Freight Maglev?

[K. P. Harrier]

Is high-speed magnetic levitation only for passenger travel, or will the technology replace the freight railroad industry that railfans presently know so very well? Wouldn’t UPS or FedEx Land just love 10-hour coast-to-coast surface transport service? At 300+ MPH, the Powder River Basin would not need very many coal cars (or whatever they would be called).

[dehusman]

I wonder how much electricity it would take to move 15,000 tons of coal (a medium sized train) from Wyoming to Atlanta or Houston and back on a maglev. How much of the coal in the train would have to be burned to provide the electricity to power the next train? Would it take more electricity than a train load of coal could generate?

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

http://www.transrapid.de/en/medien/praesentation/15.html

Actually, these trains do not use a lot of electricity. The primary moving force are the magnets, the electricity is only used to regulate the force of the magnets.

[Granny74]

Icetrain: Thanks for the great info on maglev. I read it to Bob and we appreciated the link! We also looked at Lockheed Martin and their connection with Transrapid, Germany. Wonder how long it will be before we have a project in the U.S.?
Nance and Bob from AZ

[dehusman]

I wouldn't hold my breath on a coal train quite yet. Based on the stats in the web site, it would take about 1200-1300 "units"/cars to transport the coal of one 135-150 car coal train (capacity 15 tons per unit). 10 units per train. 120 trains. 10 min headways, that would be 20 hours to initiate one coal train worth of coal.

Lets say you used one 10 unit/150 ton maglev and went to a utility 900 miles away. 3 hours down, 3 hours back , 6 hours round trip. 100 round trips would move 15,000 tons of coal (one medium train). That would take 600 hours or 25 days. It would take four 10 unit maglev trains running 24 hours a day straight for 6 days (discounting loading and unloading time) to equal the performance of one coal train set. The maglev trains would have to travel 180,000 miles to deliver one coal train worth of coal.

If you want to transport express packages fine, coal is a big stretch.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

I went to Shanghai Pudong Airport a year too early and missed the Transrapid. :(
I went to Munich like 5 years too early and missed that one, too. :(
So now I'm waiting for one in North America! :)

[ironhorseman]

It's only a matter of time. At one time it was laughable to think that any railroad train would have any practical means other than to transport joy riders short distances. Now look what it's become over 150 years.

The maglev is the stuff that Popular Mechanics Magazine is made of, but unlike all the other far fetched ideas that never come to light this one is going to survive.

Of course the current form of maglev can't carry coal as efficiently as any railroad, but that was never it's intended purpose. Someday (if someone designs it) a maglev could become more efficient than any coal carrying train could hope to be. Right now it's used for what it was intended but someday some entrepreneur will find a use for it that nobody ever would have thought practical before.

I doubt that the maglev will be an all out replacement of the railroad. It'll find it's own unique place in the world.

[JoeUmp]

One other thought for what it's worth. For a maglev system to replace the current railroad system would be prohibitively expensive. If you're going to start up a maglev system you'll need to find some place that doesn't already have a train system and start from scratch.

[TH&B]

I heard the maglev line built to the Shanghai Airport melted its power transmition this summer (sugesting that it must use alot of power or at least more than antisipated). I also heard that China has decided to go with conventional rail instead of maglev, 350km/h trains instead of 450km/h maglevs.

[Anonymous]

Maglev for freight? You've got to be kidding. The freight railroads have trouble covering their cost of capital as it is with steel wheel on rail. Maglev is ridiculously overpriced for passenger travel, let alone freight use, when you consider that 300mph can be achieved with steel wheel on rail at a fraction of the cost. Also as far as energy use, mass is mass and energy is energy, the only advantage maglev has over conventional trains is the elimination of wheel to rail and wheel bearing friction, all of the other forces a conventional train must battle are the same.

