Maglev On the Drawing Boards 334
longacre sends along a Popular Mechanics article on the growing interest in magnetic levitation trains in the US. It's unclear how many will actually get built here, at $100 million per track mile. (In recent years we've discussed maglev projects in China and Germany.) The article has a map of many proposed transportation projects in the US, some of them maglev, and a video of a General Atomics maglev prototype in action. On a related note, an anonymous reader recommends this article on a proposed maglev wind-power turbine, said to offer the promise of replacing 1,000 conventional wind turbines.
How much is that in ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez. As if finding money to throw around was ever a problem for politicians. And building a coast-to-coast maglev line would be a much less dangerous waste of money than some other, er, projects.
Re:How much is that in ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen numbers anywhere from 5 to 12 billion dollars a week. It's hard to calculate exactly because there's a mess of hidden costs--medical and the like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(based on spending requests), (200,000,000 total/year). The cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan combined is 3,000,000,000/week (triple your estimate), with 80% of that being for Iraq.
My source is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801984.html?hpid=topnews [washingtonpost.com] and based on bills the white house wants passed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
March '03 to March '08 is 60 months. That's $408 billion invested into war in Iraq.
At $0.1 billion per track mile, America could have paid for 4080 miles of maglev rail infrastructure. Even at double the cost, that's still over 2000 miles.
According to Google maps, Boston to Miami is 1500 miles. And Chicago to Washington is 700 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively little goes to the servicemen.
Re: (Score:2)
I know its popular to blame the war for everything (Score:4, Insightful)
How many votes per mile of track can a Congressman buy?
Answer that instead.
The amount of money just wasted in earmarks alone could solve a multitude of problems, from medical care, rehabilitation for our vets, maglev, NASA, and more. You name it, we have the money for it.
The problem is, not all of the above garner vote buying opportunities.
The real reason the Iraq war annoys Congressmen is that it deprives them of money they could have used in directed vote buying campaigns. Instead of a monument to a living Congressman (read: new pool in your neighborhood or library - etc) it went overseas and is lost to them. Now it does garner votes in a negative way but Congressmen prefer postive vote buying expenditures.
Now the problem I see with the maglev tower is, who is going to want it in their backyard? It looks more palatable than a windfarm but its so damn tall that that the land area may be moot versus the "sight pollution". Of course we already have giant cooling towers but this thing looks larger.
We really need a new Mahattan project for our generation - one that frees us of fossil fuel generated power. Of course our next problem will be heat pollution - all that power does have a side effect (green power or not)
Re:I know its popular to blame the war for everyth (Score:2)
How bad would this 'sight pollution' be compared to the steel, glass and concrete towers all over the place now? Besides, sometimes it's nice to be able to look out the window (or look up) and think to yourself: 'Holy s
Free 747s for everybody would be cheaper. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, what about all the new power cables and power stations it would need. A project this big would cause a worldwide shortage of copper (which would push the "price per mile" through the roof).
America is simply too big for this sort of project. Building vast stretches of maglev track doesn't add up.
Re: (Score:2)
Only as long as fuel and airports are cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Freeways cost as much per mile (Score:3, Informative)
One also has to kee
Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes it feels like Americans are trying to put the cart before the horse when they don't even have anything to put on the cart.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is maglev better anyway? So you reduce your rolling friction to zero, what do you save? 1% of total operating power? You'd spend a lot more if your using electromagnets to keep the 'lev' action going...
On the subject of maglev windmills- I fail to see any real savings here. Windmills are hard to turn because they're doing work (ie creating power with a generator), the actual friction involved is very low.
If you want a train/subway, just build the damn thing. Same goes for windmills.
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the French TVG is also about that fast, so that advantage no longer really holds much weight until the technology improves. Maglev right now is pretty much a "bright shiny thing" to make the public all doe-eyed so they don't mind the pork as much. (Much like the "Hydrogen Economy")
You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country. If you want to cross it, you have three options: Plane (~500MPH), Train (~80MPH) or car/bus (~60MPH). Assuming you're not making the trip for the scenery, the choice is pretty much a no-brainer.
A fast train, ~300MPH, would make trans-continental travel easier. Even if it took twice as long, it would still be same-day travel and I'd prefer to take a high speed train than an aircraft (unless I *had* to get there in 6 hours). If a viable Maglev train could cover the distance at the same speed as the jet, though, then there is no advantage to flying at all.
