Maglev Vs. High-Speed Rail

[Darth_Yuthura]

Okay, the US has neglected its mass transit system for decades and now is seeing the prospect of building some high speed rail lines such as what are used in Europe. Electric trains that travel in excess of 100 mph are an excellent solution for many of our mass transit issues.

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/suppes.htm

 

Considering that we would be starting from scratch... we really are... why not bypass high speed rail and go directly to maglev instead? Unlike the alternatives, maglev eliminates all friction between trains and the tracks. Only air resistance is what slows down the maximum speed of a maglev train... and the sound barrier for that matter.

 

According to the link above, there are potential benefits from building maglev lines in air-tight conditions to significantly eliminate air resistance. In a vacuum, the maximum potential speed of a train is 6000 mph. The maximum speed of HSR is well entrenched below 300 mph and always generates sound pollution. Maglev is more silent, more efficient, and faster and any other alternative form of transportation.

 

What's the catch? IT'S EXPENSIVE. The cost per mile of rail for a maglev line is high because the rail is essentially the motor and the resources poured into the capital cost of the track result in huge interest rates that make them an unfavorable business solution. If you eliminated those interest costs from the equation, maglev would prove to be the most effective means of mass transit for passengers and freight.

 

What would others think of the US building a mass transit system that Europe and Japan would have to envy... instead of just following suite?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

cut defense add maglev lines to every major city and links between them

[Darth Avlectus]

MMM, vacuums *might* isolate the population from the rail's magnetics and...potential electrical hazard (depends on how it is built ). However, have you even constructed a high vacuum system from scratch before? While a professionally made system might not be so finicky as a homebrew (obviously), I say that to attempt to give you perspective on just how tedious it is to try to maintian such a thing.

 

First thing about that: how would the vacuum system work? What about powering the rails and the vacuum system?

 

Here's another: what would the bills be on an annual basis to keep it happily powered?

 

EDIT: I think maintenance for these would cost quite a bit as well!

[Darth_Yuthura]

1 F-22 raptor: $200 million + (fuel costs, weapon expense, pilot salaries, mechanic salaries, computer technician salaries, mechanic salaries, hanger storage costs, Airbase security personnel... huge upkeep costs)

 

59 miles of Maglev track (replacing enough track to form a line within San Fransico or New York with the cheapest, quietest, and most 'romantic and futuristic' rail system in the world.)

 

I know this is a lemon vs. apple kind of comparison, but this is the kind of thing that Obama should be pushing for. Maglev hasn't proved economic for a private investment, but it would be a godsend if funded by federal dollars. Taking millions of big rigs off the road alone and using Maglev to haul freight would serve both to reduce the total net energy used in the US and replacing diesel fuel with electricity... provided by a more abundant fuel source we don't have to import.

 

MMM, vacuums *might* isolate the population from the rail's magnetics and...potential electrical hazard (depends on how it is built ). However, have you even constructed a high vacuum system from scratch before? While a professionally made system might not be so finicky as a homebrew (obviously), I say that to attempt to give you perspective on just how tedious it is to try to maintian such a thing.

 

First thing about that: how would the vacuum system work? What about powering the rails and the vacuum system?

 

Here's another: what would the bills be on an annual basis to keep it happily powered?

 

EDIT: I think maintenance for these would cost quite a bit as well!

 

Look at the figure 4 in the site I gave. It shows varying degrees of reducing drag and how beneficial it becomes to reduce the air resistance by only 50% instead of creating a perfect vacuum. That is the best cost-effective target you can find is balancing the performance gains to the cost to maintain the reduced aerodynamic drag within the tubes.

 

Maglev achieves about a 90% energy efficiency rating. Internal combustion engines can't seem to push much beyond 30%. Imagine replacing freight trains with something that is powered by electricity. HSR has the issue of being restricted by the friction between the wheels and track. They must have a high amount of traction to keep the train on the track, accelerating, and slowing down. Maglev trains are cheaper as well because the track acts as the motor from start to destination. The larger the scale, the more efficient you can get.

 

High speed rail could depend on electricity as well, but the US rail infrastructure doesn't exist for electric trains. If you need to redesign American rail lines, why not just start from scratch and design new lines to achieve maximum performance? One line from NY, SF, Atlanta, and Chicago alone would alleviate HUGE economic issues.

