Was inspecting the FRA's site and found....

[Anonymous]

Interesting information on maglev's, http://gis.fra.dot.gov/Content3.asp?P=200

Seems, in addition to high speed maglev trains running between cities, they are also looking into frieght operations using maglevs. Could it be that in 50 years we will abandon diesels and rails and switch to maglev's? seems so, if you read the reports and how much their funding into this.

Seem's several fo the projects are looking to Transrapid International, out of Germany, to supply the technology needed. http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html . A nice system that could easily be adapted to US uses, and they can climb a 10% grade, talk about crossing the mountains. Well, Guess the FRA's aware that something needs to be done soon, before the fosil fuels run out.

[Anonymous]

Sounds good but how much electricity would you need to levitate 100 tons of coal? or Lumber?

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation

Sounds good but how much electricity would you need to levitate 100 tons of coal? or Lumber?

not to mention the cost of building the infustructor....who is going to bite off the money for this one...the government!!! ahahahaha..... about a month early for april fools...lol
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

100 tons of coal or lumber? well, they're at 15 ton per car right now, so Yes, i would assume 100 tons wouldn't be to hard to haul.

Also remember that Coal is a fosil fuel and a major contributor to green house gases. with higher and higher anti-pollution laws taking aaffect across the globe, coal may be phased out for more enviromentally safe alternatives.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

100 tons of coal or lumber? well, they're at 15 ton per car right now, so Yes, i would assume 100 tons wouldn't be to hard to haul.

Also remember that Coal is a fosil fuel and a major contributor to green house gases. with higher and higher anti-pollution laws taking aaffect across the globe, coal may be phased out for more enviromentally safe alternatives.

you actuly buy into the biggets scam of the centry..the "global warming"... show me with hard 100% data..with no specutaion included into the data..that the planet is warming if it is at all and if it is warming...that its becouse of the activities of "man" and not a normal cycel of the planet....this planet is said to be in the billons of years old... so...with no real records of climet keep for millions of years befor man...and even thounds of years befor man keep records in the first place... that one can atuly prove without a shadow of a dough that the planet is warming becouse of CO2 ..... also..last time i checked....all green plant life use CO2 to make O2.... carbon dioxid is plant food....also... coal can be burned just as clean as say methan gas...... with propoer emitions equipment... coal is one of the most abundant resorsous in the world....i dont see coal being "phased out" anytime soon... infact..to reduse the use of arab oil...we should burn more coal!!!!
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Boy, if you thjink pollution doesn't cause global warming and that Coal is a an aboundant resource, you better get out and do some research.

On average the worlds climate has raised 1 degree over the last 50 years (compared to 1 degree every 500 years prior to that), you may think 1 degree is nothing, but that 1 degree has drastic effects on certain vegitations and other life. the entire world has begun to take action to stop this effect. even the US, who was slow to get onboard, has begun takening action to prevent global warming.

Coal stockpiles have been slowley diminishing for the last 20 years, mines are not as productive as they used to be and new mines are not available, due to population centers sitting on the load and other problems. Coal is a dying resource, expected not to last past the end of this century.

Oil prices has soured exceptionally high, due to lower amounts being pumped out of the earth, every expert agrees that, at our current rate of consumption, oil will be dry by mid to late in this century.

every expert on natural resources agrees that we need to find alternative sources of energy and every enviromental group and agency agrees we need to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gases as well as the ozone depleting ones.

I forsee in the next 50 years (i'll probably gone by then), that we will rarely rely on coal and oil, as for wood, that's another matter for them to work out.

Now, i posted this on the subject of the Maglev pu***he FRA seems to be on, let's get back to studing the pro's and con's of such a system they are working to produce.

[chad thomas]

The most efficient form of land transportation is steel wheel on steel rail. I don't know the exact numbers but I do know it will take a significant amount of energy to levitate the mag-levs. Then you still have to propell them. This will take a lot more energy than it takes to "roll" down a steel rail. Lets not forget, just because the power isn't generated on board does not mean it is't generated from burning fossil fuels. Unless you are recieving energy from hydro-electric power (dams), You are still poluting the environment. Either radioactive waste (nukes) or most likley combustion emissions (coal / gas power plants). Even though power plants are more efficient then on board generation, I wouldn't call this a green machine.

And as csxengineer mentioned who is going to pay for all the infrustructure. What is the motivation to move to this mode of transportation, I don't see it.

