Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Maglev

Expand Messages
  • Karen Sandness
    A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill. What s wrong with a regular rail line, either surface or underground? Running non-stop or with
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 16, 2001
      A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill. What's
      wrong with a regular rail line, either surface or underground? Running
      non-stop or with few stops to downtown, it would be competitive with cars,
      taxis, and buses, especially at times when highway traffic is heavy. If the
      train ran directly into the terminal, it would even save the passengers the
      time they now spend standing outside on the curb waiting for the van from
      the rental car agency or the parking lot shuttle.

      Could there be even more of a hidden agenda in this project, a double agenda
      of discrediting urban rail by building an out-of-proportion project with
      huge cost overruns and at the same time, enriching the company that wins the
      bid?

      Just for perspective, Japan was testing maglev at its Hyuga testing facility
      when I went through there in 1978. After all that work, the first proposal
      is not for a short line, but a long line, a second rail line between Tokyo
      and Osaka (about 350 miles), following a more direct route than the
      Shinkansen. With Japan's current economic mess, I don't know if it will ever
      be built. The energy requirements are another concern.

      In transit,
      Karen Sandness
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case), so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It s a ludicrous proposal. Even 200 mph
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 16, 2001
        Karen Sandness said:

        >A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill.

        You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case),
        so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It's a ludicrous
        proposal. Even 200 mph is overkill for such a short run.

        >Could there be even more of a hidden agenda in this project, a double agenda
        >of discrediting urban rail by building an out-of-proportion project with
        >huge cost overruns and at the same time, enriching the company that wins the
        >bid?

        The lessons of the construction of the transcontinental railroad
        and the Channel Tunnel are that the money to be made is in the
        construction. Operations may be unprofitable, but by that time,
        those with the money in their pockets are long gone.

        >Just for perspective, Japan was testing maglev at its Hyuga testing facility
        >when I went through there in 1978. After all that work, the first proposal
        >is not for a short line, but a long line, a second rail line between Tokyo
        >and Osaka (about 350 miles), following a more direct route than the
        >Shinkansen. With Japan's current economic mess, I don't know if it will ever
        >be built.

        That's a more sensible proposal, where the speed would really
        save some time.

        >The energy requirements are another concern.

        Anybody have figures? I've assumed that conventional rail has to be
        more efficient, speed for speed, than maglev.



        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        postmaster@... Carfree.com
      • fort-fun@home.com
        Je ne me souviens pas (I don t remember)...mais the website in Japanese and English for the JAPANESE Maglev project being carried out by the JREast Company is:
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 16, 2001
          Je ne me souviens pas (I don't remember)...mais the website in
          Japanese and English for the JAPANESE Maglev project being carried out
          by the JREast Company is: http://www.rtri.or.jp/ and from there one
          (y'all) can go to the maglev page...though the information might be
          older than 98 or 99 on most pages (in english, japanese is a different
          story, but if I could read it all I would already know the answer and
          would have answered it here anyways...)

          Andrew Reker
          )>"I'm Blue...daba dee daba dye,"

          >
          > Karen Sandness said:
          >
          > >A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill.
          >
          > You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case),
          > so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It's a ludicrous
          > proposal. Even 200 mph is overkill for such a short run.
          >
          > >Could there be even more of a hidden agenda in this project, a
          double agenda
          > >of discrediting urban rail by building an out-of-proportion project
          with
          > >huge cost overruns and at the same time, enriching the company that
          wins the
          > >bid?
          >
          > The lessons of the construction of the transcontinental railroad
          > and the Channel Tunnel are that the money to be made is in the
          > construction. Operations may be unprofitable, but by that time,
          > those with the money in their pockets are long gone.
          >
          > >Just for perspective, Japan was testing maglev at its Hyuga testing
          facility
          > >when I went through there in 1978. After all that work, the first
          proposal
          > >is not for a short line, but a long line, a second rail line
          between Tokyo
          > >and Osaka (about 350 miles), following a more direct route than the
          > >Shinkansen. With Japan's current economic mess, I don't know if it
          will ever
          > >be built.
          >
          > That's a more sensible proposal, where the speed would really
          > save some time.
          >
          > >The energy requirements are another concern.
          >
          > Anybody have figures? I've assumed that conventional rail has to be
          > more efficient, speed for speed, than maglev.
          >
          >
          >
          > -- ###
          --
          >
          > J.H. Crawford Carfree
          Cities
          > postmaster@c... Carfree.com
        • fort-fun@home.com
          Je ne me souviens pas (I don t remember)...mais the website in Japanese and English for the JAPANESE Maglev project being carried out by the JREast Company is:
          Message 4 of 30 , Nov 16, 2001
            Je ne me souviens pas (I don't remember)...mais the website in
            Japanese and English for the JAPANESE Maglev project being carried out
            by the JREast Company is: http://www.rtri.or.jp/ and from there one
            (y'all) can go to the maglev page...though the information might be
            older than 98 or 99 on most pages (in english, japanese is a different
            story, but if I could read it all I would already know the answer and
            would have answered it here anyways...)

