Over the past several months, I have learned much on these fora about realistic options for improving public transportation. One point that emerged was that a true “high-speed” system could be viable if a new, inexpensive source of electricity were found.
Besides being a train fan, for 25 years I have researched a possible link between the Earth and Sun (natural nuclear fusion) which might be exploitable to provide electricity needed for maglev. Below is a cost comparison for other infrastructure:
Physicists have yet to discover a practical way of containing and controlling nuclear fusion so I wouldn’t hitch a maglev wagon to this star. Geothermal energy is a possible source but I will defer to others on its cost and availability.
Maglev has yet to prove itself as a practical system. I haven’t heard any reports from China about the route being constructed there beyond its cost.
Work on natural nuclear fusion differs from the process most physicists are attempting to harness. There was a review of “cold fusion” in a recent issue of Science News, but there is no mention of natural nuclear fusion in volcanoes, or “geofusion.” The author said he did not want to confuse the “more contentious” issue of benchtop cold fusion (personal communication). In light of the Missouri study, geofusion should be regarded as a possible innovation.
Should we be looking to China as an example of technological innovation, or should we give it a try ourselves?
The US allowed the French and later the Europeans 40 years to develop TGV and other high speed projects. They made a lot of mistakes and hopefully the US will profit now that HSR is now on the front burner of construction.
Now shouldn"t we (US) let someone else try to develop Maglev?. There are too many unknowns with Maglev technology. Didn’t we finally learn the lessons of monorails not being able to operate at high speeds? Note: At one time I thought monorails were the way to go. Germany started monorails in the 1930s.
First, the maglev advantage for transporting coal: There are local considerations; apparently in Mongolia the sandy conditions make road construction difficult. The infrastructure for the maglev system to transport coal is suprisingly minimal (see the website cited above).
As for monorails, they use similar infrastructure to a maglev passenger system but maglev is capable of higher speeds which justify the expense and inflexibilityof a concrete guideway. Monorails have always been a transportation novelty (Boston had a surprisingly modern monorail prototpye for its subway in 1887…). Seattle’s monorail guideway could possibly be used as a test-bed for a maglev system.
Now, on the subject of “letting other nations innovate for us.” Wow, that’s a very anti-patriotic sentiment! I really don’t think we “let” France develop better trains “for us.” (In fact, the French class CC21000 locomotive was a failure on the Northeast Corridor). The United States has never shown a commitment to high speed rail, so there is little innovation in this country. We do have a commitment to, for example, ballistic missiles and airliners; and we certainly do not encourage other nations to innovate “for us” in these areas.
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. FYI, consider the number of airliners built by Airbus, Embraer, etc. that are operated by US carriers. The French CC21000 did not work well in the NEC since the track wasn’t maintained to French standards for high-speed operation. The AEM7 is based on a Swedish design. Maglev is an expensive boondoggle.
To all those who believe the United States should follow instead of lead…
Are you admitting that our diverse culture and abundant resources have only led us to a secondary status in the world; secondary among nations most of our forefathers fled out of dire necessity due to persecution or poverty?
Are you admitting we cannot correct our economic policy glitches, crumbling public infrastructure, and impending environmental catastrophe?
Do you really believe that coal in Mongolia should travel on a system (2009 technology)superior to that which transports passengers between our nation’s capitol and it’s largest city (1999 technology at best)?
If so, then you must have no hope for the future. Maybe you still don’t believe there is negative environmental impact from a trillion tonnes of carbon spewed into the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Perhaps you don’t have children or just don’t care. It is thermodynamically impossible for an increasing population to continue the wastefulness in which we indulge today. The world really needs us to lead THEM, as we did for the first two centuries of our history. This means being the leader in devloping emerging technologies.
(Regarding “boondoggle:” in my opinion, it is more wasteful to spend $100 million widening a highway for a few miles, as in the I-5 to Fredonia example cited above. In the context of how much money we spend on limited-capacity infrastructure which only increases our envoronmental impact; high-capacity, low-pollution infrastructure needs to be a priority. This is painfully obvious on the drive from I-5 to Fredonia, where beside the major highway project there is a BNSF spur. The capacity of this line was nearly doubled, to serve a sawmill as well as refineries, by simply replacing a few ties and some
You have left out one very important country in the Maglev equation out and that country is Japan who have a system up and running that could be the answer to all of Maglevs critics.
Maglev: One technical item i"m not aware of. Is it better to have THE WHOLE SYSTEM on above ground pilings or can it be put on the ground surface?. I don’t know how much of the levitation system has to be maintained that is below the guideway.