=Smidge=
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but a significant portion of intra-US trips take place within the northeast, the most densely populated part of the country. Washington-Boston is 450 miles; New York-Chicago is 800 miles. There's also a lot of intra-West Coast travel -- LA-San Francisco (400 miles), LA-Phoenix (375), San Francisco-Seattle (800 miles).
One of my pet peeves is that many Americans, when told about how Europeans are much more likely to travel by train, reflexively point out how big America is. It's true, but when Europeans travel from, say, Madrid to Warsaw, they fly. It's the sub-1000-mile trips on which trains can be competitive with both air and car travel if they're upgraded to high-speed standards -- something that can be done far more cheaply and easily than building a maglev. And with trains being far less polluting per passenger than either cars or planes, and air travel being an increasingly unpleasant experience, it's high time to invest in upgrading rail corridors.
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, these mountains tend to have pretty steep pitches, meaning that low-enough grades for rail transport are few and far between.
Out East, where the density of population is higher and the land considerably flatter, trains can maintain speed. It can make sense in that case. But here, where a lot of the daily flights are literally one-day business trips, spending 6 hours each way on a train between Seattle and San Francisco turns a one-day trip into at least a 3 day affair.
Re: (Score:2)
http://flightaware.com/analysis/map_day.rvt [flightaware.com]
Gives you an idea about the amount of traffic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the train you could place a bomb of sufficient size anywhere along the tracks set to detonate at the right time to take out the train. Not saying this can't be solved, but we do have to be careful.
Still, I think that it'd be an excellent idea, especially if you relax baggage restrictions as compared t
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
More user friendly boarding. (Score:2)
Thus, maybe the USA will finaly have some user-friendly mass transportation that is
BOTH 1. very fast *AND* 2. doesn't require mandatory body cavities search because of some post 9/11 paranoia.
Cumbersome regulations like the limit of transported liquids are the main reason why I prefer trains when travelling through europe (It's much faster here, thanks to TGV in France and similar projects in o
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the trip to a train station most likely will be shorter than a trip to the airport, since airports (especiall
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, they could go the bus route or have compartments where you put the luggage inside the train. Eh, whatever, there's many possibilities.
You could have a lot more entrances, that would speed
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we drop this terrorism bullshit already? It's very tiring.
I say this as somebody who daily used the train that got blown up in Madrid (though wasn't on it at that time), had a classmate die there, and a friend who was in it, but wasn't hurt. I don't give a damn about the terrorists. I still use that same train.
Re: (Score:2)
I said we have to be careful. By spending a little effort in designing security for the tracks now rather than later, we not only make it harder for the terrorists but also keep people from wandering in front of the train and getting smeared.
Please note that I'm overall optimistic about the system.
Though I think HSR should be
Re: (Score:2)
Doing so is easiest in a partial vacuum. A few years ago the Swiss were entertaining a project [articlesextra.com] to have Maglev trains in partial vacuum connecting its major cities.
There are a few people in the UK considering such a system for its major cities. Such a system would have an enormous effect for the US. Consider the case of my state of Ohio, which is a fairly high population state, but that population is spread over 7 metro areas, the 3 bigges
Re: (Score:2)
And rail-based rocket sleds have reached mach 8.5.
The limiting factor for both is: how much do you want to spend buying, regrading, tunneling under, and/or bridging over land so that you can make the track straight enough?
Re: (Score:2)
From the article on maglev trains...
Maglev proponents argue that it is easier to maintain--most designs do not include wheels, transmissions, brakes or axles, thus reducing the need for repairs. "Engineers joke that the only moving parts are the doors," says Richard Thornton, MagneMotion's CEO.
From the article on the wind turbine...
It would also increase generation capacity by 20% over conventional wind turbines and decrease operational costs by 50%.
Bearings have to be inspected, maintained and even
Re: (Score:2)
On the subject of maglev windmills- I fail to see any real savings here. Windmills are hard to turn because they're doing work (ie creating power with a generator), the actual friction involved is very low.
Great point. Plus, that's a vertical axis wind turbine they show, which is about 1/2 as efficient [wikipedia.org] (in terms of power per area swept). Maybe the point is that they can build a much bigger turbine using maglev technology than they could otherwise, but is that somehow better than smaller, MORE efficient HAWTs?
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly it's the dynamic loading on the rails that is the problem with trains going faster and faster.