            Andrew Reker
            )>"I'm Blue...daba dee daba dye,"

            >
            > Karen Sandness said:
            >
            > >A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill.
            >
            > You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case),
            > so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It's a ludicrous
            > proposal. Even 200 mph is overkill for such a short run.
            >
            > >Could there be even more of a hidden agenda in this project, a
            double agenda
            > >of discrediting urban rail by building an out-of-proportion project
            with
            > >huge cost overruns and at the same time, enriching the company that
            wins the
            > >bid?
            >
            > The lessons of the construction of the transcontinental railroad
            > and the Channel Tunnel are that the money to be made is in the
            > construction. Operations may be unprofitable, but by that time,
            > those with the money in their pockets are long gone.
            >
            > >Just for perspective, Japan was testing maglev at its Hyuga testing
            facility
            > >when I went through there in 1978. After all that work, the first
            proposal
            > >is not for a short line, but a long line, a second rail line
            between Tokyo
            > >and Osaka (about 350 miles), following a more direct route than the
            > >Shinkansen. With Japan's current economic mess, I don't know if it
            will ever
            > >be built.
            >
            > That's a more sensible proposal, where the speed would really
            > save some time.
            >
            > >The energy requirements are another concern.
            >
            > Anybody have figures? I've assumed that conventional rail has to be
            > more efficient, speed for speed, than maglev.
            >
            >
            >
            > -- ###
            --
            >
            > J.H. Crawford Carfree
            Cities
            > postmaster@c... Carfree.com
          • Mark Rauterkus
            ... Just to be clear .... The 47 total miles has 4 stops. Two at the ends (of course) and two in the middle. When this is understood, I dare say that your
            Message 5 of 30 , Nov 16, 2001
              >>A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill.
              >
              > You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case),
              > so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It's a ludicrous
              > proposal. Even 200 mph is overkill for such a short run.

              Just to be clear ....

              The 47 total miles has 4 stops. Two at the ends (of course) and two in the
              middle.

              When this is understood, I dare say that your assessment of it being
              ludicrous is even more ludicrous!!!!


              Ta.


              Mark Rauterkus
              Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
            • J.H. Crawford
              ... If the two middle stops are anywhere except within a few miles of the ends of the line, then the 300 MPH top speed couldn t even be reached. --
              Message 6 of 30 , Nov 17, 2001
                >>>A 300 mph train for a 47-mile run certainly seems like overkill.
                >>
                >> You would spend about 15 miles accelerating and braking (best case),
                >> so only about 30 miles would be at top speed. It's a ludicrous
                >> proposal. Even 200 mph is overkill for such a short run.
                >
                >Just to be clear ....
                >
                >The 47 total miles has 4 stops. Two at the ends (of course) and two in the
                >middle.
                >
                >When this is understood, I dare say that your assessment of it being
                >ludicrous is even more ludicrous!!!!

                If the two middle stops are anywhere except within a few miles of
                the ends of the line, then the 300 MPH top speed couldn't even
                be reached.



                -- ### --

                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                postmaster@... Carfree.com
              • Ed Brighton
                ... EB: Its no big deal for maglev trains to make multiple stops. It is not as if there is any wear and tear. So why slam maglev just because it can go fast
                Message 7 of 30 , Nov 17, 2001
                  on 11/16/01 18:29, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                  > The 47 total miles has 4 stops. Two at the ends (of course) and two in the
                  > middle.
                  >
                  > When this is understood, I dare say that your assessment of it being
                  > ludicrous is even more ludicrous!!!!


                  EB: Its no big deal for maglev trains to make multiple stops. It is not as
                  if there is any wear and tear. So why slam maglev just because it can go
                  fast when stops are not close?
                • J.H. Crawford
                  ... It s not the stops per se; if the distances between the stops are less than about 20 miles, the train can t even reach its top speed, much less spend any
                  Message 8 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                    >EB: Its no big deal for maglev trains to make multiple stops. It is not as
                    >if there is any wear and tear. So why slam maglev just because it can go
                    >fast when stops are not close?

