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

Re: Magnet Train/HSR vs, semiHSR

Expand Messages
  • larry23722002
    I want to respond to some your earlier contentions: - The Chinese have not decided to build convential HSR from Beijing to Shanghai yet. They are awaiting
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I want to respond to some your earlier contentions:

      - The Chinese have not decided to build convential HSR from Beijing
      to Shanghai yet. They are awaiting testing of true European/Asian
      HSR in-country first, and so far no technology decisions have been
      announced. Plus they are initiating an extension to the Shanghai
      maglev line to Hangzhou, another 100+ miles. Decisions as to the
      technology to connect Beijing are years away.

      - Energy costs for Transrapid are not extraordinary, no matter what
      anybody says, and there are no magnets in the track. The propulsion
      system is in the track.

      - Faster speed really gives you very little, it's clear, until you
      have a longer run that Tampa-Orlando. Say, maybe Tampa-Orlando-
      Miami. But Transrapid headways can be as short as five minutes,
      decreasing wait times significantly and giving good throughput even
      for short lines.

      - Faster HSR speeds create greater noise and require wider ROWs than
      for high-speed maglev. "Startle" effects could be significant if
      HSR is running in highway medians, due to its higher noise and
      vibration levels. Not so for Transrapid.

      - Transrapid uses 20-30% less energy than Germany's' InterCity
      Express (ICE) trains when compared under comparable speed/load
      profiles.

      If high speed is warranted, it comes at a price, no doubt. The
      question for Florida is whether it really wants to pay for high-
      speed travel by any means.

      Larry Blow
    • alan_drake@juno.com
      ... There was an announcement over a year ago by the Ministry of Railways that the technology selected was to be HSR. Work is going forward on precise route
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > I want to respond to some your earlier contentions:
        >
        > - The Chinese have not decided to build convential HSR from Beijing
        > to Shanghai yet. They are awaiting testing of true European/Asian
        > HSR in-country first, and so far no technology decisions have been
        > announced. Plus they are initiating an extension to the Shanghai
        > maglev line to Hangzhou, another 100+ miles. Decisions as to the
        > technology to connect Beijing are years away.

        There was an announcement over a year ago by the Ministry of Railways
        that the technology selected was to be HSR. Work is going forward on
        precise route selection (which is affected by the choice of
        technology). The big hurdle now is financing and after that which
        equipment vendor/technology (shinkansen/TGV/ICE or perhaps tilting
        trains). The new Premier is deemphasizing "megaprojects".

        > - Energy costs for Transrapid are not extraordinary, no matter what
        > anybody says, and there are no magnets in the track. The propulsion
        > system is in the track.

        Propulsion is magnetic, propulsion is in the track, there are no
        magnets in the track ?

        The Chinese, for prestige reasons (and the maglev WAS ALL ABOUT
        PRESTIGE) are not going to admit that they made a mistake; but reports
        from industry sources indicate that the Chinese were startled by the
        power bills.

        > - Faster speed really gives you very little, it's clear, until you
        > have a longer run that Tampa-Orlando. Say, maybe Tampa-Orlando-
        > Miami. But Transrapid headways can be as short as five minutes,
        > decreasing wait times significantly and giving good throughput even
        > for short lines.

        HSR, etc. headways can be as tight as traffic warrants, until loading
        times limit the headways. Loading times limit the capacity of the
        Lexington subway line in NYC to about 600,000/day. Intercity
        transport in Florida is unlikely to ever reach these levels.

        > - Faster HSR speeds create greater noise and require wider ROWs than
        > for high-speed maglev. "Startle" effects could be significant if
        > HSR is running in highway medians, due to its higher noise and
        > vibration levels. Not so for Transrapid.

        The lack of a track/vehicle interface resuces aerodynamic effects, but
        does not eliminate them. Transrapid in Shanghai is quiet inside but
        not so for those outisde. This is one reason that it does not go
        downtown, but stops in a suburb; an hour's taxi ride away from the CBD.

        The higher speed of Transrapid offsets it's aerodynamic advantage.

        Can an airplane (without engines) whoosh by from behind 25' away
        without startling ?

        > - Transrapid uses 20-30% less energy than Germany's' InterCity
        > Express (ICE) trains when compared under comparable speed/load
        > profiles.

        Since ICE cannot reach maglev speeds; I think I see an engineering
        fudge here.

        Energy use goes up as the square of speed (all other friction factors
        decline to second order effects at these speeds). Take ICE energy use
        at 150 mph (test track speeds), quadruple it and compare it to maglev
        at 300 mph.

        If maglev is "20% to 30% less" than 4 times ICE energy at 150 mph
        then, "Transrapid uses 20-30% less energy than Germany's' InterCity
        Express (ICE) trains when compared under comparable speed/load
        profiles."

        I suspect that if Transrapid slows done to 150 mph, that this energy
        advantage disappears.

        As may be noted, I am QUITE suspicous of promotor claims.

