Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Nov 26, 2007 20:19:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 26, 2007 21:29:49 GMT -8
I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings (especially yours, Mac), but to date I've yet to see a truly financial/operational MagLev model that is feasible compared to high-speed steel on wheel train technology (which also has the benefit of Metrolink and other trains able to share tracks). As a futurist and a scientist by nature, though, I urge our minds to remain open but drop the burden on the MagLev advocates to prove they've "built a better mousetrap".
At this immediate time, I envision a future HSR network that connects northern/southern CA to be steel-on-wheels, but a putative Las Vegas-to-Anaheim HSR train to be MagLev (the former publicly funded, and the latter privately funded).
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 27, 2007 21:48:58 GMT -8
Popular Mechanics has a long history of showing things that look great on the cover but never make it to the real world. Back in the early 50's, they had articles on "atomic powered trains"--locomotives with on-board nuclear reactors. To this date, the only nuclear powered transportation is ocean-going vessels, and then only in naval service (and imagine the fuss if a nuke-powered container ship showed up in San Pedro!). As it stands today, the only way atomic power is used for land tranport is electric railways; the San Diego Trolley gets a lot of its "juice" from San Onofre. Other ideas, such as personal airplanes, have never made it to daily errands (probably just as well).
Maglev shares a number of problems with monorails--they can't run at grade level and they don't seem suited for subways, switching from one guideway to another is slow and cumbersome, and adding more cars to a train doesn't seem feasible. Then there's the problem of top speed--no matter how fast the train goes, it still has to be at zero mph to load and unload passengers, which makes short-haul maglev not worth the trouble. And how about standardization? There are at least two basic types of maglev, and they are as incompatible as Beta and VHS (or CF and SD camera cards). If a company did have the money to build a maglev, they'd have to pick a supplier and just hope the supplier didn't go broke, because most likely they couldn't "second source" trains (compare this with MetroRail, running KinkiSharyo, Siemens, and soon, Breda cars on the same track).
And as far as a Southern California to Las Vegas maglev? I don't imagine California in general and San Bernardino County in particular would try to make it easy for a transport company whose sole aim is to remove money from Californians.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 27, 2007 22:58:13 GMT -8
I can pretty much echo TTC's view on Maglev. Go to the CA HSR Web site and view the HSR video there. Steel wheels on rails HSR will work for So Cal (and the rest of the state) considering that short trip commuters will be using these trains as well as long distance travelers...and we have plenty of "stores" to go to should the trains or the tracks need to be fixed. www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/................................... The Transit Coalition Position The best equipment and technology for use in public transportation is determined after unbiased research and study. We have strong concerns in starting with a technology or type of transportation vehicle and then working backwards to justify a predetermined conclusion. In all cases, other types of transportation need an adequate review, rather than comparing apples to oranges, which is done to justify the conclusions. We believe in MagLev when used as intended, but not for short haul trips, which is planned in the Los Angeles Region. California High Speed Rail did an extensive study in using both MagLev and Steel wheels-on-steel technology for rail travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The proven Steel wheels-on-steel was selected for the project, even though MagLev had a slightly higher overall average speed. The proposed MagLev system for the Los Angeles region is being designed with public funds. The construction and operations of the system, which is projected not to have any public subsidy for operation, is to be built and run by the private sector. The fare-box revenue is projected to pay off the revenue bonds and to cover the day-to-day operating cost. The stakeholders (the public) will guarantee the success of the system, or pay off the bonds and take the loss, with the investors not taking a risk or loss; just the profits if MagLev is successful. Source: www.thetransitcoalition.us/TTC_MaglevCentral.htm |
|