                    It's not the stops per se; if the distances between the stops
                    are less than about 20 miles, the train can't even reach its
                    top speed, much less spend any significant amount of its total
                    running time at high speed. Under these circumstances, there
                    is virtually no advantage to maglev, except to those who get
                    the construction contracts.


                    -- ### --

                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                    postmaster@... Carfree.com
                  • Ed Brighton
                    ... Here are some of the advantages to urban maglev systems: - No noise - no friction - no vibration - Cheaper to maintain (no moving parts - little wear and
                    Message 9 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                      on 11/18/01 2:03, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                      > Under these circumstances, there is virtually no advantage to maglev, except
                      > to those who get the construction contracts.

                      Here are some of the advantages to "urban maglev" systems:

                      - No noise - no friction - no vibration
                      - Cheaper to maintain (no moving parts - little wear and tear)
                      - Often cheaper to construct, because light car weights, and the even spread
                      of the weight over the beam, means the elevated structures can be smaller,
                      less intrusive. Can often fit in existing ROW.
                      - Can climb steeper hills, in all weather.
                      - Good acceleration and braking

                      I think the main advantage of maglev in urban environments are the no noise,
                      and smaller elevated structures and footprint.

                      Here are a couple of urban maglev links:

                      http://www.pref.aichi.jp/aia/voice/no12/12_cutting_edge.html
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev
                    • J.H. Crawford
                      ... My understanding is that the ride quality of maglev is actually fairly poor, and anything but free of vibration. There should be less noise. The no
                      Message 10 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                        Ed Brighton said:

                        >> Under these circumstances, there is virtually no advantage to maglev, except
                        >> to those who get the construction contracts.
                        >
                        >Here are some of the advantages to "urban maglev" systems:
                        >
                        >- No noise - no friction - no vibration

                        My understanding is that the ride quality of maglev is actually
                        fairly poor, and anything but free of vibration. There should
                        be less noise. The "no friction" only means no rolling friction;
                        air resistance would be more or less the same as for conventional
                        vehicles. On the down side, you have the energy losses involved
                        in magnetically levitating the vehicle.

                        >- Cheaper to maintain (no moving parts - little wear and tear)

                        Remains to be seen; conventional rail, if properly implemented,
                        is pretty cheap to maintain. Maglev HAS wheels and rails, although
                        they are normally only used at low speeds.

                        >- Often cheaper to construct, because light car weights, and the even spread
                        >of the weight over the beam, means the elevated structures can be smaller,
                        >less intrusive. Can often fit in existing ROW.

                        I'm dead set against any transport system that is installed above
                        ground. Visual intrusion is an entirely adequate reason to oppose
                        them. There are other reasons, too. The weight of the magenetic
                        elements would be considerable, and given that rails are still
                        needed, I would have to be convinced that they are any lighter,
                        comparing like for like (i.e., aluminum car bodies on both systems).

                        >- Can climb steeper hills, in all weather.

                        nice. Rail can do well in this regard if all wheels are powered.
                        Ice and autumn leaves are a problem. What happens to maglev if
                        the power fails on a hill?

                        >- Good acceleration and braking

                        Can also be achieved with conventional rail.

                        >I think the main advantage of maglev in urban environments are the no noise,
                        >and smaller elevated structures and footprint.

                        No noise is an important advantage, but not one that exists
                        at high speed--wind noise is appreciable.

                        >Here are a couple of urban maglev links:

                        I hadn't realized that we're talking 100 MPH maglevs--they're
                        normally discussed in the context of 200+ MPH systems, and
                        300 MPH is often mentioned. Is the proposed Pittsburgh system
                        just a 100 MPH system?

                        Regards,




                        -- ### --

                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                        postmaster@... Carfree.com
                      • Mark Rauterkus
                        Hi All, ... Agree with a few other bit players yet to beneift. 1. The politicians who get themselves elected with the Maglev PAC (Political Action Committee)
                        Message 11 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                          Hi All,

                          >> Under these circumstances, there is virtually no advantage to maglev, except
                          >> to those who get the construction contracts.
                          Agree with a few other bit players yet to beneift.

                          1. The politicians who get themselves elected with the Maglev PAC (Political
                          Action Committee) money.

                          2. The lawyers who have to do the displacement of the people's
                          homes/business -- eminent domain -- churning communities.

                          3. The land speculators who get to cash in on some less valued property for
                          sale to others (mostly later speculators).