        > If high speed is warranted, it comes at a price, no doubt. The
        > question for Florida is whether it really wants to pay for high-
        > speed travel by any means.

        I believe that the best intercity rail system for South Florida is
        electric "semiHSR" (top speed in the range of 90 to 110 mph) with a
        mix of passenger and freight traffic.

        BTW, Tampa-Miami travel via Orlando has a geographic problem. One
        goes north then south, the route is far from a straightline. Trying
        to compete with a/c (which can fly in straight lines) on this route is
        problematic.

        One of the most expensive HSR lines in the world, London-Brussels, is
        ~220 miles straight line. They are getting just over 50% market share
        against aviation (auto travel is inhibited by the English Channel).

        London has a superb Urban Rail system and Brussels has an excellent
        one that HSR seamlessly interfaces with. Miami was the beginnings of
        an urban rail system (MetroRail) and Tampa is thinking about a light
        rail system. And the road connections between Tampa & Miami are
        better than between London & Brussels.

        With these disadvantages, I wonder if Tampa-Miami would get half or
        even a quarter of the market. Thus, I think that the emphasis should
        be on Tampa-Orlando & Orlando-Ft.L/Miami markets (which the gravity
        model says would be larger markets than the Tampa-Miami market).

        Alan
      • Daryl Oster
        ... Alan, Actually there are two test tracks - the one you refer to and another one far larger. The HTSM test track you refer to has successfully carried more
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 14, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message From: alan_drake@...
          > Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:59 AM
          > Subject: [floridafasttrain] Re: Magnet Train/HSR vs, semiHSR
          >
          > --- In floridafasttrain@yahoogroups.com, "Daryl Oster" <et3@e...> wrote:
          >> (300km/h) instead of developing maglev on that route. At speed, the
          >> energy required for levitation is trivial compared to the energy used
          >> to overcome aerodynamic losses. ETT is able to use any proven form of
          >> maglev, the lowest cost and most efficient form of maglev is HSTM
          >> recently proven in Chengdu China (NOT the Transrapid system).


          > So a lab track of less than a mile and limited time testing "proves'
          > that a unique system is "lowest cost and most energy efficient" ?
          >
          > My standards of proof are *FAR* higher than that.
          >

          Alan,
          Actually there are two test tracks - the one you refer to and another one
          far larger.

          The HTSM test track you refer to has successfully carried more than 25,000
          persons without a single failure or mishap. Precise friction measurements
          made in Japan show the coefficient of friction (mu) of HTSM to be as low as
          10ee-6 (0.000001) researchers in the US measured HTSM friction as low as
          10ee-7 (0.0000001).

          The HTSM test track proves that $3.50 worth of cooling will allow levitation
          for 4-6 passengers for 7 hours. For the energy use calculations for ETT we
          use the proven $0.05/passenger-hour cost even though it is also well known
          that a vacuum flask conditions of ETT(like a thermos bottle) provides far
          better insulation than a surface subjected to air convection found in the
          HTSM prototype. ETT will reduce the cooling requirements to a much lower
          value than the proven five cents per passenger hour!

          The other ETT test track is the biggest possible, and by far the most proven
          one in existence. Is 8.7 X 10ee17 (870,000,000,000,000,000) passenger miles
          enough proof for you? In fact YOU have put on about 100 million test miles
          for ETT your self! ALL of us have been orbiting the sun in the evacuated
          environment of space - and I have only estimated the earths solar orbit
          miles - the actual miles traveled around the galactic core is far greater.

          What higher standard of proof do you require?????????

          > Does Florida want to be naive and buy some lab tested system, and then
          > discover operational flaws later on ? See the high costs for the
          > Miami Metromover for a real world example of what happens, and there
          > all the "bits & pieces" were proven technology. The Jacksonville
          > monorail also comes to mind (operating costs 20x higher than light rail).
          >
          > Florida could "blow it" for rail with a white elephant system !


          >> HTSM maglev in ETT for Tampa - Orlando would use less than a cent
          >> worth of energy per passenger for the maglev operation per trip.
          >
          > Does that include cooling for the magnets whilst no train is passing
          > by ? Etc. Etc.

          A train is not used in ETT - only individual vehicles - like highly proven
          highway systems that crushed rail's passenger transportation preeminence a
          half century ago. Also the magnets for HTSM are permanent field magnets -
          they will operate in ambient conditions for more than 100 years with no
          significant degradation. If any magnetic loss is measured, they can easily
          be restored in a few seconds. The nickel per passenger hour cost of cooling
          the vehicle superconductive bulk material (not wire) is only needed when a
          vehicle is operating. There is some overhead cost of operating ETT, and it
          is all calculated into the cost. ETT is NOT the best option for ALL
          transportation - just MOST transportation.


          > I doubt promotor claims to the point of believing that they lie.
          > Remember "Greenland" ?


