JNR ceased to exist in the 80s when the railroad was split into 7 companies and privatized. Only 3 of the companies are publicly traded: JR East, JR Central, and JR West. This announcement was made by JR Central (Officially: Central Japan Railway Co.). The mag-lev will link Tokyo (population ~13 million) and Nagoya (population ~2 million). JR Central operates the rail network from Tokyo to Kyoto and Osaka.
With regards to the project, they have been testing mag-lev since the 90s. They have over 100,000 passengers on the test runs and logged over 450,000 test kilometers as of August '05. They have put in a lot of time and money already to develop high temperature superconducting material.
While I'm no accountant, it looks like the company is only worth about $43 billion at the end of 2007 and pulling yearly profits (pre-capital investment) of about $1 billion. So, I can see where investors would be slightly concerned with the announcement of a $45 billion project.
No problem. I've been doing a lot of research on the JR Group since having a couple of conversations with my brother's father-in-law before and on Christmas. We talked about trains in Japan and I've been doing some rapid research ever since. I find it very interesting that of the 7 companies into which the national railway split, only 1 is a freight carrier (JR Freight, go figure) and does the freight service for the whole system. If passenger service goes mag-lev, then JR Freight may begin inheriting chunks of rails devoid of passenger traffic.
Maybe JR Central should proposition JR Freight for some common interest funding, thereby calming the investors fears.
What advantages are people claiming for mag-lev? Is it faster speed? Or are the maintenance expenses supposed to be lower because you don't have to fuss with both wheel and rail profiles to keep from wheel hunting at high speed?
I would think there is a practical limit to ground transportation speed. You start to get into major air resistance issues -- airplanes fly at high altitudes to find thinner air to counteract this. Flying high saves fuel on planes two ways -- one way is less air drag, the other way is that flying a jet in thin air is their version of "hooking up the Johnson bar" to operate the jet engine cycle at a more efficient setting at cruise power.
Also, a ground vehicle gets noisier -- a high-speed mag-lev will stir up a lot of wind noise as does a TGV or Shinkansen train. In my opinion, high-speed rail is a practical upper limit on ground transportation speed.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:What advantages are people claiming for mag-lev? Is it faster speed? Or are the maintenance expenses supposed to be lower because you don't have to fuss with both wheel and rail profiles to keep from wheel hunting at high speed?I would think there is a practical limit to ground transportation speed. You start to get into major air resistance issues -- airplanes fly at high altitudes to find thinner air to counteract this. Flying high saves fuel on planes two ways -- one way is less air drag, the other way is that flying a jet in thin air is their version of "hooking up the Johnson bar" to operate the jet engine cycle at a more efficient setting at cruise power.Also, a ground vehicle gets noisier -- a high-speed mag-lev will stir up a lot of wind noise as does a TGV or Shinkansen train. In my opinion, high-speed rail is a practical upper limit on ground transportation speed.
Mag-lev has a very high speed with minimal losses with no steel-on-steel interaction. Due to advanced aerodynamic designs, the air resistance is also minimal. Viable long distance operating speeds are around 300mph. Studies are still underway to further reduce wind noise and such. From the standpoint of the house along the line, though, it will still be less noise than a diesel train rumbling past (some people, myself included, actually enjoy the diesel noise, but we're an odd bunch) and be over in a matter of single digit seconds.
Krazykat112079 wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: What advantages are people claiming for mag-lev? Is it faster speed? Or are the maintenance expenses supposed to be lower because you don't have to fuss with both wheel and rail profiles to keep from wheel hunting at high speed?I would think there is a practical limit to ground transportation speed. You start to get into major air resistance issues -- airplanes fly at high altitudes to find thinner air to counteract this. Flying high saves fuel on planes two ways -- one way is less air drag, the other way is that flying a jet in thin air is their version of "hooking up the Johnson bar" to operate the jet engine cycle at a more efficient setting at cruise power.Also, a ground vehicle gets noisier -- a high-speed mag-lev will stir up a lot of wind noise as does a TGV or Shinkansen train. In my opinion, high-speed rail is a practical upper limit on ground transportation speed.From the standpoint of the house along the line, though, it will still be less noise than a diesel train rumbling past (some people, myself included, actually enjoy the diesel noise, but we're an odd bunch) and be over in a matter of single digit seconds.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: What advantages are people claiming for mag-lev? Is it faster speed? Or are the maintenance expenses supposed to be lower because you don't have to fuss with both wheel and rail profiles to keep from wheel hunting at high speed?I would think there is a practical limit to ground transportation speed. You start to get into major air resistance issues -- airplanes fly at high altitudes to find thinner air to counteract this. Flying high saves fuel on planes two ways -- one way is less air drag, the other way is that flying a jet in thin air is their version of "hooking up the Johnson bar" to operate the jet engine cycle at a more efficient setting at cruise power.Also, a ground vehicle gets noisier -- a high-speed mag-lev will stir up a lot of wind noise as does a TGV or Shinkansen train. In my opinion, high-speed rail is a practical upper limit on ground transportation speed.