                          > Here are some of the advantages to "urban maglev" systems:

                          The urban maglev (called, "low speed maglev" in Pittsburgh) is not the same
                          as the high-speed maglev. Both types are easily confused. Both types have
                          plans on tap for Pittsburgh in discussion and seed grant
                          planning/evaluation.

                          I think what we've been talking about so far has been the "high speed"
                          flavor. However, both are equally tragic IMHO in Pittsburgh.


                          > - No noise - no friction - no vibration
                          I wonder about the noise of the high speed maglev -- at 300 MPH. That makes
                          a great deal of "friction" -- but there are no wheels on the steel.

                          > - Cheaper to maintain (no moving parts - little wear and tear)
                          The cheaper way to do it is to have off-the-self ingenuity. There have been
                          some back-room deals cut so that all the labor is from union shops,
                          certified, blessed and pre-ordained. If there was a way to develop a global
                          transporation without the need of patents, closed-shop suppliers,
                          proprietary dealers/developers -- I'd be very happy. This should be a public
                          project done in the spirit of open-source thinking and application. There
                          won't be "bidding" to secure the job once the funding is secured. This is a
                          pipeline of spending from the taxes collected to the corporate ledger with a
                          little left for the lobby activities and unions as grease.

                          (Woops. No moving parts. Yeah, right.)

                          > - Often cheaper to construct, because light car weights, and the even spread
                          > of the weight over the beam, means the elevated structures can be smaller,
                          > less intrusive.
                          But the tollerance is miniscule.

                          > Can often fit in existing ROW.

                          ROW = Right of way I guess. You know what can fit into an existing right of
                          way??? Plain old heavy rail too. The high speed can't fit in existing ROW.
                          But, I'd like to get the ROW -- and build the heavy rail first (plus
                          pathways), -- then build the MagLev.

                          > - Can climb steeper hills, in all weather.
                          > - Good acceleration and braking

                          I'd love to see some specs on that as this is a sticking point we've covered
                          with high speed. How long does it take in distance and time to hit the
                          fastest speeds?

                          What about the slow-down for stops too?

                          Thanks for the pointers.


                          Ta.


                          Mark Rauterkus
                          Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
                        • Ed Brighton
                          ... EB: This is somewhat true, but the small levitation gap (8-12mm) between the train and the rail is not a problem, and is actually advantageous in several
                          Message 12 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                            on 11/18/01 9:42, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                            > But the tollerance is miniscule.

                            EB: This is somewhat true, but the small levitation gap (8-12mm) between the
                            train and the rail is not a problem, and is actually advantageous in several
                            respects (more energy efficient propulsion and suspension).

                            A small gap design does however require the guideway rails to be closely
                            aligned and fitted. This is not such a problem as it might seem however
                            because the maglev guideway beams and components can be manufactured and
                            mass-produced efficiently off-site in controlled environments.

                            Small-gap EMS maglev systems have now been extensively tested in Germany,
                            Japan, and Korea for many years. If the small gap were a problem or a
                            constraint, the deployment of these systems would not now be occurring.

                            It strikes me that because urban maglev systems can be easily elevated above
                            existing traffic on relatively small guideways, and because they produce no
                            noise, vibration, or other pollution, urban maglev is an ideal alternative
                            to more expensive and disruptive light rail systems.

                            Here are some more links:

                            http://www.eal.or.jp/CW/NEWS/NEWS20000224.shtml
                            http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/lst
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/files/HSST/HSSTphotos%20/
                          • Mark Rauterkus
                            ... Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space given the costs, IMHO. I wrote a bit about the distinction in a prior post. Ta.
                            Message 13 of 30 , Nov 18, 2001
                              > Is the proposed Pittsburgh system
                              > just a 100 MPH system?

                              Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space
                              given the costs, IMHO.

                              I wrote a bit about the distinction in a prior post.


                              Ta.


                              Mark Rauterkus
                              Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
                            • Karen Sandness
                              ... [snip] ... Having lived through light rail construction just a few blocks from my apartment, I fail to see how it s any more disruptive than having to
                              Message 14 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                >
                                > Message: 7
                                > Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:15:25 -0800
                                > From: Ed Brighton <ebrighton@...>
                                > Subject: Re: Maglev
                                >
                                [snip]
                                >
                                > It strikes me that because urban maglev systems can be easily elevated above
                                > existing traffic on relatively small guideways, and because they produce no
                                > noise, vibration, or other pollution, urban maglev is an ideal alternative
                                > to more expensive and disruptive light rail systems.
                                >
                                > Here are some more links:
                                >
                                Having lived through light rail construction just a few blocks from my
                                apartment, I fail to see how it's any more "disruptive" than having to build
                                a whole new elevated infrastructure. I would think that the cranes required
                                to build an elevated structure (as in certain sections of the newly-opened
                                airport light rail line, which has to cross a freeway at one point) would
                                take up a lot of room.