          Alan, If you are libeling me by calling me a liar, I suggest you either
          apologize or show your evidence. I do not know what you mean about
          "Greenland" - the Vikings perhaps? There is strong evidence that Greenland
          was inhabited for a couple hundred years - then it got too cold -- (strange
          how the "greenies" are alarmed now that global climate shifts may make the
          south of Greenland green again - ins't it?)




          > Where is a real world, 3rd Party verification ?

          There is plenty cited on our website, you can read can't you? If you have
          any specific questions, I am happy to provide answers to the best of my
          ability.


          > Let then build it in China if it is so good, operate it for a half dozen
          > years and then look CLOSELY at it.

          IF we the citizens of the USA allow rail interests to continue to rob us of
          billions, AND convince government transportation decision makers to chase
          the best technology off to China, and India, and ____,...,
          THEN we will keep losing our lead.


          > > > Remember that for the distances that we are looking at in South
          > > > Florida, that faster speed really gives you very little.
          > >
          > > The fastest option presented to the FHSRA was ETT. The trip time
          > for ETT from end station to end station is less than 20 min. Compare
          > that with 53 min. for the fastest HSR option. 20 min VS 53 that is
          > less than 1/2 the time for ETT, most people call that significant.
          >
          > Not if most people spend 1.5 hours getting to and from the station (45
          > minutes each end is realistic in Tampa & Orlando traffic + buying a
          > ticket, luggage, etc.) and an average of xx minutes waiting for the
          > next train. I think slower trains, with some expresses that skip
          > Lakeland, would be the best economic solution.
          >
          > Transportation models can give the extra partonage that 33 minutes
          > faster total journey time would bring in.
          >
          > I would suspect about 10% to 15%. FAR better would be good urban rail
          > systems in Tampa & Orlando. Urban rail connections are the secret to
          > HSR success in the EU & Japan. Only Miami (and Disneyworld) have that
          > in Florida, and their systems are limited by int'l standards.
          >
          > Offering express service bypassing Lakeland would make up much of that
          > delta.


          I suspect that your insinuation of lying was just a simple case of
          projection. The public is tired of the railroad version of the truth -
          especially when it is plain to see that trains once had almost exclusive
          share - and trains have been replaced with better modes like busses and
          POVs; yet the politicians keep falling for the "smoke and mirrors" lobby
          sales job that pulls the wool over their eyes. The buffaloed politicians
          continue to purchase rail system after rail system that fails to deliver on
          the empty promises -- meanwhile the railroaders continue to fatten their
          toothless jowls on the mammary of government that would be better used to
          nourish infant technologies.



          >> We agree that high frequency also has great value. The maximum wait
          >> time of the ETT proposal was 43 seconds for a vehicle. Compare that
          >> with the maximum wait for HSR of one hour! Another major advantage of
          >> ETT is that it may be distributed to many locations - much like exits
          >> on a freeway, thus offering many more origins and destinations.



          > Promotor BS ! Show me an operating system ANYWHERE with good
          > economics. for your vacuum tube system.

          How long is the wait time for your automobile? Most people are able to get
          to their car in less than a minute, and recognize the economic advantages of
          having the vehicle waiting on the passenger, instead of having to wait for
          the vehicle! ETT uses highly proven automotive philosophies where
          appropriate. Automation is proven in industry to be far superior to manual
          control - ETT leverages those economically proven advances for
          transportation - one of the last mass growth markets where automation has
          not yet made significant inroads.


          > Sell your "gadgetbahn" to SwissRail or one of the Japanese Rail lines
          > (some of the best rail operators in the world) and not to niave,
          > inexperienced Florida. Both have many long tunnels that could be made
          > into a vacuum tube. After a half dozen years of operation come back
          > to Florida.

          I LIVE in Florida -- not in Switzerland or Japan. The company et3.com Inc.
          is a Florida corporation - not German, French, or Spanish. It took more
          than a year for the Chinese to convince us to go to China! We spent 5
          months in China during two trips. They invited us to stay in China to build
          a practical ETT system, - and we have accepted their invitation to return,
          but we are taking care of some commitments here first.




          >> I agree that semiHSR is a better choice than HSR for Florida.
          >> Florida has had semiHSR for more than 100 years!
          >
          > Amtrak does not operate at 90 to 110 mph in Florida, only in the
          > Northeast Corridor (there at up to 130 mph).
          > Florida has no "semiHSR".

          There was semiHSR in Florida back when the track laid by Flagler and others
          was still in relatively good shape back in the 20s and 30s. The service
          degraded, after it was over-run by the superior automobile and busses.

          The [once] semiHSR would have died a natural death in the early 1970s if not
          for the misguided AMTRAK subsidies that have done little more than to
          line the pockets of rail equipment manufacturing interests.

          Why repeat what has already been proven to be a miserable failure (HSR,
          semiHSR, LRT, and AmTrak) in all but a hand-full of extremely densely
          populated markets. ???????

          Daryl Oster
          (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
          e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
          of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@... ,
          www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.