December 3, 2007
THE BEST IS YET TO COME (via Brandon Heathcotte):
Super Trains: Plans to Fix U.S. Rail Could End Road & Sky Gridlock: With airports and highways more congested than ever, new steel-wheel and maglev lines that move millions in Europe and Japan have the potential to resurrect the age of American railroads. (John Quain, December 2007, Popular Mechanics)
The technology for conventional steel-wheel high-speed trains is well-established. All high-speed rail trains are electrically powered, drawing current from overhead power lines. They operate on tracks carved into the landscape with wide-radius turns and grades that max out at about 5 percent. Although high-speed rail trains can travel on standard tracks, the Federal Railroad Administration has ruled that trains traveling faster than 125 mph must operate on tracks with no grade crossings—meaning no intersections with public roadways.Posted by Orrin Judd at December 3, 2007 8:28 PMThere are two main “flavors” of maglev technology: electromagnetic suspension (EMS) and electrodynamic suspension (EDS). In EMS designs, the train chassis wraps around a guideway and, when current is applied to the rail, the train rises. With EDS technology, the train does most of the heavy lifting, as powerful magnets in the chassis generate an opposing force against conducting plates in a guideway. Each technology has its advantages and drawbacks: EMS trains can levitate at a standstill, but require a lot of sophisticated electronics to monitor and adjust the gap between train and track. EDS trains require less on-board intelligence—they’re ”basically a dumb vehicle on a smart track,” explains General Atomics’ Gurol—but they need to build up speed on wheels before they can lift off the guideway.
Almost all of the maglev projects in the U.S. are based on the more established EMS technology by Transrapid International, the German company behind the Shanghai and the planned Munich maglev projects. EDS designs, on the other hand, are in the experimental stage. But the technology for both systems is still evolving. For example, the General Atomics test vehicle I rode on is an EDS design using magnets arranged in a pattern known as a Halbach array to achieve liftoff at walking speeds. MagneMotion, in Acton, Mass., is developing a hybrid EMS design that dispenses with much of that technology’s on-board electronic monitoring in favor of permanent magnets.
Maglev trains are capable of 300-plus-mph cruising speeds, but with current steel-wheel trains already passing 200 mph, is maglev really necessary? 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. But maglev’s skeptics argue that lower maintenance costs are just speculation, since there aren’t enough commercially operating tracks to know what real-world performance would be. But mostly, critics of maglev point to its enormous expense. “Maglev routinely costs three to four times what is projected,” Diridon says.
In the end, the fate of high-speed trains in America will come down to money and politics. Federal funding comes and goes depending on the priorities of different branches of government. “We’re not really pushing high-speed rail,” says Steven Klum, of the Federal Railroad Administration. “This administration believes that money would be better spent on more immediate concerns, such as highways, transit and airports.” And Congressional appropriations for high-tech train projects often get labeled as pork. The proposed California-Nevada maglev line is a pet project of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—and an article last year in BusinessWeek painted a picture of the Nevada senator financing a popular local project with millions of federal dollars.
It does seem evident, however, that for trains to remain relevant in the U.S., they’ll have to go fast enough to release the pressure on short-haul air traffic in crowded corridors.
Convert part of the interstate system to pnuematic tubes and have people blown through at 250 mph.
There will never be a collision, as the entire system has an air cushion. It probably uses less energy to boot, though there wouldn't be any scenery.
Chuckle all you want, it's no crazier than maglev.
Posted by: Bruno at December 3, 2007 9:24 PM. . . grades that max out at about 5 percent.
Say what? On a steel-wheel railroad, a 1% grade is significant, and 2% is considered formidable. The steepest practical grade that can be worked by adhesion is in the range of 4-5%. (The 5.8% Madison Incline holds the record for steepest line-haul railroad grade.)
In other words, there is no way that a high speed railroad could have a 5% grade for any significant length and still be "high speed."
Posted by: Mike Morley at December 3, 2007 9:37 PMWe can stop jihadists from bringing a bomb on a plane. How can we stop jihadists from placing a bomb on endless tracks before a train flew by?
Posted by: ic at December 3, 2007 10:27 PMYeah, great idea, let's imitate the Europeans in blowing billions of dollars on train service that few Americans will ever want to use.
We have a spread out country that is prosperous and growing ever more so. We've already made our transportation decisions. For short-haul it's cars, and for long-haul it's airplanes.
Let's consider Detroit to Newark (and who doesn't want to go from Detroit to Newark?). For a couple billion dollars I can expand the airport capacity and buy some planes. If people don't want to go to Newark after all, most of my investment can be used to fly people to Omaha.
Whereas if I spend a couple billion on maglev track to Newark and my market analysis is wrong, I'm not going to move the track.
Cars and planes. That's what Americans like. Concentrate on making those work and we solve our transportation problems.
Posted by: Steve White at December 3, 2007 11:32 PMWe've already made our transportation decisions.
And for heavy freight it's mile long trains. Our economy depends on that transportation network, which works just fine right now. Intercity passenger rail is just trolleys on a larger scale, and would just get in the way, just like the way trolleys get in the way of transportation in most cities where they've been retrofitted.
If you want to spend billions of dollars on mass transportation, that money would be better spent automating our intercity highway system, not in acquiring a third right-of-way system. (Especially when you consider the delays and payoffs the Dirt-Worshippers will insist upon receiving to build that new system.)
(And as a stock-holder, I want as few as possible money-sink passenger trains on UP rails slowing down the paying customers.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 4, 2007 1:12 AMI wonder if OJ hums like the 1000+ amps (probably more) it will take to levitate these trains.
If this idea were any good, it would have already been built in some corridors in the Northeast, or a few elsewhere (Seattle - Portland, Memphis - New Orleans). PA can't even build one from Pittsburgh to Philly.
You know things are dicey when Harry Reid is your bagman.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 4, 2007 2:12 AMTax jet fuel and they'll ride.
Posted by: oj at December 4, 2007 7:31 AMYesterday I sat at at a railroad crossing in a town of 40,000, along with perhaps 40 other vehicles, for 10 minutes, watching a nearly-empty 9 car + 2 engine Amtrak passenger train discharge 1 person.
Posted by: curt at December 4, 2007 8:54 AMThat's Darwinism--the smart ones were on the train.
Posted by: oj at December 4, 2007 11:36 AMCurt, OJ meant to write, "That's Darwinism, the smart one was on the train."
Posted by: ed at December 4, 2007 11:59 AMTax jet fuel and they'll ride.
Tax the coal needed for the electricity and they'll fly.
This is probably the most absurd concept in U.S. transportation history.
Let's do giant "right of way" condemnations.
Let's build huge "rail terminals" with parking facilities in urban downtowns.
Then, let's build the hiway infrastructure to bring all these railophiles to said "downtown" terminals w/o interfering with people driving "downtown" to actually work.
Wait! We could build the "terminals" outside the suburban zone, much like today's already built airports, San Diego excepted. Then, we could have railophiles travelling at ground level, 200mph+/-, versus airophiles at 30,000 feet travelling at 400mph +/- all ending up at some mind deadening terminal except, the taxpayer will be footing the entire bill for railophile.
A much better idea would be "Toll Roads". Especially serving the "hub & spoke" airline business model.
If I could, I can't, support some Conservative tax 'em for the outcome, how would I be different from the Progressive who'll say all births are subject to a tax while all abortions get a tax credit?