                                One family-owned convenience store in my area failed during the construction
                                period, and they loudly blamed the construction process for taking away
                                their parking, but the store never had much business to begin with, and the
                                idea that it failed over the summer when it was within walking distance of
                                literally hundreds of residential units as well as dozens of hungry, thirsty
                                construction workers, seems odd.

                                I understand the aesthetic problems with an elevated system, because I know
                                the urban rail system in Tokyo quite well, and the Osaka system to a lesser
                                extent. Both cities have a lot of elevated rail lines (as well as sunken
                                lines--the idea is to keep the tracks level, so it depends on the terrain),
                                and the land under them is about as attractive as the underside of a freeway
                                overpass. In addition, there are sections of Osaka's Kanjo Line (the main
                                ring around the central city) which are elevated *and* run through
                                neighborhoods of high-rises. You can literally look into people's living
                                rooms at the third or fourth floor level. You almost feel as if you're
                                flying through a Jetson's cartoon.

                                About the only disruption that Portland's light rail system produces now is
                                that it occasionally requires cars to stop and wait. That's not a bad thing,
                                although I'm sure that the car addicts think so.

                                In transit,
                                Karen Sandness
                              • Ed Brighton
                                ... I ve heard this complaint before about the early Transrapid when cruising at high speed. But I understand the ride now is very smooth, no vibration. The
                                Message 15 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                  on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                  > My understanding is that the ride quality of maglev is actually
                                  > fairly poor, and anything but free of vibration.

                                  I've heard this complaint before about the early Transrapid when cruising at
                                  high speed. But I understand the ride now is very smooth, no vibration.

                                  The ride of the HSST low-speed maglev (up to 100km.hr) is described as
                                  "smooth and silky".
                                • Ed Brighton
                                  ... speeds. This is not true of the HSST and KOROS urban maglev systems. HSST remains levitated even when stopped in stations. The use of wheels at low speeds
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                    on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                    > Maglev HAS wheels and rails, although they are normally only used at low
                                    speeds.

                                    This is not true of the HSST and KOROS urban maglev systems. HSST remains
                                    levitated even when stopped in stations.

                                    The use of wheels at low speeds (until "liftoff") is a characteristic of
                                    high-speed maglev designs, not urban maglev.
                                  • Ed Brighton
                                    ... Energy consumption for small-gap EMS type levitation is surprisingly not a big deal. The HSST apparently uses less energy for levitation than it does for
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                      on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                      > On the down side, you have the energy losses involved
                                      > in magnetically levitating the vehicle.

                                      Energy consumption for small-gap EMS type levitation is surprisingly not a
                                      big deal. The HSST apparently uses less energy for levitation than it does
                                      for air conditioning.

                                      Ref: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/files/HSST/HSSTfaq
                                    • Ed Brighton
                                      ... EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some great advancements here. Here are some links re the low-speed Pittsburgh
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                        on 11/18/01 16:48, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                                        > Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space
                                        > given the costs, IMHO.

                                        EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some
                                        great advancements here.

                                        Here are some links re' the low-speed Pittsburgh maglev project, the design
                                        details of which little are yet a bit unknown, probably for proprietary
                                        reasons. The ongoing development work is part of an FTA project to develop
                                        and demonstrate "USA" maglev technology, . For example, the PASS vehicle
                                        could use superconducting magnets.

                                        Here are some refs:

                                        http://www.urbmaglev.com/index_b.htm (check out the video)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/message/438
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/links
                                      • Ed Brighton
                                        ... EB: Wind noise at high-speed is an issue. Steel-wheel scream at high-speed is a much bigger issue. At lower speeds, in urban areas, maglev would be
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                          on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                          > No noise is an important advantage, but not one that exists
                                          > at high speed--wind noise is appreciable.

                                          EB: Wind noise at high-speed is an issue. Steel-wheel "scream" at
                                          high-speed is a much bigger issue. At lower speeds, in urban areas, maglev
                                          would be much quieter.
                                        • Ed Brighton
                                          ... There is sufficient power stored in onboard batteries to keep the train elevated and to get it to at least the next station, at least that is how the HSST
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                            on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                            > What happens to maglev if the power fails on a hill?

                                            There is sufficient power stored in onboard batteries to keep the train
                                            elevated and to get it to at least the next station, at least that is how
                                            the HSST is designed.