[Anonymous]

In a maglev train, you must spend some electricity to keep the train afloat. Passenger maglev trains are made of lightweight materials (just like aircrafts) to reduce energy consumption. Buy you cannot make coal or fertilizers lighter, so no matter what kind of car is used, maglev trians would not have an advantege in there.

But who needs faster coal anyway?

[Anonymous]

I think that idea is someone with a crazy idea, or with noithing else to think about. railroads always and will always will be with us! Rember the Mono rail system was going to replace fright railroads about 45 years ago??? Do we see mono rail systems acrose the country?

[Anonymous]

This is another idea that has gone way to far!!! Who would be stupid enough to think of this?

[Anonymous]

The idea of a Maglev in the first place is one idea that came from soneone that obviously had nothing better to think about. The idea is so far fetched that maby we should throw out the wheel period. Bikes, cars and trucks wont need wheels anymore. This is a stupid and crazy idea in the first place. Some idot or idots musy had some big $$$$ thorwen there way and where told to creat somthng regardles the jobs that will be lost and with no regards of safety.
Jay

[corwinda]

What happens to a maglev train if the power goes out. Or the train (or track) is hit by lightning?

[Anonymous]

I would like to address several items I have seen in this forum. I'll start by admitting that I am a maglev supporter. My reasoning lies in the inherent advantages maglev trains hold over conventional High Speed Rail technology. It is true that the French achieved a speed of 320 Miles per hour with a TGV Atlantique. That test had more than its fair share of caveats. The tests were conducted on an LGV line that had not yet opened for service. The tracks were brand new, the catenary was brand new, and the brand-new train was heavily modified in order to reach said speed. The catenary had to be modified to handle the extra speeds because the normal tension in the catenary wire was not sufficient for the wire to remain in contact with the pantograph at any speed in excess of 200 mph. The train was reduced to the power cars and one car in between, fitted with oversized wheels, and aerodynamic fairings were applied to the pantograph and the diaphragms. After the test run, the track had to be realigned, because the speed of the train knocked the rails out of alignment. Yes, it is true that conventional trains can exceed 200 miles per hour, but it comes at a cost of maintenance. American freight railroads hate maintaining their track to Amtrak standards for 79 MPH running. What makes you think they would want to upgrade their tracks to 300 mph capacity and maintain them at that level when their own freight trains would not be allowed to run any faster than 80? The main purpose of Maglev development was to achieve high speeds without destroying the tracks in the process. The end result is that Maglev's high initial cost (about the same cost per mile as interstate highway) will be offset in the future by the reduced maintenance bill.

As for the maglev freight concept, it is a wonderful concept that American minds could bring to fruition quickly and put to good use. Coal is out of the question. Heavy freight like coal and other raw materials need not travel at such high speeds because their delivery schedules account for the transit time. A power plant only cares that the coal arrives on time, whether it departed its point of origin 3 days prior or 3 hours prior. The practical application of freight maglev technology is in less than carload lots and lots which take up 10 or fewer cars. Maglev would revolutionize the freight business because the higher traffic capacity of maglev infrastructure allows for an efficient means to operate many small trains from point instead of running a few long trains from point to hub, hub to point. Maglev cars could be quickly developed which would wrap an aerodynamic shroud around intermodal containers. The result would mean quick loading and dispatching time, short transit time, and less downtime for trainsets. Small intermodal facilities located in many small towns instead of large intermodal facilities in big cities would mean freight would move more efficiently, reducing traffic on any major mainline and allow more direct point to point service. If nothing else, maglev would allow perishables to spend less time in transit and therefore arrive on Supermarket shelves fresher. Heaven forbid a computer arrive on a CompUSA shelf before it becomes obsolete!

Maglev and Steel rail can coexist well in this country. Transporting coal and other nonperishable, high volume/weight freight by maglev is a ridiculous concept. This is where the freighters and grangers will continue to hold the advantage. Competition from Maglev in the perishables market and the intermodal market will keep the railroads on their toes when it comes to customer service, maintenance, and public relations. Competition from Maglev will keep the airlines honest, and it will put the inefficient airlines out of business. I'm sure that maglev passenger lines will have plenty of openings for the people laid off, and they won't have to embarass themselves with the safety announcements before takeoff.