Now for passenger mag-lev systems. I could see a nich for a passenger versions. As stated before maglevs can climb much steeper grades. That alows for more direct routing in mountain/hill territory. With the natural propensity for speed and more direct routing abilities, it is suitable for some situations.

But as for as freight goes......never gunna happen.

[tpatrick]

SteamerFan, think back to 1975, during the Carter administration when the best minds of the day took stock of where we were headed. They said the entire world's supply of oil would be exhausted by the turn of the century. That would have been five years ago. And while were huddling in our blankets freezing from lack of oil, we would also be starving because the world's food supply would not keep pace with the growing demand. Today we are fatter than ever and we can comfortably eschew oil production in the arctic simply because it might inconvenience a couple of caribou. There is more oil today than ever. Sure, prices are high because demand is high, but they are not up to the level of the bad old days of the 70's. As for coal, last time I looked we had a 600 year supply right here here in the US of A. And China has even more.

The point is, don't fall for the "experts" line. Look for the political agenda. Follow the money. Those who promote global warming have their own interests which are not necessarily altruistic. Be skeptical. There is a large body of responsible scientists who do not share the view of those who promote global warming. They don't get the press attention, so you may have to search them out. And you should. Then decide.

Regarding maglev freight: I always thought maglev was a high-speed thing. Our freight terminals can't even the handle today's slow traffic. Think of the congestion when maglev comes to town. Imagine, too, the consequences of a 10,000 ton train leaving the tracks and landing somewhere it shouldn't. Suppose it is a tanker train of hazmat. The possibilities are mind-boggling.

[dldance]

Mag-lev does not have to be high speed for freight. In fact a very similar technology is often used in rigging the equipment for new factories or moving jets around in manufacturing - air dolly's. Using compressed air to lift the heavy load 1 to mm then allows movement with almost zero friction. Yes steel wheel on steel rail has very low rolling resistance but an air gap has none. It is worth researching.

dd

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick

Imagine, too, the consequences of a 10,000 ton train leaving the tracks and landing somewhere it shouldn't. Suppose it is a tanker train of hazmat. The possibilities are mind-boggling.

Look at the design again, there's virtually no way the train could derail, except possibly by going through a turnout that is halfway lined up between the two tracks. It would take a catostropic failure of over 40% of the giude guards for a derailment to occur.

As for it's potential in frieght, think modular. make 15 ton capacity crates that sit on special maglev flats, that when the train arrives, are unloaded by overhead cranes, similar to ship docks now. You could go even further and make them 3 5 ton containers per car, then have these containers specially designed to sit on special trailers for Trucks and just unload the crates to the truck for it's final destination.

15 ton capacity tanks could be also desined and used this way. hoppers could be designed to dump to the side. anything you can think with frieght could be done with a maglev as well.

there's potential here to have a maglev frieght train pull cargo from the ports to more centralized locations (hubs) further inland. Ships could be unloaded right onto the maglev, shipped to the hub, then dispersed from there by standard rail. Or frieght arriving in LA that is destined for, say NY, could be loaded onto a maglev express and arrived there in half the time it normally would take.

But, I agree, right now it's best chance is in terms of passenger service. I love trains, but I also don't dispise possible changes to the status quo, as some people do. Seems some people just don't see mag-lev's are an evolution of trains, not a new species.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

Boy, if you thjink pollution doesn't cause global warming and that Coal is a an aboundant resource, you better get out and do some research.

On average the worlds climate has raised 1 degree over the last 50 years (compared to 1 degree every 500 years prior to that), you may think 1 degree is nothing, but that 1 degree has drastic effects on certain vegitations and other life. the entire world has begun to take action to stop this effect. even the US, who was slow to get onboard, has begun takening action to prevent global warming.

Coal stockpiles have been slowley diminishing for the last 20 years, mines are not as productive as they used to be and new mines are not available, due to population centers sitting on the load and other problems. Coal is a dying resource, expected not to last past the end of this century.

Oil prices has soured exceptionally high, due to lower amounts being pumped out of the earth, every expert agrees that, at our current rate of consumption, oil will be dry by mid to late in this century.

every expert on natural resources agrees that we need to find alternative sources of energy and every enviromental group and agency agrees we need to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gases as well as the ozone depleting ones.

I forsee in the next 50 years (i'll probably gone by then), that we will rarely rely on coal and oil, as for wood, that's another matter for them to work out.