                                            The HSST can apparently also be moved on the rail if need-be by deploying
                                            caster-type wheels.
                                          • Ed Brighton
                                            ... EB: An elevated urban maglev structure should be smaller and less bulky. For heavier elevated rail systems like LRT, the structures are often too big to
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                              on 11/19/01 10:15, Karen Sandness at ksandness1@... wrote:

                                              > ... I fail to see how it's any more "disruptive" than having to build
                                              > a whole new elevated infrastructure. ...

                                              EB: An elevated urban maglev structure should be smaller and less bulky.
                                              For heavier elevated rail systems like LRT, the structures are often too big
                                              to be prefab'd off-site and trucked in, they have to be cast in place. That
                                              would be much more disruptive, both in time and space.
                                            • Ed Brighton
                                              ... EB: Here s a comparison of trainset options, by empty train weight, length, capacity: - LRT(ie: Portland Max) Wt.empty 218,000# (180 2-car train)(522
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
                                                on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                                                > The weight of the magenetic elements would be considerable, and given that
                                                > rails are still needed, I would have to be convinced that they are any
                                                > lighter, comparing like for like (i.e., aluminum car bodies on both systems).


                                                EB: Here's a comparison of trainset options, by empty train weight,
                                                length, capacity:
                                                - LRT(ie: Portland Max) Wt.empty 218,000# (180' 2-car train)(522 cap)
                                                - Skytrain ALRT (ie: Vanc. BC) - 132,000# (227' 4-car train)(520 cap)
                                                - Alweg Monorail (ie: Seattle) - 100,000# (122' 2-car train)(450 cap)
                                                - HSST-100 maglev (ie: Nagoya) - 132,000# (180' 4-car train)(484 cap)
                                              • Mark Rauterkus
                                                Hi All, ... You can disagree with my opinion. However, you can t claim I m uninformed. I m informed. And, I ll repeat, IMHO, low-speed Maglev would be horrid
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                                                  Hi All,

                                                  I wrote with confidence:
                                                  >> Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space
                                                  >> given the costs, IMHO.
                                                  >
                                                  > EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some
                                                  > great advancements here.

                                                  You can disagree with my opinion. However, you can't claim I'm uninformed.
                                                  I'm informed. And, I'll repeat, IMHO, low-speed Maglev would be horrid in
                                                  Pittsburgh given the costs.

                                                  But, I agree, there are some great advancements in Maglev in terms of:
                                                  - cash to politicians' Political Action Committees,
                                                  - advanced spending of tax dollars, and
                                                  - hype.
                                                  Trust me, I'm doing and have done a great deal of homework.

                                                  Thanks for the URL pointers.

                                                  Finally, thanks for the support and boost to my main sticking point of
                                                  Maglev! You wrote in part:
                                                  > ... the low-speed Pittsburgh maglev project, the design
                                                  > details of which little are yet a bit unknown, probably for proprietary
                                                  > reasons.
                                                  Bingo! Maglev is full of proprietary entanglements. Installing a private,
                                                  closed, proprietary system is fine for a theme park's monorail. However,
                                                  this is a public project with tons of tax money going to its funding. I want
                                                  open source projects with public efforts. We should have no part of Maglev
                                                  for that very reason, its proprietary nature.


                                                  Ta.


                                                  Mark Rauterkus
                                                  Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com

                                                  Recent candidate for Mayor, City of Pittsburgh
                                                • Ed Brighton
                                                  ... Your cynicism is showing. Not good. (But then I don t know Pittsburgh politics.) But I am cynical myself, living in Seattle, how our RTA Sound transit
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                                                    on 11/20/01 8:25, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                                                    > ... there are some great advancements in Maglev in terms of:
                                                    > - cash to politicians' Political Action Committees,
                                                    > - advanced spending of tax dollars, and
                                                    > - hype.

                                                    Your cynicism is showing. Not good. (But then I don't know Pittsburgh
                                                    politics.) But I am cynical myself, living in Seattle, how our RTA Sound
                                                    transit has pushed "LRT" technology to the exclusion of giving any of the
                                                    alternatives like monorail a fair evaluation.

                                                    > We should have no part of Maglev for that very reason, its proprietary nature.

                                                    All great advancements are usually proprietary in the beginning to some
                                                    extent. The incentives are needed to spur innovation. Unfortunately some
                                                    hype is often needed to get political and financial backing. Its a reality.

                                                    Proprietary concerns can usually be settled as part of the contract, to
                                                    allow purchasers some security or rights to the technology, so down the road
                                                    other firms can bid on components, etc. Call it licensing or whatever. It
                                                    is done all the time.

