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:
Tilt and Conventional Trains
Maglev
*In 1997 dollars
Source:
As I have developed my fusion theory, so too new supporting information has become available. And now at the same time our nation faces an economic and environmental imperative some keys to my theory are emerging. Notably and importantly for this region, a "channel of molten rock" under Western Washington State has recently been inferred from first-ever studies of high-temperature heat flow. [See Whittington and Hofmeister, Nature 458, pp. 319-321; 19 March 2009; University of Missouri in Columbia and Washington University in St. Louis scientists have been able to measure heat flow in samples of crust material subjected to high temperatures. They have found that the Earth's lower crust must act as an insulator, increasing the crust's potential to generate molten magma. Also Jean Braun (Universite de Rennes) lin the same issue pp. 292-293. Nature wants $57.50 for me to reproduce Braun's figure 2 here, so just take my word...]
Anyway, I am trying to contact my Congressional Representative and ask him to support development of a Cascade Magic Carpet (maglev system); and I knew readers of this forum would have no shortage of constructive criticism!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
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.
Some regional perspective: we need jobs, and comparable amounts are being spent on highways:
Boeing Expects Layoffs to Total 10000 in 2009 - NYTimes.com
The Washington State Department of Transportation incorporated two changes into the design of the $83 million State Route 20, Fredonia to Interstate 5, construction project. The changes were developed by a value engineering team, a group of freeway design experts who reviewed the original design and suggestions from local residents.
The new design shifts the south end of Goldenrod Road and the bridge supporting new southbound I-5 on and off ramps slightly to the east. All other aspects of the project design remain the same. The new project design will not change the schedule or budget of the project. The construction cost of the interchange portion of the project is $20 million and includes:• realign the southbound I-5 on and off ramps, construct embankment and two bridges to elevate the ramps over Goldenrod Road, • modify the northbound on and off ramps at the I-5/SR 20 interchange, which includes adding a second left turn lane to the northbound off ramp,• close the existing Peterson road connection to SR 20 and build a new connection further to the west that aligns with the new southbound ramp terminals on SR 20,• rebuild signals at the Goldenrod Road intersection and the northbound ramp terminals,• install a signal at the new Peterson Road/southbound ramp terminals on SR 20,• adding two new lanes between the new Peterson road connection and the northbound off ramps,• add sidewalk along the south side of SR 20 between the new southbound ramp terminal and just east of the northbound ramp terminal and on the north side of SR 20 from the I-5 overcrossing to the vicinity of the northbound ramp terminal,• and improvements to Nevitt Road and a new connection between Nevitt Road and Goldenrod Road.
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 Chinese are in fact developing maglev coal transport. UP / BNSF, watch out!
http://www.magplane.com/media.htm
I am trying to find a link to obtain the proceedings of the Maglev conference in San Diego earlier this year...
For the transport of coal, what is the advantage of maglev over conventional rail?
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.
Maglev 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 rail.) See correction in following post...
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.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan 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. Al - in - Stockton
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...
MaglevThere 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
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.)
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/200
MAGLEV Deployment Program--updated March 2, 2009
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. Work in this EIS has been delayed due to funding constraints.
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 others) high wage economy.
Where do people get the idea that a maglev ride will be anything other than being stuffed 6 across into seats at 31" pitch as on the airlines? I guess people get that idea from Amtrak long-distance trains, offering the deep-recline seats in coach, the private rooms in first class, the lounge car and dining car destinations to get up out of your seat and walk someplace to stretch your legs. Amtrak offers these amenities because otherwise no one would sit the hours or even days it takes to get places on those trains. It is costly to provide those amenities because while Amtrak fares are perhaps comparable to long-distance air fares, the Amtrak subsidy is greater than the ticket price and many multiples of the per passenger mile subsidy to airlines.
The original post suggested that nuclear fusion was on the verge of providing cheap, abundant, non-polluting electric power that would lead our economy to substitute maglev for the use of jet fuel. Let's get that nuclear fusion thing working first -- if we had a cheap, abundant, non-polluting source of electric power, that could solve the oil problem by first replacing all of the oil used in home heating with cheap electricity, next by substituting for natural gas in stationary uses, power generation and later home heating, freeing it up for use as a transportation fuel (an LNG airliner is not such a farfetched thing), and somewhere down the line we could consider maglev.