[ironhorseman]

This anti-maglev talk has gone to far. First someone here criticizes the concept and then the impression is given altogether that we should stop talking about it and give up any hopes and dreams of maglev coming into any reality other than an amusment ride.

I see a constant pattern of a bunch of knee-jerk reactionist who can only think one-dimensionally. Of course maglevs are not going to replace all railroads immediatly overnight all at taxpayers expense, but if you listen to the maglev naysayers you'd think it would happen that way.

Maglevs are more practical than monorails. Monorails run on wheels, maglevs run on magnetic levitation.

The technology is there, it exists, it works, it's real. Someday there could maglevs everywhere and what role those maglevs will play will be decided by the entreprenuers and the business leaders who have the guts to take the risk to implement such forms of transportation.

Who said that coal had to the only example as which to live and die by for the whole argument for the case for the maglevs? Personally, the mail and perishable services sound like a more practical idea than coal. Someday, maybe, long after everyone living today has long since been dead after living a full and long life the maglev may possibly transport coal, that possibility can't be ruled yet.

What's shocking is that some people are so narrow-minded as to jump to conclusions that it'll never work and so ignorant as to be blind to the evidence when presented to them right in front ot their nose.

The future of the maglev will be decided by people other than those that visit this forum, regardless how vicious the negative opinions against maglevs are presented here.

Maglev may or may not be a railroad replacement someday, but who's to say it won't ever be just another form of transportation? Like the bicycle is different fromt the train, the automobile, the airplane, etc. All alternate forms of transportation, but not necessarily replacements for each other.

I believe 'captainrail' has presented one of the most level-headed and logical ideas so far in the maglev frieght discussion in a non-threatening way, unlike the anit-maglevers who want to cram their opinions down the rest our throats.

QUOTE: Originally posted by captainrail



Maglev and Steel rail can coexist well in this country. Transporting coal and other nonperishable, high volume/weight freight by maglev is a ridiculous concept. This is where the freighters and grangers will continue to hold the advantage. Competition from Maglev in the perishables market and the intermodal market will keep the railroads on their toes when it comes to customer service, maintenance, and public relations. Competition from Maglev will keep the airlines honest, and it will put the inefficient airlines out of business. I'm sure that maglev passenger lines will have plenty of openings for the people laid off, and they won't have to embarass themselves with the safety announcements before takeoff.

[edblysard]

It seems that we are discussing maglev as if it will be put into comerical use within the next decade.
To do so on inner city passenger service would, in my opinion, be a great idea, no polution, noise.
For freight?
Never happen. That would require scrapping the entire exsisting road bed, replacing it with the maglev "track".
Who would pay?
As for co-exsistence, it would require trans loading from the maglev cars to the standard wheeled railcars, again, way to expensive.
Part of the effeciency of the railroad today is the fact that, once loaded into the railcar, no one has to touch the cargo until it reaches its final destination.

Split systems?

Not cost effecient enought, dual roadbed, maintainance crew, dual control systems.

Now, if we were building a entire system from scratch, not replacing a working exsisting system, then the start up investment would make sense.

Again, what we have works, and works well.

Its not the equipment that needs to change, it the way we do business.

