Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I've seen the pictures from the 1955 test run in France. That was a true mess. I can't believe the train didn't jump the rails and kill somebody. Nobody in their right mind has ever claimed that installing a nationwide maglev infrastructure would be a trouble-free project. Maglev freight cars have yet to be developed. America has little experience with widespread electrical distribution systems for transportation systems. Since the German test facility has only ever operated one train at a time, it comes as little surprise that the Chinese electrical supply system had trouble when the second train began operating. Bumps in the road of development and implementation are not strange. Murphy's Law requires them. Conventional rail has had similar teething problems. Rudolph Diesel built his first engine before the turn of the century, and it wasn't until 1934 that a practical road locomotive was built. Diesel development was not smooth. The Queen of England's personal train was pulled by steam up into the sixties because Diesel technology was not reliable enough. The Santa Fe Super Chief's debut run as a streamliner was pulled by the older Box Cab "Amos & Andy" locos built a few years earlier for the original heavyweight Super Chief because the EMD E units built for the purpose blew their traction motors while the trainsets were on tour. When the B&O dieselized the Capitol Limited, the 20th Century Limited and the Broadway Limited continued to operate with steam at the head end. Pennsy's 6-4-4-6 Steamer had its share of traction and reliablilty problems at the height of Steam locomotive design! When it comes to super-high-speed operation, Maglev solves the problems inherent with conventional technology. The Japanese Superconducting Maglev system has achieved speeds in excess of 350 miles per hour. The Germans worked with superconducting technology but abandoned it in the 1970's because the refrigeration equipment needed to make the superconductors superconduct was too costly to maintain. The entire track and every bogie had to be refrigerated in order for the system to function. Superconducting technology has improved in the last 30 years, but not to the point where it's practical yet. That is the main delay factor for the Japanese system. Furthermore, the Japanese system requires cumbersome access hatches and magnetically shielded gangways for passengers to board and disembark because the magnetic fields generated by the superconducting magnets are highly dangerous. The German system uses Longstator technology instead. The magnetic fields fall to acceptable levels within inches of the bogies and guideway. The result is that platforms look little different from their steel rail counterparts. America would definitely benefit from either a HSR network or a Maglev network. With HSR, the costs are known, and little can be done to reduce them. The same is the case with interstate highway. The main reason Maglev is currently the most expensive option for replacing Amtrak lies in the newness of the technology. America has built no factories for the production of guideway sections. Therefore, the price per mile of Maglev at the current state also includes the construction of said factory, the training of the necessary skilled labor to operate the machinery in that factory, and the training of the necessary skilled labor [from scratch] to assemble the guideways. These costs drop over time. Once a core labor force is established, training of more labor is cheaper. Once the factories are built to supply equipment, the price per mile drops with each and every track mile built. The key to making Maglev cheaper per mile in a nationwide infrastructure lies in the fact that very little labor is needed on site. Guideway is built offsite, transported to site on the guideway that has already been built and bolted into position. The only equipment built onsite are the posts which support the guideway. The trouble with conventional rail in this arena is that the components are cheap to make (sleepers, spikes, ballast, rail), but the labor costs for assembling all of that equipment onsite is much higher because more precision work must be performed by a mobile work gang and a brace of dedicated machinery. Dedicated machinery is all in the factory with maglev. The only machinery needed on site is a pair of cranes and a steady supply of concrete mixing trucks. Maglev guideway is actually cheaper to build above ground than upon it. I know this is a lot of information to dijest. I'm not sure if it makes any difference to the anti-maglev people. I understand the advantages of using a technology that's backward compatible with the existing infrastructure. The end result of continuing to use 19th century technology is that we send a huge maintenace bill to our children and grand children. That can be seen in a good and a bad light, and that depends on what principles are important to you. Maglev will be lower maintenance over the long term, but that means Maglev will be able to function with fewer employees than a HSR system. Whether that's good or bad is for you to decide for yourself.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag