faster train?"
Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet.
Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work. That means you could live in downtown Philly and work in Manhattan, 30 minutes away. The world becomes a lot smaller.
Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet.
Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work. That means you could live in downtown Philly and work in Manhattan, 30 minutes away. The world becomes a lot smaller.
> Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet.
Not really, because jets will go much more places that your single maglev line ever will. That's the problem with hi-tech trains. They are extremely costly to deploy in terms of infrastructure, they go over land that could be used for other purposes, and because of the large investment required they only go in very few places. Jets win everywhere else.
Not really, because jets will go much more places that your single maglev line ever will. That's the problem with hi-tech trains. They are extremely costly to deploy in terms of infrastructure, they go over land that could be used for other purposes, and because of the large investment required they only go in very few places. Jets win everywhere else.
"Jets win everywhere else."
Of course they don't. Getting to an airport 60-90 minutes before a flight that's only 60-90 minutes doesn't make much sense
Of course they don't. Getting to an airport 60-90 minutes before a flight that's only 60-90 minutes doesn't make much sense
This is true.
But the requirement to arrive 90 minutes before departure time is not a problem with the vehicle but the bureaucracy and security apparatus around it.
True Story: while I like to arrive well before a flight (just in case) when I was younger it was not unheard of to arrive at the airport _minutes_ before flight departure and simply stroll down the causeway, and onto the flight.
But the requirement to arrive 90 minutes before departure time is not a problem with the vehicle but the bureaucracy and security apparatus around it.
True Story: while I like to arrive well before a flight (just in case) when I was younger it was not unheard of to arrive at the airport _minutes_ before flight departure and simply stroll down the causeway, and onto the flight.
I could walk into the heathrow terminal for edinburgh plonk down my card buy a ticket walk into the lounge have a quick pint and be on a plane to ediburgh within 15/20 min
Of course Heathrow itself is an hour from almost everywhere in central London, and Edinburgh Airport is 30 mins by road from Princes Street, so your 20 mins just became two hours.
hmm used to be 30 mins in a taxi to haethrow and the train journy takes 5 hours.
And the british airways cream tea was amazing as it should be for >£200
And the british airways cream tea was amazing as it should be for >£200
Did you even read my comment ? Jets will go WHERE the maglev trains won't, even if it's not that far.
You are being a bit vague. If I want to travel 60 miles, I'm not going to get on a jet. Do I want to get on a jet to travel 200 miles? What exact use case are you trying to describe? Also consider, for example, that a 777 needs a big airport.
This reminds me how once several years ago I had to fly MKE -> ORD -> LHR where the distance between MKE and ORD is about 70 miles. The MKE -> ORD flight was full by the way and it took ridiculous 2 hours to get there (from boarding to leaving the plane). I think I did it because the direct flight was several hundred $ extra and I happened to be in MKE area anyway.
All these scenarios don't matter because wherever you are going most of the time you won't have anything BUT a jet and not a maglev train to bring you there (because it will only connect 2 cities to each other, and you'll never map out the whole territory with maglev train lines due to their prohibitive cost). Unless you want to take you car.
It seems to me that you would need to exercise a fair bit of eminent domain, and there you might find that the world is indeed smaller.
The article mentions Washington to Baltimore as the first segment to be built. The existing rail lines pass over a number of level crossings, and pass under some bridge spans that are fairly snug for the existing track. And the mile or two before you get to Baltimore's Penn Station are in tunnel. I doubt the tunnel has much width to spare--how much would it cost in 2014 to widen a couple of miles of tunnel under a densely built city?
The article mentions Washington to Baltimore as the first segment to be built. The existing rail lines pass over a number of level crossings, and pass under some bridge spans that are fairly snug for the existing track. And the mile or two before you get to Baltimore's Penn Station are in tunnel. I doubt the tunnel has much width to spare--how much would it cost in 2014 to widen a couple of miles of tunnel under a densely built city?
You could get a ballpark figure by looking at Crossrail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail
73 miles of track, 40 stations, 26 miles of tunnel under London. £16bn ($27bn-ish). So, for your project, I'd handwave at $1-5bn.
73 miles of track, 40 stations, 26 miles of tunnel under London. £16bn ($27bn-ish). So, for your project, I'd handwave at $1-5bn.
>Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work.
This is not a good thing.
This is not a good thing.
If the NEC could do 200MPH consistently Boston-NYC-DC ... that would be huge. Boston to NYC in 1 hour and Boston to DC in 2 hours would be amazing and would be far faster than airport or vehicle travel.
I ride the North East Corridor rails often and have clocked the Acela at 130 MPH via GPS going into Boston, and the Northeast Regional hits 115 MPH in spots from Eastern CT to NYC.
The route is just too winding for those speeds in so many places and you end up going 60MPH for much of the trip.
The best views going north are past the Connecticut river, rolling through Niantic, to New London and the small coastal villages like Mystic, and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side.