A maglev is like a hovercraft with the load spread out over the full length of the train. A tiny imperfection in the rail doesn't cause every passing carriage to hammer at it, reducing the need for rail in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope it continues to increase. There is currently a bill [kidk.com] that will give Amtrak a much needed funding increase. Before all the trolls start saying that rail is wasteful consider carefully that any road in the U.S is subsidized heavily. Amtrak has done an amazing turnaround over the last 8 years despite the airline and road construction lobbyists trying to kill it. If Amtrak had even a small amount of the funding that airlines and interstates have recieved during this period we could all have an economical and comfortable travel alternative. I hope they build one or more of the Maglevs simply because I live in Chattanooga (Choo-Choo). We don't even have passenger rail service and haven't since 1970. As anyone who has been to Europe, or ridden on a well managed Amtrak line can attest to, rail is comfortable and fun. For me riding the rails is not as much just getting there, but enjoying the ride.
It is a sad state when a supposed first world country like the U.S tries to kill travel alternative like rail. When all the planes were grounded after 9/11 the trains kept rolling. When gas goes to 4.00/gallon they will be rolling. That is reason enough to support passenger rail. Oh, if anyone with Amtrak happens to read Slashdot, why the hell does a city like Chattanooga, Tn which was once one the largest rail capitals in the world, not even have a passenger service? That is a disgrace. We want rail service and we want it badly. Norfolk Southern and CSX also lobby against passenger travel because they want the mainlines all to themselves for frieght. Be it maglev or diesel electric passenger service Chattanooga should have an alternative to driving or flying. We didn't get the song Chattanooga Choo Choo for just any old reason.
Build it, and they will come. With flying becoming even more of a hassle, and fuel prices on an ever higher trajectory passenger traffic rail will continue to increase. On a train you can go to the dining car and have room to stretch out, have wifi and a nice cocktail. Chattanooga not having passenger service is the greatest single disgrace our city has at this time. It is part of our heritage. It truly is heartbreaking, so Amtrak, build it or at least open one line to Atlanta. The future is bright for rail folks. One way or the other the economics are starting to make sense again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This also allows for backward and forward compatibility. Old trains ca
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, because plain old rails were the best technology available at the time when the train systems were constructed. Will they tear down the tracks and replace them with maglev once that technology becomes feasible? Probably not, because the economic hit of shutting down arterial railways for a couple years would be devastating. But that's hard
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, the Japanese have a number of different models including a Maglev, and a number of monorails. Japan is increasingly moving to monorails (which are rail based), and away from the standard twin rail system. Why? Because the twin rail system is dirt cheap to build on land, but a small earthqua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this technology is still 20 years away from being feasible at all. Why not spend money on regular trains and install extra isolated windows in cities at only a fraction of the cost?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've had a fascination with maglevs since Popular Mechanics did an article in the early 1990s or late 1980s. Finally, I made it to the World Fair in Aichi in 2005 and saw the Linmo ("Linear Motor"). Actually, I rode it. It was awesome. Not the "awesome" that kids use when they do well on a test, but the "awesome" from waiting for something and then unexpect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you actually meant a much higher population density.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The west coast mainline upgrade in good old blighty has cost something like 20 billion dollars for less than 300 miles of track between London and Manchester. All this to achieve a speed of around 140mph. Does MagLev still look expensive?
Yes it does. You are referring to a project that failed miserably. As stated in the same Wikipedia article you provided, the upgrade was expected to cost only $4 billion. Instead of looking up one of the biggest failures in history, why not just look for figures that actually represent what a regular train tracks system would cost - one that does not fail miserably? Blatantly ripped from Wikipedia:
However the plan was doomed from the beginning, since Railtrack had not assessed the technical viability of "moving block signalling" (see the Railway Signalling page for more details) prior to promising the speed increase to Virgin and the Government. No-one had attempted to implement moving block on a line as complex as the WCML anywhere in the world, and it soon became apparent to engineers that the technology was not mature enough to be used on the line. The bankruptcy of Railtrack in 2001 following the Hatfield crash brought a reappraisal of the plans whilst the original cost of the upgrade soared. Despite early fears that the cost overruns on the project would push the final price tag to £13bn, reappraisal of the plans has brought the cost down to between £8bn and £10bn, ready by 2008 with a maximum speed for tilting trains of a more modest 200 km/h (125 mph). Services from Liverpool to the South West and the South Coast were withdrawn by Virgin in September 2003.
