Maglev Vs. High-Speed Rail

[Web Rider]

On a purely shallow note, maglev really lacks style.

You make maglev look like this: http://www.freewebs.com/futurecities/Maglev.jpg

That's got style.

you make maglev look like this: http://www.cleo.net.uk/images/library/maglev.jpg

And I'll walk.

 

Trains, they had style, a vision of the future with curves and wings and any assortment of unimaginable coolness. What do we have now? Minimalism. We can't even take the time to put effort into our work, every stove is like every other, every car like every other, a box for a home and a little square window and a little square door.

 

Back when, people pictured things like this: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/MechanixIllustrated/12-1958/prop_train/med_prop_train_0.jpg would be in our future. Unrealistic? Sure, functional? not in the slightest. Visionary? You bet. Jules Verne gave us the Nautilus and we returned with an oversized piece of pipe.

 

I'm not sure what we'll develop in the future, but when it's going 150mph, and looking lame will make it go 155mph instead, give it some style and put in some real craftsmanship instead. Screw the extra 5 mph.

[Jae Onasi]

Many of the suburban sprawl posts were moved to the Suburban sprawl thread. Carry on with maglev/train discussions here.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well here's a topic that hasn't been covered in a while. Why not revive it?

 

I see there is logic in replacing diesel trains with high-speed electric trains, even if US track isn't suited for high speed trains. It would make sense to begin replacing trains whenever it can be done and operate them at standard speeds when the grade of track demands it, such as with the Rocky Mountains. After that obstacle is cleared, then a new grade of track could be laid for high-speed rail operations. As new track is layed, these trains would simply have more routs to travel with less restriction on their speeds.

 

There are also possible options for diesel trains to be provided with overhead wire attachments to have electricity provided by the power grid while in high-speed operation. Most US trains are diesel electric, so that means they could act independent of a power grid or they can have it provided by another power plant. Since most American track don't have those overhead wires, it would make sense to keep using diesel electric trains, but provide them with a means to make use of those wires when they are in place.

 

Maglev unfortunately has no method of transitioning, since it is a very different kind of system than HSR.

[Jae Onasi]

Electric works for me. However, you have to create the electricity somehow. What methods are you suggesting for that?

[mimartin]

Electric works for me. However, you have to create the electricity somehow. What methods are you suggesting for that?

 

[Darth_Yuthura]

Electric works for me. However, you have to create the electricity somehow. What methods are you suggesting for that?

 

Well there's another reason you need a diesel engine for this to work: Electricity cannot be stored, so it must be constantly produced in order to assure peak demand is met, even when demand falls at night. You can't just start up and shut down powerplants within a matter of hours, so these trains would be suited to use electricity from the grid on off-peak hours while switching to its onboard diesel engine to take over during peak demand hours. This would serve to reduce transportation's dependence on oil while transitioning to electricity when it is available.

[jrrtoken]

Well there's another reason you need a diesel engine for this to work: Electricity cannot be stored, so it must be constantly produced in order to assure peak demand is met, even when demand falls at night.

I suppose that no one here has heard of an obscure invention from not to far ago, something called a "battery", which supposedly "stores" electricity for later use. Probably a load of sensationalist poppycock, though.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I suppose that no one here has heard of an obscure invention from not to far ago, something called a "battery", which supposedly "stores" electricity for later use. Probably a load of sensationalist poppycock, though.

 

That was completely unnecessary and didn't add to the debate.

 

I knew of the invention you spoke of and also knew that it can not be implemented on a practical scale for use with a power grid. Those batteries on diesel hybrid engines only store energy to augment the electric motors, but nothing beyond that is needed for storage on a massive scale.

 

Plug-in hybrids are meant to store energy for trips, using a gasoline engine only to sustain and recharge those batteries. Those are not really feasible for something the size of a train.

[Bimmerman]

Just to clear it up, the diesel electric trains aren't capable of running on both systems. The diesel motors in newer more modern train engines acts as a generator, only running at a constant rate to generate electricity. All propulsion is done via electric motor. This way the trains burn vastly lower amounts of fuel.

 

It should be possible to make these trains run on both overhead wires when available or on the diesel-generated power when not....probably a bit much to retrofit but possible and feasible in newer models.

 

As for trains, I would be all for them if the fares are as cheap or involved less hassles as flying. Considering how far apart cities and destinations are here in the US (especially out west), trains would take many hours to days to get from A to B even at high speed through the nothingness that is Utah, and that's assuming non stops or infrequent stops. The beauty of the European rail system is that Europe is so much closer together than things are here, it makes more sense. For us, flying makes more sense.

 

It all comes down to money though; if it can a) be built economically, b) have low enough fares to where people choose rail over flying, and c) there is less of a hassle when compared to flying (more luxury, amenities, less pointlessly useless security, etc) or similar transit time considering security, delays, baggage, etc, rail would make more sense.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Okay one issue that can never really be overcome with HSR is the train's maximum speed. There have been records for this kind of travel of about 300 MPH. That is really pushing the limits of how fast you can propel any kind of train. When reaching that speed, the friction between the tracks, wheels, and air resistance become limiting factors.

 

The beauty of Maglev is that it can potentially be free of all forces of friction and drag. Those systems that operate today are held back at ~350 mph because of air resistance. Any faster and you need more energy to overcome the air resistance which becomes more significant at higher speeds. Then there comes another issue in regards to that... noise.

 

The other major benefit of maglev is that it is quiet, but that advantage is negated when air resistance generates more sound than the friction between track and wheels. By creating a vacuum tube, you have the potential to speed a train beyond the sound barrier. Less air in the tube translates to a greater potential speed without the sonic boom. So the potential for maglev can be upwards of 6000 mph where HSR is at the best 450 mph before track friction becomes too high, not to mention the sound barrier becomes a factor.