I love the train.
The route is just too winding for those speeds in so many places and you end up going 60MPH for much of the trip.
The best views going north are past the Connecticut river, rolling through Niantic, to New London and the small coastal villages like Mystic, and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side.
I love the train.
I've clocked Acela at just below 150mph on my GPS in between Providence and Boston. As I understand it, they would like to go faster in other sections, but the track / catenary isn't able to sustain that speed on most of the journey. Still way better than flying for BOS<->NYC or NYC<->WAS. It's a shame that the ticket prices are 2x what the regional is though.
Never heard about having dedicated rails. It would be nice, since the FRC requires any train that travels on track shared by freight to be basically built like a tank, which makes them much more expensive to make an operate.
Never heard about having dedicated rails. It would be nice, since the FRC requires any train that travels on track shared by freight to be basically built like a tank, which makes them much more expensive to make an operate.
Very sad since IIRC Acela was supposed to have its own high speed rail but runs on existing track due to budget
> and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side.
For anyone else interested, that's the Hell Gate Bridge[0]. It's odd, I'm in the generation that will always think of the Triborough as the Triborough, not the RFK, the same way others still think Interboro, not Jackie Robinson.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge
For anyone else interested, that's the Hell Gate Bridge[0]. It's odd, I'm in the generation that will always think of the Triborough as the Triborough, not the RFK, the same way others still think Interboro, not Jackie Robinson.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge
You don't need maglev for that, though, high-speed rail can reach those speeds.
And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.
And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.
High speed rail is often implemented using dedicated track wherever possible - either brand new or upgraded and restricted to other traffic types:
A closely sitting and smooth train wheel gets damaged pretty quickly traveling on track that is accustomed to freight traffic. That now-damaged wheel then goes on to damage the polished high speed track, which then further damages other trains' wheels in a vicious circle.
China's new high speed train network, for example, is almost all dedicated track (a large part newly constructed routes) with existing track used only where there are space constraints (for example, a city centre station).
A closely sitting and smooth train wheel gets damaged pretty quickly traveling on track that is accustomed to freight traffic. That now-damaged wheel then goes on to damage the polished high speed track, which then further damages other trains' wheels in a vicious circle.
China's new high speed train network, for example, is almost all dedicated track (a large part newly constructed routes) with existing track used only where there are space constraints (for example, a city centre station).
French TGV runs on a significative amount of non-highspeed track though, and it seems to work good enough (about the same speed as China's HSR, and it has been working for decades).
I understand the TGV uses weight limitation and careful scheduling to mitigate the cost of other traffic (both wear-and-tear and scheduling), and as in the case of China also has sections of line that are unavoidably mixed, but used, as cost effective alternatives are not attractive. And I think that's the crux: a trade-off between cost and benefit. A new high-speed line is still margins cheaper than a maglev, though that's not to say I'd not like to see maglevs.
If this was reasonably priced, it would increase travel between those cities by a large amount.
Quite a long time... I rode the maglev train at the Japan pavilion at Expo '86. It was so smooth you almost couldn't tell you were moving.
I don't think the appetite for train travel is a linear thing. For instance here in the Seattle/Portland corridor, the train trip is both slower than by car, and more expensive than the car's gas bill. If it were consistently faster and/or cheaper, I can't help but think that the demand would spike dramatically.
The northeast is as dense as western Europe.
The density isn't really the issue, it's that high-speed rolling stock is simply too good for the massive investment to replace it to be worth it.
In the US, the railway system was developed for freight primarily, and is not suitable for high-speed rail. So, if you want faster trains, you have to lay new track regardless. In that situation, maglev is not necessarily a terrible choice.
In the US, the railway system was developed for freight primarily, and is not suitable for high-speed rail. So, if you want faster trains, you have to lay new track regardless. In that situation, maglev is not necessarily a terrible choice.
Or even the Taiheiyo belt in Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiheiy%C5%8D_Belt
And yet nowhere close to as dense as Japan.
Japan also offer loans to USA for building maglev trains http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1055533...
Japan's maglev technology (EDS) is very different from Germany's maglev technology (EMS) that's being used in Shanghai. One pulls the train up electromagnetically to a steel track and the other uses permanent magnets to push the train away from the track. Both are still going nowhere. And it's for good reason.
● Both are extremely expensive per mile compared to HSR (high speed rail). Sure it's faster than high speed rail but a technology doesn't make it because it's better, but because it's more practical to implement.
● Service is not as tried and trusted as HSR. Germany's test facilities have been torn down after the Shangai maglev was built and Japan's maglev hasn't been expanded. On an emotional human level it just doesn't feel trustworthy. If you're not growing you're dying.
● Both technologies are proprietary whereas HSR has more companies and manufacturers to chose from.
● HSR could probably compete with maglev speeds by building a wider gauge track, using larger wheels, and implementing more aerodynamic designs to reduce drag and power consumption.
