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

Re: [carfree_cities] Maglev

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 30 , Nov 30, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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.