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-thank you very much for replying.
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...
...oh yes, so exactly WHAT am I proposing?
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...
THe Japanese maglev system is about to get built out and go commercial - maybe - financial conditions permitting. The announcement came just before the financial world came unglued.
Granted Maglev requires substantial amounts of electrical power, there is no requirement for fusion generators to provide it. Possible alternate sources in the current, no carbon dioxide world:
My point is that electricity is something we already know how to produce - WITHOUT setting off reactions among the knee-jerk set by mentioning - gasp - nuclear (not 'nucular') power.
That said, what would maglev bring to the table that would be better than:
Any of the above would be capable of moving a lot of people. NONE of the above would have the capacity to get people out of the way of the laharze if Mount Ranier blows its cool.
Having lived for a while, I have seen a lot of wonderful ideas that looked great on paper and seemed to offer splendid solutions to percieved problems - only to watch them succumb to the harsh realities of business and finance. The jury is still out on whether maglev will join that not-so-select group. As for letting other nations take the lead - I'm 100% in favor of letting them enjoy the screwups, financial failures and technological disasters involved in developing the workable system we will eventually adopt - if we really think it would be worthwhile.
By WE, I don't mean a few technology geeks and enthusiasts. I mean John Q. and Jane U. Public, and the politicians who are supposed to represent them. In that spectrum, we (geeks and enthusiasts) are a single, barely-visible line.
Chuck
tomikawaTT Granted Maglev requires substantial amounts of electrical power, there is no requirement for fusion generators to provide it. My point is that electricity is something we already know how to produce - WITHOUT setting off reactions among the knee-jerk set by mentioning - gasp - nuclear (not 'nucular') power. That said, what would maglev bring to the table that would be better than: Conventional rubber-tired vehicles on conventional highways? Conventionally-configured rail vehicles on ordinary railroads? HSR on dedicated ROW (as in Shinkansen)? Pneumatic tube capsules routed through cylindrical tubes (which have supersonic potential if the tubes are evacuated in front of the capsules)? Any of the above would be capable of moving a lot of people. NONE of the above would have the capacity to get people out of the way of the laharze if Mount Ranier blows its cool. Having lived for a while, I have seen a lot of wonderful ideas that looked great on paper and seemed to offer splendid solutions to percieved problems - only to watch them succumb to the harsh realities of business and finance. The jury is still out on whether maglev will join that not-so-select group. As for letting other nations take the lead - I'm 100% in favor of letting them enjoy the screwups, financial failures and technological disasters involved in developing the workable system we will eventually adopt - if we really think it would be worthwhile. By WE, I don't mean a few technology geeks and enthusiasts. I mean John Q. and Jane U. Public, and the politicians who are supposed to represent them. In that spectrum, we (geeks and enthusiasts) are a single, barely-visible line. Chuck
Granted Maglev requires substantial amounts of electrical power, there is no requirement for fusion generators to provide it.
Chuck brings up exactly the point I was going to make. The whole thrust behind the original post was that "if electricical power could be produced more cheaply, MagLev would be practical." The cheaper power could easily be applied to conventional or what we now know as high speed trains. So even if electricity becomes much cheaper, there's no advanatage from that quarter for MagLev over any other form of electrical powered conveyance.
Practicality has more to do with the above statement than patriotism, unless somehow it unpatriotic to be practical, especially spending our tax dollars.
Thanks to all who have put time into responding!
As far as transportation planning is concerned, I think this forum is a good sounding board for ideas. But as far as nuclear fusion goes, please understand that I have stretched some very great minds and have not gotten answers. Frankly, I don't know how to proceed, and that is why the ideas I present are not fully developed.
By the way, have you noticed that the sky is tinged yellow with volcanic sulphur? And how stinky does the carbon need to be before we admit we have polluted the atmosphere? Do you have eyes and noses?
...and I think pneumatic tube transportation systems suck.
Maglev ...and I think pneumatic tube transportation systems suck.