Need track upgrades, but not this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that idea is complicated by the fact that the Northeast Corridor is among the most densely populated areas in the nation, and a hundred thousand homeowners who don't want a bullet train whooshing through their backyards (in some cases literally -- upgrading the track for high speed trains will require use of Eminent Domain to seize some homeowners' properties) is a force to be reckoned
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I agree, and I think the ultimate answer is to nationalize the rails and treat them the same way the federal gover
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do you even spend that much? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maglevs are just techno-posing (Score:2)
Personal Rapid Transit [csmonitor.com] systems would seem to be much smarter.
They fit in with the western "everything personalised" thinking. Because they are a monorail based syste
Re:Maglevs are just techno-posing (Score:4, Insightful)
A monorail is far from ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
While I love the landscape/cityscapes in Europe, in any city that hasn't shut down their growth an elevated platform is probably the simplest/cheapest solution for growing the mass transit. Certainly there are obstacles (power lines, obstructed views, etc) but they are many orders of magnitude less than the obstacles faced by an underground system.
I just have this image of a subway being built under an old European city, them discovering another city buried underneath the '
Re: (Score:2)
And has been pointed out, excavations in Europe often turn up lots of interesting stuff. Usually n
Re: (Score:2)
Grid layout is the absolute best way to build streets, at any price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you need two grids one at low speed and another grid of limited access highway for long distances. And you have to deal with natural obstructions like rivers etc.
Going left right left right is the same distance b
Re: (Score:2)
The L sucks because it's eLevated. (Score:2)
The parts of the L that are buried [the loop, for example] are far more pleasant.
P.S. Yes, it's L and not El. (source [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an extreme case ; I can spend up to 20 hours a week commuting, but for me there is no correlation between being in the office and being more productive ; I got much more done this weekend at home than I did in the first two days of this week.
So ; yes, if people cared about aesthetics less, PRT in cities would be ideal. Hell, it would be pretty good on the suburban scale in places like
Not yet (Score:2)
Of course, a comprehensive plan of improving infrastructure isn't nearly as sexy as a fancy, space-age flying train.
Re: (Score:2)
Transportation in the 21st century... (Score:2)
What is it with the US these days... (Score:2)
Why even waste money talking about maglev trains when they could improve existing infrastructure using technology a generation or two ahead of the antiquated stuff we have in the US and get the same result using five percent of the money?
Its s
Re: (Score:2)
The reason articles like this are written is because it is more exciting to think about spending money on some gee-whiz new technology than any boring existing technology we know works.
They spend if they got it (Score:2)
That goes along with a billion dollar airport which is basically EMPTY. Only in America!
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't spend their money - it spends the money of working citizens - and as long as people are not raising absolute holy hell about taxes then the government will continue to spend vast sums on anything and everything - and that won't happen as long as there is less and less need to work for even the basics - after all if things are going to be provided to you why should you have to work for them? One would have thou
To the ****** commenting on price (Score:5, Informative)
Google for the cost of highway construction and one of the gems you find is this http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume2/v2i1a3s2.html [usc.edu] link.
Read it and weep. 100 million per mile? Most costly project was 1 billion per mile and plenty of other projects are higher as well.
Now google a bit further and you find more "reasonable" costs of 20 million per mile being quoted but it makes it bloody clear that roads are very expensive indeed.
Yes sometimes they are cheap at a 1-3 million per mile, if the highway is simple and the conditions are ideal. This is however rarely the case. If you follow these kinds of projects you will also know that there are always complicating factors. For instance the straight road sections might be cheap, but the points where they connect to the rest of the road network, that is where the money really starts to bleed away. As for when you need a bridge or a tunnel. Just forget it.
Also offcourse not all highways are the same. One going through open desert vs one going through a city has huge extra costs in the form of safety, sound reduction and landcosts.
A further thing you might want to ask, how costly is maintenance, and what is the capacity of this network? It is less hassle to replace tradiotional rails then it is too resurface a road. How long is this 100 million per mile going to last you before more millions are needed to maintain it?
Then there is the question of what you get for it, if this 100 million dollar per mile track means you don['t have to construct/upgrade 10 road systems per say 20 million dollar per mile, then you are actually saving money.
But please slashdotters, next time you feel like posting about how costly something is, do a bit of research first. Although I really wish reporters would do it as well.
Re: (Score:2)
And they considered that too expensive to do anything with it, so there's gaping holes in the BART network that will permanently be plugged with buses.