[jrrtoken]

A Mag-Lev line in the Chicago area would be extremely beneficial. I live not too far from the city proper, around 100 miles away, and my city has a very archaic and inefficient commuter rail route leading towards Chicago, which is constantly in use by businessmen and other commuters. The train itself makes at least ten different stops along the way, further increasing travel time. What is usually a two-hour trip by car is around three and a half hours by train.

 

Either way, the local economy, or what's left of it, would benefit tremendously from that extra time gained from Mag-Levs, or some other bullet train.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well we would not likely actually see these as commuter systems... yet. They would do wonders as such, but would likely start out on a massive scale project to connect the major transportation hubs of the US. From that point, the major cities like LA, Dallas, and Memphis would make up a second order network to expedite the greatest number of people and freight from place to place.

 

I do sympathize with the commuters from the chicago and new york hinterlands, but the reduced aerodynamic drag maglev tube concept wouldn't work well for frequent stops. Each time a train enters and exits a station, it must go through an airlock to maintain the de-pressurized tube atmosphere. This would not work very well as a commuter rail system.

 

Even if the tracks followed the standard system used in the German prototype line, it would not be a very effective system. Because the track acts as the motor, they are not easily expandable. You can add cars, but it is not easy to expand the tracks, such as for a subway line.

[Darth_Yuthura]

There is one major limiting factor about high-speed rail that might make a transition more expensive or less favorable: the tracks already in place. There is one line in the US for high speed rail, but the track used restricts the train's maximum speed from >150 mph to less than 80. It may be feasible for the US to simply buy high speed trains from European nations, but the issue in regards to them is the track upon which they are to use.

 

Another thing that must be in place are overhead power lines or third rails. You can't use high speed rail without power lines, but there would be no sense in doing that for track where the maximum speed by a train must be <90 mph. Because various American rail lines curve and twist so greatly, the issue is a train safely going at high speeds without derailing. The only way to deal with this is to relay DEDICATED high-speed rail lines.

 

In the time that those are constructed, you can't use high-speed trains on conventional track. Like Maglev, there would no ability to make a gradual transition from conventional to high-speed trains until the new tracks are laid.

[Sabretooth]

cut defense add maglev lines to every major city and links between them

 

And compromise the security of American liberty & justice? Not in the face of Armageddon.

[Web Rider]

The problem with the US an Maglev or high-speed is that the US isn't flat enough to link all the cities. You can't even link LA and Frisco with high-speed without tunneling through 10+ miles of the Southern Sierras. Not to mention that you've got another mt range to go through to link with Oregon, which is even more drastic in some places.

 

Once more you've got the Sierra Nevada's presenting similar problems with linking Frisco, Sacremento or LA with Salt Lake, and then moving east you've got the Rockies, which you couldn't cut through them at all. Linking Denver to Kansas City is easy, that's flat, and you could probably work your way around the Appalachians, but it'll still be tricky. Back to California, with all the seismic activity we have, tunnels and elevated things aren't exactly safe either.

 

Yeah, if you could make a mostly straight, mostly flat line from big city to big city, it would work great.

[Darth_Yuthura]

And compromise the security of American liberty & justice? Not in the face of Armageddon.

 

And what of the consequences of the US economy being compromised? American cities are unlike those of any other state because they are built around the automobile. They would have worked well enough when gasoline was $1.98 a gallon, but as freeways have to support more traffic and fuel becomes more expensive; the urban infrastructure of American cities break down.

 

We have to rely more on mass transit instead of air travel. We need more freight trains and fewer semi trucks. We need denser populated areas in order to maintain a more compact infrastructure that is easier and cheaper to maintain.

 

Question: how does reducing the size of the US military compromise national security? When maintain a large military, you run up the risk of rioting, looting, and the fight goes from troops to the police. And as the military depends on the health of the economy, a good economy is the best solution to having a good military.

 

RE: Web rider: Here is one advantage that maglev can overcome that high speed cannot. Because the trains are suspended instead of resting upon its tracks, the major limitation to rises and sharp turns is the G-forces upon its passengers. This would mean that the majority of tracks would need to be placed upon pillars and they can be more flexible than high-speed rail lines. Tunnels would likely be needed as well, but would not have to stretch all the way from one side of the Rockies to the other like with the Swiss Alps tunnels.

 

When in California, the maglev rails could easily rest upon the ground as upon pillars, so that would have to be used on hazardous terrain states.

[Jae Onasi]

I have one burning capitalistic question. Why should I spend my tax dollars on something that might be of limited use to me and my family? The trains don't always have convenient schedules or stops as it is. Why should I give up the independence of my car, where I can go anywhere at anytime?