Now, i posted this on the subject of the Maglev pu***he FRA seems to be on, let's get back to studing the pro's and con's of such a system they are working to produce.

like i said befor....prove to me with 100% data...and NO speculation.... that it is realy happening...and/or is happening as a result of man......1 degree over 50 years dosnt mean crap..no matter how much you tree huggers think it dose....
and as far as coal... your also wrong...thier are hundereds of thousand tons of it still in the ground...in untapped reserves...also...thier are also still hunderds of thousands of tons still in the ground at mines that have long since closed due to the mineing styel that was used befor longwalling...and open pit strip mining...coal is not a dead resourse... you need to check your data....
csx engineer
csx engineer

[csxengineer98]

also... the FRA wont "produse" any kind of rail system...they are a regulating body not a resurch and development think tank....if the FRA gets involved in mag-lev at all..it will be with writing laws and regulations for its use..like they do with the normal railroads....someone else will have to "bite" off the tab for building it ..running it..and maintaning it... be it a privet company..a group of companys privet investors...or the government..but NOT THE FRA
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Hi tpatrick

Just wondering, who makes up this " large body of responsible scientists who do not share the view of those who promote global warming? "

I'm a scientist by training (geotechnical engineer, actually), and I'm one of those people always reading those boring journals. None of these people you mention come to mind.

Everything seems to point to warming, that it is not just a cycle playing out. And, while we can not yet be absolutely sure that it is permanent warming , the decades keep flying by. The smart thing to do would be to try to change this situation now.

Coal is dirty, but we could make it cleaner. Now is the time for the US to become the technological leader in difficult mining and oil/gas extraction, and the clean use of those fuels.

My 2 cents.
Jim ( a tree hugger that also races dirt bikes and atv's through the woods; supports timber, mining and oil; a hunter, angler and trapper; and someone who is disgusted by all the democrats kissing the sierra club's ***)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironmine

Hi tpatrick

Just wondering, who makes up this " large body of responsible scientists who do not share the view of those who promote global warming? "

I'm a scientist by training (geotechnical engineer, actually), and I'm one of those people always reading those boring journals. None of these people you mention come to mind.

Everything seems to point to warming, that it is not just a cycle playing out. And, while we can not yet be absolutely sure that it is permanent warming , the decades keep flying by. The smart thing to do would be to try to change this situation now.

Coal is dirty, but we could make it cleaner. Now is the time for the US to become the technological leader in difficult mining and oil/gas extraction, and the clean use of those fuels.

My 2 cents.
Jim ( a tree hugger that also races dirt bikes and atv's through the woods; supports timber, mining and oil; a hunter, angler and trapper; and someone who is disgusted by all the democrats kissing the sierra club's ***)

Ironmine,

You asked for it, here it is - a link to the 15,000 scientists who are skeptical of the whole Chicken Little global warming bandwagon:

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm

Here's a link that calls to question why all the "popular" climate change models that are predicting catastrophic consequences of greenhouse gas emmissions in fact leave out the most prevalent greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide aka water vapor, responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, and the fact that man's CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is roughly 1/10 of one percent:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And, if you then ask, "Well, what is causing the current increase in global temperatures?", here's the link that shows a direct correlation between global climate and solar activity, which by the way is the generally accepted cause of the Medieval Warming period of 500 years ago, a time in which temperatures were much warmer than they are today....

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Now, this doens't mean that you're an idiot, only that you probably were ensconced in the subtle leftist propaganda prevalent in academia while you were working toward your degree, therefore you did not have the time or resources to counter the crap presented to you in your "environmental sciences" courses.

Back to the subject at hand, if one wants to promote maglev, the environmental argument is weak. Maglev may be appropriate for a densely settled country likek Japan, but out here it may be superfluous. HSR of 100 to 125 mph over steel rails should suffice for the Western Hemisphere.

[chad thomas]

Maglev is not an evolution of railroads. Its a totally different animal. About the only thing in common with trains is that they both have fixed guideways.
I am not against evolution or bucking the status quoe.
I don't understand why anyone would build a maglev when we already have rails.Aside from the fact that maglev is for less efficient. As I said before just because maglev doesn't generate its energy on board, that dosn't mean the energy just magicaly appears.

[tpatrick]

Ironmine, space would prevent me from naming that large body, and Futuremodal has cited several excellent links, but here are three names:

1. Dr Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Project
2. Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences
3. Dr. Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Laureate agronomist who dedicated most of his life to
wheat improvement.

Now I will take my own advice and view the anti-tree-huggers with skepticism, too. There's a lot of money to be made on the North Slope.