ontheBNSF Actually there is quite a lot of nostalgia involved, in that railfans will often try to implement rail projects not necessarily out of practicality but out of simple desire to have trains built. Never mind the many failures of rail projects both domestically and abroad. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another. Definitely nostalgia involved. Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.
Actually there is quite a lot of nostalgia involved, in that railfans will often try to implement rail projects not necessarily out of practicality but out of simple desire to have trains built. Never mind the many failures of rail projects both domestically and abroad. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another. Definitely nostalgia involved. Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.
Railfans do not build railroads. Companies build then for (hopefully) profit. Some nostalgia may be involved for those who appreciate railroad history, but have you ever seen them build their own lines? No; they run on trackage the railroads no longer need.
Don't you think if it were profitable that both freight and commuter railroads would have them in their future plans? Obviously they don't and the reason is financial. The cost to build what yo envision is far beyond the financial capability of most companies and we know what a mess the government would make of them.
You've presented your case, but it is a weak one. You are also preaching to the wrong choir.
Norm
Your first 4 links are nothing more than promotional articles written by maglev developers, self-promoting Q&A articles, none of them are an unbiased straightforward study of cost versus profitability, and containing no verifiable facts, only suppositions and wish fulfillment.
The only “proof” in any of them is strictly in the minds of the articles authors.
As for carrying freight, yes, you can use maglev for that, but why would you want to?
You could also use dirigibles, hot air balloons, or Zeppelins, but the same question applies.
For that matter, mule trains and canal barges can also move freight.
Funny thing about a free market economy, it often finds the most cost efficient and profitable way of accomplishing its practitioner’s goals.
You trolled this same basic posting out here about two years ago.
23 17 46 11
Norm48327 ontheBNSF Actually there is quite a lot of nostalgia involved, in that railfans will often try to implement rail projects not necessarily out of practicality but out of simple desire to have trains built. Never mind the many failures of rail projects both domestically and abroad. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another. Definitely nostalgia involved. Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated. Railfans do not build railroads. Companies build then for (hopefully) profit. Some nostalgia may be involved for those who appreciate railroad history, but have you ever seen them build their own lines? No; they run on trackage the railroads no longer need. Don't you think if it were profitable that both freight and commuter railroads would have them in their future plans? Obviously they don't and the reason is financial. The cost to build what yo envision is far beyond the financial capability of most companies and we know what a mess the government would make of them. You've presented your case, but it is a weak one. You are also preaching to the wrong choir.
Private companies for the most part don't build railroads today. They are mostly built by transportation planners and other people in government and many of those people in government are nostalgic. Simply a technology being good doesn't mean it will be used, often people misinformed about something or just don't want a technology to succeed or they are just used to what they have. Trackage is often built to towns that don't need it for purely political reasons.
Railroad to Freedom
ndbprrYou want facts. Tell us how much 100 miles of maglev will cost including the real estate and who is going to finance it?
100 miles at 13 million - 20 million dollars a mile is around 1.3 - 2 billion dollars. Real estate is hard one to calculate, but a lot of real estate is government owned and could be in theory used for such a project. For financing there is a multitude of methods, the Federal Government has oil and gas resources valued at 128 trillion dollars, you can "print" money, money in CAFRs (varying numbers), money from the drug war at 500 billion a year, and other valuable assets both physical and paper government assets that could easily fund such a small project.
Murphy Siding ontheBNSF .................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated. Oh please- tell us more about these Mag-Lev projects that would run outside of the corridors where all the riders are, will come in under budget, and will have more riders than they thought possible?
ontheBNSF .................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.
.................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.
Maglev can better adjust to lower population concentration through different vehicle configurations and can travel at higher speeds than HSR thus enabling better adaption to US demographics. The only maglev project that seems to have suffered from a lack or ridership or cost over runs is the linimo maglev in Japan.
ontheBNSF actually responded about the Chinese, they are still using maglev and will have a super high speed maglev by 2015. You seem to completely ignore it.
http://english.gov.cn/2011-03/01/content_1813580.htm
Fact: China is building a low-speed Maglev line, yes. Intracity, in Beijing, much like a subway, with a top speed of 100-120 kmh (62 -75 mph).
In the future, perhaps instead of trolling your fanciful obsession (as you have done several times here along with some political trolls) you might invest in a reading course.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm ontheBNSF actually responded about the Chinese, they are still using maglev and will have a super high speed maglev by 2015. You seem to completely ignore it. http://english.gov.cn/2011-03/01/content_1813580.htm Fact: China is building a low-speed Maglev line, yes. Intracity, in Beijing, much like a subway, with a top speed of 100-120kmh. In the future, perhaps instead of trolling your fanciful obsession (as you have done several times here along with some political trolls) you might invest in a reading course.