 

Frankly, we got out of Chicago because of its high population density. The last thing I want to do is go back to that lifestyle again. I'd gladly go live in the country and do the extra driving if we could finagle it at some point.

[jrrtoken]

IMO, high-speed rails should be implemented in already existing urban and suburban communities which already frequently use trains, subways, and whatnot. Additionally, I'm sure many people would find it to be very beneficial to commute via train rather through cars or buses.

 

As far as taxpayer money goes; if the government has spent $5 billion for an aircraft carrier, then wouldn't mind seeing an additional $5 billion go into something that can make a real positive impact on someone.

[Q]

An enormous amount of fuel would be saved if we expanded our existing rail system and let it handle the bulk of ground shipping instead of using all of these damned tractor-trailers. Not to mention that it would make the highways a hell of a lot safer and less expensive to maintain.

 

But we wouldn't want to upset the almighty Teamster's Union, would we?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Why should I give up the independence of my car, where I can go anywhere at anytime?

 

Frankly, we got out of Chicago because of its high population density. The last thing I want to do is go back to that lifestyle again. I'd gladly go live in the country and do the extra driving if we could finagle it at some point.

 

Suburban sprawl is at the very heart of the matter of our energy crisis. YOU may not have an issue with it, but when everyone else does the same... then cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and even Chicago will become very problematic. American cites have enormous footprints and low population density compared to those in Europe. Chicago's mass transit system is problematic because of suburban sprawl... because of the dozens upon dozens of square miles of low-density suburban sprawl. That all came about because of the automobile.

 

No offense, but living in the country is the reason that light rail and public transportation can't work economically. The reason why your tax money should go into maglev is to make it cheaper to ship goods and people to and fro instead of using cars all the time. We cannot maintain this kind of auto-dependent lifestyle indefinitely, so we must get used to rail and bus transportation... which will mean having to live in the city.

[Q]

I think that the money would be better spent on making the hydrogen fuel cell automobile practical to own. That would include developing a cost-effective, non-polluting method of producing hydrogen.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think that the money would be better spent on making the hydrogen fuel cell automobile practical to own. That would include developing a cost-effective, non-polluting method of producing hydrogen.

 

That's not so. Hydrogen fuel cells would result in the need for more energy than currently demanded for transportation. To strip hydrogen atoms from oxygen in water, you need a base source of energy. When the fuel cell powers a car, less energy is generated than what it took to produce the hydrogen.

 

The fuel cell is not an alternate source of energy, it is more like a transfer method... like electricity. It may not pollute by itself, but the power plant that produced the electricity for the fuel likely didn't burn a clean fuel. An electric car is more realistic than one with a hydrogen fuel cell.

[Web Rider]

RE: Web rider: Here is one advantage that maglev can overcome that high speed cannot. Because the trains are suspended instead of resting upon its tracks, the major limitation to rises and sharp turns is the G-forces upon its passengers.

G-forces exist at high speeds, so, regardless of maglev or high-speed rail, both are going at high-speed.

 

This would mean that the majority of tracks would need to be placed upon pillars and they can be more flexible than high-speed rail lines. Tunnels would likely be needed as well, but would not have to stretch all the way from one side of the Rockies to the other like with the Swiss Alps tunnels.

The point is that you can't move at high speed over these areas. So the benefit of moving to a very expensive and very fast system that can't even move fast for major connections, is rather limited.

 

When in California, the maglev rails could easily rest upon the ground as upon pillars, so that would have to be used on hazardous terrain states.

California IS a hazardous terrain site, that's my point.

[Q]

That's not so. Hydrogen fuel cells would result in the need for more energy than currently demanded for transportation. To strip hydrogen atoms from oxygen in water, you need a base source of energy. When the fuel cell powers a car, less energy is generated than what it took to produce the hydrogen.

 

The fuel cell is not an alternate source of energy, it is more like a transfer method... like electricity. It may not pollute by itself, but the power plant that produced the electricity for the fuel likely didn't burn a clean fuel. An electric car is more realistic than one with a hydrogen fuel cell.

I think that the money would be better spent on making the hydrogen fuel cell automobile practical to own. That would include developing a cost-effective, non-polluting method of producing hydrogen.