Hmm, a Maglev between San Francisco and San Diego would only be $500 billion dollars, or roughly equivalent to the Department of Defense's entire budget for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
Somehow, I don't see that happening. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is, a road under ideal conditions costs 1-3 million per mile. The 100 million figure for maglev is also under ideal conditions. So maglev is 30-100 times more costly.
When roads get expensive it's because they have to be tunneled, or elevated, or have houses or other buildings removed from their path. Those issues are the same with any sort of train, except that you can move a lot more people through a narrower corridor on trains, so your tunneling, bridging and demolition costs are going to be much lower and the cost difference between maglev and roads will decrease as route preparation work increases.
Of course, regular train tracks are likely to be cheaper than bo
Screwed! (Score:2)
wind turbine story is hot air (Score:2)
And what's the deal with "1000 times the power"? The power is proportional to the swept area, so you'd need a windmill 33 times bigger. And its weight would go up as the cube of 33, which wul dbe mighty unweildly.
Maglev turbine: Drawbacks? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, it's impossible to levitate something statically using only static magnetic fields. You will either need dynamic feedback (electromagnets, power required), mechanical constraints (friction) or rotational stabilization (tricky to get right so you can't rely on wind power to do it, also requires power)
The only other option is diamagnetic materials, but the magnetic fields you would need to levitate something that massive using only diamagn
So how does this work? (Score:2)
So how does this thing work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8nCg0n0zXM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Earnshaw's theorem [wikipedia.org] only applies to a static configuration of magnets, which this is not.
Go read about Inductrack [wikipedia.org] for a more detailed description of the idea. It is dynamically stable with no electromagnets or feedback systems. It is an exceptionally clever/simple design, and the only energy required is to overcome a small amount of electromagnetic drag.
The only drawbacks, are that the electromagnetic drag force in Inductrack varies inversely with speed, and also the lower efficiency of the vertical
Germany (Score:5, Informative)
They can either put in a Maglev for 1.2 billion euro for a 10 minute trip, or build a normal express S-bahn for 1 million for a 20 minute trip.
Maglev really makes no sense at all, but what do I know, maybe its more of a Shelbyville thing
Re: (Score:2)
But in any case, you are wrong in one thing. The normal train would cost quite a bit more than 1 million. With 1 million you won't built even 200 meters of rail. And even less in a sub-urban area. The cost will probably be more close to 300 million. But in any case, the magl
Re: (Score:2)
But they run the RE trains on the same rails as the S-bahn... so they could use the existing lines and just put an express S-bahn on them from the the Hauptbahnhof to the Flughafen.
I wasn't here for it, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I feel a song coming up... (Score:2, Funny)
- It glides as softly as a cloud.
- Is there a chance the track could bend?
- Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
- What about us brain-dead slobs?
- You'll be given cushy jobs.
- Were you sent here by the devil?
- No, good sir, I'm on the level.
- The ring came off my pudding can.
- Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
- Monorail!
- What's it called?
- Monorail!
- Once again...
- Monorail!
- But Main Stre
Problem with mass-transit funding (Score:2)
Here in Pennsylvania, Gov. (Fast Eddie) Rendell wants to toll I-80 and basically send all of that revenue to Philidelphia and Pittsburgh. That's a pretty piss-poor way of selling mass-transit to the people when the bottom line is that it's just another tax subsidy for urban areas.
G
There are many more advantages to trains as well (Score:2)
Then there's the passenger experience. You could be cramped in an airline seat like veal, or
Re:There are many more advantages to trains as wel (Score:2)
Re:There are many more advantages to trains as wel (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Popular Mechanics, huh? (Score:2)
The RUF makes more sense (Score:2)
Why not normal track? (Score:2)
World records:
TGV: 574.8 Kph
JR Maglev MLX01: 581 Kph
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6521295.stm [bbc.co.uk]
That's a whole 6-7 kph difference between the technology now and of the future.
That and a huge magnet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get an honest answer from the Republican party and the oil lobbyists about why we invaded Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
The Government needs to spend less money, not just shift spending around.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it'd be slower. NY to LA seems to be a 7-8 hour flight, it'd be 8 hours @300mph as the crow flighs. Since rail can't be that straight through the real world, I'd figure on 12-16 hours.
Still, if you can offer sleeper/dining cars for the same ticket price, the sheer luxury available to rail over flying would get you passangers.
Yes, you'd probably still have to process