There is no inherent need for elevation on pilings, but most of a system would be elevated for the same reasons railroad tracks and interstate highways are elevated–flood protection, safety from livestock, level grade, etc. Obviously, this is a very expensive propostion; the additional cost of pilings compared to the total cost of the guideway is small.
Also, I should correct my statements about BNSF in Fredonia. The new lumber mill did not “double” the line’s traffic, and much of the new rail is in fact being laid beyond the sawmill. But the adjacent highway work is still amazing in comparison. The I-5 bridge over the Skagit River is becoming a bottleneck, so just this one section will probably need another $100 million soon…
Ok if most of it is elevated how hard will it be to repair when an earthquake or other natural disaster ocurrs? A standard RR track in those conditions can easily be restored by use of a shoefly. Not only the guideway but also the maglev items will need repairs?. Using a shoefly for ordinary rail just takes one or more diesels.
Because this is a new mode of transportation, a MAJOR commitment would be needed. Thus, the issue is more a philosophical than engineering question: should we start building the future now, or wait and always be playing catch-up? Elements such as right-of-way will only become more expensive.
For reference, here is the current status of maglev pilot projects. (Trains said a couple months ago $45 million in FRA grants was available.)
Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project - The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Baltimore to Washington Maglev project was circulated and public review completed in December 2003. For more information please see the Baltimore-Washington EIS page. Work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is on hold.
Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project in Pittsburgh – The Pittsburgh Project was also selected for further study, and the preparation of an EIS was initiated in July 2001. The DEIS released in September 2005 and public review completed in December 2005. For more information please see the Pennsylvania Maglev EIS page. Preparation of the FEIS is underway.
Las Vegas to Anaheim Project – A Notice of Intent to prepare a Program EIS was issued and published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2004.&nbs
This thread asks “Should we develop Maglev?”, a thread that was posted by . . . Maglev!
Should we develop maglev? Well, I guess by now the answer is obvious. Maglev is the FUTURE! We need to build the FUTURE not later on when we get to it but RIGHT NOW! If we don’t, we will be playing catch-up with the Europeans, who are of ancestors of the majority here at home but talk differently, even when speaking English, or by, people in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or perish the thought, China. Some people who are not us will have essential technology that we don’t have and we can’t let that stand.
When I was age 11, I had a small circle of friends, and we were all charter NARP members, using a lawn cutting money to pay dues. “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.” But that was 40 years ago. Yes, we thought that transportation was in dire crisis at that time as well.
The first thing we need to get straight is that if we get maglev, and maglev catches on, it will be just another kind of bus, just as airline travel is today. OK, the maglev may not be subject to the same weather delays, but then again it might – I don’t know how heavy snow, rain, or winds affect maglev operations. It may not be subject to stringent security checks because a person can’t take a maglev off the guidway and crash it into a building with a large quantity of fuel, but if it catches on, there will be security concerns as there are these days for any thing that concentrates people into certain spaces. Someone posted recently their dream of a future maglev ride of lounging in a deep recline seat and being served a drink by signalling for an attendant – first-class service of this nature is available on airlines but it is a much greater boost in price than seating density could indicate because any form of service is costly in our (relative to
Yes, nuclear fusion is a big “if.” And as I mentioned in my initial post, that (or some other energy breakthrough) is probably a requisite for a nationwide maglev network.
Indeed, I had assumed spacious accommodations with attentive service and lavish amenities, because the system would be heavily subsidized. Maglev also inherently includes the benefit of downtown - to - downtown transportation in an ideal system. Security inherently is better than an airliner simply because the trains don’t have as far to fall.
I apologize if I have offended some with my radical comments on patriotism and comparisons of the USA with public infrastructure in other nations, and although I have tried to speak in the name of my forefathers I know Dad would be “not impressed” by some of the childish things I have written here. But please know that I have researched my ideas (not just on the internet), and I am sincere in my beliefs.
One other personal background item: my first (late) wife was from Greensburg, Pennsylvania. We visited that area many times between 1984 and 2004; rode the Broadway or Capitol whenever possible. It appears to be a very likely candidate for a pilot maglev project; they have been talking about it for over 10 years but not much has really happened. Anyway, I have an idea that abandoned Greengate shopping mall (adjacent to the former Pennsylvania RR mainline) would make a good terminal, and I recently read that a big mall near Pittsburgh was closing down also…
Vancouver to Portland, eventually to Mexico City. And the subject of earthquake stability is a great concern, since evacuation from plinian volcanic events is one goal of the system. I regret that my current financial situation limits my access to the latest concrete seismic engineering information, although my college house mate’s wife is a seismic engineer. Give me a week or so…