As a way to move people, sure, but freight, I doubt it.
Ed

[michaelstevens]

[8D]
Boy am I glad to see the discussion return to a diplomatic, rational tone.
[:D]
A couple of technicalities, based on what I've read about the Japanese system, which is currently being tested.
(i) the levitation system is based primarily on permanent magnetic repulsion and therefore uses negligble amounts of power.
(ii) the propulsion system, on the other hand, uses prodigious amounts of power for acceleration, braking and to overcome wind resistance.
The latter (wind resistance) is why they keep modifying the vehicle's appearance -- looking for the slipperiest possible shape.
Additionally, I think that I read that they (the Japanese) are already experimenting with add on (trailer) vehicles.
[:)][:)]

[carnej1]

Although I am no expert on MAGLEV the concepts I've read about would not really compete directly with conventional heavy rail(neither were the proposed monorail systems meant to),but more with regional air travel and air cargo. The problem with this technology is the immense amount of initial capital necessary to build full scale systems. I do think that once a system was built it would be useful for moving express freight, but again this is business that currently goes in planes and trucks anyway.
By the time the railroad industry gets around to looking at MAGLEV unit coal trains, I suspect that we may have found better uses for coal than burning it to boil water into steam(i.e it may be possible using nanotechnology(very small,robotic machinery,able to manipulate individual atoms and molecules) to separate the Hydrogen out of the coal right at the mine,thought the remaining carbon could be useful so maybe they'll ship that by rail.
I absolutely believe that the steel wheel on the steel rail is nowhere near obsolete and will be with us for a very long time.......

[dehusman]

If you look at the original post, it was speculating on freight maglev operations and moving coal with maglev's. Not within our lifetime.

Never said it couldn't transport other things. A maglev is built like an airliner so it is very concievable that airline containers could be used in maglevs. The problem is that it would have to loaded in and out of the containers at each end, just like the airliner containers are. So you are looking at LCL package business. The competition there is not rail. The competition is air. Trying to compete with rail is going after the wrong niche. The company that you need to look at is not Amtrak or UP or NS, its UPS or FedEx or Southwest.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure about how the Japanese traffic control system works; however, the German traffic control system has safeties built into it which allow for higher capacities on a guideway than the highest density conventional mainline in operation today. The concept of headways, signal systems, and so forth do not exist on the German Transrapid system. Instead, the exact location of each train's nose and tail is located to an accuracy of less than a foot by means of the individual magnets in the guideway. The traffic control system is set up so that any and all trains running on the same guideway in the same "block" can only run in the same direction at the same speed. Combined with "offline" stations, mainline speeds are maintained for all local and express trains. The locals work just like a car entering an interstate; they "merge" into an empty path between the train ahead and the train behind. Technically, only enough space is needed between trains for turnouts to change position, although more space would be allowed in order to account for the switches aligning properly in all weather conditions.

The most restrictive problem as of yet is the turnouts themselves. Currently, turnouts remain level when aligned for the mainline and when aligned for the turnout. In order to minimise centripetal forces on the passengers, the trains must slow down to 100 miles per hour when moving through the turnout side, but they can maintain speed when going through the straight side. The future of higher mainline capacity will be in redesigning the switches so that the guideway is level when the trains go through the straight side and that the guideway is banked when the trains go through the turnout side. This would require two major engineering breakthroughs. First, the tracks on which the flexible guideway rest must "droop" on the turnout side in order to tilt the track into the curve. Secondly, the flexible guideway must be made flexible in two degrees of freedom (yaw AND roll) in order to tilt into the curve without breaking.

[TH&B]

One of the reasons maglev is put down on this site is because whenever maglev is promoted it is always comparing its advantages to rail. Maybe like someone said it should be compared to airlines. Captainrail pointed out the LGV rail record at 320mph pulled only one car when in fact it was 3 articulated cars, as compared to normal TGVs have 8 or 10. Also in 1955 the French railways made the record of 205mph, this damaged the track very badly and the pantograph, it looked like it would never be practicle to run 200mph by rail, now it is very possible and 200mph trains will start running soon in Germany, and probably in Japan and France too. The damage to the track on the more recent 320mph test was nowhere near as bad.
But the maglev is also only test run, whoever buys and builds a maglev will run the risk of getting burned by unproven expensive new technoligy, like the Chinese airport maglev wich has already had big problems, like melting power transmision and stuff.
The maglevs speed record is so far is more or less close to the rail record, I'll be impressed when it goes 500mph with people on board (provided rail is not also up at those speeds by then). If maglev is so friction free and so smooth why can't it go 500mph? Is there such a thing as "low speed maglev" like a frictionlees 90mph? Why is Germany selling its maglev to China, couldn't they use it themselves? I heard Germany canceled thier intercity maglev plans. I think they are just trying to unload thier bunk on someone else. I believe if there is any merit to maglev, it will e shown in Japan, they have the technolical capacity, the population density and the need for "train" coridors.