Fact: China is building a low-speed Maglev line, yes. Intracity, in Beijing, much like a subway, with a top speed of 100-120kmh.
China is actually developing a 620mph partial vacuum tube maglev, that will be ready in 2015. I don't get what there is to dispute here. I guess they are also designing a lower speed maglev, which only further serves to prove me right in saying that China hasn't given up on the technology.
If something makes economic sense to investors, it will be built. If not, nobody invests.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD If something makes economic sense to investors, it will be built. If not, nobody invests.
Most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors and simply something being being good and/or economical doesn't mean it will get used, plenty of technologies are available that aren't being used but are both good and economical. The world isn't that simple. Railroads don't desire change and are slow to adopt technologies and always have been slow to adopt technologies throughout their lifetime. In the case of the Florida Maglev it didn't government approval, so it is not knowable whether such a project would be economically viable. In the case of Japan their Maglev was built with private funding.
I think the question needs to be " How much will you charge for this service and how many people want to pay that much money for it." The assumption is that if a transportation service is faster, someone will always buy it. That may very well be the case, but not always. Just look at the Concord. It was supposed to be the wave of the future, instead, it just ran it's course and went away. They could not charge enough for the service to replace the airplanes when they wore out.
overall I think the question needs to be " How much will you charge for this service and how many people want to pay that much money for it." The assumption is that if a transportation service is faster, someone will always buy it. That may very well be the case, but not always. Just look at the Concord. It was supposed to be the wave of the future, instead, it just ran it's course and went away. They could not charge enough for the service to replace the airplanes when they wore out.
A happy ending, at that. I was visiting my parents in Seattle -- in 1966? -- when Boeing won the contract for the original SST. The town was going nuts, and my dad -- a Boeing engineer -- was all smiles. I had to suppress my own dread of domestic flights spreading sonic booms and long-lasting jet trails from coast to coast.This was before Congress banned supersonic speeds over the continental U.S., effectively killing a domestic SST.
In the event, only the fishes and a few islanders had to put up with the noise and haze.
ontheBNSF Murphy Siding ontheBNSF .................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated. Oh please- tell us more about these Mag-Lev projects that would run outside of the corridors where all the riders are, will come in under budget, and will have more riders than they thought possible? Maglev can better adjust to lower population concentration through different vehicle configurations and can travel at higher speeds than HSR thus enabling better adaption to US demographics. The only maglev project that seems to have suffered from a lack or ridership or cost over runs is the linimo maglev in Japan.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
No matter how you slice it, Maglev requires a dedicated guideway with absolutely no grade crossings, so that means it must be elevated or underground all the way.
When you try to cross the country with it, where are you going to get the power? Out here in the wild west towns are sometimes hundreds of miles apart and there are no power lines or power plants, and no water source to operate a power plant. With the EPA trying to eliminate all coal fired power plants that currently exist, providing the power to operate a Maglev system could cause a severe strain on existing power grids.
Nuclear power? What's the lead time to get the required permits and build a nuclear power plant -- 15 years? 20 years? And they require huge amounts of water, which we don't have out here in the west.
ontheBNSF BaltACD If something makes economic sense to investors, it will be built. If not, nobody invests. Most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors and simply something being being good and/or economical doesn't mean it will get used, plenty of technologies are available that aren't being used but are both good and economical. The world isn't that simple. Railroads don't desire change and are slow to adopt technologies and always have been slow to adopt technologies throughout their lifetime. In the case of the Florida Maglev it didn't government approval, so it is not knowable whether such a project would be economically viable. In the case of Japan their Maglev was built with private funding.
You cannot include railroads when you say that "most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors." Railroads are a notable exception because of their nature. They were built for profit, not necessarily for the public convenience like highways, airports, etc. Even the commuter rail lines that exist today started out as private companies.
John Timm
cacole No matter how you slice it, Maglev requires a dedicated guideway with absolutely no grade crossings, so that means it must be elevated or underground all the way. When you try to cross the country with it, where are you going to get the power? Out here in the wild west towns are sometimes hundreds of miles apart and there are no power lines or power plants, and no water source to operate a power plant. With the EPA trying to eliminate all coal fired power plants that currently exist, providing the power to operate a Maglev system could cause a severe strain on existing power grids. Nuclear power? What's the lead time to get the required permits and build a nuclear power plant -- 15 years? 20 years? And they require huge amounts of water, which we don't have out here in the west.