                                                    It is interesting that conventional EMS type maglev, the small-gap
                                                    wrap-around type, had matured to the point now that the designs are very
                                                    similar - ie: Japanese HSST is like the KOROS UMV is like the Chinese CPCP
                                                    is like the AMT ODU demo - and these are all like the German Transrapid,
                                                    except the Transrapid is larger and built for high speed by [lacing the
                                                    active coils of the linear motor in the guideway itself. For the low-speed
                                                    maglev systems, the guideway is kept simple, and the active motor coils are
                                                    in the vehicle. High speed systems can't do it this way because of the 3rd
                                                    rail power transfer problem.
                                                  • Mark Rauterkus
                                                    Hi All, ... Wrong again. Your insult and assumption of me ( if I looked into it... ) came before your false claim of my cynicism. What isn t good, IMHO, is
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                                                      Hi All,

                                                      > Your cynicism is showing. Not good.
                                                      Wrong again. Your insult and assumption of me ("if I looked into it...")
                                                      came before your false claim of my cynicism. What isn't good, IMHO, is
                                                      Maglev and your assumptions. What is "Not good" is that the future for
                                                      maglev is bleak. Your discussion needs to stay -- 'on track.' I'll explain.

                                                      >> We should have no part of Maglev for that very reason, its proprietary
                                                      nature.
                                                      >
                                                      > All great advancements are usually proprietary in the beginning to some
                                                      > extent.

                                                      No so. Consider, say The US Constitution.
                                                      I dare say that the really great advancements were NOT proprietary at all.
                                                      Mostly at the outset.

                                                      Maglev is a modern mode of transportation that needs advocates (such as
                                                      yourself) who are capable of being modern themselves. The old-world,
                                                      proprietary Maglev is going to flounder for additional decades to come,
                                                      IMHO.

                                                      >The incentives are needed to spur innovation.
                                                      Not so. Pure public good is a wonderful motivation.
                                                      Case in point: Much of the internet has flourished because of no incentives
                                                      other than the need to better communicate and transfer bits from one
                                                      location to another.

                                                      > Unfortunately some
                                                      > hype is often needed to get political and financial backing. Its a reality.
                                                      Not so. Hype is a reality in making false claims. But, I dare say, inspired
                                                      ideas can stand on their own merits.

                                                      Truth needs no hype. Truth garners great investments as well.

                                                      > Proprietary concerns can usually be settled as part of the contract, to
                                                      > allow purchasers some security or rights to the technology, so down the road
                                                      > other firms can bid on components, etc. Call it licensing or whatever. It
                                                      > is done all the time.

                                                      Because it is done all the time does not make it right, ideal, or even
                                                      tolerated. People go to jail all the time too.

                                                      The boundaries of freedoms in an open society fueled by public money are not
                                                      easily placed in the contracts you suggest. The compromise to freedom is in
                                                      stark contrast to the mission of our greatest tasks. I'm not buying. And,
                                                      thankfully, many other Americans are not for purchase as well.

                                                      The proprietary concerns for a public investment such as Maglev can't be
                                                      settled as part of a contract. The offer is not good enough for the costs
                                                      and the risks.

                                                      > It is interesting that conventional EMS type maglev, the small-gap
                                                      > wrap-around type, had matured to the point now that the designs are very
                                                      > similar - ie: Japanese HSST is like the KOROS UMV is like the Chinese CPCP
                                                      > is like the AMT ODU demo - and these are all like the German Transrapid,
                                                      > except the Transrapid is larger and built for high speed by [lacing the
                                                      > active coils of the linear motor in the guideway itself. For the low-speed
                                                      > maglev systems, the guideway is kept simple, and the active motor coils are
                                                      > in the vehicle. High speed systems can't do it this way because of the 3rd
                                                      > rail power transfer problem.

                                                      What you find "interesting" and what I find interesting are worlds apart.
                                                      What is interesting is how I can hit the send button on my keyboard and a
                                                      free-and-open pathway zooms the packets to you in efficient, non-proprietary
                                                      ways. A closed system isn't going to evolve as smoothly as an open one.

                                                      If Maglev's vision and gains were leveraged for the greater public good,
                                                      we'd build one to the moon. But, sadly, Maglev's contracts are too binding
                                                      for that to occur. We, the people, are ready for a different mind-set.
                                                      Perhaps there is a future for Maglev in the Chinese or Japanese culture /
                                                      society / public investment landscape. But, it ain't going to happen here as
                                                      it is now being planned (proprietary) and structured, IMHO.