[Anonymous]

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.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

One of the reasons maglev is put down on this site is because whenever maglev is promoted it is always comparing its advantages to rail. Maybe like someone said it should be compared to airlines. Captainrail pointed out the LGV rail record at 320mph pulled only one car when in fact it was 3 articulated cars, as compared to normal TGVs have 8 or 10. Also in 1955 the French railways made the record of 205mph, this damaged the track very badly and the pantograph, it looked like it would never be practicle to run 200mph by rail, now it is very possible and 200mph trains will start running soon in Germany, and probably in Japan and France too. The damage to the track on the more recent 320mph test was nowhere near as bad.
But the maglev is also only test run, whoever buys and builds a maglev will run the risk of getting burned by unproven expensive new technoligy, like the Chinese airport maglev wich has already had big problems, like melting power transmision and stuff.
The maglevs speed record is so far is more or less close to the rail record, I'll be impressed when it goes 500mph with people on board (provided rail is not also up at those speeds by then). If maglev is so friction free and so smooth why can't it go 500mph? Is there such a thing as "low speed maglev" like a frictionlees 90mph? Why is Germany selling its maglev to China, couldn't they use it themselves? I heard Germany canceled thier intercity maglev plans. I think they are just trying to unload thier bunk on someone else. I believe if there is any merit to maglev, it will e shown in Japan, they have the technolical capacity, the population density and the need for "train" coridors.

QUOTE: “One of the reasons maglev is put down on this site is because whenever maglev is promoted it is always comparing its advantages to rail.”

So what? Maglevs are trains, too. They deserve to be on this site just because of that. As far as the advantages, there are many technological advantages that are far superior than any railroad could hope to ever be. The major disadvantage is the cost. Because it’s new it cost so much.

I don’t think your reason is the real reason maglevs are “put down” on this site. Your whole attitude seems to be you take this issue personally. You’re always prevalent on the subject and always against it somehow, some way.

QUOTE: “But the maglev is also only test run, whoever buys and builds a maglev will run the risk of getting burned by unproven expensive new technoligy, …”

DUH! The same is true with any new investment on any new technology.

QUOTE: “…like the Chinese airport maglev wich has already had big problems, like melting power transmision and stuff.”

I searched all over the internet for this and found nothing to support this claim. I did, however, find numerous articles on the opening success of the the Chinese airport maglev, more specifically it is the Shanghai airport.

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagShang.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993153
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C57163%2C00.html?tw=wn_ascii
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/12/31/china.maglev.biz/
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/257.html

QUOTE: “The maglevs speed record is so far is more or less close to the rail record, I'll be impressed when it goes 500mph with people on board (provided rail is not also up at those speeds by then).”

So, 500mph is the magic speed? You’re not satisfied with 200mph, 250mph, or even 350mph, it has to 500mph or nothing? My God, what are trying to do? Set a land speed record? Once it reaches just under sub-sonic speeds then what? Super-sonic trains? Do you want a train to go Mach 1, 2, or even 3? A train approaching the speed of sound: “that’ll be the day.” And just how do you expect a railroad to get up to 500mph, let alone before a maglev would achieve it? That wouldn’t speed, that wouldn’t be ridiculous speed, that would be ludicrous speed. 500mph is ludicrous speed (for a train).

The maglev record and rail record may be near the same, but it was easier for the maglev to achieve that record than the railroad (just for the record).

QUOTE: “If maglev is so friction free and so smooth why can't it go 500mph? Is there such a thing as "low speed maglev" like a frictionlees 90mph?”