● Germany and Japan are pitching their maglev trains while they themselves aren't avid users of them.
=== Lessons ===
If you want something to succeed sometimes you have to set it free.
If you're not expanding or growing you're dying.
If you want people to use your solution, instill trust by investing in and using your own solution.
● Both are extremely expensive per mile compared to HSR (high speed rail). Sure it's faster than high speed rail but a technology doesn't make it because it's better, but because it's more practical to implement.
● Service is not as tried and trusted as HSR. Germany's test facilities have been torn down after the Shangai maglev was built and Japan's maglev hasn't been expanded. On an emotional human level it just doesn't feel trustworthy. If you're not growing you're dying.
● Both technologies are proprietary whereas HSR has more companies and manufacturers to chose from.
● HSR could probably compete with maglev speeds by building a wider gauge track, using larger wheels, and implementing more aerodynamic designs to reduce drag and power consumption.
● Germany and Japan are pitching their maglev trains while they themselves aren't avid users of them.
=== Lessons ===
If you want something to succeed sometimes you have to set it free.
If you're not expanding or growing you're dying.
If you want people to use your solution, instill trust by investing in and using your own solution.
A full Tokyo-Nagoya-Osaka maglev (SCMaglev) line is under construction in Japan right now, with the Tokyo-Nagoya leg due to be in operation by 2027.[0]
As if late, traditional HSR is getting a lot of competition (in Japan at least) from domestic flights that cost almost exactly the same and take about the same amount of time. This has led to a resurgence of the "old" airports in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuo_Shinkansen
As if late, traditional HSR is getting a lot of competition (in Japan at least) from domestic flights that cost almost exactly the same and take about the same amount of time. This has led to a resurgence of the "old" airports in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuo_Shinkansen
You don't appear to have kept up with Japanese maglev development in the last decade or so. Japan actually is going ahead with a major maglev line, to the tune of almost $100 billion (privately financed by JR central).
Japan is spending a crapload of money building their maglev line between their two biggest cities. How is that being 'no avid users' of them?
Japanese railway operator to license maglev tech to US for free
So that means they can use the tech, but not redistribute it to anyone else? Sounds pretty fair to me.
If you ever have the chance to ride the Shanghai maglev from Pudong airport into the city, splurge a little bit for first class. It's incredibly relaxing before or after a long flight and watching the world fly past at 270mph and not feeling crowded or touching other people for 8 minutes.
Oh, and don't trust any taxi driver who speaks English, you're extremely likely to be scammed. Don't ask me how I know.
Oh, and don't trust any taxi driver who speaks English, you're extremely likely to be scammed. Don't ask me how I know.
What about Elon Musk's hyperloop venture, are they in the running?
Yes, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies exists (I'm volunteer), they are going to design and build a prototipe using crowdsourcing engineering (not capital as far as I know). Also they have contact with several universities and companies that are interested in partnering and developint part of the systems. Right now they are working in the legal parts of the company and mean while there is a brainstorming at the engineering part with calculations beyond tha alpha document. It's a hard process as the technology is so new, but amazing non the less.
The idea is to start building and testing a scale prototipe for 2015 in LA.
[deleted](1)
Elon Musk's Hyperloop makes sense from first principles. Most people and therefore most governments don't think that way.
Its not the speed, its the distance between the stops..
Let me give you an example...in the midwest USA there is a short commuter line called South Shore that runs from SouthBend Indiana to southern shore of Lake Michigan and up to the Loop in Chicago
Most of the stations on the South Shore are either blocks apart or a few miles apart..which negates a high speed rail solution
Let me give you an example...in the midwest USA there is a short commuter line called South Shore that runs from SouthBend Indiana to southern shore of Lake Michigan and up to the Loop in Chicago
Most of the stations on the South Shore are either blocks apart or a few miles apart..which negates a high speed rail solution
Is there a specific reason to license it for "free" or is there something more to it than meets the eye?
As an example, I just took the Amtrak train from NYC to Montreal to attend PyCon (which is awesome!), which took all in all 11 hours to cover a distance a little over 530 km. For comparison, going from my hometown Saarbrücken in Germany to Paris (which is about the same distance) takes less than two hours (1:40h to be exact) with TGV or ICE trains. Arguably for the latter there is no border to be crossed (OK actually there is but none that is patroled) but still, this kind of makes you wonder why a high-tech nation like the USA doesn't have a similar system of high-speed trains in place, and I think that the answer has more to do with political unwillingness and lobbying than with lack of technology.
BTW, in Germany there once was an attempt to build a Transrapid (our version of Maglev that is deployed in Shanghai, developed by Siemens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid) track to connect the Munich airport to the city centre (see "Munich Link" section in the article above), but calculations showed that the achievable time saving compared to the latest generation of ICE high-speed trains would be only 3 minutes, whereas the additional cost would have been around 3 BN €, which lead to the project being eventually ditched.