                                                      Ta.


                                                      Mark Rauterkus
                                                      Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
                                                    • Ed Brighton
                                                      ... We would not have the internet today if there had not been enormous government support and investment, spurred on and still supported today more than ever
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                                                        on 11/20/01 13:55, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                                                        > ... a free-and-open pathway zooms the packets to you in efficient,
                                                        > non-proprietary ways.

                                                        We would not have the internet today if there had not been enormous
                                                        government support and investment, spurred on and still supported today more
                                                        than ever by all sorts of vested economic interests, and if the inventors of
                                                        the various and evolving packet switch technologies had not had patent
                                                        protection and been able to benefit financially. The packet switches on the
                                                        internet and most of the other hardware is all patented technology.

                                                        Besides patent protection, another reason the internet is succeeding is
                                                        standardization, like the standard protoco TCP/IP, and other standards or
                                                        conventions like HTML. These standards, once set by industry, then allow
                                                        various comapnies to innovate and to develop proprietary user components and
                                                        products that are sold to end users like you and me for PROFIT. Ain't free
                                                        enterprise great! But maglev, like the internet, might require a kick-start
                                                        by some government taxpayer largess and nurturing.

                                                        Conventional EMS maglev technology might evolve in a manner similar to the
                                                        internet. Remember the "ARPANET" ("Advanced Research Project Agency
                                                        Network) - the predecessor to the INTERNET - that was developed by the
                                                        Department of Defense using tax dollars? It was then then basically given
                                                        to the universities (first), and then to the public. The internet today is
                                                        not a freebie - but it is to us users - because it is subsidized by the
                                                        government using our tax dollars. Many people have gotten rich off the
                                                        internet - using proprietary hardware and software.

                                                        It appears to me that maglev may now have evolved to a point where the
                                                        technical people might be able to agree to certain standards - it might be
                                                        possible to set certain guideway standards such as the track guage that
                                                        would then allow various companies to develop new and better maglev
                                                        vehicles. I'd like to see a few maglev developers, like internet
                                                        developers, get rich.
                                                      • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
                                                        I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for american megalopolis
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Nov 30, 2002
                                                          I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                                                          guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for
                                                          american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                                                          THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very cool
                                                        • J.H. Crawford
                                                          Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they had developed. When they found out
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                                                            Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build
                                                            one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they
                                                            had developed. When they found out how much it costs, the dropped
                                                            the plans.

                                                            It offers no significant advantage over conventional rail, and
                                                            costs a fortune. Apparently, the claims for silk-smooth ride
                                                            are also untrue.

                                                            So, IMHO, let's not discuss it.

                                                            Regards,

                                                            >I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                                                            >guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for
                                                            >american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                                                            >THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very cool
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                                            >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                                            >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                                            >
                                                            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >


                                                            -- ### --

                                                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                                            mailbox@... Carfree.com
                                                          • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
                                                            I see what you mean ; I m even registered in an Urban Maglev group , just wanted to feel the mood around here about it, Just tell me , what does IMHO mean
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                                                              I see what you mean ; I'm even registered in an Urban Maglev group ,
                                                              just wanted to feel the mood around here about it,

                                                              Just tell me , what does IMHO mean exactly?

                                                              Mateus

                                                              --- In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@c...> wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build
                                                              > one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they
                                                              > had developed. When they found out how much it costs, the dropped
                                                              > the plans.
                                                              >
                                                              > It offers no significant advantage over conventional rail, and
                                                              > costs a fortune. Apparently, the claims for silk-smooth ride
                                                              > are also untrue.
                                                              >
                                                              > So, IMHO, let's not discuss it.
                                                              >
                                                              > Regards,
                                                              >
                                                              > >I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                                                              > >guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web
                                                              for
                                                              > >american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                                                              > >THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very
                                                              cool
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
                                                              > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-
                                                              unsubscribe@e...
                                                              > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                                              > >
                                                              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > --
                                                              ### --
                                                              >
                                                              > J.H. Crawford Carfree
                                                              Cities
                                                              > mailbox@c... Carfree.com
                                                            • Patrick Hudson
                                                              IMHO = in my humble opinion
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                                                                IMHO = in my humble opinion

                                                                Mateus de Oliveira Fechino wrote:
                                                                >
                                                                > I see what you mean ; I'm even registered in an Urban Maglev group ,
                                                                > just wanted to feel the mood around here about it,
                                                                >
                                                                > Just tell me , what does IMHO mean exactly?
                                                                >
                                                                > Mateus
                                                                >
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.