Isn't that how they work??
My argument with the California HSR authority from the beginning was to think outside the box and Mag-Lev was the way to go. Why? because we do not have to keep it to the width of 10 feet like conventional trains on that track.
My idea was to make the Mag-Lev double deck with truck trailers hauled on the lower level four wide. On the upper level you could have spacious passenger accommodations like the early Jumbo jets had with less seating than now and piano bars etc. The main feature of the high level Mag--lev was its 350 mph speed versus 220 for conventional HSR trains. And what trucking service would use this premium service in California? I can think of three without even trying California Overnight, UPS and Fedex come immediatly to mind. My proposal was far more expensive but at least had a chance of paying for itself long before regular HSR would.
Someone brought up the subject of earthquakes earlier. Today California and Japan lead the world in constructrion of buildings and roadways that can withstand up to a 9.0 earthquake. California or Japan have never had a quake of that intensity. Here in California we have learned from the Northridge and Bay area quakes and todays freeways are built to withstand up to a 9.0 quake. I believe with todays technology we should be able to build a Mag Lev system in California that can serve people for the next hundred years . It is foolish to build regular 220 mph HSR when we have the capability to build a 350 mph Mag-Lev system. When I presented it to HSR my cost estimate was 15 billion more than the proposed regular HSR and Japanese consultants I contacted agreed.
Yes, maglev is NOT all that more expensive than a new corridor, true high-speed rail system. This is in the context of a world where we are planning to spend $100 billion on new military air tankers. Portland to Vancouver maglev (317 miles at $50 million per mile) would be under $20 billion.
And I know I got canned for trying to discuss health care here once (and my boss Mr. Daschle REALLY got canned), but President Obama is meeting today to "trim" two trillion dollars of wastefulness from our medical system. There is no question that we can afford maglev; the question is how can we afford the delay any longer?
On the subject of comfort--one alternative is a wide-body design. I like the coach seating on 767's (2-3-2); indeed , I think it is the only plane that is comfortable in coach. But I also believe that maglev inherently allows more spacious accommodations because the weight and space constraints are not as extreme as on an airliner.
And on engineering--an elevated concrete guideway might be more robust to earthquakes than steel rails on the ground.
passengerfanSomeone brought up the subject of earthquakes earlier. Today California and Japan lead the world in constructrion of buildings and roadways that can withstand up to a 9.0 earthquake. California or Japan have never had a quake of that intensity
Al: Even all earthquakes of 7.0 are not equal ( thrust, side - slip, shallow, deep, fault centered, etc) .Look at the world series earthquake. Centered near Aptos (Santa Cruz). Didn't do much damage there but shook down I-880; the old SF freeway and caused liquafaction on much of the SF bay water line. The EIS of the proposed Victorville - Las Vegas HSR listed over 1100 major to very minor (don't you believe it) faults. Any engineering will miss some for sure. When, not If, a nautral disaster occurs and takes down a major tunnel or concrete bridge; replacement may take up to 18 months. With all the disasters that have occurred the last couple years either an alternate route or a shoe fly soon has restored RR service quickly. How hard is it to build a maglev shoe fly? I remember a certain bridge that a tornado demolished and won't be replaced. Imagine a shoe fly of any kind there.
MaglevOn the subject of comfort--one alternative is a wide-body design. I like the coach seating on 767's (2-3-2); indeed , I think it is the only plane that is comfortable in coach
Oh those dreaded center seats. As much traveling as I do you don't know how many complaints i hear about the center seats either 3x3, 3x2, 2x3x2, 2x4x2 etc. Maybe that is why the eurostar, TGV, Acela, etc sell 2x1 so sucessfully. Never been able to get one as always sold out.
In your report, I can see no mention of a Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta project? In theory, the maglev could also link the Nashville airport with Atlanta.
Frankly, the route is too hilly for maglev, making it too expensive.We don't even have slow Amtrak service, haven't since the demise of L&N to NC&STL trains.
A "High Speed Corridor" goes back to 1991. Not one mile outside of the NEC can be considered HSR today. I'm not betting on Maglev in my lifetime. No money=no trains. I'm tired of unfilled promises.
No.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.