I don’t know why it can’t go 500mph, ask the engineers. I don’t think they’re quite up to your high standards of near super-sonic land travel. But of course it can go 90mph. It could travel 10mph if the operator so desires.

If I could find my videotape of the History Channel’s program on maglevs I could quote you word for word on the speed of the devise (somebody probably taped over it). They’re predicting that soon maglev technology could be used to propel orbital vehicles into space. Now that, I think, is ludicrous. Give me a maglev train any day over the space travel. Have you ever seen those durability tests under tornado simulations? They put a 2X4 in a tube and shoot it 300mph at a cinder block wall and it punches a whole in the wall. That’s the image I get when they want to use this maglev stuff for launching vehicles into space.

I’ve tried before to present the scientific facts but you look the other way. The technical specs are not debatable. I remember over in “monorails” thread I mentioned maglev (which is like a monorail) and when asked if it runs on attraction or repulsion method I pointed out that it’s not one of the other but the magnets do both at the same time. They reverse polarity. Nonetheless, someone wanted to “disagree” with me. Unfortunately this person was “disagreeing” with proven scientific fact. That’s not possible. The engineers that designed it know better than that person, BECAUSE THEY DESIGNED IT!

Your still arguing that this thing is not frictionless. Sure it works in an atmosphere, but it’s not as big a deal with magnets involved. Maybe if you attached a parachute on the end of the train air then becomes a factor. You design a vehicle without some aerodynamics, DUH! But like I said before, even if it wasn’t sleek it would still perform up to expectations.

QUOTE: “Why is Germany selling its maglev to China, couldn't they use it themselves? I heard Germany canceled their intercity maglev plans. I think they are just trying to unload thier bunk on someone else.”

Ever hear of capitalism? Ever here of the U.S. selling planes to other countries? Ever hear of Japanese exporting cars to the U.S.? I guess the Japs and the Yanks are unloading their bunk on everyone else, too.

In fact on to the article’s I cited mentions China’s “awarding” their maglev contract to Germany.

Germany did indeed cancel their maglev project, but don’t forget to mention it came after 2 decades of debate and a rising cost to build it. The longer they waited the more expensive it got. A $3.1 billion spending cap was placed on it, but only after the price tag reached $5 billion.

http://mail.american-maglev.com/news/gercancels.htm

Man, for someone who is so anti-maglev you seem to come up with all sorts “facts.” Do you subscribe to the maglev newsletter?

When I put the term “anti-maglev” into a google search I found a few articles on the issue. I found that the transportation unions are really against the maglev. They’re the ones putting out lies. Why? Who knows what their motivation is? Maybe they’re afraid the maglev will replace them someday? (That’ll be the day.) Maybe they’re afraid of new technology (technophoia)? What ever it is it’s unfounded and unnecessary. The reason the Baltimore to Washington DC maglev is failing is because of protestors who “don’t want it in their backyard” because of the “noise” or the “magnets.” The noise is nothing more that a whooshing sound and the magnets in your cell phone is more dangerous than the maglev. The high voltage lines are putting out more dangerous fields of energy than any maglev will. http://www.bizmonthly.com/6_2002/13.html


If you don’t like why don’t your just ignore it? However, if you like to dwell on this maglev negativity may I suggest you visit these sites:

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=9844 oops, this one you’ve already been too because everything you post on the forums is the same thing here.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/trailing0402.asp
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/16_18/85523440/p1/article.jhtml?term=
http://mail.american-maglev.com/news/gercancels.htm

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

If you look at the original post, it was speculating on freight maglev operations and moving coal with maglev's. Not within our lifetime.

Never said it couldn't transport other things. A maglev is built like an airliner so it is very concievable that airline containers could be used in maglevs. The problem is that it would have to loaded in and out of the containers at each end, just like the airliner containers are. So you are looking at LCL package business. The competition there is not rail. The competition is air. Trying to compete with rail is going after the wrong niche. The company that you need to look at is not Amtrak or UP or NS, its UPS or FedEx or Southwest.