[Tommycat]

Yeah.. somehow a maglev makes less sense to me than the hydrogen fuel cell. High energy cost of the maglev and the poor coverage make it unavailable to a large chunk of the population. If we're looking for things to spend cash on... I'd suggest things like electric vehicles updating power plants, new fuel sources, bio-fuels, automated driving, heck even updating the highway system. We don't need another AmTrack. Besides, think of how many people you would put out of work in the airline industry.

 

Believe me, I love the idea of it. It sounds all spiffy cool and futurific. But practicality just isn't there.

[Q]

Maybe in the future. A mach 9 train sounds pretty damn cool to me.

[Tommycat]

Yeah I should have said "practicality just isn't there, YET!"

 

Energy usage, maintainence costs, construction costs etc just make it a bit out of reasonable range. It would make more sense as a short range intracity transit system. But you couldn't use it in LA(that could arguably use it the most). Chicago might be able to use it. I just don't see it being something that the whole country should pay for what less than 1% would use. It would make sense if you have something like megacities with nearly nobody living in rural areas.

 

On a side note: Why can't they make a dang hybrid that actually looks good. I mean can you imagine how many more people would want them if they didn't look like penny racers?

[Jae Onasi]

Suburban sprawl is at the very heart of the matter of our energy crisis. YOU may not have an issue with it, but when everyone else does the same... then cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and even Chicago will become very problematic. American cites have enormous footprints and low population density compared to those in Europe. Chicago's mass transit system is problematic because of suburban sprawl... because of the dozens upon dozens of square miles of low-density suburban sprawl. That all came about because of the automobile.

 

No offense, but living in the country is the reason that light rail and public transportation can't work economically. The reason why your tax money should go into maglev is to make it cheaper to ship goods and people to and fro instead of using cars all the time. We cannot maintain this kind of auto-dependent lifestyle indefinitely, so we must get used to rail and bus transportation... which will mean having to live in the city.

Who cares if they have low population density? You're not getting to the heart of the matter, which is why people decide to get out of the city in the first place. I hate living in the middle of a mass of people. I wouldn't put my dead fly in the Chicago public school system, and I want to live in a house with a real yard, not a crackerbox in the middle of the concrete jungle. No one has any right to dictate to me that I MUST live in the city. This is America, after all. If I choose to drive a few miles so I can live in a safer neighborhood and have far better schools for my kids, I'm for damn sure going to do it.

[Drunkside]

Build maglev. Take the money from the damn army budget, its a frigging 300000000000 dollars a year! Actually its even more but odd numbers dont look as good:p Russia has 1/4 of that of US and it has an army as big and deadly. Americans just use their money to build useless battle robots and invisibility suits when there are much better options to spend the money on.

[CommanderQ]

Build maglev. Take the money from the damn army budget, its a frigging 300000000000 dollars a year! Actually its even more but odd numbers dont look as good:p Russia has 1/4 of that of US and it has an army as big and deadly. Americans just use their money to build useless battle robots and invisibility suits when there are much better options to spend the money on.

 

Well, if you think about it, our technology is one of the few things that make our military powerful. Our numbers are pretty low in comparison to that of Russia and China, I mean, how many do we have? 500,000? 100,000? That's alot, yes, but in comparison to the massiveness of some nations, our army is very small. But we make up for that with our tech. We're pretty darn ahead of our rivals. Battle robots and invisiblity suits may just help us if we ever get into combat with a much...much larger enemy. Though we can probably do this on a smaller budget, but that's up to Washington.

[jrrtoken]

Who cares if they have low population density? You're not getting to the heart of the matter, which is why people decide to get out of the city in the first place. I hate living in the middle of a mass of people. I wouldn't put my dead fly in the Chicago public school system, and I want to live in a house with a real yard, not a crackerbox in the middle of the concrete jungle. No one has any right to dictate to me that I MUST live in the city. This is America, after all. If I choose to drive a few miles so I can live in a safer neighborhood and have far better schools for my kids, I'm for damn sure going to do it.

I fail to see how implementing high-speed rails in smaller, suburban towns leads to urbanization, warts and all. This would be greatly beneficial for the countless number of suburbs around Chicago; by linking them together, there would be a greatly reduced numbered of commuter cars on the highways, reducing the norm of rush hour traffic delays.

 

How would increasing different forms of transportation cause decay is smaller communities? Now that everyone has a short trip to outlying areas, would all of the "bad people" migrate into the "nice" towns? Poorer people living in seemingly isolated ghettos can now escape the slums, through the rails. Naturally, I'm sure it's a very human response, but I can't see how providing benefits for the disadvantaged can corrupt more well-off communities.