From the standpoint of the house along the line, though, it will still be less noise than a diesel train rumbling past (some people, myself included, actually enjoy the diesel noise, but we're an odd bunch) and be over in a matter of single digit seconds.
So's a thunderclap, and I'm not too fond of them, either.....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
This is a pic of the test train for the superconducting maglev, for those that want to view the aerodynamics of the vehicle, as well as the possible look of the passenger version.
(BTW, I don't recall hearing about the TGV test train being too loud when it ran at 357.2 mph. This superconducting maglev has been operated at 361 mph in tests.)
While the train has steel-on-steel rolling resistance along with steel-on-steel noise, all of the magnetic-repulsion mag-lev systems I know about have eddy-current drag associated with generating the "lift" to get the train up off the guidway (I always thought that the ultra-low drag magnetic attraction systems were only viable at low speeds). It seems to me that for either the TGV/Shinkansen type train or the mag-lev, aero drag would be the primary factor in both noise and energy consumption, especially since you are talking about 300 MPH at ground level -- planes go that speed and faster, but up high in thinner air.
The one item where I see an advantage to mag-lev is that for trains to be stable and not have dangerous truck hunting at speed, you have to maintain tight control over the wheel profile, the track profile through rail grinding, and maintain tight control over the compliances and the spring rates in all of the truck suspension parts over multiple axes of deflection. Also, train tracks of concrete sleeper on stone ballast are regarded as high maintenance with regard to ballast cleaning and tamping and constant checking of track geometry.
There is a notion that while the concrete with embedded coil mag-lev guidway has a high initial cost, there is not much you need to do to keep it up. Is this a known thing or is this wishful thinking based on the assumption that a non-contacting guidway doesn't require much maintenance? Even a road, which is just a slab of cement over a crushed stone ballast section hidden under the surface requires a lot of maintenance.
My poppa had published an ASME conference paper "A generalized theory of the stability of guided vehicles" where he had expressed some opinions about what could yet be done to get practical 300 MPH trains. One idea was to have lateral guiding wheels rather than relying on cone-taper wheel sets and flanges -- the GATX ultra wide gauge RRollway auto ferry concept was designed that way. Of course then you start to get some of the problems of various monorail proposals of having a mechanically complex track switch, but the RRollway proposal involved one of those moving frog gapless switches of a type known to HO model railroaders who used TruTrack milled track bed back in the day and I believe used on the 12 inch:foot scale Shinkansen for high-speed track switches.
The other thing Poppa complained about was "those railroad people" who "insisted on bi-directional trains." "You wouldn't think about driving your car down the Interstate in reverse because the car is only stable at speed in the forward direction." Alejandro Goicoechea tried a uni-directional design with the initial Talgo before switching to the bi-directional Talgo in collabroation with James MacVeigh at ACF. Poppa pointed out that the wheel alignment on your car involved all kinds of tricks of "castor, camber, and toe-in" that had a preferred direction of travel, and he argued that a train that was high-speed in one direction but allowed backing moves into stations or sidings at reduced speeds offered all manner of advantages for high-speed operation. The design change might be as simple as a two-axle truck with an offset kingpin pivot, but that railroad people dug their heals in about wanting to operate push-pull and not wanting trains that had speed restrictions in reverse. Sure you have the cost of turning trains, but to save on turning trains you incurred every other manner of maintenance expense on both the wheels, suspension, and tracks.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:There is a notion that while the concrete with embedded coil mag-lev guidway has a high initial cost, there is not much you need to do to keep it up. Is this a known thing or is this wishful thinking based on the assumption that a non-contacting guidway doesn't require much maintenance? Even a road, which is just a slab of cement over a crushed stone ballast section hidden under the surface requires a lot of maintenance.
Oh woe to the person that makes a highway on a neat paste cement slab. Highways involve subgrade stabilization, base course, and either bituminous concrete or portland cement concrete. Those made with portland cement concrete have steel reinforcement in addition to the standard concrete (usually made with fly ash). The steel reinforcement is epoxy coated to at least delay the onset of corrosion.
