Mag Lev poses a problem that is the same as the problem new railroads face. The right-of-way must first be purchased and then the tracks themselves must be constructed. All of this must be done before a train can be operated over the system. It is expensive.
Of course the government could build it. While it would be expensive for government too it would not necessarily have to earn a profit to operate.
One advantage of Amtrak is that it runs over existing tracks. While there have been upgrades these, even when expensive, are not nearly as expensive as buying a right-of-way and building a whole new rail line.
On the other hand our road system is pretty expensive too. When Dwight Eisenhower wanted to build a highway system modeled on the Autobahn he knew how to get Congress and the people to go along. He used the magic word "defense" in the title. (The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of National and Defense Highways). Is there any way we can include the word "defense" in Mag Lev?
Here is hoping that the guide way will be built ( in case the Mag lev fails ( for whatever reason )) so regular HSR rails can be installed .
I hope I'll be able to ride the Japanese maglev. They've committed to it. They're practical about it. I think they will succeed. Different than the German.
Some links, new and old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc81Wej6XWI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPduAYKk_6I
http://www.usjhsr.com/USJHSR/The_N700-I.html
http://english.jr-central.co.jp/about/movie.html
Maybe revise that to about 1950 +/- 5. I was thinking of the many postwar purchases, especially the re-equipping of the Denver Zephyr in 1956, one of the finest trains running, and the Northern Pacific purchases throughout the 1950's. Also the AT&SF bought some from Budd and P-S 1950 and 1953 (besides the hi-level equipment). There probably were other lines purchasing, but these two lines bought some great streamline equipment, especially from Budd.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm VP's for passenger operations on the railroads and steamship lines probably thought something similar about jet airliners in 1955.
VP's for passenger operations on the railroads and steamship lines probably thought something similar about jet airliners in 1955.
Is VP for passenger operations on the railroads in 1955 a good analogy for people not seeing the future? I kind of have the impression that by 1955, the railroad passenger VPs indeed saw what they were doing being superceded by airliners if not automobiles.
I am thinking that post WW-II there was a substantial expenditure by the railroads on the E7 Diesel locomotive and on the "lightweight" or "streamliner" type passenger equipment -- essentially the Amtrak Heritage Fleet and what VIA still operates on their remaining long-distance trains. I believe that much of that equipment was purchased in the late 40's, early 50's, and by 1955 that railroad management had come to the conclusion that their customers were going elsewhere, and that management was looking to bail on passenger trains, leading to a process of petitioning the ICC to discontinue passenger trains, straight through to the 1971 founding of Amtrak?
There were various "experiments" past the streamliner era -- early Talgo, Train-X, Budd Tubular Train, Budd Pioneer III, GM Aerotrain -- all with the idea that the 1940's style Diesel streamliner was not economical enough or fast enough or inspiring to the public enough. Didn't those come mid 50's or later as a kind of last-ditch last-gasp effort to save the passenger train?
By 1955, hadn't all acquisitions of rail passenger equipment on mainline railroads come to an end, apart from some exceptions. Besides the experimental stuff, weren't the exceptions the Santa Fe Hi-Level fleet along with the C&NW adapting the new gallery bi-level commuter cars with seating for intercity use on its remaining "400" trains?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm D. Carleton: "Remember, maglev is the future; it has always been the future and will always be in the future." VP's for passenger operations on the railroads and steamship lines probably thought something similar about jet airliners in 1955.
D. Carleton: "Remember, maglev is the future; it has always been the future and will always be in the future."
Given the energy and power requirements for a 310 MPH maglev, how is it that people think that the maglev experience will be anything like a train -- free to walk between cars, cafe/dining/lounge amenities, seats not all jammed together like on a bus or an airliner, or gosh forbid, a regional jet?
Will a maglev vehicle even be a proper train, with different coaches and walkways between coaches, or will it be a unitary conveyance like an airliner or non-articulated bus?
And with this thing wooshing along at 310 MPH with the near-field scenery being a blur, how will a maglev be anything like a train in terms of the sensory experiences that work on the subconscious to make us train enthusiasts? How will this be different than a low-altitude jet?
All of the high speed railroads in the world, as far as I know, have been built with government (taxpayer) monies. Private investors only invest in a project if it has a reasonable probability of generating a return. The same applies to bond holders, who are lending money for the project and expect to get their money back with interest.
Japan's general government debt was 137.31 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as of January 2012. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), it is expected to reach 153.95 per cent of GDP by January 2015. In January 2009 Japan's share of world GDP, adjusted for Producer Price Parity, was six per cent. It is projected to be 5.28 per cent in 2015. Japan will be challenged to raise the funds for a high-speed, magnetic levitation train. Whether it can attract private investors is unknown.
Rogoff and Reinhart noted in This Time is Different that once national debt reaches 90 per cent of GDP, it (GDP) declines by approximately one per cent. The Japanese numbers appear to support their argument.
The U.S. is equally challenged. Although its debt to GDP ratio is not as severe as that of the Japanese, it is getting there. Moreover, I don't see the capital markets putting up the money to fund a costly rail project in the United States. Witness the California High Speed Rail Project. It has been unable to attract private investors, as far as I know.
Victrola1 310mph 'floating' trains unveiled in Japan The first of a new generation of high-speed, magnetic levitation trains has been unveiled in Japan, designed to operate at speeds of more than 310mph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9702521/310mph-floating-trains-unveiled-in-Japan.html Will anybody float a note to build maglev trains in America?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9702521/310mph-floating-trains-unveiled-in-Japan.html
Will anybody float a note to build maglev trains in America?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.