Dave H.

Of course you never said it couldn’t transport other things, but the coal issue seems to be a deciding factor in which to weigh the credibility of the maglev on. I did look at the original post and it wasn’t speculation, it was question. I think that was an extreme example, but look where it’s got us now.

And you’re still hung up about the rest of us being hung up with the maglev’s competition with rail. You say it should only be compared with the airlines. Well guess what? Who’s the one competing with the airlines? BNSF, UP, CSX, NS. Explain to me why this UPS deal is so important and it’s role with the railroad versus shipping packages by plane. How about the high speed produce trains? Did you ever read that article in Trains about how carrots go from LA to NY A.S.A.P. by rail? If a coast to coast maglev could be developed it could put the railroads UPS and produce services to shame.

The first maglev freights won’t be heavy cargo or low priority items like coal. I think it was ‘csx-dispatcher’ (or it was in one of his threads) that coal is low low priority. If someday in the future maglev has replaced all railroads then, yes, coal is what it will have to ship.

But I think the first practical cargoes for maglev will be short distance commuters (that’s what the very first railroads were).

If the world were left up to you nay sayers who put down technology, innovation, and creative thinking, we’d all still be cavemen hunting and gathering are food.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jay1


I think that idea is someone with a crazy idea, or with noithing else to think about. railroads always and will always will be with us! Rember the Mono rail system was going to replace fright railroads about 45 years ago??? Do we see mono rail systems acrose the country?

Jay1 Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 11:21:05 PM


This is another idea that has gone way to far!!! Who would be stupid enough to think of this?

Jay1 Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 11:04:11 PM

I think that idea is someone with a crazy idea, or with noithing else to think about. railroads always and will always will be with us! Rember the Mono rail system was going to replace fright railroads about 45 years ago??? Do we see mono rail systems acrose the country?

NUTS! [;)]

[michaelstevens]

Duh ! I was wrong about the "levitation being due to magnetic repulsion" (for the Japanese system).
And yes I'm aware that its attraction for the German system, also.
But the Japanese technology is also very different from the Germans'.
Check out this link.
"http://www.rtri.or.jp/rd/maglev/html/english/maglev_frame_E.html"

[vsmith]

This whole debate makes me thin that Mag-levs are more like an airplane on the ground, used for high speed transit across great distances. But even jets have weight limits, coal is NEVER transported by air, just as it would never be by mag-lev. The weights are just too great. maglevs use electro magnets to generate "lift" but these magnets have limits and the physics of lagre very heavy objects would cause great wear and tear on the sensitive electronics used. Coal is transported by train, truck or ship. People, parcels, lighter freight travel by plane. Weight, costs, wear, all are factors. Maglevs will never be used for heavy duty transport short of a quantum leap in technology, nor would you necessarally want to move coal, iron ore, petrolium or other very heavy material via a maglev? it just wouldnt be economical or a good use of technology. Also would you really want to have a million pounds of coal hurtling at 300 mph? real scary!

[TH&B]

Coal was transported by air between Frankurt to Berlin some time after WWII
So anything can be done, sensible or not.
Here are some of my sources of "maglev facts";
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/18/content_255946.htm
Sars is of course not maglevs fault but its the stator windings that failed.

http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/004/586dhgqq.asp
the last item; rail in, maglev out, in my opinion wisely. Although I am against the Beijing-Shanghia line because I support HSR, they got a good deal on the airport line because of the potentail publicity and that many of the costs are covered by the Germans because they want to sell the idea. But it's a bit of a novelty to me.

Of course "NEWS" isn't neccesarily "FACT", but that is where I get it from. I've never looked up "antimaglev" on the web nor knew the unions were against it. I am anti maglev only so far as I would realy much rather see electrified HSR lines being built, I believe in the steel wheel advantages more.