Issues that you have in highways that you wouldn't have with a mag-lev include: road salt, uneven hi-range cyclic loading, and plows (not all inclusive, but I really didn't feel like spending too much time coming up with a list). Road salt does more damage to concrete roads than most anything else, since it accelerates the corrosion of the reinforcement steel, which then expands in a confined space. This expansion causes build up of tensile pressure, against which concrete is extremely weak. Then the concrete spalls and the plows and tires crush it into tiny bits.
Since mag-lev does not actually touch the concrete (except during an accident) then you would not have to deal with hi-range cyclic loading or anything to do with road salt and plows. If constructed properly, you could see a 50+ year lifespan on a concrete structure (even highways).
The big thing about mag-lev isn't its guideway. It is the superconducting power transmission. The savings over standard electric track, in terms of electricity supply costs, is enormous. Estimates put electricity loss through standard transmission lines at 65%. In superconductors, this goes to 0%. So, when you produce 10kWh, you get to use 10kWh and not just 3.5kWh. You'll see monumental reductions in fuel costs that will help pay for the system over time.
Yes, it costs more. Yes, it is a risky investment. But remember, horses were faster than the first few locomotives. R&D continues and we'll see mag-lev come into adolescence within 50 years.
I have some what ifs that aren't answered. What if:
1. it snows? Can you see a 350 mph snow plow?
2. A foreign object falls on the right of way like a tree? How do you stop when you are going that fast?
3. there is an earthquake? This is seismic territory. I can't imagine being shaken at 350mph.
4. you hit something like a bird or even a squirrel at that speed? the splat may not be the animal
5. you collide? Don't even want to consider that one.
ndbprr wrote:3. there is an earthquake? This is seismic territory. I can't imagine being shaken at 350mph.
I'd be almost as concerned if the ground shifts a bit. Unless the maglev track is anchored to solid rock in a seismically quiet area, the ground is going to move around a bit. Many fault lines make their presence known by gradual movements.
While RR track does need continual maintenance to preserve alignment, re-aligning RR track would probably be easier then trying to re-align a section of maglev track.
(BTW, your other "what ifs" are very good questions.)
Tree Kaput. Mass versus momentum will sawdust it. The problem is armoring the front to withstand those and bird strikes. The Earth movement is just one challenge. Seperating this railway from all possible conflicts with wildlifes, suicides, grade crossing etc... is going to be so worth it if you can make it really isolated and safe.
With that in mind, the idea of such a train traveling anywhere there is a tree branch growing is ludicrous. I doubt the construction crews will allow such trees nearby to the ROW.
Japan sits on the fire at the Pacific Rim. We would need to worry about our own New Madrid Fault apparently companies like Autozone built buildings in Memphis that should ride it out. Problem is Memphis will probably be destroyed and that building be a unnecessary one.
You get going, you dont stop.
Snow probably will not be allowed to sit on a track long enough to affect train travel. One of the secrets to winter trucking I used was the mass air blast that gathers just under the radiator and drive fast "Blowing" the snow off the pavement and clearing a path for a while until several inches accumulate.
I think some of you are working too hard on the flying bit. Anytime a large object leaves the runway it is now a airborne object confronted with all the issues to flight. Defective units dont fly long or at all.
In the USA, all problems can be solved when enough dollars are accumulated.
ndbprr wrote: I have some what ifs that aren't answered. What if:1. it snows? Can you see a 350 mph snow plow?2. A foreign object falls on the right of way like a tree? How do you stop when you are going that fast?3. there is an earthquake? This is seismic territory. I can't imagine being shaken at 350mph.4. you hit something like a bird or even a squirrel at that speed? the splat may not be the animal5. you collide? Don't even want to consider that one.
Great questions and I can only speculate answers, but here it goes:
1. In an area with heavy snow, since you have full electrical, you could have resistance grids that can be turned on as needed to heat areas and melt the snow. If you are getting small amounts or slow accumulation, the wind of the passing trains will blow it all away. Currently, in the Tokyo to Nagoya corridor there is a Shinkansen going each way once every half hour.
2. Foreign objects...Proper ROW planning would minimize this to freak occurances on an astronomical level. At a certain risk level you have to say enough is enough and take the risk.
3. You can build the system with the same earthquake technology as they build most everything else in Japan. Once again, level of risk is a factor, but you can have sensors all along the track that can detect shifts in alignment.
4. Most small animals will be buffeted by the air cushion that preceeds the train (like standing next to the road when a big truck goes by). Those that aren't will probably be cleaned off at the next station. A few ounces or maybe a pound or two on a fat squirrel won't be much to the train, even if it does hit the windshield. Larger animals can be kept back from the ROW and the presence of open magnetics may very well keep all animals away. They seem to be precognizant of these types of things and avoid them.