You don't have to have an elevated guideway to build maglev, that is another myth about maglev. Like HSR you build it based on area, elevated where it works best and at grade where it works best. The transrapid has an at grade version. You won't build HSR completely at grade because you would get into accidents. As for the issue of electricity that effects electric cars and HSR just as much as it does maglev. Coal obviously should go but nuclear power is perfectly safe and sound. The efforts to kill nuclear power are not based on science but politics. The supposed problems of nuclear power are completely bogus and the safety record compared to other means of electricity generation is quite rock solid. Plus there are many forms of nuclear power which if developed could offer very efficient power generation.
Murphy Siding ontheBNSF Murphy Siding ontheBNSF .................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated. Oh please- tell us more about these Mag-Lev projects that would run outside of the corridors where all the riders are, will come in under budget, and will have more riders than they thought possible? Maglev can better adjust to lower population concentration through different vehicle configurations and can travel at higher speeds than HSR thus enabling better adaption to US demographics. The only maglev project that seems to have suffered from a lack or ridership or cost over runs is the linimo maglev in Japan. Awesome! So, when the Maglev goes through an area where the rider density, is for example, 10% of what it is the big cities, the Maglev trains, track and infrastructure can shrink to 10% of the size and 10% of the cost? Maybe your underground tube wasn't such a goofy idea after all. The majority of Maglev traffic, if shrunk t0 proportionally match the conditions, could be sent through a garden hose.
I was more referring to creating lower capacity vehicles.
desertdog ontheBNSF BaltACD If something makes economic sense to investors, it will be built. If not, nobody invests. Most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors and simply something being being good and/or economical doesn't mean it will get used, plenty of technologies are available that aren't being used but are both good and economical. The world isn't that simple. Railroads don't desire change and are slow to adopt technologies and always have been slow to adopt technologies throughout their lifetime. In the case of the Florida Maglev it didn't government approval, so it is not knowable whether such a project would be economically viable. In the case of Japan their Maglev was built with private funding. You cannot include railroads when you say that "most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors." Railroads are a notable exception because of their nature. They were built for profit, not necessarily for the public convenience like highways, airports, etc. Even the commuter rail lines that exist today started out as private companies. John Timm
Even if there was profit motive most railroads in the us (but not all) received large public assistance and most railroads in most countries are government owned with government assistance.
ndbprrHow well will mag lev operate when lightning hits or the power goes out?
I would presume back up power generation or reserve electricity. But this problem faces other electric transport modes as well.
desertdogYou cannot include railroads when you say that "most of our infrastructure wasn't built by investors." Railroads are a notable exception because of their nature. They were built for profit, not necessarily for the public convenience like highways, airports, etc. Even the commuter rail lines that exist today started out as private companies.
Indeed. Even the little "this town to that town" railroads that formed the foundation of many, if not most, eastern lines were built on the investments of the local residents hoping for a piece of the action.
For that matter, not a few early roads were toll roads run by individuals, not the government.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
ontheBNSFChina is actually developing a 620mph partial vacuum tube maglev, that will be ready in 2015. I don't get what there is to dispute here.
Citation from an authoritative source? A 620mph maglev that will be ready in under two years maximum, yet no one has heard of this wonder of the world but you?
Unless you can back up your claims with real sources, we will all look the other way while you fly off into your sunset.
ontheBNSF China is actually developing a 620mph partial vacuum tube maglev, that will be ready in 2015. I don't get what there is to dispute here. I guess they are also designing a lower speed maglev, which only further serves to prove me right in saying that China hasn't given up on the technology.
schlimm ontheBNSFChina is actually developing a 620mph partial vacuum tube maglev, that will be ready in 2015. I don't get what there is to dispute here. Citation from an authoritative source? A 620mph maglev that will be ready in under two years maximum, yet no one has heard of this wonder of the world but you? Unless you can back up your claims with real sources, we will all look the other way while you fly off into your sunset.
Plenty of places are reporting the exact same thing but here is another source if you are not convinced http://english.eastday.com/e/100803/u1a5369373.html I will admit I am wrong on the time frame, it was 2020.
Aside from their current financial situation, the PRC also does not have an existing infrastructure to deal with.When building in a greenfield environment you can use the latest technology without worrying about adding "one-offs" or inter-operating with existing systems. They also have an easier time with securing ROW and silencing NIMBY/ BANANA types. Much like Europe post WWII.
Lyndon Larouche's organization advocates maglev.
http://larouchepac.com/node/14731
Lyndon Larouche's organization advocates maglevs crossing the Bering Strait.
http://larouchepac.com/node/27968
If information touting maglev's viability is coming from Lyndon Larouche's organization, keep looking for corroborating information.
Maybe that explains it all. Onthe BNSF is a Larouchie?
schlimm Maybe that explains it all. Onthe BNSF is a Larouchie?
I occasionally use info from Larouche, but I am not a follower. Just to be clear.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.