5. Mag-lev is so wonderful that you can litterally stop on a dime. It is just a matter of how much energy you want to put into it. Of course, instant stopping would rip apart the trainset and probably kill most, if not all, people aboard. More than likely, the sensors would come back into play. You can program the system to not allow the magnets to be activated within a certain distance of each other; thereby making it nigh impossible to be on the same track in the same location. If the eventuality ever occured, you can only hope that everyone is sitting down and buckled in, because the braking would be akin to a jet taking off in reverse.
There are probably a million other what-ifs and I haven't really thought about them. What I do know is that they have been testing this system for a decade plus now and it doesn't look like they have any intention of stopping the testing, so whatever what-ifs they think up are probably being brainstormed regularly.
I am very excited about this technology (not just because I am a ceramic engineer and understand the technical tidbits), because as they develop high temperature superconductors (meaning superconductors that work in normal temperatures and not just at -200 celsius) it will have implications on everything, including how much coal it takes to power the nation's thirst for energy (or how thirsty we can get on the same amount of coal, however you want to look at it).
There is technology where you chill down powerful electric conduits and transmit large amounts of power in cyro.
If you could demo the existing long haul towers, pack those awful cables away and transmit power under the Maglev in Cyro for very long distances you will probably benefit.
In my area, we are suffering thefts of copper wire that recently shut down a substation for a few hours and caused about 150 K in damage. If all of that is cyro cooled and buried instead we might not have these problems.
My biggest attraction for maglev is to have it go from any Class A airport to any other airport and large cities with scheduled travel times equal to or exceeding that of a Boeing 737 including 2 hours security boarding and one hour deplaning. I advocate these trains because I sense this will provide an alternative in bad weather and possibly render some short haul routes irrevelant and too slow. (Possibly expensive fares to fly)
ndbprr wrote: I have some what ifs that aren't answered. What if:1. it snows? Can you see a 350 mph snow plow?
The prototype test unit IS a 350mph snow plow. It has snowed on the test track. One pass of the test train and the track was clean.
In the first 20 years of Shinkansen operation the only serious foreign object problem was a small truck that some (fillintheblank) drove through the fence and landed in a cut. The sensors worked, and the only problem was getting the truck out of the way. Nothing hit it. Even if it HAD been hit, the pilot of a Shinkansen train is a multi-layer system of armor plate that a battleship would envy. I'm sure that the maglev trains will be equally strong if not stronger.
As for trees, they would be cut back so far from the guideway that even fallen leaves would be unlikely to land in it.
Seismic sensors and computer linkage would slow and stop the trains at the first sign of misalignment - just like the Shinkansen, but with 'right now' technology.
Look at the shape of that front end. The splat would probably be the critter hitting the ground some distance from the guideway - after the train had passed.
With sensors all along the line and advanced computer control with fail-safe, rear-end collisions would be all but impossible to arrange without deliberate sabotage. Note that the guideways are one way - dedicated double track.
JR-Central and its predecessors have been experimenting with maglev for forty years, and the Shinkansen has been running for longer. These, and numerous other, questions had to be addressed and answered long before the hard-headed businesspeople who manage JR-Central would even consider moving out of the prototype stage.
As for noise - those who have heard it describe it as a whoosh, and a slight feeling of overpressure rather like a wind gust. None of the usual steel-on-steel noises of the Shinkansen, and certainly none of the diesel growl, turbine whine, clanging and banging generated by North American trains at far lower speeds.
Chuck
Some of the advantages of Maglev over conventional two-rail high-speed would result from moving from the 170-year old separate sleeper/tie contruction to continuously-supported rails with guard rails attached for the entire length, not just on curves. Something like this, but without the guard rails, is the track construction of New Orleans' revived Canal Street line, which has continuous concrete roadbed, even where there is grass between between the rails. (The grass is on six-inch+ deep earth above a shallow concrete depression.) This construction and the fact that they used ordinary t-rail instead of streetcar girder rail on straight track saved a lot of money, The webs and bases of the rails were coated with a elastic plastic before installation to provide some vibration isolation. The track construction survived Katrina in fine shape and provides a smooth and quiet ride. Admittadly this is a very low speed application. A paper in the Acoustical Socieity Journal about four years ago by a Norwegian engineer showed that continuously supported rails can reduce noise and vibration. Alpparently, the rail between the ties, where unsupported, acts somewhat as a spring and moves down and rebounds up, relative to its position on the tie/sleeper, as a wheel moves over it.
Continuously supported rails have been used successfully in tunnels by the Class I's. They should look into test tracks elsewhere.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.